Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Sep 10;18(1):32.
doi: 10.1186/s12898-018-0190-z.

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

Affiliations

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

Jocelyn E Behm et al. BMC Ecol. .

Abstract

Background: Ecological 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.

Results: First, 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).

Conclusions: Overall, 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.

Keywords: 3D models; Additive manufacturing; Anolis sagrei; Clay model; Curaçao; Maya autodesk; Sustainability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Steps of workflow for integrating 3D printing in ecological research
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Construction of a 3D printed lizard predation model A successful laser scanning setup of preserved brown anole (Anolis sagrei) specimen in vertical orientation; B 3D image of scanned anole viewed in Meshmixer software and later edited in Maya; C 3D printed plastic-wood hybrid (left) and ABS plastic (right) anole models; D clay covered model on a branch in the field with bite marks likely from a lizard predator (Cnemidophorus murinus murinus)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Results from testing ABS and Woodfill print materials as bases for clay-covered lizard models in field predation experiments. There was no difference in predation rates on models with respect to print material or model size, however, models in natural habitats had higher predation rates (* indicates P < 0.01). Bars represent ± 1 standard error of the mean

References

    1. Small RJ, Rusch DH. Backpacks vs. Ponchos: survival and movements of radio-marked ruffed grouse. Wildlife Soc Bull (1973–2006) 1985;13:163–165.
    1. Reiter J, Curio E, Tacud B, Urbina H, Geronimo F. Tracking bat-dispersed seeds using fluorescent pigment. Biotropica. 2006;38:64–68.
    1. Xiao Z, Jansen PA, Zhang Z. Using seed-tagging methods for assessing post-dispersal seed fate in rodent-dispersed trees. For Ecol Manage. 2006;223:18–23. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2005.10.054. - DOI
    1. Patrick LB, Hansen A. Comparing ramp and pitfall traps for capturing wandering spiders. J Arachnol. 2013;41:404–406. doi: 10.1636/Hi12-52.1. - DOI
    1. Quinn H, Jones JP. Squeeze box technique for measuring snakes. Herpetol Rev. 1974;5:35.

Publication types