CONSERVATION & MOLECULAR ECOLOGY - News

HelmBank: DNA Barcodes for Wildlife Parasites

Wed, 18 Mar 2026 12:38:51 GMT

HelmBank Release R1: DNA barcodes for wildlife parasites—now available

A new Kartzinel Lab data release, built with partners across Central and South America, is creating the reference tools needed to identify parasitic worms (helminths) that infect wildlife using DNA barcoding. HelmBank links expertly identified and voucher-backed parasite specimens to host species and geographic data—so conservation biologists, wildlife veterinarians, and molecular ecologists can translate parasite detections from sick or free-ranging animals into reliable data.

First public release of HelmBank strengthens parasite detection for Neotropical mammals
Release R1 publishes 45 parasite DNA barcode sequences, drawn from a larger working collection of more than 100 specimens. Hosts represented across HelmBank already include big cats (ocelot, jaguar, puma), foxes, tapirs, peccaries, sloths, armadillos, anteaters, and opossums—a cross-section of wildlife central to conservation and wildlife health programs across the region.

Why this matters for conservation, wildlife health, and One Health
DNA-based monitoring is increasingly used to study diets, microbiomes, and pathogens—but parasites are often left out because reference datasets are missing or too geographically mismatched to support confident identification. HelmBank is designed to close that gap by building a rigorously curated "field guide" for molecular parasitology—improving comparability across studies and strengthening our ability to monitor disease risk, which is especially important for both conservation and public health in areas where wildlife, livestock, and humans share landscapes.

🔗 Explore the release

Interested in collaborating or supporting HelmBank?
Work with us | Donate | Contact

The idea: wildlife conservation & public health programs need "field guides" for wildlife parasites

A modern field guide to the diversity of parasites that infect and sometimes sicken tropical wildlife is needed so that wildlife veterinarians, conservation practitioners, and public servants can do their jobs effectively. Emerging technologies that enable DNA-based monitoring provide the tools we need to detect parasites from feces, tissues, and environmental samples—and this is a great start. The problem is that those detections only provide us actionable information that is as good as the reference sequences they can match, which in many cases is not very good.

For wildlife helminths in the tropical Americas, reference resources are still thin. HelmBank is our attempt to fix that by connecting genetic information about parasitic helminths to the animals they might infect.

The information chain is structured like this:
Host species → parasite specimens → expert identifications → DNA barcodes → GIS integration → open data releases

It’s a biodiversity project, a wildlife health project, and a One Health project all in one—because we recognize that host–parasite interactions don’t stop at the border between protected areas, ranchlands, and towns.

What’s under production now: a growing roster of hosts—and the parasites they carry

HelmBank’s collection currently includes more than 100 parasite specimens collected from a rapidly expanding set of Neotropical mammals. That host breadth is the point: if you want DNA barcodes to work for parasitology in the real world, they need to reflect parasites originating across the range of hosts and regions where people actually sample.

The "who’s who" of wildlife hosts (so far): A remarkable array of tropical mammals that spans the Americas.

Big cats: ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), jaguar (Panthera onca), puma (Puma concolor), jaguarundi (Herpailurus yagouaroundi)
Wild canids: crab-eating fox (Cerdocyon thous)
Forest giants: lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris), white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari)
Sloths (Bradypus variegatus, Choloepus hoffmanni)
Anteaters (Tamandua tetradactyla, Myrmecophaga tridactyla)
Armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus, Tolypeutes matacus, Chaetophractus spp.)
Opossums (Didelphis spp., Philander quica)

Growth of HelmBank. At the time of Release R1, the sample set of helminth parasites from wildlife had passed 100 and was growing exponentially. The fraction of specimens that had been barcoded was relatively small, emphasizing earlier collections, but was ramping up quickly. *Specimens collected in 2025 were still under curation at the time of this report.

The host list will keep expanding as sampling enters an exponential phase of growth. Every new host species drives us to figure out what kinds of new parasites we could discover in the next species, and what that could mean for our understanding of wildlife health and biodiversity around the world.

Now the parasite side of the story: “How many new species will we find?” Our working collection already spans the major helminth lineages.

Roundworms (Nematoda)
Flatworms (Platyhelminthes) — tapeworms (cestodes) and flukes (trematodes)
Thorny-headed worms (Acanthocephala)

And we’re still in the early stages. As sequencing catches up to our exponentially growing collection of specimens, and as our identifications of these specimens are refined, we are already making important discoveries:

new host records: parasites found in hosts where they were never documented before
new and cryptic species: some species will soon be described and they are currently known only from HelmBank samples
entirely novel lineages of parasites: new species that are evolutionarily unlike anything previously known to science

HelmBank Release R1: an early public dataset you can use and explore now

We are initiating a phased release of HelmBank involving versioned updates, so the resource can grow and be used without sacrificing reliability.

Hosts in Release R1
HelmBank Release R1 includes 45 DNA barcodes from 20 sequenced specimens linked to a focused set of hosts spanning multiple mammal lineages:

Lowland tapir (Tapirus terrestris)
Opossums: big-eared opossum (Didelphis aurita), white-eared opossum (Didelphis albiventris), gray four-eyed opossum (Philander quica)
Armadillos: nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), screaming hairy armadillo (Chaetophractus vellerosus)
Sloths: brown-throated three-toed sloth (Bradypus variegatus), Hoffmann’s two-toed sloth (Choloepus hoffmanni)

Parasites in Release R1
R1’s parasites are mostly nematodes (roundworms), plus a really new and interesting tapeworm, including multiple helminth families:

Physalopteridae
Kathlaniidae
Aspidoderidae
Trichuridae
Spirocercidae

🔗 Read the technical summary for HelmBank Release R1

The collaborations powering HelmBank and why they matter

HelmBank is succeeding so quickly because we are approaching it as a team effort. We’re grateful to be building HelmBank with a strong, international, and professionally diverse array of collaborators and partners across institutions such as:

Together, these partnerships connect wildlife rescue and veterinary contexts, conservation research, and field ecology with the lab and data pipelines needed to make specimen data reusable as open reference resources.

Diverse support for a diverse biodiversity project

HelmBank has been supported by a range of funders and programs that span research, training, and conservation impact:

This mix matters: it’s what allows the project to stay open, rigorous, and grounded in real-world applications as it grows.

Events and engagement: HelmCamps, the Chaco, and conservation at the front line

HelmBank has grown through shared learning and hands-on training, including HelmCamps in Argentina and Costa Rica, fieldwork at the frontier of Argentina's Chaco region, and wildlife clinics along the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica.

Along the way, parasite sampling and associated documentation have intersected with urgent conservation realities—supporting efforts that help teams rescue wildlife from poachers.

Those connections are part of HelmBank’s broader purpose: better biodiversity data should be usable beyond academia—especially when wildlife health and illegal exploitation involved.

At the request of wildlife authorities, team members Ezequiel Vanderhoeven and Anna Jackson trek through the rainforest at night to salvage an illegally hunted peccary for necropsy. Their efforts help grow HelmBank, support law enforcement, and deepen our collaborations.

The people leading & improving the work

HelmBank is also a training engine. Current and recent students are advancing toward becoming veterinarians, earning higher degrees, and entering the workforce. Along the way, students and staff are continuously improving our specimen workflows, lab methods, and data releases, including

Dr. Ezequiel Vanderhoeven (DVM/PhD) — linking wildlife health assessments to specimen and metadata pipelines
Newsha Gheshm (MSc student) — optimizing parasite DNA workflows and lab methods
Tim Divoll (PhD, Data Scientist) — strengthening data structure, validation, and reproducible releases
Anna Jackson (Lab Manager) — maintaining high-quality sample handling and lab standards
Cecilia Trani (PhD student) — integrating field-to-sequence workflows across parasites and hosts

The network behind HelmBank: field to lab, across the Americas

It takes people from all over the world working together to make HelmBank possible

Local partners & communities

Park rangers & conservation organizations

Parasitologists, students & data team

Wildlife vets & rescue centers

HelmBank is built by a collaborator network that connects community partners, conservation organizations, academic researchers, park rangers, wildlife veterinarians, parasitologists, students, and data scientists—because high-quality parasite reference data can only exist when specimens, knowledge of the animals that host them, and well-organized workflows.

In Argentina, our work began in the Chaco dry forest with local families who made the first field campaigns possible—sharing ethno-ecological knowledge, helping us navigate the working landscape responsibly, and acting as trusted nodes with the broader community network. That foundation grew into long-term collaboration with provincial park rangers who support field logistics, maintain surveillance networks for opportunistic sampling, and protect wildlife in the same landscapes where our research is happening.

In Argentina’s Atlantic Forest of Misiones, HelmBank has been strengthened by collaboration involving experienced parasitologists who bring their deep taxonomic expertise needed for reliable identifications—turning “a worm” into a name that can anchor a DNA reference record. Those efforts now feed directly into training and knowledge transfer through our HelmCamp workshop series.

In Costa Rica, partnerships with Organization for Tropical Studies at La Selva Biological Station, the Sloth Conservation Foundation, and wildlife rescue and hospital networks connect parasitology to real wildlife health realities: clinical cases, necropsies, and carefully preserved specimens collected by experienced veterinary teams. These collaborations not only expand host and geographic diversity, but also help refine protocols so data are comparable across sites and usable for One Health and veterinary questions.

What makes this network so special is its range: it spans protected areas and multi-use forests, rescue centers and research stations, and it includes both the people who can safely and ethically obtain specimens and those who can perform the necropsies, verify identifications, and build reusable data products.

By the numbers: our collaborative efforts have been concentrated in Argentina and Costa Rica, but our programs are rapidly expanding with growing connections to Colombia as well as organizations in the United States.

What’s next: more hosts, more parasites—and a bigger geographic reach

As progress with HelmBank accelerates, upcoming releases will grow in two directions at once:
1. More wildlife hosts, which means more chances to find new species and unexpected host-parasite linkages
2. Higher-resolution IDs as verification and sequencing catch up with the collection.

At the same time, new priority efforts will grow in prominence. A key goal is to make HelmBank increasingly useful for geographic (GIS) analyses—mapping how parasite communities change with host diversity, habitat, land use, climate, and so on. We’re excited to strengthen this work in collaboration with Dr. Seda Şalap-Ayça from the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, whose expertise in GIS and spatial analysis will help us begin to translate HelmBank data into landscape-level insights.

Because the long-term question isn’t just how many parasites exist—it’s also: where do they live, how are their ranges changing, and what does that mean for wildlife and people?

Explore HelmBank | Get Involved

Start here: Molecular Parasitology of Wildlife
Browse releases: HelmBank releases
Use HelmBank R1 now: Release R1 notes
Lab methods: Helminth sampling and DNA barcoding in curated protocols

Interested in collaborating or supporting HelmBank?
Work with us | Donate | Contact

Biodiversity credits and DNA reference libraries

Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:50:53 GMT

Biodiversity credits: where markets meet monitoring, DNA reference libraries are a high-leverage investment

Biodiversity credits are moving quickly from concept notes to implementation—and East African savannas are where some of the hardest questions are being tested.

The promise is simple: markets can channel finance toward measurable, verifiable biodiversity outcomes at landscape scales. But the challenge is just as clear: unlike with carbon credits, biodiversity "units" can be counted in so many ways.

Since a credit is only as credible as the monitoring behind it, a theme that keeps emerging from technical and policy discussions involves trying to figure out whether DNA-powered approaches can help. In principle, any DNA we detect in the environment can help make biodiversity surveys more reliable and harder to game. But all DNA-based approaches rely on unseen infrastructure that most people never consider: reference DNA libraries that must be constructed based on verifiably identified specimens. When biodiversity targets are poorly covered by these libraries, even the most sophisticated survey methods can collapse into reports that are frustratingly full of "unknowns."

That message came through repeatedly at recent meetings in Nairobi, Kenya. Last week, Dr. Mary Burak (Senior Postdoc, Genomic Opportunities Lab) attended both the Business for Conservation Conference and the Global Conservation Technology & Drone Forum. A recurring question she encountered in conversations with practitioners, business leaders, and researchers went like this: what would it take to use DNA as "creditable" in savanna biodiversity programs—and who is going to build the databases we need to get there?

What would it take to make DNA evidence "creditable" in savanna biodiversity programs—and who is going to build the databases we need to get there?

Because translating complex biodiversity data into actionable information is one of our team's core strengths, we wanted to share this post as a practical summary of the field. We will outline how biodiversity credits work, how programs affecting East African savannas are typically structured, and when DNA can add real value. You will discover that DNA reference libraries are currently an undervalued and high-leverage investment that savvy leaders are making—they recognize that you can't make DNA creditable without it.

The key question we reveal for anyone who wants to participate in this market: what is the return on investment you can expect from building the reference libraries that underpin success—and how long will it take for the investment to increase the value of your monitoring services or offset programs?

What biodiversity credits are—and how they work

Biodiversity credits (also called nature credits) are intended to represent a purchase of quantified, verified contributions to biodiversity. A challenge in this marketplace is that, unlike carbon credits that are largely based on the measurement of one universal metric (e.g., ton of carbon dioxide), biodiversity credits have to measure changes relative to a baseline condition. This can be done by assessing some a combination of:

habitat condition and integrity (e.g., vegetation structure, degradation, fragmentation),
species presence or abundance (e.g., keystone or threatened species),
landscape connectivity (e.g., movement corridors, animal-tracking),
threat reduction and durability (e.g., risk mitigation, permanence).

In practice, most of the emerging credit systems follow the same logical scheme:

Define the site and "what is being improved" (e.g., a conservancy, community rangeland, corridor, or protected area buffer).
Set the baseline: the starting condition or species assemblage.
Specify interventions (e.g., fire management, rotational grazing plans, invasive species control, anti-poaching measures, water management).
Monitor outcomes over time and compare them with the baseline value.
Verify and issue credits, often involving risk deductions and audits.
Sell credits into voluntary markets or results-based finance arrangements.

The "credit" may look more like a contract that guarantees outcomes than like a commodity. But the direction the field is moving appears to be something like this:

more standardization → stronger measurement, reporting, verification (MRV) → higher scrutiny requiring claims to be verified

How biodiversity credits are typically structured for East African savannas

Biodiversity credits are being explored worldwide, but they’ve become a particularly hot topic in savannas—including across much of East Africa—partly as a response to hard lessons learned in the development of markets for carbon credits. In places, carbon credit schemes have incentivized tree-planting programs across ecosystems that are not naturally forested. The intent is understandable since trees soak up and store carbon that we need to get out of the atmosphere so it can't cause as much warming. But the outcome is unintentionally harmful: savannas are globally important ecosystems in their own right, and converting lands from savanna to forest will eliminate habitat for endangered species like elephants, rhinos, and giraffes and all the other species that depend on savannas as well.

East African savannas are among the last strongholds of Grevy's zebra, the largest species of wild equid and the most threatened of the three zebra species alive today.

Against this backdrop, emerging biodiversity credit approaches in East African savannas tend to focus on landscapes that are shaped by pastoralism, wildlife migration, and mixed land uses. Programs often coalesce around the unique biodiversity value—and governance structures—that leaders see in lands that have been set aside as wildlife conservancies or used as community rangelands.

Designing effective programs in these areas requires grappling with two issues at the same time:

Ecological variability: rainfall swings, fire regimes, grazing pressure, and seasonal movements drive rapid, natural change—so indicators and baselines must be chosen carefully.
Governance complexity: land and resource rights, benefit-sharing, and human–wildlife conflict aren’t side issues; they determine whether conservation outcomes (and credit integrity) can be sustained.

Consequently, typical savanna biodiversity credit programs often include:

Defined landscape & governance units

A conservancy or community land-management unit, sometimes linking corridors between protected areas.
Clear rules around land use such as grazing plans, seasonal access, settlement zoning, and wildlife movement.

Baseline data & threat models

Baseline habitat condition and a prioritized list of species or habitat qualities to target for improvement (i.e., the ‘biodiversity’ that will be valued).
A threat model to address, such as overgrazing, woody encroachment, invasive species, fence barriers, poaching, water quality and access, and human–wildlife conflict.

Intervention plans

fire management
rangeland restoration plans
invasive/encroachment control
corridor protection
fence modification
ranger programs and conflict mitigation

Measurement, reporting, & verification (MRV) plans

remote sensing to track vegetation condition, bare ground, fragmentation, fire scars
field surveys such as transects or aerial counts of wildlife
camera traps and/or ranger patrols

The market strategy is important to keep in mind here: plans culminate in a MRV "stack" that represents a key part of the product that will be sold. Buyers are willing to pay for outcomes that they can trust, and a seller's credibility is increasingly tied to their ability to show clearcut evidence, repeatability, and independent verification of the biodiversity value they provide.

What DNA technologies can contribute & why they’re an attractive option

Although DNA tools are not yet a standard measurement requirement for biodiversity credits, they’re well-positioned to strengthen MRV in several high-value ways—especially wherever traditional surveys are costly, challenging, or prone to observer biases that can reduce repeatability and verifiability. Let’s consider a few specific applications that appear increasingly powerful and may soon become common in the marketplace.

1) Waterhole eDNA: detecting wildlife where they come to drink
Savanna wildlife concentrates around water. That makes waterholes unusually efficient places to sample biodiversity using trace amounts of the DNA they leave behind.

How it helps:

We can use DNA to detect a wide range of vertebrates (and potentially other taxa) from water samples when they come to drink or cool off.
We can use these data to complement camera traps or ranger surveys, helping reduce blind spots and increase repeatability when it comes to species that are cryptic, nocturnal, or rare.
We can create repeatable sampling protocols that are easier and cheaper to standardize across a wide variety of sites.

A waterhole at Mpala Research Centre is frequented by the regions diverse wildlife, especially in the dry seasons when alternative sources of water are scarce.

Note that this example focuses on waterholes in East Africa, but the idea of sampling wildlife DNA in places that we know attract wildlife from across the region applies broadly. Other concentrated biodiversity hotspots that a credit program might consider include:

Hummingbirds at flowers
Fish on coral reefs
Scavengers at carcasses

When we sample it from places where specific components of biodiversity are known concentrate, we can sequence DNA from species that occur across a target area.

The strategy thus provides market value:

It increases confidence in claims that a target species is present (or absent at baseline).
Helps document the return of species after management changes.
Supports more frequent monitoring without proportional increases in field costs or effort.

2) Scat genetics and bushmeat identification: verification and enforcement
Forensic identification of materials that animals leave behind provides evidence of where they occur. For example, when an animal poops in the field, DNA from its scat can be used to confirm its species occurs in the area. It thus provides MRV value for biodiversity monitoring. Likewise, the ability to genetically test bushmeat or other wildlife products—whether obtained and sold legally or illegally--can strengthen the credibility of MRV surrounding interventions or enforcement aimed at reducing pressure on wild populations.

How it helps:

Confirms the presence of target species even when sightings are rare.
Strengthens evidence around the distribution and density of threatened species.
Supports anti-poaching and illegal offtake monitoring with harder-to-dispute data.

Market value:

Improves credibility with buyers that exceedingly rare species can be monitored using alternative approaches to the traditional monitoring strategies that require more labor costs than the market will bear.
Adds an integrity layer to claims about threat reduction—especially where illegal offtake is identified as a threat and buyers want to see enforcement as a key intervention.

3) Dietary DNA: detecting changes in food webs and ecosystem functioning
Fundamentally, biodiversity is more than the sum of species present in an area. It includes ecological diversity and thus commitments to conserving or improving the biodiversity value of an area require attention to how the ecosystems of that area function. In savannas, this includes attention to grazing dynamics, predator–prey balance, and resilience.

Dietary DNA recovered from animal feces can reveal the composition of wildlife diets and how they change over time. This kind of information most directly tells us about the complexity of food webs when components of the system might be at risk of collapse.

Dr. Mary Burak leads a workshop training researchers from Save the Elephants (STE) and the National Museums of Kenya (NMK) to build plant DNA barcode libraries. These libraries will be used to precisely document the botanical diversity of elephant diets in the Samburu region of Kenya.

🔗 Behind the scenes with STE

Yet we can use the information in more creative ways as well. Much like we can use our knowledge of how animals behave around waterholes to sample DNA of species that we might not otherwise observe, we can take advantage of all the efforts animals put into hunting and foraging for food species to complement the results of of our field surveys. Common animals in our study areas can be used like 'citizen scientists' insofar as they put in a lot of effort searching the environment for species that we might not see and then they 'tell us' about what they found when they leave behind scat for us to sample.

How it helps:

Detects shifts in diet breadth or reliance on certain plant or prey species.
Can act as a proxy for changes in resource availability and thus ecosystem condition.
Complements field survey data by enabling the detection of rare or cryptic food species.

Market value:

Supports "function-based" narratives and indicators that are useful distinguishing credit products.
Adds evidence that management is improving ecological processes, not only producing isolated sightings of a few 'charismatic' or otherwise conspicuous species.

Scientific resources:
🔗 Sampling and interpreting dietary DNA is a core strength of the Genomic Opportunities Lab
🔗 Linking diet switching to reproductive performance across populations of two critically endangered mammalian herbivores

Why we need reference libraries: the hidden infrastructure enabling credible DNA-based data

Ultimately, DNA-based biodiversity monitoring is only as good as the reference libraries used to identify DNA sequences. The sequencing technology itself only allows us to string together lists of nucleic acids—the A’s, T’s, C’s, and G’s that comprise the universal genetic code. We then need to do the harder work of identifying each resulting sequence—literally millions of them in a single analysis—so we can verifiably the kinds of plant or animal DNA that occurred in a sample.

Across emerging biodiversity MRV efforts, a few approaches to building libraries are gaining traction:

Targeted library construction that is tied to the credit methodology of a site (i.e., invest in building a local database that covers all taxa you expect to measure).
Voucher-backed sequences with strong metadata obtained from institutions (i.e., museum specimens with clear sampling locations, dates, identifiers, and identifications).
Gap analyses to quantify identify taxa that can vs. cannot currently be identified reliably using publicly available data (i.e., planning to minimize investment in library construction by instead accepting coarse identifications and providing results with uncertainty).

🔗 Press coverage of why DNA reference libraries matter for monitoring
🔗 Contract & train with us at the Genomic Opportunities Lab
🔗 Ways to support enhanced access to Genomic Opportunities in conservation

The core challenge that people face when they would like to incorporate DNA-based technologies into their credit program is that unknown sequences may appear in their results—and these kinds of results can stoke uncertainty that leads to discounts in the marketplace.

If a significant fraction of sequences cannot be confidently assigned, the program risks:

weak claims (“we detected biodiversity changes but can’t say if they were good”)
conservative auditors (“the credit’s value is developing but not yet established”)
reputational loss among buyers (“if they can’t tell us what they are protecting, how can we know it’s not just greenwashing?”)

In other words: evaluating reference coverage is not merely an academic exercise in perfectionism. It determines pricing and credibility. It is what allows prospective buyers to differentiate your premium product from all the others.

Where we face challenges, we also find opportunities

The need to develop reference libraries as a shared asset makes the effort valuable. But someone has to make the initial investment before that value can be realized.

Reference libraries share many characteristics with commonly recognized public goods. Everyone benefits from access to these kinds of data—especially when communities are expected to make consequential decisions that hinge on the quality of them—but individuals bear the costs of providing them. That’s why early movers—pioneering programs or consortia that coordinate sequencing of voucher specimens—can create outsized value for the global community.

In the context of biodiversity credit programs, the costs of building robust reference libraries may be viewed as investments. Some investment costs can be recouped. There is a lot of opportunity for early investors to distinguish the quality of their products from the products of others. While the reference sequences themselves carry no real commercial value—they merely indicate species identity and carry no patent-worthy gene information—their potential to provide superior MRV can be translated into a stronger position in the biodiversity credit marketplace for those who lead in their development.

As species of the savanna are emerging as targets of biodiversity credit programs, it's no wonder that the ability to credibly document their distributions and their roles in food webs is a hot topic—it's bridging the academic, business, and conservation-based NGO sectors across East Africa.

The investor’s question: what is the return on generating reference barcode coverage?

For anyone who wants to participate in an emerging biodiversity credit market, the "return" on investing in DNA reference libraries is not going to come from a direct new revenue stream. It will show up as improved credit quality via superior MRV, which can translate into higher value in several ways:

1) Higher assignment rates → stronger, more specific claims
Do you think buyers will be more impressed by waterhole DNA sequence that is best identified as "unknown vertebrate" or "critically endangered Grevy’s zebra"? Those results support very different narratives. Better reference coverage increases species-level resolution, confidence scoring, repeatability, and verification outcomes. This is a clear value proposition, as it allows for stronger claims, premium market positioning, and lower risks of reputational damage from unverifiable or disputed results.

2) Lower uncertainty → less discounting and fewer buffers
Where uncertainty deductions may apply, reference gaps become a reason for auditors to discount the biodiversity value of a program. The pathway from investments in DNA libraries to value is thus through improvements in data coverage to reduce uncertainty. This potentially allows a credit program to justify tighter confidence intervals around biodiversity estimates, avoid undervalued interpretations of results, and issue credits with fewer caveats.

3) Cheaper scaling of monitoring over time
Once reference libraries and protocols are in place, genetic monitoring can become a scalable routine. In this way, value is gained as MRV costs decline and thus allow more frequent monitoring to better document trends, broader spatial coverage of sampling, and faster detection of negative changes—so programs find out in time to adapt before they the declining integrity of issued credits gets them in trouble.

4) Differentiation: moving beyond "habitat-only" to "biodiversity-evidenced" credits
Many early biodiversity credit programs leaned heavily on remote sensing and habitat indices to document 'biodiversity' trends. Habitat quality and quantity are certainly relevant to biodiversity, but they are not one and the same. Using DNA can help a program credibly claim a more direct connection between habitat and biodiversity outcomes—or make the decision to focus on biodiversity outcomes per se. The value pathway appears as one program distinguishes itself from others in ways that increase buyer confidence and willingness to pay—the perception that a program is engaging in greenwashing by measuring one thing and claiming its another can be overcome.

5) Reduced reputational and verification risk
Buyers face the risk that a product they purchase will be defective—in this case a biodiversity credit program might be end up in ecological collapse. Savvy buyers do not want to be fooled by unscrupulous programs that might be trying to take advantage of them in an industry that has historically been characterized by lax regulations. Likewise, the developers and monitors of biodiversity credit programs face the existential risk that their MRV strategy fails or leads them into a quagmire of disputed claims. Thus, the value pathway emerges as better reference coverage reduces risk while strengthen the veracity of claims.

A practical way of thinking about ROI

A key issue that leaders in the biodiversity credit marketplace should be considering is when the potential for improvements to their DNA libraries provides enough value added that it supports the decision to invest in it.

Key questions to ask about the value proposition for your program might include:

Does it flip confidence in results from "unconfirmed" to "verified" for your priority species?
Does it enable tests that can be repeated broadly and routinely, rather serving merely as a high-tech add-on?
Does it reduce the likelihood that an auditor will require additional expensive surveys for verification?
Does it allow you to credibly add a new indicator set to your targets—like amphibians, small carnivores, or key plants that just wouldn't show up in your traditional camera-trapping surveys—allowing you to distinguish your credits from a more commonplace alternative?

If the answer is yes to any of the above, investing reference coverage is not just a good deed—it’s a marketable investment that you need to make in your product.

What all readers should know

If you are considering engaging in biodiversity credits—as a land manager, program designer, buyer, or investor—a key take-away you need to remember is this:

Funding a targeted reference library for the taxa that your program’s MRV depends upon could increase the credibility, resolution, and scalability of your monitoring.

But by how much? Perhaps a lot, if it translates into fewer verification constraints, lower uncertainty discounts, and a more valuable, trusted, and defensible credit.

In emerging markets, that could make the difference between a program that demonstrates outcomes convincingly versus one that can only speak in terms of its aspirations.

🔗 Join us in funding DNA reference libraries for conservation

Launching Charismatic Critter Club

Fri, 06 Mar 2026 18:07:38 GMT

Charismatic Critter Club—Science Illustration that Makes Conservation Click

A new science-illustration project is giving biodiversity a fresh cast of characters. Charismatic Critter Club was founded by Julianne “Jules” Ho—a student in the Brown–RISD Dual Degree Program and an undergraduate researcher of Institute at Brown for Environment & Society.

Charismatic Critter Club creates short visual narratives to translate the hidden biology of how real species live their lives into illustrated characters that we can all identify with.

The goal: make complex ecological relationships—food webs, symbioses, microbiomes, parasites—easier to understand, remember, and share, without washing over the science.

🔗 Charismatic Critter Club
🔗 Brown–RISD Dual Degree

Jules Ho uses her scientific training to create charismatic creatures—the art makes it easier to understand, remember, and share about species that are often overlooked components of biodiversity.

The Idea: Ecosystems are Hard to Picture—So Let's Make Them Visible

As Jules began working toward understanding the biology of invertebrates—animals without a backbone like the corals, starfish, and insects that make up most of the planet's biodiversity—she ran into an all-too familiar problem. Even when the science is fascinating, it can be difficult for people to intuitively grasp how species interact in complex ecosystems when those species and their interactions are often described in the most impenetrable technical language

The goal is not only to communicate ecological concepts, but also to foster curiosity and community engagement with biodiversity. —Jules Ho

Charismatic Critter Club is her solution. By converting species into characters—each designed to reflect what the organism does and how it interacts with others—Jules invites audiences into the fundamental logic that drives ecosystems through playful and visual storytelling.

Just as importantly, Charismatic Critter Club is research-driven. Jules’ designs are inspired by the same sources that underpin ecology itself:

field guides
peer-reviewed scientific papers
biodiversity platforms such as iNaturalist

Jules Ho: Ecology Training at Brown University + Illustration Training at the Rhode Island School of Design

Jules is pursuing two degrees through the Brown–RISD Dual Degree Program (2022–2027):

B.Sc. Environmental Science at Brown
B.F.A. Illustration at RISD

The unique institutional structure provided by this program is a big part of what makes Charismatic Critter Club possible: deep scientific training paired with professional illustration training.

Her work has also been recognized with the Maharam STEAM Fellowship and a Brown Undergraduate Teaching & Research Award, supporting her interest in high-quality research and high-impact communication.

Jules Ho's Honors thesis seeks to characterize the gut microbiomes and parasites of sloths.

As a Maharam Fellow, Jules Ho designed character-based cards and stickers to describe marine biodiversity.

As a Maharam Fellow, Jules Ho led workshops using character-based story telling to introduce marine ecology concepts to elementary students.

Jules Ho launched Charismatic Critter Club as a sci-comm platform to convey ecological concepts with character-based storytelling.

🔗 View Jules's art portfolio: https://www.dazzlingfish.com/
🔗 View Jules's scientific study system: Sloth Ecology & Evolution

From Lab Bench to Sketchbook: Charismatic Critter Club is Inspired by Real Molecular Ecology

Charismatic Critter Club is not “science-themed” art. It’s science, communicated through art.

Jules has been an undergraduate researcher in the Genomic Opportunities Lab at Brown University, where she helps generate the kinds of data that conservation and ecology rely on.

Her lab experience includes:

generating DNA barcodes to document new species helminths (parasitic worms)
conducting dietary DNA analyses to inform the conservation management of wildlife
processing characterizing the gut microbiomes of wild sloths in Costa Rica

That lab-to-sketchbook foundation helps consumers of the content be sure that Charismatic Critter Club is based on factual information that is as accurate as anything out there. Jules has first-hand experience generating scientific knowledge so she understands not just the take-away, but the methods, assumptions, and experiences that live behind the science.

🔗 Jules describes her lab experience in this feature: Collaborative by Nature—Rewriting Conservation Science

What’s Next: Rainforests, Sloths, and Charismatic Microbes

Jules is pursuing an Honors thesis at Brown that focuses on free-ranging sloth gut microbiomes in Costa Rica. She has just been awarded a competitive Voss Research Fellowship from the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society to pursue the project, which has been developing in close collaboration with the Sloth Conservation Foundation—leaders in the conservation of wild sloths. The project treats sloths as holobionts—hosts plus the microbial and parasitic communities that shape health and nutrition—and will examine how their gastrointestinal communities vary with habitat disturbance and host species identity. The results could soon meaningfully inform how conservationists plan and implement important like translocations and reintroductions in the wild.

If future illustrations feature beloved and traditionally “charismatic” sloths hanging out in rainforest canopies—you can bet the “un-charismatic” bacteria and parasites that live in their guts will make an appearance as well. That’s exactly the point: conservation depends on relationships that most people rarely see or think about, and Charismatic Critter Club is designed to make those relationships easier for all of us to notice.

Why Charismatic Critter Club Matters

Sometimes it helps to think about conservation as a public project—just as important to invest in and maintain as roads, railways, and sidewalks if you don't want to see things crumble.

Charismatic Critter Club highlights a key piece of modern conservation science: the advantage of pairing rigorous research with communication tools that can reach communities beyond the ivory tower of elite universities.

Projects like Charismatic Critter Club take root when our best emerging talents have access to mentorship, resources for research, and time to grow. When you see outcomes that are both scientifically accurate and widely accessible, consider supporting the artist as well as the intellectual ecosystems in which she resides.

Donate

Alumni Spotlight: Andy Luo

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Alumni Spotlight: Andy Luo (Biology, Honors, 2021–2024)

Student Success Coach, City Year Greater Boston. Brown Biology alum; Fulbright Scholar in Taiwan; matriculating medical student; contestant on Jeopardy!

Andy Luo was an undergraduate researcher in the Kartzinel Lab for three years and a core member of our Italian wall lizard project team. Andy’s research focused on the physiological and behavioral mechanisms that allow a Mediterranean lizard to persist through the frigid Boston winters—work that culminated in an Honors thesis and a first-authored manuscript (in review at Herpetology Notes). After graduating, Andy pursued a path that bridges science, education, and service: he spent 11 months in rural Chiayi County, Taiwan as a Fulbright English Teaching Assistant. Before starting medical school in 2026, Andy has served as a Student Success Coach with City Year Greater Boston to support fifth graders in an under-resourced public school.

Research Accomplishments

At Brown, Andy led a detailed series of experiments to document how our Italian wall lizards (Podarcis siculus) respond to changing temperatures, directly testing how they fare in New England. His results showed that these lizards can tolerate extended periods of cold better than comparable populations from warmer environments (stay tuned for us to announce the official publication!).

The lab will always be indebted to Andy, who led this research while also helping us sustain the colony through a “perfect storm” of challenges during the pandemic: reduced staffing, heightened animal-care responsibilities, and a complicating outbreak of parasitic mites that made our lizards sick. Andy was a steady presence who put the welfare of the animals first while still managing to generate publishable data and excelling in his studies.

In addition to his first-author manuscript, Andy contributed to several papers that we have already published, including a paper in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and Herpetological Review. The quality and rate of his scientific writing and productivity shines bright.

A Teacher and a Scholar

Andy has always centered effective communication. As a Fulbright ETA, he taught English and science to elementary school students in a rural community. Now, at City Year Greater Boston, he continues that commitment as a Student Success Coach—helping fifth graders build literacy, math, and social-emotional skills. Andy’s Fulbright and City Year work showcases how far our lab's collective impacts can extend beyond the university.

Andy Luo during his time as a Fulbright ETA in Taiwan

Where To From Here?

In December 2025, Andy fulfilled a life-long dream when he appeared as a contestant on Jeopardy! So, what else could he have left to accomplish?

Well, Andy has been accepted to medical school... he will matriculate in 2026! The medical community is lucky to have him and his future patience will be in good hands. Which school will he attend? To be determined soon.

To say the least, we all have complete confidence he will thrive during this next stage of his training. Whether he is running experiments, supporting young learners, or stepping into clinical settings, Andy brings the same qualities that defined his time in the lab: a calm and steady presence under pressure, careful attention to detail, and an ability to communicate with clarity and purpose.

Andy Luo living the dream with an appearance on Jeopardy! in December 2025.

Advice for Current Students

I asked Andy what he learned during his time at Brown that might be useful for future students to hear. Ever so thoughtfully, he delivered:

Speak to any of the wonderful EEOB professors at Brown to learn about their work. I didn’t know much about the field before I started taking courses in the department and sitting in on Kartzinel Lab meetings during my second year at Brown, but I found the professors, postdocs, grad students, and fellow undergrads in EEOB to be some of the most knowledgeable, passionate, and welcoming people I’ve ever met.

Accomplishments & Milestones

First-author manuscript (submitted): Honors thesis on winter survival by Italian wall lizards
Coauthor: publications in Biological Journal of the Linnean Society and Herpetological Review
Fulbright Scholar: English Teaching Assistantship in Taiwan
Medical student: matriculating summer 2026
Jeopardy! contestant: December 2025

More People & Lab Life

Metabarcoding vs Metagenomics

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 18:23:11 GMT

Metabarcoding vs. Metagenomics: Two Ways to Decode Diets and Microbiomes

Modern ecological research increasingly relies on DNA to discover what animals eat.

Two broad classes of DNA-based strategies—called DNA metabarcoding and metagenomics—can provide complementary data that provide insight into what animals eat and why it matters.

When should we select one versus the other (or try combining both)?

An Oxford Nanopore MinION is a portable sequencing platform for metabarcoding and metagenomic applications

At a Glance: “Meta” DNA Approaches for Diet Analysis

Metabarcoding

Data source: Short DNA ‘barcode’ snippets from feces or gut contents
Focus: Taxonomic composition of diet for comparison across many samples
Resolution: Often species- or genus-level (depends on barcodes and reference libraries)
Strengths: High sensitivity, cost-effective, scalable
Limitations: PCR biases, broad-spectrum primers and reference libraries can be limited

Metagenomics

Data source: Whole-genome shotgun sequencing of all DNA in a sample
Focus: Comprehensive genetic content, including functional genes and off-target taxa
Resolution: Sub-specific in some cases; captures functional potential
Strengths: Taxonomic and functional insights; multiple communities resolved in one run (e.g., diet and microbiome)
Limitations: Higher cost, lower throughput, computationally intensive, large data storage

What Is DNA Metabarcoding?

Dietary DNA metabarcoding uses PCR to amplify a short, standardized DNA region (barcode) from a mixed sample, then sequences it to identify taxa. This approach is widely used for diet studies and also for environmental biodiversity surveys and microbial community profiling.

Why it works well:

Allows rapid identification of known taxa
Can detect rare or low-abundance organisms
Less computationally demanding than whole-genome approaches

Key limitation: Only the targeted DNA region is sequenced—and only from the targeted taxa. It cannot reliably detect and classify taxa that are outside the target group or absent from reference databases.

🧬 Find out how we use dietary DNA metabarcoding in wildlife ecology

What Is Metagenomics?

Metagenomics is a strategy to sequence all DNA in a sample rather than targeting specific barcodes. It allows us to reconstruct community composition and the functional genes or pathways of species that exist in the community we are profiling. It can be used to discover DNA from dietary resources in a sample—these will be sequenced together with everything else.

Why metagenomics is transformative:

Avoids primer bias, captures unexpected or novel taxa
Enables insights into diet, microbiome function, and other communities (e.g., parasites)
Can link organisms to ecological functions via gene content

Challenges:

Requires more computational resources and bioinformatics expertise
More expensive per sample
Large data files can be challenging to store and manage

🔗 Metagenomics: A viable tool for reconstructing herbivore diet

The Essentials of How They Differ

Key distinction: Metabarcoding is ideal for targeted questions about community composition or diet. Metagenomics is ideal for broad ecological or functional questions, including detection of unknown or rare organisms.

Why This Comparison Matters

Choosing the right approach affects interpretation and ecological conclusions:

DNA metabarcoding may miss unusual or novel taxa
Metagenomics may identify many rare or unimportant signals
Combining both can reveal “who is there” and “what they do”

This distinction is critical in conservation, microbiome research, and wildlife management, where decisions depend on both taxonomic and functional understanding.

Choosing the Right Approach

Use metabarcoding for taxonomic surveys, diet snapshots, and high-throughput studies
Use metagenomics for functional ecology, microbiome studies, or novel discovery
Consider a combination: metabarcoding for broad screening, metagenomics for detailed profiling of selected samples

🔗 Strategies and protocols to plan dietary DNA studies for wildlife ecology

Explore More in This Series

Metabarcoding vs Direct Observation

Tue, 03 Mar 2026 16:19:00 GMT

Metabarcoding Versus Direct Observation in Wildlife Diet Studies

Direct observation is the oldest method in ecology.

Before sequencers and statistical ecology matured into their modern forms — there were notebooks, binoculars, and patient observers recording what animals ate, one bite at a time.

So how does dietary DNA metabarcoding compare to actually watching animals eat?

Well, it’s different, and sometimes it can be transformative. Both can be essential if your goal is to understand ecology or protect endangered species.

Direct observations of pronghorn antelope grazing in Yellowstone National Park

What Direct Observation Does Exceptionally Well

Direct observation can tell us:

What plant parts an animal consumes or how it hunts its prey
Whether dietary resources are targeted with specificity or opportunistically
How animals interacted with their foods and one another while feeding
How much feeding behavior depended on weather, predators, or competitors

It is challenging to scale, but it can be extraordinarily precise and enlightening.

One of the most remarkable examples comes from research led by Dr. Wilfred Odadi in Kenya. In experimental plots within the KLEE (Kenya Long-term Exclosure Experiment) system, Odadi watched cattle foraging and counted each bite they took in astonishing detail — literally counting and categorizing the number of bites taken of each forage species across manipulated herbivore treatments.

Because wildlife access was experimentally controlled, the system supported inferences about the effects of competition between livestock and wildlife on resource use. The manipulation made it possible to interpret outcomes mechanistically and they published their results in Science.

→ Read their paper: African Wild Ungulates Compete with or Facilitate Cattle Depending on Season

But even this extraordinarily detailed observational work had its limits. Researchers could record what cattle ate. They could measure how the presence of wildlife altered vegetation and livestock performance. But they could not be certain what wildlife were eating in the same way — wildlife would not have tolerated a researcher sitting down in the grass to monitor their feeding so closely. Inferences about foraging behavior and competition could only run in one direction.

Hero-Level Direct Observation of Wildlife Diets

Another stunning example comes from Elizabeth Kleynhans and colleagues, who observed wildlife foraging with incredible detail at Hluhluwe iMfolozi Park in South Africa.

Their wildlife-focused work pushed direct observation to its limits. After observing animals graze, researchers literally darted out into fields to inspect the stems and leaves of plants in the exact patch where feeding occurred. They identified grazed plants by eye, building species-level diet datasets for a diversity of large mammalian herbivores with extraordinary resolution.

→ Read their paper: Resource partitioning along multiple niche dimensions in differently sized African savanna grazers

Their dedication rivaled what dietary DNA metabarcoding can achieve.

We were inspired. It rivaled the best of what we were able to do with dietary DNA in Kenya. At one point, we considered trying to replicate their approach in Yellowstone. But before we began, we had to pause.

Yellowstone’s plant diversity presents an identification challenge even to botanists with decades of experience. Once grazed, many plant species become indistinguishable. Diagnostic floral features are gone. Leaves are torn. Stems are stripped. Morphology becomes ambiguity.

In that context, even heroic commitments to observation reach a ceiling. That is why turned to combining dietary DNA metabarcoding with our experimental manipulations in Yellowstone National Park.

What Changes with DNA Metabarcoding

Instead of watching bites happen, dietary DNA metabarcoding reconstructs diet based on genetic traces of material in animal feces or stomach contents. When reference libraries are strong and sampling is sufficient, it can detect dozens or hundreds of plant taxa from a single individual over time.

Its advantages emerge whenever:

Resource communities are species-rich
Morphological identification is unreliable
Diets must be compared across many species simultaneously
Sampling scales exceed what observers can reasonably monitor
The wildlife that you are trying to study are rare, dangerous, shy, and forage at night or in habitats where you can’t safely follow.

At Yellowstone National Park, dietary DNA metabarcoding allowed us to resolve plant identities that even expert field botanists could not confidently separate once grazed.

Across East Africa, it allowed us to quantify wildlife diets at community scale — not just livestock — across diverse herbivore guilds.

In South America, it lets us integrate decades of experimental manipulation with modern genomic insight.

What Dietary DNA Metabarcoding Cannot Do

But DNA metabarcoding does not replace the need or benefit to engaging in direct observation.

It cannot tell you:

Whether a bite was exploratory, accidental, or focused
Whether feeding under the threat of predation
How individuals competed at patch scales
Which parts or life stages of a resource were consumed (e.g., caterpillar vs. butterfly; leaf vs. fruit)

It detects presence, not behavior. It reconstructs resource composition, not feeding activity. And it depends critically on well-curated plant DNA reference libraries — an issue particularly pressing in the Global South, where barcode coverage remains incomplete.

The Key to Comparison

It is a question of scale, feasibility, and inference.

Direct observation excels when:

Species richness is manageable
Morphological traits remain diagnostic
Behavioral context is central
Experimental manipulation enables causal interpretation

Dietary DNA metabarcoding excels when:

Resource diversity is high
Food identifications are impossible without close study
Scale exceeds the capacity of observers

In many systems, the strongest science combines both: observation generates behavioral hypotheses, experiments generate mechanistic insight, and DNA metabarcoding provides the resolution and scale required to be confident about our results.

→ See how we teach the combination in an HHMI module: Niche Partitioning & DNA metabarcoding

Why This Comparison Matters

Ecology increasingly asks large-scale, long-term questions:

How does climate variability reshape food webs?
How do livestock and wildlife share landscapes?
How do diets shift before populations decline?

Answering these questions requires deep field experience together with scalable data.

The idea is not that we should abandon eyeballs in favor of sequencers.

It is to know when each approach reaches its limit — and how combining them can strengthen inference.

Explore More in This Series

Metabarcoding vs Stable Isotopes

Sat, 28 Feb 2026 00:09:57 GMT

Metabarcoding vs. Stable Isotopes: Two Ways to See What Animals Eat

Understanding animal diets is fundamental to ecology, evolution, and conservation—but different methods reveal different aspects of feeding behavior. Two widely used approaches, DNA metabarcoding and stable isotope analysis, answer overlapping questions in very different ways.

An endangered Grevy's zebra may eat almost nothing but grass (stable isotopes) yet still eat many grass species (DNA metabarcoding)

At a Glance: DNA Metabarcoding vs. Stable Isotopes

Metabarcoding

Data type: DNA from feces, gut contents, or stomach samples
Temporal scale: Recent meals (hours, days, or weeks)
Resolution: Often species- or genus-level
Strengths: Taxonomic specificity, detection of rare foods
Limitations: PCR bias, incomplete reference databases

Stable Isotopes

Data type: Carbon, nitrogen (and other) isotope ratios in tissues
Temporal scale: Integrated diet over weeks, months, or longer
Resolution: Broad resource pools, not species-specific
Strengths: Time integration, resource-use ratios, trophic position inference
Limitations: Low taxonomic resolution, overlapping signatures

What Is Metabarcoding?

Dietary DNA metabarcoding uses high-throughput DNA sequencing to identify food taxa based on genetic material present in a sample. Short DNA "barcodes" are matched to reference databases, producing detailed lists of food taxa.

This approach excels at revealing diet diversity, composition, and overlap between individuals. It is especially useful for quantifying variation when animals consume many taxa or rare items that are otherwise difficult to observe.

However, DNA metabarcoding reflects what left detectable DNA in a sample. It may not always correspond what contributed most to an individual's energy intake or the biomass of its food. Sequence counts are influenced by digestion, primer choice, and amplification bias.

🧬 Fecal DNA → PCR → sequencing → taxonomic assignment
🔗 How we use dietary DNA in wildlife ecology and conservation

What Are Stable Isotopes?

Stable isotope analysis infers diet by measuring naturally occurring isotopes—most commonly carbon (δ¹³C) and nitrogen (δ¹⁵N)—in animal tissues such as hair, blood, or bone.

Rather than identifying specific foods, stable isotopes describe resource use and trophic position. Carbon values can indicate habitat or primary production sources, such as grasses vs. all other plants in tropical savannas. Nitrogen values often reflect relative trophic level, such as primary consumer vs. apex predator.

Because tissues integrate diet over time, stable isotopes provide a time-averaged signal, smoothing over short-term variation and revealing longer-term feeding strategies.

Metabarcoding vs. Stable Isotopes: What’s Really Different?

In practice, researchers are often surprised to see that these methods appear to differ in what they tell us an animal has been eating. The contrast is not a flaw—it reflects the fundamentally different ecological questions each method answers.

Metabarcoding answers: What taxa were eaten recently?
Stable isotopes answer: What kinds of resources support this animal over time?

Metabarcoding provides fine taxonomic resolution but short temporal windows. Stable isotopes provide longer integration but coarse dietary categories. Neither directly measures the quantity of each food that an animal has consumed, and both require careful interpretation.

In practice, these methods often disagree—not because one is wrong, but because they are measuring different dimensions of feeding ecology.

Why This Comparison Matters

Method choice can shape ecological inference. For example:

Niche breadth may appear broad based on the number of species consumed even when those plants are all functionally similar (e.g., predominantly grasses or insects)
Trophic position may appear higher or lower depending on isotope baselines, even if foraging behavior does not change between two habitats
Seasonal or episodic feeding may be invisible to isotopes but clear in DNA—if you are lucky enough to sample it at exactly the right time

For conservation and management, the distinctions can really matter. Decisions based on short-term diet snapshots vs. long-term resource dependencies can lead to different conclusions about habitat needs or vulnerability. The decisions based on such conclusions can lead to long-term benefits or lasting harm to a target population—depending on how closely our dietary inferences match a species' needs.

Using these methods together can help bridge scales—linking what animals eat to what sustains them.

Choosing the Right Tool (Or Using Both)

Use metabarcoding when conservation hinges on identifying specific resource species—particularly rare, seasonal, or difficult-to-observe taxa that shape management decisions.
Use stable isotopes when understanding long-term resource dependences or change in trophic positions over time is more important than pinpointing individual food items.
Combine both approaches when questions span temporal scales or management decisions require linking recent diet composition to variation in longer-term energy pathways.

No single method captures a diet comprehensively. Understanding how they compare allows us to plan studies that meet our research needs by matching research questions with methods.

In The Media: What We Have Learned Using Both

🔗 PBS Nova: Predators drove a lizard population to extinction without eating them
🔗 BBC News: New study shows elephants vary what they have for dinner a bit like humans
🔗 New York Times: No food fights for large African herbivores

Applying These Methods in Conservation Research

In our research program, we often use dietary DNA metabarcoding and stable isotope analysis as complementary tools rather than competing alternatives. Each reveals a different dimension of feeding ecology, and combining them allows us to link short-term foraging behaviors with longer-term variability in resource use.

Dietary DNA metabarcoding helps us identify what animals have eaten recently, often at fine taxonomic resolution. This is especially powerful in systems like Yellowstone National Park where ungulate diets are diverse, seasonal, or include plant taxa that are rare and difficult-to-observe—but where isotopic baselines are too coarse to readily differentiate dietary niches in highly mobile wildlife like bison. By revealing specific plant or prey taxa, DNA-based approaches allow us to detect niche partitioning, uncover overlooked food resources, and evaluate how diet shifts across space or disturbance gradients.

Stable isotope analysis, by contrast, allows us to understand which resource pools ultimately support populations over longer time scales. At Bosque Fray Jorge in Chile, our team of collaborators is combining dietary DNA with stable isotopes to understand climate-driven impacts on the foraging behaviors of individual small mammals and connecting those individualized foraging behaviors to ecosystem-scale variability in how energy flows through the food web. Because tissues integrate diet-derived molecules over weeks to months (or longer), stable isotopes help us assess trophic position, habitat reliance, and energy pathways in ways that short-term diet snapshots cannot. This is particularly valuable when conservation decisions hinge on sustained resource dependence rather than episodic feeding events.

In practice, we often interpret these data together. For example, we have studied long-term diet variation in individual elephants using stable isotopes from serially sampled hairs to see how their resource base changed between the rainy and dry seasons—and we layered dietary DNA on top of this long-term trend to evaluate how individualistically individuals from the same herd selected their foods. The DNA revealed wide diversity of consumed taxa--up to 127 plant species in a single sample (!!)--while the stable isotopes clarified which subsets of those foods contributed most consistently to their diets over time. In some ways, the two approaches appeared to disagree, but we have learned over time to understand how that contrast tends to highlight important ecological nuance—such where and when individuals spend time foraging.

By integrating molecular diet reconstruction with biogeochemical tracers, we can design studies that align inference with conservation questions—whether the goal is identifying critical forage species, understanding variation in the structure of trophic networks, or anticipating how environmental change may reshape food webs.

Explore More Posts In This Series

Why give to an academic conservation program

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Why Your Gift to a University’s Conservation Lab Matters More Than You Think

When people think about funding conservation, they often picture supporting land trusts, wildlife rescue centers, or local environmental nonprofits. Those are all essential.

But there’s another engine driving progress in conservation that often flies under the radar: university-based conservation programs.

But aren’t universities already funded? Shouldn't the government pay for research? What difference could my gift make for a big institution like that?

I'll explain how university budgets and research funding actually work and you'll see why they often can’t cover the most urgent, innovative conservation work. Instead, you'll find out that your support can unlock exactly the kinds of impact you want to see: real habitats protected, real species spared, and real people trained to carry your conservation values forward.

TL;DR: gifts to university conservation programs bridge science and action—protecting habitats and species while training the next generation of leaders.

University research programs aren’t “already funded” for impact. Core budgets only cover teaching and operations. Federal grants are vital but slow, highly competitive, and narrowly scoped.

Donor support is uniquely high-leverage because it can:

Keep experienced staff and leadership in place between grant cycles.
Build and sustain long-term partnerships with agencies, NGOs, and communities.
Give students real-world training, travel, and placements with practitioners.

Give today

Our Impact

Open Full Text

How University Funding Really Works

From the outside, and even to many current students, a university can look like an integrated and well-resourced entity. On the inside, it’s more like a patchwork of separate budgets, each with its own rules and constraints. There are two major categories that you should recognize first.

1. Tuition & General Funds: Not for Conservation Experiments
Most of a university’s “core” budget—tuition, general funds, and state appropriations at public universities—is dedicated to:

Buildings and basic operations (libraries, IT, utilities)
Faculty and staff salaries
Classroom teaching
Student services

Very little of these funds are available to sustain research projects, field work, or impactful conservation initiatives. Individual labs and programs are expected to raise their own research funding from outside sources.

2. Federal Grants: Effective, But Narrowly Focused
In conservation science, some of the biggest U.S.-based funders are federal agencies like:

National Science Foundation (NSF)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH, for disease ecology, One Health, etc.)

These agencies are crucial because they support so much of the world’s existing and growing knowledge of environmental science. But their mandate is clear: fund basic research and/or implement research targets that connected to specific governmental priorities.

"Basic Research" is about discovering how the world works:

How do coral reefs respond to repeated heat waves?
What genes help certain trees survive drought?
How do migratory birds plan their routes amidst climate uncertainty?

This work is essential. It can very clearly lead to progress in conservation. Without basic knowledge, conservation becomes guesswork.

But funding for basic research has inevitable limitations:

It’s narrowly scoped. Grants are awarded for specific projects based on detailed plans and deliverables. You can’t easily pivot when conditions change.
It’s slow and competitive. Grant cycles can take a year or more from the time a proposal is hatched until a funding becomes available to those that succeed, and success rates are often 10–20% or lower.
It rarely covers “translation.” Federal funding often pays to create knowledge, not to join together with communities, nonprofits, or governments and act upon it.

That's why donor support can transform what is possible for conservation science.

The Gap: Where Great Conservation Ideas Get Stuck

Imagine a conservation lab that has just discovered:

A new method to detect illegal wildlife trade using rapid DNA sequencing
A cost‑effective way to restore native grasslands that support wildlife-livestock coexistence
A data‑driven approach to help ranchers adapt to climate change without degrading their rangelands

Federal funding may have paid for the foundational work leading to these discoveries. But three critical gaps remain:

Sustaining a stable, experienced leadership team that knows how to translate these discoveries into tangible benefits by building long‑term partnerships and engaging with management.
Connecting students to on‑the‑ground leaders who can show them how to turn good ideas and data into real change for stakeholder communities.
Launching innovative projects, often referred to as high‑risk / high‑reward ventures, that don’t neatly fit into a specific grant category but that could dramatically transform how we interact with the world.

There are several critical ways that supporters can directly target these gaps, which I will address here...

1. Maintaining a Qualified and Experienced Leadership Team

Strong conservation outcomes don’t come from a single research study or grant. They come from long-term and trust-based relationships between researchers, communities, NGOs, and agencies. That long-term work is led by people—professors, senior staff scientists, and coordinators.

Why leadership is vulnerable under traditional funding:

Grants are project based, not program building. A professor might obtain funding to test a new restoration method in one watershed for three years. But that doesn’t automatically support the coordinator who has developed the partnerships, gotten to know the stakeholders, and figured out how to keep project on track over the long term... their job required them to dedicate a ton of effort to these priorities during the grant-funded portion of the program, but they are forced to change jobs just as they become indispensable to the longevity of the program.
Leadership must bridge multiple projects. A successful conservation lab might have 5–10 different grants overlapping at any given point. Each has its own goals and timelines. Coordinating them into a coherent strategy requires knowledgeable people with stable jobs. Unfortunately, universities tend to see the professor as the only indispensable member of the team and that leaves others at risk of falling through the cracks. Understandably, it is difficult to retain the most capable and qualified team leaders under these circumstances!

What donor funding can do:

Provide flexible bridge funding to retain key staff between grant cycles, preventing the loss of institutional knowledge and critical relationships with external partners.
Support program leadership roles, such as a conservation programming director whose job is to keep the big picture in focus—not just manage one grant at a time.
Give leaders the flexibility to say yes to opportunities with immediate triggers—joining policy working groups, advising agencies, engaging with the media, or supporting urgent local needs—even when those activities aren’t tied to a specific grant.

Our biggest wins for conservation weren’t the result of a single grant. They were the result of persistent, stable leadership that has been made possible in part by flexible donor funding.

2. Networking Students with On-the-Ground Conservationists

Universities produce future conservation leaders—but without the right experiences and connections, even the most brilliant students can struggle to translate their skills into impact.

The problem: grants rarely fund meaningful networking and field experiences.

Federal grants are usually designed to pay for:

The answer to a specific research question that is aligned with governmental priorities
A defined set of materials or equipment, with limited student support
Indirect costs (overhead) for the university

They typically do not cover:

Travel for students to attend conferences and meet practitioners on their home turf
Stipends for students to work with NGOs, community groups, or government agencies
The extra time it takes to co-design projects with local partners rather than just “dropping in” to collect data

What donor funding can do:

Enable professors to ethically and meaningfully compensate partners for the time and resources they allocate to co-mentoring students, eliminating the risk that their hard-earned conservation dollars appear to be diverted to supporting an external university's mission.
Fund undergraduate and early career fellowships that include placements with conservation nonprofits or agencies to truly engage in the co-development of research strategies.
Support travel and field experiences where students work directly with land managers, rangers, community leaders, and policymakers.
Underwrite workshops and networking events that bring students face to face with practitioners and alumni working on conservation challenges around the world.

These experiences aren’t just resume-builders for the luckiest students. Our students’ analyses, mapping, and monitoring have directly influenced where and how conservation actions are implemented. Donor support has helped make it possible for those students to be in the right place at the right time. They work, learn, and make a difference.

Fueling Innovation: "High-Risk/High-Reward" Ventures

Some of the most transformative conservation ideas start as “what if” questions that are too untested or interdisciplinary to compete for a standard federal grant program. For example:

What if we used low-cost acoustic sensors and AI to monitor illegal logging in real time?
What if we combined satellite data, Indigenous knowledge, and machine learning to predict where human–wildlife conflict will occur—and then prevent it?
What if we launched a community-based wildlife census program that spanned multiple countries?

These are game-changing kinds of ideas—but they often fail to compete for traditional grants because they’re “too risky,” “not yet validated,” or don’t fit neatly into existing “core disciplinary” programs.

What donor funding can do:

Seed pilot projects—small, fast experiments to see whether a bold idea is going to work.
Support teams of experts that span non-traditional areas of connection such as ecology, policy, sociology, and technology.
Provide rapid-response funds to capture time sensitive information, like the impacts of a sudden policy shift or an emerging threat to wildlife.

Why Donor Dollars Are Especially Powerful in University Labs

Putting it all together, you can find extremely high-leverage opportunities to advance conservation tangibly and immediately by working with university experts. Here's why:

Federal grants excel at supporting basic research: these programs fund universities to cultivate the expertise required to solve problems by engaging in the types of creative and rigorous science that underpins everything.
Non-profit and governmental implementation budgets excel at driving the types of on-the-ground action that are required to yield a tangible outcome once the best ideas are tested and proven.
Donor funding to the right types of university labs can have extremely high leverage as it bridges the gap between the best of both worlds.

Your support can:

Keep experienced leadership teams intact so long enough to ensure conservation partnerships don’t fall into the boom-bust cycle of collapse between grant cycles.
Put students shoulder-to-shoulder with conservation practitioners, amplifying the impact of our most qualfied leaders by empowering the next generation of conservation professionals while delivering real-world value.
Launch bold, innovative projects that can’t yet win competitive federal grants but that still may lead directly to the next big conservation success stories.

In other words, gifts to university conservation programs don’t just “add more money” to an already funded system. This kind of support injects critical dimensions of flexibility, creativity, and speed at times when essential actions might otherwise fail to launch—the exact mix of knowledge, dedication, and ability that the most impactful conservation programs require.

Genomic Opportunities Lab @Brown Delivers Conservation Technology For Impact

Learn more about our mission to bring precision genomics into conservation

Donate Now

Parasite biology with Cecilia Trani

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 17:53:16 GMT

Profile: Cecilia Trani Launches a Cross-Continental Parasite Sleuthing Mission to Map the Parasitic Helminths of Atlantic Forest Felids

When parasite biologist Cecilia Trani stands beside a muddy highway in Misiones, the body of every cat she recovers—whether a jaguar, ocelot, or neighborhood pet—becomes a clue to the hidden web of helminths linking the Atlantic Forest with our own backyards. This year she is transforming those clues into a cross-continental campaign that unites Argentina’s Subtropical Biology Institute, Brown University, and a grassroots network of rangers and veterinarians. The whole region is watching 🤩

Cecilia Trani supervising the capture and handling of a coati for parasite surveillance at HelmCamp in Argentina

Celebrating the Start of a Major Expedition

The Atlantic Forest of Misiones, Argentina is the target of Ph.D. candidate Cecilia Trani's latest endeavor. This new project is launching from Argentina's Subtropical Biology Institute with a graduate fellowship from the nation's top scientific funder (CONICET). The goal is to fuse classical parasite taxonomy with emerging DNA technologies to illuminate the helminths circulating between wild felids and their domestic counterparts. We call this approach Molecular Parasitology, and it is an exciting new area for international research and collaboration.

Cecilia spent the past several years honing her field necropsy skills in collaboration with Proyecto Yaguareté, cataloging parasite diversity under the supervision of Dr. Juliana Notarnicola, and collaborating with our team at Brown University teams to integrate molecular assays—experience that now propels a far-reaching investigation into spillover and spillback dynamics around Puerto Iguazú.

Cecilia is one of the instructors for HelmCamp 2026 at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica. See the program's comprehensive agenda and register for the program through the Organization for Tropical Studies.

A Scientist to Watch

Cecilia’s CV reads like a checklist for wildlife disease detectives with the right blend of grit, lab fluency, and cross-border teamwork experience that makes her exactly the type of investigator you'd want to have tracing zoonotic threats. By sampling parasites from jaguars, pumas, ocelots, margays, jaguarundis, and domestic cats across urban, peri-urban, and forested habitats, Cecilia is going to document the prevalence, intensity, and species richness of parasitic helminth communities that infect felids of the region—and ultimately across the Americas. The resulting dataset will spotlight high-risk areas, inform future vaccination and deworming campaigns, and guide conservation triage for threatened carnivores. Just as importantly, it will flag candidate pathogens for public-health surveillance before the next crisis has a chance to erupt.

Together we expect to describe new species, untangle complex networks of host-parasite interactions, and learn about the fundamentals that will allow us to better manage the environment for public health and conservation.

Annual Report 2025

Sun, 01 Feb 2026 16:18:22 GMT

Inside a Year of Conservation at the Kartzinel Lab

Conservation science is changing fast—but the realities of how our work gets done are rarely shared.

To mark the end of 2025, the Kartzinel Lab published its first Annual Report to openly document what it takes to connect modern genomic tools with the front lines of conservation: crossing landscapes, institutions, and communities amid growing uncertainty for scientific research.

👉 Read our 2025 Annual Report
Transparency. Impact. Opportunity.

This report is not a highlight reel. It is a clear account of how research, training, partnerships, and funding come together—or fall apart—at a time when biodiversity loss is accelerating and the decision about how to act can’t wait.

Whether you are considering funding, collaborating, or joining in our work, this report is designed to help you understand how we operate, what we prioritize, and where engagement can make a difference.

Why We Published Our First Annual Report

Most academic reporting happens behind closed doors—submitted to agencies, universities, or specific funders. But conservation does not happen in isolation, and neither should accountability.

We prepared the Kartzinel Lab’s first Annual Report to publicly share how our program works as a whole: how ideas come to life, how data supports decision-makers, and how people—students, staff, collaborators, and supporters—make the most high-impact outcomes possible.

At a moment when biodiversity loss is accelerating and traditional research funding is increasingly uncertain, we believe openness is essential. This report reflects our commitment to clear communication, responsible stewardship, and shared progress.

What This Report Is (and Is Not)

This report is:

A transparent look at how a modern, high-end conservation lab operates
A reflection on what enables impact—and what limits it
A record of collective efforts made across institutions, countries, and communities

It is not:

An in-depth retrospective about a single grant
A marketing brochure
A substitute for meaningful engagement in conversation

Instead, it is meant to support your thoughtful decisions about whether and how partner, invest, and participate in our programming.

What's Inside

Conservation in Practice: What it's like to apply genomic tools directly in the field—across iconic protected areas, long-term ecological research sites, and biodiversity hotspots facing rapid environmental change.

People Behind the Science: How students, postdocs, staff, and community partners contribute to shared outcomes—and why investing in people is so central to strategy for conservation success.

Innovation with Purpose: How new technologies, data pipelines, and field-based sequencing protocols are reshaping what conservation science can achieve by lowering the historical barriers to access in the areas where the information is needed most.

Challenges We Don’t Ignore: A candid discussion of funding uncertainty, capacity constraints, and the trade-offs we have to navigate in our commitment to sustaining high-impact research and training programs.

Looking Forward: How our new approaches—embodied in the Genomic Opportunities Lab—are designed to broaden participation, diversify our sources of support, and keep our conservation research connected to the world beyond traditional academic boundaries.

With Thanks—and an Open Invitation

Every page of this report reflects the sum of the trust, effort, and generosity we find in our broad community. We are deeply grateful to those who supported the work described here and to those who would consider joining us.

We invite you to read, question, share, and reach out.

👉 Open the 2025 Kartzinel Lab Annual Report
👉 Explore ways to partner, support, or get involved

Theory of Change

Fri, 30 Jan 2026 05:00:00 GMT

From Data to Decisions: A Theory of Change for Conservation Science

Jump to: The problem | Our role | Theory of change (Inputs→Impact) | Partner with us

Conservation science is often judged by its outputs—papers published, datasets generated, tools released. But conservation outcomes are not produced by academic activity alone. They emerge from a longer causal chain of events that connect research with real-world decisions about how we engage with the natural world.

Kartzinel Lab Postdoc Ezequiel Vanderhoeven, DVM, Ph.D. (left), works with a non-profit to facilitate a jaguar capture / translocation in Argentina. Photo: Proyecto Yaguareté

Problem: Conservation decisions are data-limited at the scales that matter.
What we do: Pair dietary DNA and population genomics with on-the-ground monitoring (e.g., GPS) at decision-relevant scales. We openly partner and collaborate to amplify our conservation impact.
Why it matters: Better dietary + connectivity insights → better corridor planning, resource protection, and management outcomes.

The problem: decisions are shaped by easy-to-find data; not always the right kinds of data

In our work with government agencies and the non-profit sector, we hear a recurring concern: “We need to better understand what the species we are responsible for protecting actually eat.” This is because diets shape animal survival, reproduction, movements, and the risk of conflict with local people. Yet for many species—including a surprising number of our best-known and most-loved species—reliable dietary data are scarce.

At the same time, managers face a practical constraint. Fundraising and allocations for conservation often favor actions that are highly visible and immediately tangible. Today's GPS tracking programs are a prime example. They generate compelling maps, clear narratives, and a strong sense of technological progress. As a result, managers are often able to fund collars and tracking campaigns.

But after the animals are collared and their movements are mapped, a key question remains: what are those animals actually eating in the places that they go? Maps are extremely informative, but not complete.

A similar dynamic plays out the links we find between conservation policies that require managers to collect genetic information.

Both the IUCN Red List and the U.S. Endangered Species Act recognize genetic diversity as a core component of species viability. In practice, however, this recognition often translates into efforts to collect static, coarse-grained summaries of genetic variation—average heterozygosity and population connectivity estimated for entire species. It caters to national and international policies rather than ensuring effective conservation measures can be implemented locally.

For conservation managers on the ground, this is rarely sufficient. The questions they face are more specific: How connected is my population to others? Which roads, fences, or land-use changes are most limiting gene flow? Where would restoration or protection most effectively improve connectivity?

Answering these questions requires fine-grained, population-specific data, analyzed at spatial and temporal scales that are better aligned with management decisions. Yet funding structures shaped by broad conservation mandates often channel resources toward assessments that satisfy reporting requirements, rather than the places where people are most actively engaged in solving the problems we face.

The result is a familiar pattern: conservation frameworks correctly identify what matters, but inadvertently constrain the supply of actionable data at the scales where it could do the most good.

Our role: filling critical information gaps at the pace of decision-making

We work to fill critical gaps by developing and deploying cutting-edge genomic tools that can interface fluidly with ecological understanding at right scales for conservation-relevant decisions.

In the case of animal diets, this means generating accurate, noninvasive dietary data that can be integrated directly with existing monitoring efforts, including GPS tracking. The data provide critical context that makes the needs of wildlife more interpretable and apparent.

In the case of population genomics, this means moving beyond static summaries of genetic diversity to analyses that reveal contemporary patterns of connectivity, isolation, and selection at the level of specific populations across the landscape. The emphasis is on information that can inform concrete actions: where to prioritize movement corridors, which barriers are the most problematic, and how populations are likely to respond to ongoing change.

And these insights are mutually informative. Not infrequently, the best migration corridors and the worst barriers to dispersal are a direct reflection of where animals can find the foods they need to sustain themselves. The goal is not simply to produce more data, but to align what we learn with the questions conservation leaders actually need to answer.

See how we have combined GPS-tracking with dietary DNA: it all began with endangered zebras; it has since touched on conservation issues involving Yellowstone wildlife, pregnant elephants, giant armadillos, woodland caribou... and more!

A GPS-collared pronghorn antelope is tracked to simultaneously study her migration and dietary variation.

The causal pathway: from support to impact

We pursue impact as a chain of events that causally link inputs with outputs:

Inputs
Support enables field sampling, genomic sequencing, computational analysis, and—critically—the training of students and collaborators who are placed in an optimal position to carry these approaches forward.

Outputs
These inputs produce time-tested protocols, open-source data, and novel analytical tools that lead to peer-reviewed publications and directly inform fine-grained ecological and evolutionary inferences.

Outcomes
Practitioners integrate dietary and genomic information with existing conservation-based and policy-relevant frameworks as they benefit from a better ability to interpret animal behaviors, habitat use, and population trends.

Impact
Over time, these connections support better-informed decisions: protecting key resources, restoring connectivity, and planning in ways that account for how populations actually function in nature.
→ See what this looks like in practice: read our Annual Reports and explore our Impacts.

A structural limitation—and why partnerships matter

As an academic lab, the efforts we allocate to supporting conservation are often seen as above and beyond the basic research that we are formally expected to do. While it is both appropriate and essential for us to partner with governmental agencies and nonprofit organizations to advance our externally funded research—much of it supported by the tax-payers who trust scientists to act in the public's interest—traditional funding structures place real constraints on how research dollars can be used.

In most cases, research funding is not intended for conservation. Instead, it supports fundamental knowledge-generation so people—managers, agencies, and organizations operating under different mandates—can choose to use in the future. This division of labor is not necessarily a flaw, but it means conservation research programs are often ill-equipped to deliver information at the pace decision-makers require. Initiating the chain of events that lead directly to impact thus depends on other opportunities to spark collaborations, align goals, and sustain engagement beyond the finite lifespan of a single grant.

Kartzinel Lab together with the Sloth Conservation Foundation and The Osa Conservation Foundation at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica, 2025. Photo: Ian Rock.

Grappling with this limitation is central to our theory of change. Our goal is to expand what is possible—to provide information that was previously unavailable or unusable—while working with a passionate array of partners who are empowered to act on it.

Leverage that works best

Both foraging ecology and population genomics are actively developing areas of research. Technological innovation is driving both fields forward at lightning speed. Progress, like learning, requires repetition on: refining tools based on realities in the field, collaborating with managers to understand the evolving set of challenges and opportunities they face, and improving the impacts that arise from what we do over time.

We find that people are the conduits for change. Data do not change conservation outcomes on their own. People do. Students trained in these methods move into agencies and NGOs. And we see time and again that the leaders of NGOs and government agencies are inspired and motivated by the students they meet. They discover new approaches and become more adaptable. Engaged training and mentorship opportunities are therefore the drivers of change both now and over the long-term. They are central, not ancillary, to impact.

Innovation in partnership

Our theory of change does not romanticize technology or overpromise change. Instead, it is transparent about how persistent information gaps concerning the most basic biology of what animals eat, and how populations are connected must be overcome to strengthen conservation decision-making.

Alumni Spotlight: Bethan Littleford-Colquhoun

Tue, 27 Jan 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Alumni Spotlight: Bethan Littleford-Colquhoun (Postdoc 2020-2025)

Faculty member in Microbiomics, University of Bath (UK). Former NSF Yellowstone Project lead postdoc + Brown Postdoctoral Excellence Award recipient.

Dr. Bethan Littleford‑Colquhoun was a postdoctoral researcher in the Kartzinel Lab (2020–2025) and a key driver of our NSF-funded Yellowstone wildlife research program in collaboration with the National Park Service. Her work uses dietary DNA metabarcoding and microbiome ecology to understand how wild herbivores respond to seasonal change and migration. She is now a faculty member in Microbiomics at the University of Bath.

Faculty website: University of Bath
In the news: Researchers propose new model for herbivore diets in Yellowstone National Park
Post from the lab: Beth wins 2023 Postdoctoral Excellence Award

Major Research Accomplishments

Beth led and otherwise initiated extensive work on the foraging ecology of Yellowstone's wildlife -- including iconic species such as bison, elk, and pronghorn antelope. She used dietary DNA metabarcoding to figure out how strongly seasonal their diets were, and whether populations foraged in ways that were more uniform or individualistically as they undertook their 'epic' annual migrations.

To more generally address a persistent challenge in our efforts to draw robust inferences about diet-microbiome linkages, Beth has built a legacy. Some of her key contributions are:

Pioneering a CRISPR-nanopore sequencing strategy with potential to overcome drawbacks inherent to all PCR-based methods.
Articulating the risks and rewards associated with commonly used bioinformatic strategies in the field.
Became a leading contributor to our program's bioinformatic pipeline for dietary DNA metabarcoding.

Contributions As A Teacher-Scholar

Even during the pandemic when she was locked down in the UK, I was most fortunate to have Beth co-instruct my upper-level genomics course. The course we co-led provided authentic research experiences, it was supported by HHMI, and it was endorsed by the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning, Together with students, we generated novel data, conducted computer-based simulations, and drafted several successful manuscripts for publication. Beth also regularly mentored undergraduates through field- and lab-based independent research experiences.

Where To From Here?

Beth was awarded a Prize Fellowship in the field of Microbiomics at the University of Bath. In 2025, she opened her own lab at the interface of ecology, genomics, and host–microbiome interactions. Together with her team, she seeks to understand how environmental change shapes the foraging-, nutritional-, and microbial-ecology of wild animals. We are fortunate to continuing collaborating with Beth on a number of projects, including our work at Yellowstone as well as studies on diet-microbiome linkages in lizards.

In Photos

Publication Highlights

Body size modulates the extent of seasonal diet switching by large mammalian herbivores in Yellowstone National Park [PDF]
A CRISPR-based strategy for targeted sequencing in biodiversity science [PDF]
The precautionary principle and dietary DNA metabarcoding: commonly used abundance thresholds change ecological interpretation [PDF]

Learning from the past in Yukon

Mon, 12 Jan 2026 12:12:04 GMT

Reconstructing 10,000 Years of Caribou Diets from Melting Yukon Ice Patches

Dr. Carson Hedberg and team on an expedition to the Gladstone Ice Patch

A prestigious NSF Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Office of Polar Programs that was awarded to Carson Hedberg is powering a new Kartzinel Lab project in the Yukon: using ancient DNA preserved in towering alpine ice patches to reconstruct thousands of years of change in caribou diets since the end of the last Ice Age. By sequencing genetic traces of food that have been locked inside caribou dung and literally frozen in time, Carson is asking how these animals have weathered past climate shifts—and what this can tell us about prospects for their future.

Learning From the Past to Protect the Future

Northern mountain woodland caribou are a culturally and ecologically vital, yet threatened, species of the Arctic. In summer, they crowd onto high-elevation ice patches to escape biting insects, leaving behind layers of dung that become entombed in ice for millennia. As those ice patches are rapidly melting under modern climate change, they are exposing a rare, time‑stratified archive of caribou ecology that may soon disappear.

This project combines paleoecology, GPS tracking, and remote sensing to build a detailed time series of caribou dietary change and ice-patch dependence that could ultimately stretch back in time for 10,000 years. By pairing ancient DNA metabarcoding with modern satellite collar data, the team is working with First Nations and territorial partners to understand how caribou depend on ice and how ongoing ice loss will reshape their ranges

Dr. Carson Hedberg and team climbed a 200-ft vertical ice face to extract ancient DNA that will teach us about 10,000 years of change in caribou diets

Why Study Caribou Diets in Ice?

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) are increasingly at risk of disappearing. Across their circumpolar range, many herds have shrunk by more than 50% in the last century. For wildlife managers, First Nations, and northern communities who depend on caribou, planning for an uncertain future is difficult.

Paleoecological records can offer powerful lessons from the past to help us predict the future. If we can see how caribou responded to past environmental fluctuations, we can better anticipate how they might respond to the rapid warming and ice loss that they have to survive today.

Ice Patches as Time Capsules

Carson Hedberg's postdoctoral fellowship focuses on northern mountain woodland caribou, a threatened population that gathers on alpine ice patches to escape heat and biting insects in the summer. As animals return to the same ice patches year after year, they leave behind layers of dung that becomes frozen in ice that accumulates each year.

The DNA contained within dung pellets that were deposited centuries or even millennia ago has been cryopreserved ever since. As these endangered ice patches to melt due to modern climate warming, they are exposing dung and other artifacts to the elements. It’s a unique, climatically threatened archive of caribou ecology that could soon disappear.

Carson’s NSF‑funded research has already produced a collection of specimens that span at least the last 4,000 years and that could ultimately date back about 10,000 years to the end of the last Ice Age. Then, using dietary DNA metabarcoding—a genomic method to identify foods caribou ate using plant and fungal DNA that has been preserved in the dung—she will generate taxonomically precise profiles of dietary change.

Ancient caribou dung has been extracted from ice blocks where it has been cryopreserved for thousands of years in the Gladstone Ice Patch.

Pairing Ancient DNA with Modern GPS Collar Data

To connect the paleorecord of ancient DNA to the ecology of living animals, Carson's project also leverages GPS-collar data from modern Yukon caribou. Working closely with the Yukon Department of Environment, the team obtained a rich dataset covering multiple herds in southern Yukon.

By modeling when and where collared caribou visit ice patches, the team will quantify how strongly caribou depend on ice, how ice influences their habitat selection and foraging ranges, and how these behaviors may shift as the endangered ice ultimately shrinks to the point of disappearing. This modern behavioral assessment will be essential for interpreting the ancient DNA record and for forecasting the ecological impacts of ongoing ice loss.

Building Partnerships in the Yukon

In the first year of the project, much of the Carson's work focused on fostering relationships. Carson traveled multiple times to Yukon, Canada to meet with territorial agencies and First Nations communities.

The team is working closely with the Yukon Department of Tourism and Culture and the Yukon Department of Environment to secure access to samples and data and to ensure that project outcomes align with territorial conservation priorities. With a data-use agreement in hand, the lab aquired a trove of GPS collar data that is now being processed.

Equally important are partnerships with the First Nations on whose lands the ice patches sit. Carson and collaborators presented project objectives to representatives from multiple First Nation communities in southern Yukon. Based on their guidance, the team agreed to target an ice patch in the traditional territory of Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (CAFN) for intensive dung sampling. They co‑developed a Material Transfer Agreement that demonstrates exemplary planning for ethical sample collection, data sharing, and the long‑term stewardship of knowledge.

Fieldwork on the Gladstone Ice Patch

In September 2025, after months of planning and logistics, Carson led a major sampling expedition to the Gladstone Ice Patch in the CAFN traditional territory. Reaching the site required the team to commute by helicopter with the support of a technical mountaineering team.

With the help of two professional ice‑climbing guides, the team spent three days collecting dung from a 200‑foot vertical transect of dung‑rich ice. They used chainsaws to cut blocks from the melting ice, then slung them beneath the helicopter for transport to refrigerated storage truck in the nearby town of Haines Junction.

These remarkable efforts under challenging conditions yielded a set of samples that span thousands of years and the team is already learning from them!

Dr. Carson Hedberg commuted by helicopter to the Gladstone Ice Patch

From Frozen Pellets to DNA Sequences

After collection, the ice blocks were shipped to the University of Alberta. There, in temperature‑controlled labs, the team used specialized saws to carefully isolate caribou dung pellets from the ice, minimizing contamination and preserving DNA.

So far, we have more than 50 dung samples spanning the last ~4,000 years. Our first sequencing experiments have revealed remarkable DNA preservation in these ancient pellets. Soon, we will generate high‑resolution data on both the plant and fungal components of caribou diets from the mid‑Holocene to the present.

Conserving Endangered Ice

The research is not only about extracting dung before it is exposed to the elements; it is also about protecting the breadth of physical, chemical, and biological information these ice patches can provide as a long‑term scientific and cultural resource. As climate change accelerates the loss of alpine ice across the Arctic, this project demonstrates how paleoecology, genomics, and community‑driven conservation can work together: using the past, preserved in ice, to inform decisions about the future of caribou and the people who rely on them.

Metabarcoding vs Microhistology

Tue, 06 Jan 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Metabarcoding vs Microhistology: Comparing Dietary Analysis Methods

At First Bite: Why Do Animal Diets Matter?

Understanding what animals eat is central to ecology, evolution, and conservation. Diets shape species interaction networks, how energy flows through food webs, and what animals can do when environments change. For decades, ecologists have inspected animal scats using microscopes to identify what they have been eating. Today, DNA-based approaches offer a powerful alternative.

So how do these two methods stack up—and when should you use each?

Savanna elephant eating from the understory at Mpala Research Centre in Kenya. Photo credit: Tyler Kartzinel

Metabarcoding vs Microhistology: Two Ways to Identify an Animal’s Food

Metabarcoding vs. microhistology—how do these two diet analysis methods compare, and what do their differences mean for ecology and conservation?

Metabarcoding

Data type: DNA fragments in feces or gut contents
Resolution: Often species-level, though it can depend on local biodiversity
Strengths: High taxonomic breadth, detects rare items
Limitations: Laboratory biases, gaps in available reference data

Microhistology

Data type: Plant or prey fragments viewed under a microscope
Resolution: Often genus-level or broader functional group
Strengths: Direct observation, low lab infrastructure
Limitations: Time-intensive, biased toward hard-to-digest tissues

Microhistology

Microhistology is the traditional workhorse of quantitative diet analysis in ecology. Researchers examine plant fragments, hair and bone, or other indigestible remains under a microscope and identify them by comparison to reference collections.

Why it’s still used

Requires relatively simple lab equipment
Long history of standardized protocols
Provides visual confirmation of consumed material

A key limitation is that soft, highly digestible foods often disappear during digestion, meaning some diet items may be underrepresented or omitted entirely.

🔗 Botanical composition of range herbivore diets: a review

Microhistology to reconstruct herbivore diets as imagined by ChatGPT. Researchers visually identify plant fragments under a microscope.

Metabarcoding

Dietary DNA metabarcoding uses high-throughput DNA sequencing to identify what species are present in a sample based on short genetic markers called "barcodes." Instead of visually identifying fragments, researchers match sequences to reference databases.

Why it’s transformative

Detects a broad range of taxa simultaneously
Captures rare or highly digested food items
Scales efficiently to large sample sizes

A key caveat is that results can depend heavily on which genetic marker is used and the completeness of reference libraries—the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

🔗Who is eating what: diet assessment using next generation sequencing

Dietary DNA metabarcoding involves collecting samples, sequencing remnant food DNA fragments, and matching data to a reference library of species.

Metabarcoding vs. Microhistology: What’s Really so Different?

Researchers use both methods to answer the same question—what do animals eat?—but from different angles.

Microhistology reflects what survives digestion and can be recognized visually
Metabarcoding reflects what left detectable traces of DNA

Microhistology often emphasizes diet structure, meaning the proportional breakdown in how much an animal eats one broad kind of food compared to another. How much grass versus browse an herbivore eats is a common application in wildlife management, for example. By contrast, metabarcoding excels at revealing fine-grained differences in diet diversity and composition. Importantly, neither method provides a perfect measure of quantity: counts of fragments and sequence reads are both useful—albeit imperfect—proxies for the amount of food an animal has consumed.

The contrast is less about old technology versus new—and more about complementary lenses on the same ecological process.

Why This Comparison Matters

Understanding reports based on metabarcoding vs. microhistology—and choosing which method to use in a study you might be planning—can influence:

Estimates of dietary niche breadth
Inferences about competition and resource partitioning
Conservation decisions for threatened species

Methodological choices can shape ecological conclusions, so understanding their strengths and weaknesses constraints is important when evaluating data.

What You Can Do

If you’re a researcher: Match your method to your question and budget—not the trend in technology.
If you’re a student: Learn both approaches to understand their strengths and weaknesses.
If you’re a conservation practitioner: Ask how diet data were generated before acting on them.

🔗 Related post: Apportionment of dietary diversity in wildlife
🔗 Related post: Avoid this one common pitfall in analyses of dietary DNA data

Explore More Posts In This Series

Do Undergraduate Research in the Kartzinel Lab at Brown

Sat, 03 Jan 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Do undergraduate research in the Kartzinel Lab at Brown

Undergraduates join our lab's research group for many reasons. As members of the research group, students can conduct research in our DNA lab, on the computer, and at field sites throughout Rhode Island and around the world. In addition to 'pure' research in the traditional sense, we also work with students to practice science communication through a variety of media -- we are especially excited to work with students who share our passion for raising awareness about the environment and achieving real-world conservation impacts. Read on and you'll find a trove of information about why and how you should consider joining us!

2025 Voss Fellow Sofia Kassalow shares her exciting research in the lab!

Consider joining our team!

Our work breaks down traditional boundaries between departments and consequently we work with students from many concentrations, including as Anthropology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology (EEOB), Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences (DEEPS), Computer Sciences, Molecular Biology, Cell Biology & Biochemistry, and more. We work with students at every stage of their journey, from their first weeks on campus through their graduation.

If you think yo might be interested in joining us, please spend a bit of time learning about our research projects and publications. There is no definitive rule about when in your journey you should take the next step to join the team -- I generally say earlier is better, but it’s never too late!

Often students begin considering opportunities in their sophomore/junior years, though timelines may vary depending on department, experience, and personal histories.

Featured Projects

Skills to learn

Why join this lab?

The reasons to get involved are numerous. I welcome students to just “check out” what it’s like to do research in our lab if interested in a topic that we study or in developing a particular skillset. I do not require prior experience with advanced genetics, ecology, or statistics—there are opportunities to learn! I provide support for students in the lab at every stage, from just getting involved, to applying for research funding, to leading an Independent Study or Honors Thesis.

Where do students go when they graduate?

Prior graduates have gone on to win Fulbright Scholarships, enter graduate programs in biology and the environment, and accept job offers ranging from molecular biologists at biotech startups to associates at nature-based conservation organizations. Consider checking out the long list of distinguished alumni on our People page to learn more!

A few great posts about undergrads in the group!

Interested...? Get involved!

If you think you’re interested in finding an opportunity with the lab, please contact Dr. Kartzinel by email to introduce yourself. Include your academic year, concentration, and a brief description of why you think our research interests might overlap. I'll invite you to attend some our group's lab meetings!

Many students get involved by attending our Lab Meetings, which are are opportunities to discuss current research. By attending Lab Meeting, you will get to know existing members of the lab and learn about upcoming research opportunities.

Please take note of the amazing work led by more senior students that you may know—they are doing outstanding work and you should feel free to discuss their experiences with with them!

After attending a few lab meetings, you may develop a good sense for how you'd like to get involved. At that point, feel free to connect with me at a meeting and we can discuss upcoming opportunities. Not all students will work in the DNA lab, but those who do will have to complete university trainings in advance; we have created an annual calendar to help coordinate the trainings and authorizations that you may need to complete based on your interests.

Of course, some students discover opportunities that are better aligned with their interests elsewhere -- of course that's perfectly appropriate and you can just let me know when that happens. There will be no hard feelings 😊!

Undergraduate research funding

Research expenses will vary depending on what type of research you wish to do, and what funded opportunities already exist in the lab. I can help identify needs and opportunities.

Applying for funding to support your field and lab work can be an important part of the research process. We have had lots of success with applications to external scholarships (e.g., Fulbright Scholarship, Udall Scholarship, Hollings Scholarship, Roger Williams Park Zoo) as well as programs that are unique to Brown.

Students should be aware of the following Brown-based scholarships and plan to apply at the appropriate stage:

SPRINT|UTRA: early-stage scholarship available to support experiential learning by providing students with access to funding and opportunities both on campus and around the world (ideal for freshmen and sophomores).
Advanced Undergraduate Research Fellowships: open to rising sophomores, juniors, and seniors with some prior research experience who will return to Brown for at least one full semester following the summer fellowship period.
Field-specific opportunities available to support seniors planning to pursue theses in the lab: Voss Undergraduate Environmental Research Fellowship, Royce Fellowship, Caleel Fellowship.

I am also occasionally able to fund undergraduate teaching assistants to work with me on courses that I teach (please see Courses@Brown for details).

Thesis & Capstone Guidelines

Preparing to propose an Independent study? Please refer to my Kartzinel Lab Senior Guidelines, which provides a helpful template as you develop your proposal.

Earn a Master's Degree in the Kartzinel Lab at Brown

Fri, 02 Jan 2026 18:42:38 GMT

Earn a Master’s degree in the Kartzinel Lab at Brown

Applying for a master's degree can be an extremely rewarding step to take in your career! Brown University is seeking to expand its offerings for graduate degrees at this level, and one of them may be a great match to your personal and professional interests. Because you will discover an array of existing and potentially new opportunities to engage with my lab as a master's student, I want to help you navigate the opportunities and answer common questions you may have. If that sounds good to you, read on...!

Master's opportunities in the Kartzinel Lab

Currently, there are several Master's programs at Brown that intersect with the interests of my lab. However, it is important to understand that none of these follow an admissions model that will allow you to apply directly to my lab. Therefore, I am providing a compilation of information that will help you discover opportunities in the post below -- but I cannot necessarily help you apply for these positions or guarantee you will be placed successfully in my lab if you do. If you have questions about how any of these programs could intersect with my lab, I strongly encourage you to contact the head of each program to obtain more information.

Brown Biotech Masters Program

Overview
Details

The science & industry of biotechnology

The Master’s in Biotechnology program engages you in a dynamic learning environment with hands-on experiences and close collaboration with Brown's expert faculty to closely examine the scientific foundations and industrial applications of biotechnology. This comprehensive approach combining theory and practice will equip you with the skills to make groundbreaking discoveries.

Programatic considerations

Brown University’s on-campus Master’s in Biotechnology program aims to immerse you in the field, with opportunities to connect with faculty research mentors like me if you select the thesis-based Sc.M. option. There are many tracks and options within the program, intended to provide students with options to customize their experience according to their career goals and job requirements. Scholarships are available as well as opportunities to pursue the degree part-time.

Students who wish to conduct their thesis research in my lab should bear in mind that I am not involved with the application process. It will be necessary to apply, get accepted, and enroll at Brown before we can discuss the appropriateness of a research position in my lab. At that point, I will be happy to discuss your research interests and career goals insofar as they may intersect with our ongoing research projects and/or open opportunities. I may ask to review your application materials or connect with your references as well.

All students will be expected to dedicate 100% of their research effort to their thesis topic within my lab, consistent with program requirements and/or in accordance with their allocated research credits. You can count on me to strive toward -- though you need to understand that I may not be able to -- provide a full-time summer research stipend so that you can focus on your thesis without having to hold a second job when you are not otherwise expected to be taking classes.

Brown University Fifth-year Master's

Overview
Details

Current undergraduates can complete a 5th-year master's

Brown undergraduate students have the unique opportunity to stay for an additional year to earn their master's degree through the 5th-year master's program. Eligibility and requirements are determined by the department to which they apply and generally must be completed within 12 months.

Programatic considerations

Brown University offers current students a unique opportunity to earn a master's degree within one year of earning their bachelor's -- the 5th-year master's program. There are many options within the program, providing extraordinary discretion to the student and their home department about things like course- and research-based requirements.

Students who wish to conduct a fifth year master's in my lab will generally have gained substantial research experience with me during their undergraduate years -- often culminating in a senior thesis in a relevant concentration (e.g., EEOB, ENVS, etc.). Indeed, the master's program is often tailored around a collaborative plan to further develop ideas or analyses that were initially part of the undergraduate thesis with the intent of preparing a peer-reviewed publication.

All students will be expected to dedicate 100% of their research effort to their thesis topic within my lab, consistent with program requirements and/or in accordance with their allocated research credits. In order to succeed on the accelerated one-year timeline, I will encourage students to keep coursework to the minimum amount required to satisfy programmatic requirements -- and courses should be selected based on their relevance to advancing your thesis research.

Other Brown-based programs

Students who are enrolled in other thesis-based master's programs at Brown University are more than welcome to contact me concerning the potential to conduct research in my lab!

Non-Brown-based alternatives

I work hard to create lots of opportunities to learn together with my lab, whether or not you are enrolled in a Brown-based master's program. Here are a few alternative opportunities you might consider:

Contract with my lab even if you are a student at another institution. Please be aware that we are pushing to expand opportunities for remote collaboration and learning in this way.
Consider attending an intensive workshop that we lead through externally accredited organizations (e.g., Molecular Parasitology at Organization for Tropical Studies).
Ask your current boss or academic advisor to send you to our lab for customized training that advances your professional needs.

Questions every prospective master's student should ask

Who pays whom? Master's programs around the country and around the world vary considerably in their funding model. Even within a single university, the funding structure may differ depending on the discipline. In ecology, for example, many MSc programs pay their students a salary or a stipend for the semesters that they conduct research and/or work as a teaching assistant. Currently, all Brown University programs that intersect with my lab follow a paid tuition model -- meaning students will have to carefully consider what each costs and their strategy to pay.

What will my earning potential be? Earning potential is an important consideration when deciding to pursue any degree. For most students, it only makes sense to pursue the degrees you need to advance along your career path -- you need to feel confident that the time and money you invest in earning your degree will net you the results you aspire to gain. Earning potential varies considerably across fields that intersect with our lab's work, so I encourage you to spend some time researching the typical qualifications that will be expected for the types of jobs you want and how much successful job candidates can expect to earn for those types of positions

Others...? You will find LOTS of general advice about how to find and evaluate master's programs online. As we encounter new questions specific to the offerings provided by Brown, I'll update the post with more!

Earn a PhD in the Kartzinel Lab at Brown

Thu, 01 Jan 2026 21:23:27 GMT

Earn a PhD in the Kartzinel Lab at Brown

What you need to know is that PhDs from the Kartzinel Lab lead outstanding basic research that can have transdisciplinary extensions with significant conservation impacts in the real world.

All PhD students will be enrolled in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology (EEOB), and those who pursue research with a significant conservation component will benefit from unique opportunities within the Institute at Brown for Environment & Society (IBES).

If this sounds like an exciting opportunity for you, I'll share everything you need to know about developing a successful application below...!

Upcoming opportunities at the PhD level

Brown University is an outstanding institution for teaching and learning in many respects. My lab has consistently supported a number of exceptional PhD-level graduate students, but the opportunities to do so are rare and often differ from convention due to Brown's reluctance to invest consistently in supporting a vibrant ecology PhD program. Therefore, I feel a responsibility to be candid with all prospective students about how to maximize their chances of becoming a successful applicant -- and then to subsequently thrive in my lab:

When I have funded PhD-level opportunities, I will post them prominently on the Join page of my lab's website. I will also advertise them on major list serves for the field (e.g., EcoLog, evoldir). Each position will be described with substantial details that will help you determine whether and how to apply. You can find out about all open Opportunities on our News page.
Strive to obtain fellowship funding and contact me if/when you have some. Brown's current funding model for the ecology PhD program is tiered, such that it prioritizes opportunities for students who will be supported by a fellowship (e.g., NSF GRFP or similar). Any competitive applicant should apply to opportunities that I post -- whether or not they have fellowship support -- but obtaining a fellowship could strongly enhance your competitiveness and the quality of your experience at Brown.

The profile of a successful applicant

Now that you know what it is likely to take to thrive at this level, you will see how it corresponds with my profile for successful applicants.

You should expect to need significant post-college research experience to succeed. This can include, but is not limited to, a thesis-based Master's degree, a higher degree in a related field (e.g., MSc, DVM, MD), and/or professional research experience (e.g., government, non-profit). There is no minimum requirement, but expect to need an established record of professional experience and productivity. Strong indicators of success include first-authored publications in the peer-reviewed literature, or similar accomplishments such as a track-record of successful grants, reports, white papers, or popular press releases that establish an ample track-record of professional writing productivity.

I like to work with PhD students who are coachable and collaborative. Naturally, I strive recruit applicants who share a lot of my fundamental interests in ecology, conservation, and molecular ecology. However, the top applicants tend to bring experience that complements my knowledge and strengths in these fields. They can also clearly articulate one or a few significant areas of interest that they would like to develop to the point of mastery as an apprentice to me.

Working to maximize competitiveness

If you are still working toward maximizing the competitiveness of your resume for a PhD in a lab like ours, this section is for you! Depending on your goals, I recommend:

Developing a realistic, multi-year plan that will position you as a top-tier applicant to PhD programs nationally -- whether here or elsewhere.
Consider pre-PhD opportunities to engage with our lab that may position you to become our top candidate when the next appropriate opportunity arises.

I'll expand on these strategies below.

Develop a multi-year plan for professional reading & writing. One of the top demands for a successful PhD candidate is mastery of the peer-reviewed literature in our field and the ability to contribute to it efficiently and effectively. Many otherwise excellent applicants to programs like ours simply have not had many opportunities to lead research projects toward completion as peer-reviewed manuscripts themselves. Therefore, completing a thesis-based Master's program that supports your development as a writer and provides opportunities for you to publish 1-2 papers is among the best indicators of your potential success. Of course, this is not the only way to establish your potential for success as an independent scholar and writer -- professional research experience that involves writing grants, reports, white papers, or popular press releases can also distinguish an applicant while establishing an ample track-record of professional writing. I recommend reaching out to an academic mentor in your life and asking for a candid assessment of your background and potential next steps.

Take advantage of other opportunities to engage. I work hard to create lots of opportunities to learn together with my lab, whether or not you enroll in our PhD program. Taking advantage of appropriate opportunities will inevitably enhance your competitiveness for jobs and opportunities at the next level, whether or not there is a specific PhD opportunity in my lab this cycle. Here are a few ideas you might consider:

Contract with my lab even if you are a student at another institution. Please be aware that we are pushing to expand opportunities for remote collaboration and learning in this way.
Keep your eye on opportunities that may include attending an intensive workshop that we lead through externally accredited organizations (e.g., Molecular Parasitology at Organization for Tropical Studies).
Ask your current boss or academic advisor to send you to our lab for customized training that meets your current needs.

The details about how to apply

Take the next steps. Assuming you are still excited and feel ready, this section has all of the logical information you will need to take the next steps!

Our lab is able to recruit PhD students through the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology (EEOB), which is based in the Division of Biology and Medicine at Brown University. Therefore, prospective PhD students apply to join the lab through EEOB, which will be their home department. Those who also pursue research with a significant conservation component will benefit from unique opportunities within the Institute at Brown for Environment & Society (IBES). Please refer to the official BioMed Applications site for details on how to apply. To learn more about the PhD program, please visit the Graduate Program website in Ecology, Evolution, and Organismal Biology (EEOB) and read our Graduate Student Handbook.

Application portal. Please refer to the official BioMed Applications site for details on how to apply.

Application fee waiver. Brown University offers application fee waivers to prospective students. I encourage all prospective students to consider applying for an application fee waiver; I strongly believe financial hardship should not present a barrier for consideration.

Should I contact the professor before applying?

Our PhD program follows a "direct admissions" model, meaning that I must confirm a prospective student will have a spot in my lab in order for them to be a successful applicant to my lab.

I continue to welcome prospective students to contact me with general inquiries by email -- either before or after submitting a formal application -- with a brief description of their research interests, experiences, and career goals. However, this is no longer a requirement because our program's decisions about admission begin with a review by an independent admissions committee that seeks to identify the most competitive applications before arranging campus visits. The most successful applicants at this stage will be those who are applying for a specific opportunity that I post and/or that have secured an independent fellowship, as I described above.

Because the purpose of an inquiry email is often misunderstood, I recommend checking out the posts here, here, here, or here in addition to any other useful explainers that you may find online. Please be aware that the volume of inquiries emails that we receive during an admissions cycle is so large that we may not be able to reply to all of them in a timely way -- please do not mistake this as a sign of disinterest or feel discouraged in your decision to apply!

How can I prepare a strong application statement?

Before submitting a formal application, please consider the ways that one or more of our lab's active research projects might represent an outstanding match to your professional interests. Also reflect on the most impactful ways that you might contribute to the lab as well, because the most successful doctoral experiences are characterized by mutualisms between the student and the host program.

You should read some of our recent Publications and refer to our Research page for additional context. At present, we are most keen to collaborate with PhD students who are interested in combining genomics, data science, and field ecology to answer major questions about ecology, biodiversity, and/or conservation. If this sounds good, then I encourage you to apply to the EEOB graduate program.

Your application statement should clearly identify me as your primary prospective advisor and explain why you consider the lab to be a good match for your research interests. Describe with specific detail what you consider to be your core scientific interests and goals by identifying one significant problem that you might like to work on as a graduate student and explaining why. Whether you hope to build a career in a particular area of ecology, genomics, or data science (or their intersections), your research interests should be understandable to the EEOB faculty at large -- note that our interests and areas of expertise span a diversity of subdisciplines in the field.

What kind of support does the program provide to current students?

Guaranteed funding. Graduate students who are admitted to our program at Brown are guaranteed 5 years of funding to pursue their PhD. That's job security! Some students may be supported by Fellowships (e.g., NSF GRFP) while others may be required to work as Teaching Assistants to earn their stipends, but all students in good standing are guaranteed funding.

I strongly encourage prospective students to apply for external fellowships. Relevant opportunities include NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship Program (due in October), the Ford Foundation's Predoctoral Fellowship (due in December), and the Hertz Foundation's Fellowship (due in October); many other potentially suitable fellowship programs may be available for consideration as well. International students may be eligible to apply for a Fulbright Scholarship to attend grad school in the USA (deadlines and procedures vary depending on country).

Competitive stipends & benefits. Brown offers some of the highest stipends for biology PhD students nationally -- possibly the highest relative to cost of living in Providence. Recipients of NSF GRFPs receive 'top up' payments in recognition for earning this prestigious award, which raises salaries up even more.

What kind of test scores or transcripts are required?

#GRExit. Please note that Brown's EEOB program does not consider GRE scores in any official capacity. You are welcome to list strong scores as this may help your application stand out in a favorable light. Some members of the admissions committee may find the scores you report to be helpful in evaluating your application. However, you do not have to disclose poor scores if you are concerned that it may distract from other strengths in your application materials.

The Kartzinel Lab is home to scholars with a wide diversity of personal and professional experiences. I expect lab members to adhere to the highest academic standards and exhibit the work ethic of a consummate scholar. Increasingly, the most successful applicants are likely to be those who already have significant academic or professional experience. Consequently, college transcripts are thus likely to carry some weight in my evaluation as they can be indicators of prior academic experience and performance. However, post-collegiate qualifications are likely to carry greater weight as they can be stronger indicators of your overall research experience and executive function (e.g., first-authored publications, graduate theses or degrees).

How is diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) taken into account?

Our lab prioritizes an inclusive, respectful, and intellectually challenging environment. We strive for equity and we value the diversity of perspectives that can inform our contributions to ecology, evolution, and the environment—including the diversity of lived experiences among racial, ethnic, national, religious, and economic backgrounds as well as gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, disability, veteran status, and other aspects of identity (and their intersection). Although it is not a required part of the application to join our graduate program, I invite prospective students to share experiences or offer suggestions related to the important work of advancing Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in Science as part of their application essay. I value your unique perspective, experience, and/or plans to engage in activities that would enhance diversity and equity in our lab, department, university, and/or discipline. Your perspective can be informed both by your lived experience and your academic activities whether or not you choose to focus on or disclose personal aspects of your identity. However, Brown University is resolute in its policies upholding laws related to DEI principles and—in light of recent and ongoing policy shifts at the national level—I am encouraging prospective students carefully consider their personal safety before disclosing any sensitive information that they might like to protect.

HelmCamp 2026

Wed, 05 Nov 2025 15:44:27 GMT

The call for applications to join HelmCamp 2026 at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica 🇨🇷 is now closed. Updates from the field will be posted here and announcements about future offerings will be advertised on the Kartzinel Lab website.

Wildlife Molecular Parasitology: From Taxonomy to DNA in Costa Rica @HelmCamp2026

Students of HelmCamp learn to analyze DNA from wildlife parasites

Deadline to Apply: March 22, 2026

Field ecologists and conservation biologists increasingly rely on molecular tools to understand the hidden dynamics of wildlife health and biodiversity. Our lab is pioneering the next generation of strategies in Molecular Parasitology.

In 2026, we are pleased to be co-presenting a unique opportunity to gain these skills through the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) in Costa Rica. This will be the second installment of our "HelmCamp" field course: Wildlife Molecular Parasitology: Taxonomy to DNA.

Planned for May 23–June 3, 2026, at the world-renowned La Selva Research Station in Costa Rica, this intensive two-week program will expose you to cutting-edge efforts to integrate classical parasite taxonomy with modern molecular and genomic techniques. Participants will collect, identify, and analyze parasites from wild hosts—bridging the gap between field parasitology and DNA-based biodiversity research. Whether you are interested in the fundamental ecology of host-parasite interactions or a wildlife conservation professional working to protect populations in a OneHealth framework, this course will offer transformational experiences.

Students of HelmCamp learn to handle wildlife and assess their health.

You will learn...

Course overview

This advanced course will help you learn and grow key skills:

Capture and sample wildlife for parasite identification under ethical field protocols.
Conduct parasite identifications using microscopy and taxonomic keys.
Extract DNA, amplify genes through PCR, and apply portable Nanopore sequencing under field-lab conditions.
Integrate morphological and molecular data to answer ecological, evolutionary, and conservation questions.

Through lectures, guided fieldwork, and laboratory sessions, you will learn molecular parasitology skills to illuminate ecosystem health, disease transmission, and host-parasite coevolution—critical for wildlife conservation and management.

Why La Selva and OTS?

La Selva Biological Station offers access to one of the most biodiverse tropical forests in the Americas. Its combination of pristine habitats and modern laboratory facilities makes it an ideal setting for hands-on molecular ecology training. The Organization for Tropical Studies is a world-leader in providing immersive, field-based educations for biologists and conservation scientists.

Key details

Dates: May 23 – June 3, 2026 (arrival May 22, departure June 4)
Location: La Selva Research Station, Costa Rica
Credits: 2 academic credits
Tuition: $3,450 (includes housing, meals, and in-country transport)
Extended Deadline: March 22, 2026

Apply now

Spaces are limited. Learn more and apply at tropicalstudies.org to advance your expertise in wildlife molecular parasitology, DNA sequencing, and conservation genomics in one of the world’s most inspiring research environments.

Study Reveals New England is Key to Survival of Diamondback Terrapins

Fri, 03 Oct 2025 13:33:33 GMT

Study: New England is key to survival of diamondback terrapins

A new peer-reviewed study led by researchers at Brown University in partnership with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management revealed that diamondback terrapins (Malaclemys terrapin), iconic turtles of America’s salt marshes, face heightened risks at the northern edge of their range in New England.

First large-scale genetic study of diamondback terrapins across their northern range highlights urgent conservation needs as federal endangered species listing is considered.

Diamondback terrapin. Photo: Amanda Lyons

The Science is Clear: Terrapin Need Regional Protection

The study, published in Journal of Heredity, shows that while Rhode Island is the only New England state to officially list the terrapin as endangered, its populations are part of a broader pattern of declining genetic diversity and increasing isolation as the species extends northward from the mid-Atlantic. These findings arrive as NOAA Fisheries weighs a petition to list the terrapin under the federal Endangered Species Act.

Diamondback terrapins are a keystone predator in salt marshes, helping maintain the balance of these ecosystems. This study shows that Rhode Island and other coastal states in New England are at the front lines of terrapin conservation — what happens here will have ripple effects for the species across its range.

Lead author, Amanda Lyons '21 MSc, '20 B.S. Honors, worked tirelessly with community members and the Kartzinel Lab to connect a widely-recognized conservation need with the cutting-edge technologies emerging to help address it.

The team analyzed DNA from more than 100 terrapins across 18 sites, from New Jersey to Massachusetts, using state-of-the-art genomic methods. The results are clear:

Genetic diversity declines steadily with latitude, making northern populations more vulnerable.
Populations in Narragansett Bay and Cape Cod are genetically distinct and relatively isolated.
Despite severe habitat loss, Rhode Island’s populations still maintain moderate genetic diversity, meaning conservation action here can have outsized benefits.

Next Steps for Policy & Management

Salt marshes are under immense pressure from sea-level rise and development

The study provides timely evidence for upcoming conservation decisions that will have consequences for the future of diamondback terrapins and salt marsh ecosystems more generally. This important dataset can be used to:

Identify genetically distinct populations that need special protection.
Plan habitat restoration and coastal corridor projects to improve connectivity.
Weigh the risks and benefits of translocations to counteract isolation without causing genetic mismatches.

Protecting terrapins isn’t just about saving a charismatic turtle — it’s about protecting the health of coastal ecosystems across New England and the Eastern Seaboard more generally.

Rhode Island is both a stronghold and a test case for regional conservation action. Results clearly show that genetic diversity declines sharply with latitude, potentially leaving northern populations at greater risk. But Rhode Island’s populations still maintain moderate genetic diversity — meaning action here could tip the scales for the entire region. Steps taken in the region may directly shape whether terrapins gain federal endangered species protection in the years ahead.

Funding provided by:

Voss Undergraduate Research Fellowship from the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society
The Diamondback Terrapin Working Group
Sophie Danforth Conservation Biology Fund from the Roger Williams Park Zoo
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management Cooperative Agreement

Story behind the science: Yellowstone Wildlife Diets

Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:20:27 GMT

Story behind the science: Yellowstone wildlife diets

Rethinking how we classify animals based on what they eat—and what it means for wildlife management

An article by science journalist Livi Milloway chronicles an "ah-ha" moment we had in our Yellowstone National Park research project. The story published in The Wildlife Society Bulletin, titled An herbivore by any other name, unpacks how Hannah Hoff's recent paper in PNAS challenges the status quo when it comes to how scientists study and understand wildlife diets.

With some great photos of Hannah in the field, this article starts at the beginning of our program's work studying the diets of large herbivores in East Africa. These early DNA-based studies of wildlife diets tended to reveal strong dietary niche partitioning -- consistent and statistically robust differences in the foods that animals eat, depending on their species. Dietary niche partitioning is a critically important phenomenon, where it exists, because it enables us to make clear predictions about everything from animal evolution and behavior to how environments will respond to perturbations like climate change.

Equally important but less widely understood, however, are the conditions that allow members of different species to maintain broadly overlapping diets. This is what we've found in the herds of migratory wildlife from Yellowstone.

As the article details, our big "ah-ha" moment is that we often default to treating members of different species as if their diets should be different. This allows us to measure what does make their diets different, even when those differences are minute. But it can divert our focus from the main headline in cases where members of different species -- somehow -- appear to coexist despite extensive dietary overlap.

Drawing inspiration from paradigm-shifting moments in the history of how scientists have studied human evolutionary genetics, Hannah Hoff recognized this was a problem and came up with an extremely innovative strategy to help solve it.

Find all the details in The Wildlife Society's article An herbivore by any other name.

Hoff awarded Blavatnik Family Graduate Fellowship in Biology and Medicine

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 15:12:17 GMT

Hannah Hoff awarded Blavatnik Family Graduate Fellowship

Outstanding scholarship & innovation in the life sciences.

Hannah Hoff, PhD candidate in the lab, has accepted a Blavatnik Family Graduate Fellowship in Biology & Medicine at Brown University. This is a highly competitive and well-deserved honor. Hannah has helped lead our work in Yellowstone National Park since 2021.

The Blavatnik Family Fellows are nominated for selection "based on outstanding academic achievement and demonstrated potential for producing original research that advances scientific knowledge and understanding in the basic and clinical life sciences."

With this honor, she will also receive a year of fellowship support and a research fund to advance her research on the plants that fuel wildlife migrations across Yellowstone National Park. Learn more about her research in this write-up about her recent paper, published in PNAS.

Apportionment of dietary diversity in wildlife

Tue, 15 Jul 2025 13:01:48 GMT

Research highlight: Apportionment of Dietary Diversity in Wildlife published in PNAS (Hannah Hoff et al.)

Led by Hannah Hoff, in collaboration with the National Park Service and the Brown University Herbarium, the lab just published a blockbuster paper that summarizes, critiques, and enhances how ecologists tend to talk about what wildlife eat. There are some surprising and potentially sensitive elements to the story—both for how we monitor and manage wildlife populations and for how we address our implicit biases when observing and reporting on wildlife as scientists.

Related content:

The two-sentence punchline: We combined two technologies—artificial intelligence and a genomics technique called DNA metabarcoding—to show that different species of large herbivores in Yellowstone have diets that are more diverse and complex than biologists had previously assumed. This is a big step toward understanding how so many species of large mammals can survive together in Yellowstone, and it suggests that maintaining plant diversity is a critical requirement for maintaining the diversity of migratory wildlife.

The slightly more elaborate version: The problem that this study addresses is a classic ecological paradox: “How do abundant herds of large mammal species divvy up the available plant resources to coexist?” Since these species seemingly rely on similar types of resources (grasses, trees), it’s not obvious why competition for food doesn’t cut the number of species down to just a couple of dominant competitors that eat different things.

These animals are difficult and dangerous to observe up-close, and it can be even harder to identify their food plants to the species level—even for expert botanists. But in spite of these challenges, biologists often try to characterize wild animal diets by watching them—straining to spot what they assume must be each species’ unique key to survival in a competitive world.

We wondered if wildlife biology might be shaped by stereotypes that get reinforced when well-meaning biologists report on behaviors that match their beliefs about what makes each species’ diet different. In this vein, the title of our paper pays homage to transformational work published in 1972 by Richard Lewontin, entitled The Apportionment of Human Diversity. This seemingly unrelated work on human genetics inspired us to think about wildlife in a new way. Lewontin demonstrated that most human genetic diversity exists within populations – it is not segregated between biologically different races in the way that some earlier geneticists had assumed – and this has become a cornerstone to our modern understanding of human genomics. Our paper offers a similar wake-up call for ecology: we consider whether and how wildlife biologists might reevaluate some of our preconceived notions about the biological differences between species in their environment.

We used dietary DNA metabarcoding and computer models based on simple AI techniques to help us figure out how many different ‘diet types’ exist within Yellowstone’s vast herds of wildlife – and whether each species has a unique diet type. What we show is that dietary differences between species ("niche partitioning”) are smaller than everyone had previously assumed – far less pronounced than similar research on African savannas. Instead, members of different species could have a lot of overlap in their diets and the amount of overlap depended on where and when they were feeding. Combining DNA technology with AI enabled us to break through long-standing stereotypes about what these animals eat, and look at the evidence in new ways.

Stories behind the science

Two Studies, One Lesson: How Citizen Science is Transforming Our View of Yellowstone (Ecology Project International)
An herbivore by any other name (The Wildlife Society)
New research challenges animal dietary classifications in Yellowstone National Park (News@Brown)

Kartzinel Interview with Mongabay about DNA barcoding

Fri, 27 Jun 2025 22:52:06 GMT

Interview: DNA barcoding and conservation (Mongabay)

DNA sequencing to meet global biodiversity goals: Interview with Tyler Kartzinel

Tyler sat down for an interview with Abhishyant Kidangoor of Mongabay to discuss our recent Mini Review in Molecular Ecology, entitled Global Availability of Plant DNA Barcodes as Genomic Resources to Support Basic and Policy-Relevant Biodiversity Research.

You can read our conversation here at Mongabay. It covers topics that are among the most important for ensuring the reliability of DNA-based biodiversity research, including equitable access to the benefits arising from this technology and the reputations of all who use it.

The work was also highlighted in Spanish by El Mostrador: Código de barras de plantas: herramienta genética clave que busca ser fortalecida en el sur global

Here are the points that Mongabay highlighted from our interview:

A new study has highlighted gaps in reference databases that are required by scientists for DNA sequencing, especially in tropical biodiversity hotspots around the world.
DNA technology has advanced rapidly in recent years, but the lack of extensive reference databases makes species identification a challenge, especially in remote areas.
The lead author of the study emphasizes the need to ramp up work to create these databases, especially as the world works toward critical goals to protect ecosystems and the biodiversity that lives in them.

What parasites infect tropical wildlife?

Sat, 14 Jun 2025 17:19:18 GMT

Research highlight: what parasites infect tropical wildlife?

One of the top “unsolved problems” in biology is the need to untangle complex networks of species interactions - perhaps nowhere is this more consequential than our need to grapple with the socioecological risks of neglected tropical diseases. Human-livestock-wildlife parasite transmission has been declared a major biomedical challenge for the 21st century with reasons for concern that include the potential for zoonotic helminths—parasitic worms such as nematodes (roundworms), cestodes (tapeworms), and trematodes (flukes) to be transmitted between humans and animals. The effects cause malnutrition, developmental delays, and deaths that disproportionately affect communities undergoing rapid development.

A critical problem is that our strategies to identify and track wildlife parasites originated to combat livestock diseases a century ago. We know very little about how to answer the question: What parasites infect tropical wildlife? We know far more about the subset of parasites that harm humans and livestock than all others. Consequently, our conservation partners struggle to identify the parasites they encounter, hindering our collective efforts to rehabilitate endangered species, evaluate emerging health threats, and treat diseases.

Fortunately, we have just received a Catalyst award from the Institute at Brown for Environment and Society to pursue new strategies in the field of Molecular Parasitology 🏆

Today, the gold-standard method for studying gastrointestinal helminth parasites in wildlife is rooted in taxonomy. Identifying parasites and evaluating their potential to harm hosts requires us to inspect adult parasites from dead hosts. Of course dead-but-well-preserved wildlife are hard to find, especially in the tropics. As a result, we often rely on less-suitable counts of parasite eggs in fecal samples, which can reveal parasites are present but often precludes identification or comparison across studies. This award will allow us to build on recent work at Brown University, which has brought us tantalizingly close to sparking a new era of genome-enabled parasitology that could overcome these intersecting challenges.

Together with an exciting array of partners - Sloth Conservation Foundation (Costa Rica), The Organization for Tropical Studies (Costa Rica), Fundación Zoológica de Cali (Colombia), and the Instituto de Biología Subtropical (Argentina) - we are embarking on an ambitious plan to document and DNA barcode parasites from tropical wildlife across the Americas. We are also expanding our work at Brown, tapping into the expertise of tapping into the GeoSpatial expertise of Professor of the Practice Seda Şalap-Ayça and Data Scientist Tim Divoll to build more user-friendly and informative data portals.

We are grateful for the new support to build and share this important resource!

New paper on gastrointestinal parasites of sloths in Costa Rica

Mon, 26 May 2025 19:06:06 GMT

Research highlight: gastrointestinal parasites of Costa Rican sloths (Ezequiel Vanderhoeven et al.)

A new paper from the Kartzinel Lab is the first to compare the parasites of wild two- and three-toed sloths living in both primary forests and urban habitats. Led by Ezequiel Vanderhoeven, the paper Host specificity of gastrointestinal parasites in free-ranging sloths from Costa Rica was published in partnership with our friends at Sloth Conservation Foundation.

With the help of a great team and a detection dog, this paper reports the first records several potentially new parasites for both species of sloth. Indeed, we found eight types of parasites from just 38 fecal samples, which we were surprised to discover matches the total number of parasite types reported in the literature for sloths over the last 100 years.

We also found zero evidence for parasite sharing between two- and three-toed sloths, even though they often overlap at very fine scales in their habitats and share so many interesting characteristics. The more common types of parasites we found in each species were present in multiple populations -- suggesting they are widespread within their hosts -- but rare parasites tended to be restricted to hosts from the primary forest.

This is just the beginning of our work with sloths and their parasites -- a fun, interesting, and important step we are taking together with our partners at Sloth Conservation Foundation. You can check SloCo's blog about it here!

CONSERVATION & MOLECULAR ECOLOGY - News

HelmBank: DNA Barcodes for Wildlife Parasites

HelmBank Release R1: DNA barcodes for wildlife parasites—now available

🔗 Explore the release

The idea: wildlife conservation & public health programs need "field guides" for wildlife parasites

What’s under production now: a growing roster of hosts—and the parasites they carry

​HelmBank Release R1: an early public dataset you can use and explore now

The collaborations powering HelmBank and why they matter

Diverse support for a diverse biodiversity project

Events and engagement: HelmCamps, the Chaco, and conservation at the front line

The people leading & improving the work

The network behind HelmBank: field to lab, across the Americas

What’s next: more hosts, more parasites—and a bigger geographic reach

Explore HelmBank | Get Involved

Biodiversity credits and DNA reference libraries

Biodiversity credits: where markets meet monitoring, DNA reference libraries are a high-leverage investment

What biodiversity credits are—and how they work

​How biodiversity credits are typically structured for East African savannas

What DNA technologies can contribute & why they’re an attractive option

Why we need reference libraries: the hidden infrastructure enabling credible DNA-based data

Where we face challenges, we also find opportunities

The investor’s question: what is the return on generating reference barcode coverage?

A practical way of thinking about ROI

What all readers should know

More like this

Launching Charismatic Critter Club

Charismatic Critter Club—Science Illustration that Makes Conservation Click

The Idea: Ecosystems are Hard to Picture—So Let's Make Them Visible

Jules Ho: Ecology Training at Brown University + Illustration Training at the Rhode Island School of Design

From Lab Bench to Sketchbook: Charismatic Critter Club is Inspired by Real Molecular Ecology

What’s Next: Rainforests, Sloths, and Charismatic Microbes

Why Charismatic Critter Club Matters

Alumni Spotlight: Andy Luo

Alumni Spotlight: Andy Luo (Biology, Honors, 2021–2024)

Research Accomplishments

A Teacher and a Scholar

Where To From Here?

Advice for Current Students

Accomplishments & Milestones

More People & Lab Life

Metabarcoding vs Metagenomics

Metabarcoding vs. Metagenomics: Two Ways to Decode Diets and Microbiomes

At a Glance: “Meta” DNA Approaches for Diet Analysis

What Is DNA Metabarcoding?

What Is Metagenomics?

The Essentials of How They Differ

Why This Comparison Matters

Choosing the Right Approach

Explore More in This Series

Metabarcoding vs Direct Observation

Metabarcoding Versus Direct Observation in Wildlife Diet Studies

What Direct Observation Does Exceptionally Well

Hero-Level Direct Observation of Wildlife Diets

What Changes with DNA Metabarcoding

What Dietary DNA Metabarcoding Cannot Do

The Key to Comparison

Why This Comparison Matters

Explore More in This Series

Metabarcoding vs Stable Isotopes

Metabarcoding vs. Stable Isotopes: Two Ways to See What Animals Eat

At a Glance: DNA Metabarcoding vs. Stable Isotopes

What Is Metabarcoding?

What Are Stable Isotopes?

Metabarcoding vs. Stable Isotopes: What’s Really Different?

Why This Comparison Matters

Choosing the Right Tool (Or Using Both)

​Applying These Methods in Conservation Research

Explore More Posts In This Series

Why give to an academic conservation program

Why Your Gift to a University’s Conservation Lab Matters More Than You Think

How University Funding Really Works

The Gap: Where Great Conservation Ideas Get Stuck

​1. Maintaining a Qualified and Experienced Leadership Team

2. Networking Students with On-the-Ground Conservationists

Fueling Innovation: "High-Risk/High-Reward" Ventures

Why Donor Dollars Are Especially Powerful in University Labs

Genomic Opportunities Lab @Brown Delivers Conservation Technology For Impact

Parasite biology with Cecilia Trani

​Profile: Cecilia Trani Launches a Cross-Continental Parasite Sleuthing Mission to Map the Parasitic Helminths of Atlantic Forest Felids

​Celebrating the Start of a Major Expedition

HelmBank Release R1: an early public dataset you can use and explore now

How biodiversity credits are typically structured for East African savannas

Applying These Methods in Conservation Research

1. Maintaining a Qualified and Experienced Leadership Team

Profile: Cecilia Trani Launches a Cross-Continental Parasite Sleuthing Mission to Map the Parasitic Helminths of Atlantic Forest Felids

Celebrating the Start of a Major Expedition

With Thanks—and an Open Invitation

Building Partnerships in the Yukon

Fieldwork on the Gladstone Ice Patch

From Frozen Pellets to DNA Sequences