Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30200934›Full record

ArticleBMC ecology2018

Benefits and limitations of three-dimensional printing technology for ecological research.

Jocelyn E Behm, Brenna R Waite, S Tonia Hsieh, Matthew R Helmus

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Let's Print an Ecology in 3D (and 4D).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Jocelyn E BehmIntegrative Ecology Lab, Center for Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. jebehm@temple.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4220-4741
Brenna R WaiteIntegrative Ecology Lab, Center for Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
S Tonia HsiehDepartment of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Matthew R HelmusIntegrative Ecology Lab, Center for Biodiversity, Department of Biology, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Temple University · USThe University of Western Australia · AU

Funding

Nederlands Instituut voor Onderzoek van de Gezondheidszorg (NL) 858.14.040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEcological research often involves sampling and manipulating non-model organisms that reside in heterogeneous environments. As such, ecologists often adapt techniques and ideas from industry and other scientific fields to design and build equipment, tools, and experimental contraptions custom-made for the ecological systems under study. Three-dimensional (3D) printing provides a way to rapidly produce identical and novel objects that could be used in ecological studies, yet ecologists have been slow to adopt this new technology. Here, we provide ecologists with an introduction to 3D printing.

resultsFirst, we give an overview of the ecological research areas in which 3D printing is predicted to be the most impactful and review current studies that have already used 3D printed objects. We then outline a methodological workflow for integrating 3D printing into an ecological research program and give a detailed example of a successful implementation of our 3D printing workflow for 3D printed models of the brown anole, Anolis sagrei, for a field predation study. After testing two print media in the field, we show that the models printed from the less expensive and more sustainable material (blend of 70% plastic and 30% recycled wood fiber) were just as durable and had equal predator attack rates as the more expensive material (100% virgin plastic).

conclusionsOverall, 3D printing can provide time and cost savings to ecologists, and with recent advances in less toxic, biodegradable, and recyclable print materials, ecologists can choose to minimize social and environmental impacts associated with 3D printing. The main hurdles for implementing 3D printing-availability of resources like printers, scanners, and software, as well as reaching proficiency in using 3D image software-may be easier to overcome at institutions with digital imaging centers run by knowledgeable staff. As with any new technology, the benefits of 3D printing are specific to a particular project, and ecologists must consider the investments of developing usable 3D materials for research versus other methods of generating those materials.

Indexed as

LizardsAnimalsBody SizeEcologyImaging, Three-DimensionalPredatory BehaviorPrinting, Three-DimensionalResearch DesignSoftware3D modelsAdditive manufacturingAnolis sagreiClay modelCuraçaoMaya autodeskSustainability

Identifiers

PMID30200934
PMCPMC6131837
OpenAlexW2950441351

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.