Category Archives: Biodiversity

Saved by a bee: a true story, with reflections and photos from PopBio2017


The blog has been a bit quiet of late, due to a lot of traveling on my part, starting with field work in Tenerife, then a weekend away with friends on the Isle of Wight, followed by the topic of this post: PopBio2017 – the 30th Conference of the Plant Population Biology Section of the Ecological Society of Germany, Austria and Switzerland in Halle, Germany.  And I’d like to begin with a story….

The organisers of PopBio2017 had invited me to be one of five keynote speakers at the conference and I was due to deliver a talk on “The macroecology of wind and animal pollination” first thing (09:00) on Thursday morning.  So the night before I duly set my phone’s alarm for 07:00, thinking I’d have enough time to get ready, have breakfast, then take the tram to the venue (a 15 minute ride/walk).

It was a very hot night and I left the windows open, but my mind was restless with thoughts of how to deliver the talk most effectively.  So I kept waking up during the night, and actually slept through the alarm.  The next thing I know it is 07:45 and I am being woken up by an urgent buzzing noise….from a bee!

I swear this is true: a bee had flown in through the window, buzzed for a few seconds right in front of my face, and woke me up in time to deliver my talk on pollinators!  It then turned around and flew straight back out of the window.

It actually wasn’t until I’d jumped out of bed and into the shower that I’d woken up sufficiently to appreciate what had happened…and wondered if anyone would actually believe me!  Anyway, I got to the venue with 15 minutes to spare, the talk seemed to go well, and it’s a story I think I’ll enjoy telling for some time to come.

The conference was really fabulous, with some very impressive science on show.  It was a good mix of postdocs, PhD students, and established researchers talking on a diverse range of plant ecology topics, not just “plant population biology” (whatever that really is – there was some discussion on that score).   The organisers had arranged the programme so that the keynotes in each session were followed by shorter talks broadly related to that topic, so I was followed by a series of presentations on pollination biology.  And very good they were too.

Here’s some photos from the week:

A slightly blurry audience waiting for my talk to begin (not as blurry as me after the dash to the venue however…):


I was fascinated by the coypu that are common in the River Salle which flows through the city of Halle.  They are classed as an invasive species, but are very, very cute:


Indeed so cute I couldn’t resist taking a selfie…


Some interesting urban greenery including swales for flood defence:







Wall plants surviving the graffiti:


Halle’s most famous resident, Handel:


There’s a Harry Potter feel to some parts of the town:


The fabulous double-double-spired cathedral:


There had to be a spiral or two, of course:


On the Saturday after the talks had finished we took an excursion to the fascinating “Porphyry Hills” dry grasslands – unique western extensions of plant communities and species normally found in the east, including many plants of the steppe:


These rocky outcrops have become exposed as agricultural ploughing caused the surrounding soil level to drop:


Some of the grassland areas have very thin soils with resultant high plant diversity:



Lots in flower, though not as many pollinators as I would have liked:




On the last evening a couple of us had a private tour of the university’s botanic garden, and well worth a visit it is too:

It was a thirsty conference – “To beer or not to beer….”?


Finally thanks to the organisers of PopBio2017 for the invitation to speak, and to all of the conference attendees who made it such a special meeting.


Filed under Biodiversity, Pollination, Bees, Urban biodiversity, Gardens, Macroecology, spirals

Public evening lecture on butterfly conservation – Tuesday 16th May – free and open to all

Gatekeeper cropped P1010472

The University of Northampton has recently approved the appointment of Tom Brereton as Visiting Professor in Conservation Science.  Tom is well known for his work with Butterfly Conservation, the organisation that monitors British butterfly and moth populations, and promotes their study and conservation.  However he also works with other organisations including the charity MarineLife.

The first task of any Visiting Professor is to present a public lecture on their work, which Tom is doing next Tuesday 16th May; it is entitled:

“Butterflies and other animals: 40 years of adventure in ecology and conservation”

The lecture begins at 6pm in The Grand Hall, Newton Building, St George’s Avenue, Northampton, NN2 6JD

Coffee & biscuits will be served on arrival at 5.30pm

Following the lecture there will be an opportunity for networking and discussion over drinks & nibbles.  The lecture is free and open to all; for catering purposes please advise Val Howe if you wish to attend:

Telephone: 01604 893005

(Though if you decide to come at the last minute that’s also fine!)

Leave a comment

Filed under Biodiversity, Butterflies, University of Northampton

Spiral Sunday #32 – from the Guimar Badlands of Darwin’s Unrequited Isle

Guimar spiral.png

Our annual undergraduate Tenerife Field Course ends today and later I will say goodbye to the students and my University of Northampton colleagues Janet Jackson and Paul Cox: I’m staying on for another 10 days with Karin to do some additional field work.  The apartment complex where we were located had very poor wifi so I’ve not been able to post much, but we’ve moved now and I’ll try to do more in the coming week.

For Spiral Sunday this week here’s a shot of the logo for one of the protected areas that we always visit, and one of my favourite places on Tenerife: the stunning Malpais de Guimar (Guimar Badlands).

As you can see from the image below, the Guimar Badlands is a fascinating area of xerophytic scrub containing plants that are adapted to very low water levels.  It’s always the first site that we visit with the students, providing a great contrast to any habitats that they might have encountered in Britain.  A perfect introduction to Darwin’s Unrequited Isle.

Guimar 2014.png


Filed under Biodiversity, Charles Darwin, spirals, Tenerife, University of Northampton

A fossilised flower in amber – with its pollinator!

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 17.13.41

There have been only a handful of occasions in my professional life when I’ve been sent a manuscript to review that has caused my jaw to hit the floor with amazement.  The last time it occurred was July 2016 when I received a request to review a study that claimed to have found a fossil flower in amber, with an associated pollinator.  Not only that, but the flower appeared to belong to a species of asclepiad (Apocynaceae subfamily Asclepiadoideae) – the plant group on which I have focused a good deal of my attention over the years.  Even better, the study was by George Poinar, the originator of the idea to extract DNA from amber-encased fossils, thus inspiring Jurassic Park.  George is also the author of two books (Life in Amber and Quest for Life in Amber) that made a big impression on me when I was a PhD student and young post-doc*.

An asclepiad in amber?  From George Poinar?  How could I possibly refuse?!

One of the almost unique features of the asclepiads is that they disperse their pollen as discrete packages – pollinia – that attach en masse to their pollinators.  Only the unrelated orchids do anything similar, which means that identifying the pollinators of asclepiads is much more straightforward than for most plants, making them an ideal model group for studying plant-pollinator interactions.  I’ve had a deep interest in the asclepiads, and particularly their pollination ecology, for over 30 years. Over that time I’ve occasionally daydreamed that perhaps a fossil asclepiad flower in amber might be discovered in my lifetime, or an insect with a pollinarium attached, but I was amazed to see that this study had discovered both in the same piece of amber.  In the image at the top of this post, L and C point to some significant features of the flower, whilst T marks the pollinator.  And T stands for….

….a termite!  Termites are rare overall as pollinators and unknown in that role in relation to the asclepiads; P in this image points to the pollinia attached to the front of the head of the termite:

Poinar_FossilMilkweed_separate pollinia on head

You can get a better sense of the relationship between the flower and the pollinator from the photograph at the end of the this post.

After reading and re-reading and re-re-reading the manuscript I came to the conclusion that assigning the flower to a living group of asclepiads was problematical.  So (with the Editor’s permission) I solicited the views of a few colleagues with more experience than I of some of the less well-known groups of asclepiads, and related Apocynaceae s.s., the morphology of which may shed light on this intriguing fossil.  Without going into the technical details (which I’m happy to discuss with anyone who is interested) we concluded that the flower may well represent a transitional taxon as it has features of a number of different extant asclepiad lineages.  This amber, from the Dominican Republic, is estimated to be between 15 and 45 million years old, so it’s perhaps not unexpected that the set of floral features in this flower appear rather odd from a modern perspective: plants, and their flowers, evolve, just like all other organisms.

George has assigned the flower to a new genus and called it Discoflorus neotropicus  – the “different flower from the Neotropics”.  Millions of years ago this flower bloomed in the tropical forest that covered that part of the world, and attracted a worker termite to feed on its sweet nectar, pollinating the flower in the process.  Before that could take place both flower and pollinator found themselves entombed in the sticky sap being exuded by a leguminous tree called Hymenaea protera.  Many asclepiads are climbers so it’s quite possible that Discoflorus neotropicus was climbing through the branches of that tree when it got stuck.  A fateful day for flower and insect that has come down to the present day as an all-too-rare insight into ancient plant-pollinator interactions: the first fossil asclepiad flower and the first fossil asclepiad pollinator.

The study is published as follows, with a link to the journal:

Poinar Jr, G.O. (2017) Ancient termite pollinator of milkweed flowers in Dominican amber.  American Entomologist 63: 52-56

My sincere thanks to George for allowing me to highlight his research, and use his images, on my blog.  All images are (c) George O. Poinar Jr.


*I have a life-long interest in palaeontology that goes back to my youth, collecting fossils on the shale heaps produced from coal mining in the north of England (heaps, incidentally, that my father, grandfather, and paternal uncles had helped to create – all were coal miners in the area).  I very nearly became a professional palaeontologist but the lure of living ecosystems overcame my interest in those that are dead, though my fascination with fossils continues, particularly those in amber and (as I’ve related previously) human ancestors.

Screen Shot 2017-04-13 at 17.25.48


Filed under Biodiversity, Evolution

Generalist pollination can evolve from more specialised interactions: a new study just published

2013-11-24 15.44.01

There’s a long-standing idea in biology that ecological specialisation is an evolutionary “dead end” from which species can never emerge.  In other words, if a species becomes so adapted to a particular ecological strategy (could be feeding or habitat requirements or how it interacts with other species ) then no amount of natural selection will result in its descendants evolving different strategies, thereby diversifying into new species.  In particular it’s traditionally thought that evolving broader, “generalist” strategies from narrower, “specialised” ones is highly unlikely.

This has been much discussed in the literature on the ecology and evolution of pollination systems, where traditionally this “dead end” scenario has been accepted.  However a small number of case studies have shown that generalised pollination systems can evolve within much more specialised clades, beginning with Scott Armbruster and Bruce Baldwin’s study of Madagascan Dalechampia (Euphorbiaceae), published in Nature in 1998.

To this limited body of examples we can now add another case study: in the genus Miconia (Melastomataceae), generalist nectar/pollen rewarding strategies can evolve within a clade of plants that predominantly uses a more specialised, buzz-pollinated strategy involving just bees.

The work is part of the PhD research of Vinicius de Brito who is one of the researchers I was privileged to do some field work with in Brazil when I was there in 2013 – see my post: “It’s called rainforest for a reason, right?  Brazil Diary 6“.  Vini is the guy on the left of the photo accompanying this post.  Here’s the citation and a link:

de Brito, V.L.G., Rech, A.R., Ollerton, J., Sazima, M. (2017) Nectar production, reproductive success and the evolution of generalised pollination within a specialised pollen-rewarding plant family: a case study using Miconia theizans. Plant Systematics and Evolution doi:10.1007/s00606-017-1405-z 

Here’s the abstract:

Generalist plant–pollinator interactions are prevalent in nature. Here, we untangle the role of nectar production in the visitation and pollen release/deposition in Miconia theizans, a nectar-rewarding plant within the specialised pollen-rewarding plant family Melastomataceae. We described the visitation rate, nectar dynamics and pollen release from the poricidal anthers and deposition onto stigmas during flower anthesis. Afterwards, we used a linear mixed model selection approach to understand the relationship between pollen and nectar availability and insect visitation rate and the relationship between visitation rate and reproductive success. Miconia theizans was visited by 86 insect species, including buzzing and non-buzzing bees, wasps, flies, hoverflies, ants, beetles, hemipterans, cockroaches and butterflies. The nectar produced explained the visitation rate, and the pollen release from the anthers was best explained by the visitation rate of pollinivorous species. However, the visitation rates could not predict pollen deposition onto stigmas. Nectar production may explain the high insect diversity and led to an increase in reproductive success, even with unpredictable pollen deposition, indicating the adaptive value of a generalised pollination system.

As always, I’m happy to send a PDF to anyone who wants a copy, just drop me an email.


Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Brazil, Butterflies, Evolution, Hoverflies, Mutualism, Pollination, Wasps

British cuckoo bees – an aide-mémoire

Screen Shot 2017-04-07 at 09.47.39

The British bee season is well underway with lots of reports on social media of queen bumblebees (and even workers in the south), and male and female solitary bees (especially early emerging mining bees – Andrena).  In my own garden I’ve already spotted a couple of bumblebee species, plus the Hairy-footed Flower Bee (Anthophora plumipes) and the Grey-patched Mining-bee (Andrena nitida), amongst others.  Running alongside the emergence of these nest-building bees is a whole suite of “cuckoo” or “cleptoparasitic” bees that, as the name suggests, lay their eggs in the nests of other bees, consuming the pollen that has been collected and, usually, the eggs and larvae of the host bee.

The specificity of the interactions between the cuckoos and their hosts varies a lot.  Some are very host specific, such as the bumblebee sub-genus Psythirus that only parasitises other Bombus species.  Others are much broader in their host use, such as the genus Nomada that parasitises five other British bee genera.

Personally I struggle to recall which cuckoo bees interact with which host bees, especially for those with a broader use of hosts, so I thought I would construct an aide-mémoire in the form of an interaction graph using the R package “bipartite”.  I took the information on which cuckoo bees parasitise which hosts from Steven Falk’s recent (and very good) book Field Guide to the Bees of Great Britain and Ireland.  If anyone spots any errors, please let me know!

The bipartite graph is structured such that the hosts (to the left, in black) are ranked from most to least parasitised (in terms of number of cuckoo genera that interact with them).  The cuckoo bees (in grey on the right) go in the reverse order, from most specialised to least specialised.  Note that this set of interactions only applies to Great Britain and Ireland; breadth of host-parasite interactions is wider on the Continent and elsewhere in the world.

Here’s a link to a better quality PDF of the plot that you’re free to use for your own use: Cleptoplot

Here’s the data matrix (Clepto) and here’s the R script if you want to play with it:

> library(bipartite)

#Turns the CSV data file into a data frame and assigns the first column to be the row names

> Clepto2<-data.frame(Clepto, row.names=1)

#Basic plot of the web

> plotweb(Clepto2)

#To turn the plot 90 degrees and centre the image, change spacing and text size, colours, etc.

> plotweb(Clepto2, method=”normal”, text.rot = 90, labsize =1.5, ybig = 0.7, low.y = 0.7, high.y = 0.98, plot.axes = FALSE, y.width.low = 0.05, y.width.high = 0.05, col.high = “lightgrey”, bor.col.interaction=”black”, bor.col.high=”black”, low.spacing=0.03, high.spacing=0.08)

#Note: save the figure as a PDF, much better quality than PNG

#With thanks to Kat Harrold who provided some of the script


Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Gardens

Celebrating Conrad Gesner Day 2017 (and Spiral Sunday #27)!

Gessner house Zurich March 2008 018

Happy Conrad Gesner Day!  Who is he, you may ask?  And why does he have a day?  Conrad Gesner (sometimes spelled Konrad Gessner) was a Swiss naturalist and polymath, born on this day (26th March) in 1516; he lived much of his life in Zurich, where he died on 13 December 1565.  Gesner was an extremely important figure in Renaissance science and scholarship, and when I visited Zurich in 2008 to give a seminar at the university, a tour of the old town revealed a number of references to the great man, including the memorial stone above.

Gesner’s Historia animalium (“History of Animals”)  is considered one of the founding texts of modern zoology, and for that reason he is memorialised in the name Gesneria Hübner, 1825; this is a genus of moths in the family Crambidae.

However Gesner was also a botanist and wrote a couple of books on the subject, though his Historia plantarum was not published until two centuries after his death.  To celebrate Gesner’s botanical achievements Linnaeus erected the genus Gesneria L. for a group of flowering plants.  Sounds odd to have the same name for two very different types of organism, but this cross-kingdom duplication of genera is allowable under the various codes of taxonomic nomenclature.

Gesneria in turn is the type genus for the family Gesneriaceae.  It’s quite a big family (about 3,450 species in 152 genera) and is ecologically important in the tropics and subtropics, where species may be pollinated by insects and birds, and are often epiphytic on trees.  It’s not a particularly economically important family, though a number of genera are widely grown as ornamentals, and there are specialist gesneriad growers and collectors.  The more familiar plants include those mainstays of Mothering Sunday (which by coincidence is also today) African Violets (Saintpaulia), Cape Primroses (Streptocarpus) and gloxinias (Gloxinia):

Gloxinias 20170325_105735

As I was looking through my photographs from the trip to Zurich in 2008 I spotted the following image of some wrought ironwork from the old city which may well be contemporary with Gesner.  This seems a fitting way to celebrate both the great man and this week’s Spiral Sunday:

Spirals in Zurich March 2008 119.png Happy Birthday Dr Gesner!


Filed under Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Gardens, History of science, spirals

Dispelling the myth that orchid species usually only have a single pollinator

Orchids at Kew 2014-02-24 15.30.32

The idea that members of the plant family Orchidaceae (the orchids) “typically have exclusive relationships with their pollinators“, such that each orchid has only one pollinator, is a persistent one.  Recently I’ve encountered it on horticultural websites (follow that last link), in grant proposals, and on Wikipedia.

The problem is that it’s not true: it’s a myth that is perpetuated by people (often botanists or horticulturalists) who may know a lot about orchids but don’t know as much as they think they know about pollination ecology.

Orchids certainly have some fascinating and often quite intricate floral mechanisms to ensure pollination, but these have not necessarily evolved to attract and exploit just one species of pollinator.  Even in the case of sexually deceptive orchids that fool their (male) pollinating insects into believing that they are mating with a female of the same species, it is sometimes the case that more than one insect species is involved.  For example, in the well studied genus Ophrysflowers are pollinated by a narrow taxonomic range of pollinators, from a single species to up to five closely related species“.  As the authors of that last paper state, this is not the same as the mythological “extreme case of one orchid/one pollinator”.

Likewise different species of orchid bees may pollinate the same orchid flowers as they visit to collect scent compounds; for example in the Brazilian species Dichaea pendula, species from at least two different bee genera act as pollinators (Nunes et al. 2016).

The fact that “one orchid/one pollinator” is a myth is not new knowledge, it’s been widely discussed in the pollination ecology literature for decades.  For example, in our 1996 paper “Generalization in Pollination Systems, and Why it Matters” we showed data from the late 19th/early 20th centuries that clearly indicated a range of specialization in European orchids (follow that link and look at  Figure 3B).  Even earlier than this, in his 1992 paper “Trends in the pollination ecology of the Orchidaceae: evolution and systematics” Raymond Tremblay showed that only about 62% of species for which he could find data had a single pollinator, and that this varied considerably between different subfamilies of Orchidaceae, with some subfamilies being more specialized than others.

More recently, in a chapter in the 2006 book I co-edited with Nick Waser entitled “Geographical Variation in Diversity and Specificity of Pollination Systems” Steve Johnson, Andrew Hingston and myself looked at data from southern African compared to North American and European orchids; here’s the figure from that assessment:


Ollerton et al Figure 7 - JPEG

Orchids  are more specialized in southern Africa compared to Europe and North America (as are a number of other plant groups including the asclepiads, which we’re comparing them with here).  But even in southern Africa, only about 65% of the orchids studied have a single pollinator species.  It’s worth pointing out, though, that many of the species included in this analysis, and in Raymond Tremblay’s paper, have been studied only at single sites and often in single years, meaning that we have no idea if there is any spatio-temporal variation in the pollinators a particular orchid species exploits.

Why does this myth persist?  I think it’s for the same reason that myths are retold from generation to generation: they are great stories that fascinate the teller and the audience.  Indeed, orchids are very special plants with some amazing floral and vegetative adaptations, fascinating relationships with fungi, and incredible diversity.  But we don’t have to mythologise their relationships with their pollinators to try to make orchids more special than they already are.


Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, History of science, Pollination

Spiral Sunday #26 – a bumper crop from Birmingham Botanical Garden

Today Karin and I took a drive up to Birmingham to visit my daughter Ellen, who is studying applied performance and community theatre at Birmingham School of Acting.  After picking her up we went for lunch at Birmingham Botanical Gardens.  Now, I’m a bit of a botanic gardens collector; I love visiting them, and keep a life list of those I’ve visited and a wish list of those I’d like to visit.  So I was sure I had been to the Botanical Gardens as a PhD student during a British Ecological Society conference at the University of Birmingham.  But when we arrived there I had no recollection of the glasshouses or the layout, it was not familiar at all.  Odd how the memory plays tricks, one way or another.

I can recommend a visit, though – the Gardens looked stunning even this early in the season; lots of plants in flower and even a buzzard circling low overhead.  It being Spiral Sunday, of course, I was seeing spirals everywhere; in the unfurling fronds of a tree fern (Blechnum gibbum):

Blechnum gibbum 20170319_154939.png

On a cast iron garden seat:

Seat spiral 20170319_154601

In the flowers of a variety of camellia:

Camelia 20170319_150934.png

In the leaves and flower cones of Banksia grandis:

Banksia grandis.png

And in the design of a sun hat in the Gardens shop:

Sunhat 20170319_162432.png




Filed under Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Gardens, spirals

The Danish for garden is “haven”: five reasons why I love Gardeners’ World


The latest series of the BBC’s flagship horticulture programme Gardeners’ World started on Friday, heralding its 50th year of broadcast – quite an achievement.  I’ve long been a fan, and a few years ago jumped at the chance to take part in one Science in the Garden special episode with Carol Klein (which I’ve posted about previously).  Since Friday I’ve given some thought as to what I get from the programme and have come up with a list of the main reasons why I love watching it:

1.  At its heart, Gardeners’ World is about the main subject of this blog and of my career: biodiversity.  Specifically the programme is centred on the biological richness of wild plants and the diversity of the horticultural varieties that we have created from them, for food and for ornament.  Spinning off from this is the acknowledgement that, although much of it is not native to Britain, this plant biodiversity (and the way in which we manage it in our gardens) can have important positive benefits for the wildlife of our country, including birds, amphibians and reptiles, and insects such as bees and butterflies.  This is particularly the case in urban settings and I’ve noticed a welcome trend in recent years for Gardeners’ World to include more features about city horticulture.

2.  Gardeners’ World has long championed a more environmentally friendly approach to horticulture, bringing in ideas about using peat-free compost, minimal use of biocides, recycling and upcycling, composting, and growing your own food, long before any of this became fashionable.  Indeed there’s a strong argument to be made that earlier presenters such as the late Geoff Hamilton were responsible for such fashions gaining mainstream exposure, influencing the habits of millions of people in Britain.  That kind of influence should not be under-estimated.

3. Gardeners’ World reminds me of my dad, who died in 1996.  I can recall him watching it back in the 1970s when Percy Thrower was the presenter and my dad had an allotment a short walk from our small terraced cottage house, with its tiny concrete backyard.  Some of my earliest memories of plants and nature relate to that allotment: a huge rambling rose along the fence; a greenhouse made from old window panes, filled with the rich scent of tomatoes; a toad that dad put in that greenhouse to eat the slugs; rainwater tanks hosting little communities of wriggling insect larvae.  After the allotment plots were cleared by the local council and sold for development my dad erected a greenhouse in the backyard, and grew shrubs and bedding in large pots.  In the early 1980s this was joined by a second small greenhouse for my cactus and succulent collection, many of which I still have.  Some of the best stories in Gardeners’ World are as much about people and their relationships with one another and with their gardens, as they are about plants and gardening per se (see also number 5, below).

4.  Despite having watched the programme for many years I still get new things from it.  Each season I gain inspiration for new plants and new ways of working with the garden that Karin and I are developing here in Northampton, which I’ve talked about quite a few time; see for example:  Renovating a front garden…, my post about Scientists and gardens, and the series I did on pollinators in the garden for Pollinator Awareness Week.  Gardeners never stop learning.

5. Being from the north of England I’m intrigued by the linguistic links between that part of our country and Scandinavia, particularly shared words such as “bairn”, and place-name elements such as “holm”.  Karin is Danish and these connections of language are something we often discuss.  Recently she pointed out that the Danish word for garden is “haven”.  Although it’s not pronounced in the English manner that word is probably the best single way of describing how I feel about our garden; it’s a haven from from the outside world, a place of rest and security, contemplation and physical activity, emotionally supporting us, and providing resources and space for the wildlife that uses it.  Although we don’t do much work in the garden during the winter, each year the start of a new season of Gardeners’ World reminds me of the pleasures to come in our own haven.

Of course there are sometimes things that irritate me about the programme: it can be a bit too cosily middle class at times, occasionally the advice offered can be simplistic or inaccurate, and some of the “scientific” trials of plant varieties lack rigour and replication.  Nonetheless, it’s a programme I have grown up with and one that I love to watch.  Happy Anniversary Gardeners’ World, here’s to 50 more years!


Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Gardens, Personal biodiversity, Urban biodiversity