Letters Behavioural ecology is not an endangered discipline Julia Schroeder 1 , Shinichi Nakagawa 1, 2 and Martin Hinsch 3, 4 1 Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK, S10 2TN 2 Department of Zoology, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand 3 Animal Ecology, University of Groningen, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies (CEES), University of Groningen, PO Box 11103, 9700 CC Groningen, The Netherlands 4 Theoretical Biology, University of Groningen, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Studies (CEES), University of Groningen, PO Box 11103, 9700 CC Groningen, The Netherlands In a recent Opinion article in TREE, Caro and Sherman [1] attempt to raise awareness of the supposedly devastating effects that the current conservation crisis will have on the future of behavioural ecology. They predict two problems: (i) many animals with interesting adaptations will go extinct; and (ii) understanding the adaptive values of behaviours will be difficult because anthropogenically modified environments are making those behaviours mal- adaptive. Although we agree that the conservation crisis is a tragedy in general, and a considerable threat to our profession in particular, we disagree with the notion that it puts the entire discipline of behavioural ecology at risk. It is indeed rather difficult to study the behavioural ecology of extinct species (but see [2]). However, we do not think that environmental change could render adaptations impossible to study because they become anachronisms. In our opinion, this particular idea is misguided by the erro- neous assumption that adaptations are static and remain stable over a long time. Adaptations increase the fitness of the bearer, and are selected for [3]. There is much discourse about the time- scale of evolution, but assuming that this selection process only happened in a distant past is too simplistic. During the past few years, studies have provided evidence for contemporary evolution across all biomes [4], strongly suggesting that, especially in changing environments, adaptations should be considered dynamic. Furthermore, environmental conditions have always been far from stable. For instance, ice ages have drastically changed habitats in intervals of hundreds of thousand years for the past 3 million years. Human expansion from Africa introduced a new dominant top predator in essen- tially all habitats of the world between 20 000 and 80 000 years ago. Thus, the notion of a ‘pristine’ habitat is an oversimplification of environments before the modern age. Irrespective of the existence of a pristine state, however, most behavioural ecological studies have been successfully conducted on species living in far from natural environ- ments. Studies on birds nesting in boxes provided by humans, for instance, significantly furthered the field. A prime example, the Wytham Woods, where David Lack studied the optimality of avian clutch size, is artificial woodland, created and managed by humans [5]. Moreover, apparently maladaptive behaviours can help identify trade-offs and changing selection pressures. To test experimentally whether certain behaviours are adap- tive requires exposing a population to a new environment where a suspected adaptive behaviour would be disadvan- tageous. Such experiments are logistically often impossible and unethical to conduct on endangered species. The current anthropogenic changes of habitats over all biomes, albeit devastating, are a historically unique situa- tion, providing exactly the tools and natural experiments needed for the study of adaptations in a natural laboratory. Researchers can use such changes to learn about the behavioural ecology of the affected species [6]. This ap- proach has been taken by many studies on the phenotypic and genetic responses of organisms to global changes (e.g. [7–12]), furthering knowledge of the adaptive potential of species [8–12]. Changes in environmental conditions can thus enable behavioural ecology to discover mechanisms affecting demographic parameters that would otherwise be hard to predict. Such discoveries can equip conservation biology with the tools dearly needed to predict a future environmental scenario. Young behavioural ecologists, including us, are often driven by an innate curiosity and care about the stunning biodiversity of the world. The future generation of beha- vioural ecologists is more than eager to contribute essen- tial knowledge to conservation biology. Especially in times of economical instability, we should not discourage them with populistic and pessimistic theses. Therefore, we agree with Caro and Sherman’s notion that non-human life on Earth is facing a bleak future, and we strongly second their call for behavioural ecologists to sup- port conservation biology [1]. At the same time, however, we want to encourage behavioural ecologists to keep up the enthusiasm, and to make the best out of a tragic situation, using global change as an opportunity to learn about adap- tations and constraints. Such studies will have a crucial role in the future of behavioural ecology, and can ultimately help researchers to find ways to reconcile human and animal requirements and, thus, prevent species extinction. Acknowledgements We thank David Westneat and Terry Burke for inspiring discussion and comments. JS is supported by a postdoctoral research fellowship from NERC (UK). References 1 Caro, T. and Sherman, P. (2011) Endangered species and a threatened discipline: behavioural ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 111–118 2 Varricchio, D.J. et al. (2008) Avian paternal care had dinosaur origin. Science 322, 1827–1828 Corresponding author: Schroeder, J. (julia.schroeder@sheffield.ac.uk). Update Trends in Ecology and Evolution July 2011, Vol. 26, No. 7 320