The persistent crisp packet: 23 years in the environment and still going strong

20190407_140712.jpg

Last night Karin and I returned from Buxton in the Peak District where we had hired a cottage and assembled most of our kids and their partners for a weekend get together.  During a walk in the surrounding countryside I spotted this crisp packet sticking out of the ground.  From the typography of the logo I could tell it was old and a bit of internet sleuthing suggests that it was from a special limited edition produced to commemorate the UEFA 1996 European Football Championship.  So it’s been hanging around in the environment for about 23 years, hardly decaying, possibly releasing harmful chemicals into the environment.

Needless to say, I took it home and binned it.  But this one crisp packet is a microcosm of an enormous global problem of single-use plastic waste that is not being disposed of properly or recycled.  It’s a particular issue in the developing world where wastes management infrastructure is simply not able to cope with the volume of plastic bags and packaging, as I saw recently on my trip to Nepal:

2019-03-24 13.40.30

This sort of waste is more than just unsightly: it is harming the world’s ecosystems and the biodiversity they contain.  Manufacturers of plastic need to step up and address this issue.  Action is happening as I know from discussions with colleagues such as Prof. Margaret Bates and Dr Terry Tudor who are actively researching, educating and advising in this area.  But I worry that it may be too little and too late.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Biodiversity, University of Northampton

Beekeeping at 7000 ft: Nepal field work part 4

On the last day of field work, while we were waiting for a bus to take us back down to Kathmandu, I spotted some small bee hives next to one of the houses belonging to the local Tamang peoples:

2019-03-29 08.46.24

With a few minutes to spare before the bus left, I quickly investigated and discovered that only one of the hives was actually in use:

But interestingly, the bees inside where the native Asiatic or eastern honeybee (Apis cerana) rather than the European or western honeybee (A. mellifera) that is more familiar in Europe.  The bees are a bit smaller and more distinctively striped than their western counterpart:

2019-03-29 08.48.34-1

There didn’t seem to be much around for the bees to forage on, just a few flowering mustard plants, so I suspect that they were travelling some distance to find nectar and pollen:

2019-03-29 08.47.28

At this altitude of 2092 masl, or about 7000 feet, the winters are long and cold and the summers dry and hot, so the bees must be tough if they are kept there all year round.  I wonder if A. mellifera would survive these conditions?

All too soon the bus driver sounded his horn and it was time to go; an interesting encounter with a bee species I’d not previously seen.

 

7 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Honey bees, University of Northampton

A unique oak: Nepal field trip part 3

2019-03-28 18.30.46

One of the plants that really intrigued me during my time in Nepal was a species of evergreen oak that is native to the Himalayas and nearby mountainous areas of Asia.  It goes by the name of Quercus semecarpifolia and, as far as I am aware, has no common English name.  Two things surprised me about this species.

First of all, it is heterophyllous, meaning that its leaves come in more than one type.  Leaves close to the ground are spiky and look a lot like those of holly (Ilex spp.) which is what I thought they were when I first saw them:

2019-03-28 17.36.31

Leaves higher up on the plant have far fewer, if any, spikes:

2019-03-28 17.35.54

One of the things I discussed with the students was the job of scientists to identify patterns and to develop hypotheses about processes, i.e. what had caused those patterns.  In this case, after some discussion, we decided that the heterophylly was probably an adaptation to defend the leaves against small browsing mammals such as deer (thanks to Narayan for this image):

DSC_8212

The other thing that interested me about the oak was its overall growth form, which was tall (they grow to 30m) with rather short, stubby branches, very distinctive from a distance:

2019-03-28 17.58.35

The tree were especially striking in the evening mist:

2019-03-28 18.18.35

2019-03-28 18.18.41

2019-03-28 18.24.56

They look as though someone has been out with a chainsaw and trimmed them, but that’s not the case, they naturally grow that way.  The best hypothesis that we could come up with is that this is an adaptation that prevents the trees from accumulating large, heavy loads of snow which could result in branches breaking.

I’ve never seen this growth form, not heterophylly, in any other oak species, but Quercus is a large genus of about 600 species, so I wouldn’t be surprised if similar species exist.

Part 4 to follow.

5 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, University of Northampton

Tracks in the snow: Nepal field trip part 2

2019-03-28 08.36.47

As I mentioned in part 1 of this series of posts, there was unseasonable snow at higher elevations during my trip to Nepal.  This made walking a bit treacherous and at night the temperatures dropped to below freezing.  However it did mean that we could see where animals had been moving about the landscape, including the red panda (Ailurus fulgens) which made the tracks in the image above.

Tracks from a total of seven different types of mammals were recorded, such as black bear:

2019-03-27 11.00.55

And the pika, a member of the group that includes rabbits and hares:

2019-03-27 11.51.19

No yetis, but some very yeti-like, moss covered trees:

2019-03-27 15.33.48

There were some very tough flowers dealing with the snow, such as this Primula denticulata:

2019-03-27 14.21.43

And what I think might be a gentian (Gentiana sp.):

2019-03-27 11.33.47

Walking conditions were very challenging at times:

2019-03-27 15.51.59

But the students really enjoyed it:

2019-03-28 08.23.53

2019-03-28 08.27.05

The dining rooms of the hostels in which we stayed were cosy:

2019-03-28 20.36.03

2019-03-28 07.51.04

And of course the landscapes were fabulous:

2019-03-27 12.55.19

2019-03-27 10.21.19

2019-03-27 17.15.46

Part 3 to follow

11 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, University of Northampton

Crows and kites over Kathmandu: Nepal field trip part 1

 

2019-03-29 09.19.36

On Monday I returned from a 10 day trip to Nepal to support an undergraduate field course run by one of the University of Northampton’s partner colleges, NAMI.  It was my first time in that country, actually my first time in the Indian subcontinent, and it was quite a trip.  I want to share some thoughts and experiences over a few blog posts.  They will be light on text and heavy on imagery, because Nepal is such a spectacular country in so many ways, and the Kathmandu Valley has an abundance of ancient temples, palaces and other sites, many of which survived the 2015 earthquake that flattened more recent buildings:

2019-03-31 11.35.582019-03-31 14.43.382019-03-31 15.10.162019-03-25 07.50.31

But first, what of those crows and kites?  They are actually Black kites (Milvus migrans), dozens of them, and hundreds of Indian house crows (Corvus splendens), all providing an important service in Kathmandu: clearing some of the rubbish from the streets.  They were especially spectacular in the evening, around 5.30 pm, when I would watch them circling and moving towards their nightly roost:

2019-03-22 18.03.05

It’s a really stunning urban wildlife spectacle that none of my pictures do justice to, so here’s a close up of one of the crows:

2019-03-24 17.28.41

Kathmandu has a serious problem with waste and pollution, as do many large cities in that region:

2019-03-24 13.42.55

2019-03-24 13.40.30

But the NAMI campus itself is very nice, clean and well presented:

2019-03-24 10.48.032019-03-24 10.46.50

2019-03-24 10.49.23

2019-03-24 10.46.53

And it has wildlife of its own, including and array of birds, butterflies and bees, and at least one species of lizard:

2019-03-24 12.50.39

But beyond that, the staff and students I worked with were just great, a real pleasure to meet, the staff committed and the students very engaged with their studies:

2019-03-24 12.46.04

2019-03-24 10.47.02

This one was taken the day that we set off for the field trip, in a bus that was driving us from Kathmandu to Kutumsang at 2470 metres above sea level.  The two NAMI staff members who led the field trip, Narayan Prasad Koju and Sanu Raja Maharjan, are both highly experienced Nepalese ecologists:

2019-03-25 08.22.32

 

2019-03-27 19.48.33

We spent one night at Kutumsang then trekked to Mangengoth at 3420 masl, then Thadepati (3690 masl).  It was unseasonably cold up there and quite a lot of snow was still on the ground.  At that point I started suffering from altitude sickness and was happy to descend back to Kutumsang.  During our trek the students established 20m x 20m quadrats at 200 m intervals and recorded woody plant diversity and abundance, and which plants were in flower.  In addition they recorded the tracks and scats of any mammals they encountered.  Here are some shots of the students in action and the general landscape:

2019-03-25 10.57.01

2019-03-25 14.53.01

2019-03-26 06.34.53

2019-03-26 06.41.40

2019-03-26 08.26.55

2019-03-25 17.27.09

2019-03-26 08.05.46

2019-03-26 09.12.46

2019-03-26 14.31.41

2019-03-26 09.59.20

Part 2 to follow.

 

 

 

1 Comment

Filed under Biodiversity, University of Northampton

Book review: Vegetation of the Canary Islands by Marcelino J. del Arco Aguilar and Octavio Rodríguez Delgado (Springer 2018)

Figure 1 - Tenerife 2008 - students on the Aeonium field - lo res

 

This is the text from a book review that’s published this week in The Niche, which is the British Ecological Society’s members’ bulletin.


 

The Canary Islands mean many things to different people.  To the millions of holiday makers each year they are places of relaxation, of sun, sand, sea and holiday shenanigans.  To Charles Darwin, writing during the early weeks of the Beagle voyage, they were the “long wished for object of my ambition”.  Having read accounts of Tenerife by earlier explorers such as Alexander von Humboldt, Darwin was excited to have the opportunity to visit “perhaps one of the most interesting places in the world”.  Sadly it was not to be: an outbreak of cholera back in Britain meant that the Beagle’s crew would have to be quarantined for 12 days before they could disembark.  Captain FitzRoy was not prepared to do this and so the Beagle moved on.

I recount this story to my University of Northampton students each April when we visit Tenerife for our annual field course.  Referring to it as “Darwin’s Unrequited Isle”, I point out how fortunate they are to live at a time when a short plane flight can take them from the UK to such a fascinating natural laboratory of in situ evolution and biogeographical processes (Figure 1).  We’ve been going to the island since 2003 and we’re certainly not the only European university to do so, I know of at least five others in the UK alone.

To ecologists and those interested in natural history the Canary Islands are a fascinating mixture of the exotic and the banal.  Endemic succulent spurges (Eurphorbia spp.) grow with non-native prickly pear cacti (Opuntia spp.), traditional cafes serving tapas and local wines butt up against sports bars providing a full English breakfast with a pint of Carlsberg for less than five Euros.  The rapid development of tourism on the islands means that there are enormous pressures on land for building apartment complexes, as well as on water resources, energy generation and wastes management.  The islands are a laboratory for sustainable development as much as they are for evolution.

The literature on Canary Island ecology, biogeography and conservation has grown quickly, much of it fuelled by the education opportunities afforded by the islands.  As the authors of Vegetation of the Canary Islands note, the book is both “a synthesis of numerous publications….[and data and experience].…from many years of teaching and research…at the University of La Laguna”.  This fieldwork-focused, dusty boots approach to understanding the Canary Islands flora is apparent throughout the volume which has clearly been a labour of love for the highly knowledgeable authors.

The book is divided into eight chapters, plus appendices. Chapter 1 entitled Geographic Framework gives a summary of the physical geographical and geological context of the islands in relation to the rest of Macaronesia, and explains something of the human history of indigenous peoples (collectively termed the Guanches) and the later European colonisers.  The population of the islands (estimated to be 2.1 million in 2016) swells by an order of magnitude with close to 15 million tourists visiting that same year.  One of the attractions for north Europeans is dealt with in Chapter 2 Canary Climate   Although categorised as subtropical, the weather can be hugely variable, especially on the more mountainous islands; we have experienced blistering heat, torrential rain and snow storms in April in the higher reaches of Tenerife (which at 3,718 m is the second highest island in the world).  Irregular and geographically sporadic rainfall is a particular feature. This leads neatly into Chapter 3 on Bioclimatology that relates this climatic variability to the plant communities of the islands.  A sense of how complex this is can be gauged from Table 3.4 that lists 57 different bioclimatic combinations and their associated vegetation types, many of which overlap.

Chapter 4 on Biogeography considers how the islands have been colonised over a time scale that goes back more than 65 million years, including islands that no longer exist, having eroded and become submerged, but which in the past acted as stepping stones for colonisation of species from the continent and between archipelagos.  This includes some fascinating speculation regarding the role of much earlier island groups to the south west of the Canary Islands that may have allowed exchange of plants between Africa and the Americas, and that could explain some intriguing disjunctions in current distributions.  There is also a very useful summary of endemic genera.

Chapter 5 Other Floristic Considerations initially looks at the non-vascular flora of algae, fungi, lichens and bryophytes, which is rich (5508 species compared to 2091 vascular plants) though the rate of endemism is not so high.  There is then more comparison of diversity and endemism between plant families and islands, followed by a summary of molecular taxonomic findings.  Given how short it is I think that this chapter could easily have been incorporated into the previous one, though that’s a minor criticism.

The bulk of the book (from pages 83 to 308) is taken up by Chapter 6 Vegetation of the Canary Islands which provides a very detailed arrangement of the flora in the classical Braun-Blanquet form using names adapted from the species that are characteristic of that community (“Nerio-Tamaricetea”, “Morello fayae-Pinetum canariensis”, etc.).  To ecologists not trained in this tradition, and more used to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC) scheme familiar to us in Britain, this terminology can seem a little daunting.  Fortunately the introductory section provides a broader classification of the vegetation into categories such as “Euphorbia scrub and shrublands”, “Laurel forest”, etc.  This is a good stepping off point for anyone interested in understanding the vegetation further, before plunging into the subsequent sections that examine these communities in great detail.  The later coloured maps of the potential natural vegetation of the islands, without anthropogenic interference, are especially useful for teaching.

This leads us into Chapter 7 which deals with Changes in the Natural Landscape Through Human Influence.  As the authors point out, people have influenced the vegetation since the earliest period of human settlement on the islands, about 1000 BCE, as these arrivals brought with them livestock such as goats, sheep and pigs, as well as useful plants.  However this process was hugely accelerated from the 15th century onwards as Europeans rapidly conquered the islands and cleared large areas of forest, as well as introducing many more invasive species.  The chapter ends with a very thought provoking section on climate change and its likely effects.

Chapter 8 considers the Conservation Status of the Canarian Flora and Vegetation, providing a history of how protected areas were set up, including the designation of seven UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and two Natural World Heritage Sites. Lists of protected plant species and their various designations are also provided and there’s a short summary of invasive species.

The four appendices give: (1) an over view of the phytosociological scheme for understanding the communities; (2) a short history of botanical exploration of the islands,  which emphasises just how many botanists and ecologists the archipelago has attracted over the years; (3) notes on the ethnobotany of the islands; (4) and a long list of relevant literature, extending over 18 pages.  A weakness of the book is that the literature is not cited within the text, presumably for reasons of readability.  This does make it much more difficult to track specific sources of information back to its origin, however. The text concludes with two indices, one phytosociological and one taxonomic.

The book is well illustrated with both colour and black and white photographs and figures, though the quality of some of these in the e-book version that I was provided with for this review were not as sharp as they could have been.  I hope that the print version is better quality.

Vegetation of the Canary Islands will appeal to anyone interested in the ecology of this most fascinating of archipelagos, though at £119.99 for the hardback it is expensive.  It should certainly be bought by any library of a university that carries out teaching and research on the islands.  The earlier and later chapters will be of most use for students and their teachers; the central sections on phytosociology really require more specialist knowledge, though there’s a lot of fascinating ecology in there for the patient reader.  One thing that did surprise me about the book is that the role of fire in determining the type of vegetation in an area is hardly considered, except as it relates to the negative consequences of large wild fires.  Yet many of these habitats must have burned naturally before people arrived on the islands, as evidenced by the amazing ability of Pinus canariensis to re-sprout after it has burned (Figure 2).

During our field course in Tenerife the students and staff spend a week exploring the different plant communities of the island, as well as bird and bee behaviour, and half a day of sea mammal observation.  I’ve used it as an opportunity to conduct long term data collection that otherwise would never get funded (see Figure 1), and some of this research has already been published.  Two other books that I’ve found useful and which should be on the bookshelves of anyone wishing to learn more about Darwin’s Unrequited Isle are: Natural History of Tenerife by Philip and Myrtle Ashmole (2016) and Tenerife Nature Walks by Sally Lamdin-Whymark (2013).  Both are available on Amazon.

Figure titles:

Figure 1:  University of Northampton students surveying a population of Aeonium urbicum, Santiago del Teide, Tenerife, 2008.  This monocarpic species is the subject of long-term data collection to assess what triggers flowering.

Figure 2:  Post-fire regeneration of Canary Island Pine (Pinus canariensis) on Tenerife 2008-2017.  Most species of pines are killed by fire; P. canariensis is one of the few that can re-sprout following a burn.

Figure 2 - Pine forest burn sequence.jpg

1 Comment

Filed under Biodiversity, Tenerife, University of Northampton

Are these first photographs of a living specimen of a rare African butterfly?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Earlier this year my colleague at the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, David Goyder, tweeted a link to a new book about the biodiversity of Angola which you can download for free by following this link.  David’s an authority on Apocynaceae, the family of plants on which I’ve also worked for many years (see this recent post), and has been sorking in Angola in recent years on a large biodiversity project.  So I was interested to see what was in the chapter  he had co-authored called “The flora of Angola: Collectors, Richness and Endemism“.  I was immediately struck by one of the images in Figure 5.3 showing an unnamed butterfly feeding on the flower of a species of Apocynaceae (Raphionacme michelii).

I made a note to myself to talk to David about adding the record to our Pollinators of Apocynaceae Database. But before I had a chance to do that, another apocynologist colleague, Ulrich Meve in Bayreuth, forwarded the chapter with a similar idea in mind.

We emailed David about the image and he sent us originals, but confessed he didn’t know what the insect was.  So I uploaded it to an African Lepidoptera forum on Facebook.  At which point a wave of excitement broke, because after some discussion as to whether it might be a new species, it turned out that the most likely candidate was an exceptionally rare butterfly called Acraea mansya in the family Nymphalidae.

According to Dominique Bernaud, an authority on the group, this species is hardly known beyond a few collections and he has never seen a photograph of a living specimen: if you follow this link you will see that the known distribution of the species does not include Angola,  and indeed it is not listed in the chapter on butterflies in the Angola biodiversity book.  So this is a new country record and (we think) the first images of living insects: so a double first for a beautiful species.

Here’s links to collection information for the plant and to David’s checklist of plants from the region, which gives details of the vegetation and the habitat.

An unanswered question, of course, is whether the butterfly is a pollinator of this species of plants.  Raphionacme belongs to a subfamily of Apocynaceae that have hardly been studied from the perspective of pollination ecology, so we simply don’t know.  Hopefully someone in the future will visit this remote region of Africa and find out!

Thanks to David for sending the images (a complete set of which is below), the National Geographic Okavango Wilderness Project, and the Wild Bird Trust, Parktown, South Africa.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

5 Comments

Filed under Apocynaceae, Biodiversity, Biogeography, Butterflies, Pollination

Is pollination really an ecosystem service?

Ashy Mining Bee 2017-06-17 10.55.53

Yesterday on Twitter Prof. James Bullock from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology posted a slightly provocative tweet asking: “why pollination is so often called an ecosystem service. To my mind it is an ecosystem process which can, in some circumstances (e.g. crop pollination), support services such as food provision”.

I confess to being a bit surprised to see this; I’d always referred to pollination (at least by animals) as an ecosystem service, and it’s classified in that way in large status-and-trend reports such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and (more recently) the IPBES Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production which describes animal pollination as “a regulating ecosystem service that underpins food production and its contribution to gene flows and restoration of ecosystems”.

The crux of James’s question is illustrated in this diagram from a paper by Prof. Georgina Mace and colleagues in 2012 entitled Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship.  However note that even here, pollination straddles the line between ecosystem processes and services:

Mace ES image

My initial response to James’s tweet was that animal pollination is really a community process as the interaction, and its outcomes, between animal and crop plant is dependent mainly on species diversity and abundance.  Remember, an ecosystem is the sum of the biotic (i.e. community) plus abiotic (e.g. energy, water, mineral nutrients, etc.).  So as far as crop pollination is concerned, the abiotic components of an ecosystem don’t really come into it except in as much as they influence diversity and abundance of all life on Earth.  This is in contrast to more strictly ecosystem processes that link directly to the abiotic factors, such as primary productivity and soil formation, that then support ecosystem services.

It’s further complicated by the fact that many of the plants that perform ecosystem services, such as carbon capture by trees, are themselves dependent upon animal pollination to maintain their populations.  It’s the plants that are providing the ecosystem services but the animals are playing an important role in supporting that.

If you’d like to follow that discussion, which has some interesting contribution from a range of people, here’s the link:

 

But ultimately I feel that these are fairly arbitrary definitions across a continuum of causes and effects: we know what animal pollination of crops and wild plants is and why it’s important, so what we call it doesn’t really matter, does it?  Other things are much more concerning.  At the moment the UK is experiencing unprecedented weather: for the first time ever, earlier today, a temperature of in excess of 20 Centigrade has been recorded in winter.  It currently feels more like late April or early May than February.  I’m already seeing a lot of pollinator activity in the garden and beyond, and each day more plants come into flower, far earlier than expected.

The current and future effects of such changes in the climate are far more important than discussions of the semantics of processes versus services, however interesting that might be.

4 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Climate change, Ecosystem services, IPBES, Pollination

A poem for Valentine’s Day

20180926_121735

I have to confess that I forgot completely about Valentine’s Day, it’s not a celebration that I generally pay much attention to, as expressions of love are something that everyone should be doing all the time, surely?

Anyway, this bastardised version of “Roses are red” is for my wife Karin:

Some bees are red
Others are blue
There’s twenty thousand species
Of every hue

Some flies are yellow
Some wasps are cerise
Many of them pollinate
Better than bees

 

4 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Poetry, Pollination, Wasps

Recent reviews in pollination biology: an annotated list: UPDATED x 3

2019-02-09 13.47.49

As it’s my birthday today, I thought I’d reward myself by completing a blog post that I started just after Christmas and never got round to finishing.  Review articles that summarise recent developments in a field are an important contribution to the scientific literature that allow us to pause and reflect on where a topic has been and where it is headed.  Having recently (co)authored a couple of reviews I can attest that they are useful in this respect for both the writers and for the readers.

In the past couple of years quite a number of critical and timely reviews have been published which are proving very useful to me: I’m currently writing a book and these reviews have been invaluable in summarising aspects of a field that is currently publishing in excess of 1000 research papers per year. So I thought I’d bring them together into a single listing with a short commentary on each.  No doubt I have missed many other reviews so please feel free to point out any gaps and I will update the list as I go along.

Each review is hot linked to the source; a good proportion of the reviews are open access, notably those from the recent special issue of Annals of Botany devoted to the ecology and evolution of plant reproduction.  Some reviews are very focused, but most are quite broad.  Several of these complement one another.  I hope you find them interesting and useful.

Barrett, S. & Harder, L. (2017) The ecology of mating and its evolutionary consequences in seed plants. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 48: 135-157

Mating systems, i.e. who breeds with whom, are just as complex in plants as they are in animals.  However some features of seed plants, such as the fact that they don’t move, that most species have both male and female functions, and that their growth is modular and often indeterminate, represent significant challenges that have been overcome in a bewildering variety of ways.

 

Braun, J. & Lortie, C.J. (2018)  Finding the bees knees: A conceptual framework and systematic review of the mechanisms of pollinator-mediated facilitation.  Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 36: 33-40

In a community, if one plant species positively affects another, we term this “facilitation”.  It can occur at a variety of life stages, including reproduction whereby the presence of one species increase the likelihood of another species being pollinated.  This review shows that it occurs fairly frequently at a variety of spatial scales, but there are still significant gaps in our understanding of the phenomenon.

 

Fuster, F., Kaiser‐Bunbury, C., Olesen, J.M. & Traveset, A. (2018) Global patterns of the double mutualism phenomenon. Ecography https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.04008

When species provide benefits to one another in two different ways, for example an animal is both a pollinator and a seed disperser of a plant species, we refer to it as a “double mutualism”.  As this fascinating review shows, double mutualisms are very uncommon, but they are widespread, and probably under-recorded.

 

Minnaar, C., Anderson, B., de Jager, M.L. & Karron, J.D. (2019) Plant–pollinator interactions along the pathway to paternity. Annals of Botany 123: 225-245 

The male aspect of plant reproduction, i.e. pollen donation, is often neglected when we consider how pollination systems evolve.  This review provides as up to date account of where we are in understanding how paternity influences floral characters such as shape and colour.

 

Ollerton, J. (2017) Pollinator diversity: distribution, ecological function, and conservation. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 48: 353-376

A very broad over view of our current understanding of the biodiversity of pollinators, taking a deep time and a wide spatial perspective to put current concerns about loss of pollinators into a wider perspective.

 

Parachnowitsch, A.L., Manson, J.S. & Sletvold, N. (2019) Evolutionary ecology of nectar. Annals of Botany 123: 247–261 

We often take nectar for granted – it’s just sugar and water, isn’t it?  As this review shows, nectar is dynamic and complex, and affects a range of ecological functions beyond just providing pollinators with a reward.  However there’s still a huge amount we don’t understand about how nectar traits evolve.

 

Toledo-Hernández, M., Wangera, T.C. & Tscharntke, T. (2017) Neglected pollinators: Can enhanced pollination services improve cocoa yields? A review.  Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 247: 137-148

Chocolate is most people’s favourite confectionery and is famously pollinated only by small midges.  Or is it? As this review shows, lots of other insects visit cocoa flowers, but their role as pollinators has not been well studied.

 

Vizentin-Bugoni J, PKM Maruyama, CS Souza, J Ollerton, AR Rech, M Sazima. (2018) Plant-pollinator networks in the tropics: a review. pp 73-91 In Dáttilo W & V. Rico-Gray. Ecological networks in the Tropics. Springer.

This book chapter that I co-authored with some very energetic and creative young Brazilian researchers summarises what’s currently known about plant-pollinator interaction networks in tropical communities.  One of the conclusions is that they are really not so different to those in temperate and subtropical biomes.

 

Wright, G.A., Nicolson, S.W. & Shafir, S. (2018) Nutritional Physiology and Ecology of Honey Bees. Annual Review Entomology 63:327-344

A review of how bees use nectar and pollen at the level of both the individual and the colony, focused on the most widespread of pollinator species.

UPDATE 1:

As expected, several people have told me about reviews I’d missed, and in some cases ones that I had read but forgotten about!  I’ll list them below, though without annotations:

Bennett, J. et al. (2018) A review of European studies on pollination networks and pollen limitation, and a case study designed to fill in a gap, AoB Plants 10:  https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/ply068

Knight, T. et al. (2018) Reflections on, and visions for, the changing field of pollination ecology. Ecology Letters 21: 1282-1295

Vallejo-Marin, M. (2018) Buzz pollination: studying bee vibrations on flowers. New Phytologist https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15666

 

UPDATE: 2

I had deliberately restricted the reviews to 2017 onwards, but via email David Inouye kindly sent a few older ones through which are equally useful:

Brosi, B. J. (2016) Pollinator specialization: from the individual to the community. New Phytologist: 210: 1190–1194

Hahn, M. and C. A. Brühl (2016) The secret pollinators: an overview of moth pollination with a focus on Europe and North America. Arthropod-Plant Interactions: 1-8

Inouye, D. W., et al. (2015) Flies and flowers III: Ecology of foraging and pollination. Journal of Pollination Ecology 16

 

UPDATE 3:

A more recent addition to this set of reviews was sent to me by Anne-Laure Jacquemart.  Although it’s focused just on one (rather variable) crop, I think it will be really useful for anyone interested in the pollination biology of crop plants:

Ouvrard, P. & Jacquemart, A.-L. (2019) Review of methods to investigate pollinator dependency in oilseed rape (Brassica napus).  Field Crops Research 231: 18-29

 

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Brazil, Honey bees, Mutualism, Pollination