Category Archives: Ecosystem services

Landscapes for pollinators: please take the survey!

BB on margin

One of the research projects and collaborations that I’m involved with is a BBSRC-funded project entitled “Modelling landscapes for resilient pollination services in the UK” with colleagues from the University of Reading, the University of Huddersfield, and the Natural Capital Solutions consultancy.  As part of that project we are surveying opinions on what people in the UK value as landscapes and how these landscapes contribute to supporting biodiversity.

If you are based in the UK and are interested in taking part in this short survey, please read the following text and click on the link to take the survey: 

Bees and other insect pollinators are major contributors to UK agriculture. Despite their importance for crop production, pollinator populations are threatened by many modern land management and agricultural practices. This raises questions about how secure this service may be to future changes: will we have enough pollinators where we need them? Will populations be able to withstand changes to the way we manage land? What might be the costs to us, both financially and socially, if we get it wrong?

Our research aims to address this knowledge gap. Our team of ecologist, economists and social scientists are working together to model the ecological, economic and ‘human’ costs of different land management methods.

As part of this we have designed a short online survey to capture the ways that people value and use the countryside, what features they prefer and why.

The survey takes less than 10 minutes and asks you to rate a series of images and say what you think about the landscapes that are illustrated.  It can be found here:

http://hud.ac/landscapes

For more information about the project visit:

http://www.reading.ac.uk/caer/RP/RP_index.html

2 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Butterflies, Ecosystem services, Hoverflies, Pollination

A land of fire and water: Australia reflections part 3

Fire and water; those opposing elements have been our constant companions during this trip to Australia.  All the major international news media have been reporting on how serious the bush fire situation is in the south east of the continent.  In East Gippsland, Victoria, tens of thousands of residents and holiday makers have been advised to leave the area.  Four thousand of those who haven’t left were forced to spend last night on the beach, as fires got closer to the town of Mallacoota.  These are just the latest examples of climate change refugees in their own country, something I highlighted in a post about our visit to the USA earlier this year.  Of course, Australia is a continent that is used to bush fires, they are nothing new.  But what is new is the scale of these fires and the extended drought and high temperatures that are making the landscape more flammable than ever.

There’s currently a lot of media discussion in Australia about how landscapes were managed historically by Aboriginal peoples, whose selective and regular burning of the bush reduced fuel loads.  Karin and I have just returned from Port Macquarie where we enjoyed Christmas with an Australian branch of our family.  Several of them have spent a considerable amount of time working with remote Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory.  We were told a story about an Aboriginal elder who asked one of our relatives to drive him out to an area of bush that had not been burned for over a decade.  It was that elder’s role to burn this land at regular intervals, a family tradition that went back generations.  Having driven for several hours along dirt roads, the elder asked to stop; he hopped out of the vehicle, went up to a patch of dry grass, and casually set fire to it with a small lighter he was carrying.  After pausing a few seconds to make sure that the flame had caught he hopped back into the car and said “Let’s get out of here”.  An hour back down the road the companions stopped and looked back.  The whole landscape was aflame, with a column of black smoke rising, I was told, in a mushroom cloud “like a nuclear explosion”.

This sounds extreme, but these areas are isolated and a long way from any human settlements or infrastructure.  Such activities have been part of toolbox of ways in which Aboriginal peoples have managed these landscapes for thousands of years.  By burning areas on a regular cycle the negative effects of large, out-of-control fires are reduced, and opportunities for seedling establishment and fresh foliage for animals to browse are created.  There’s more information about these practices here and here.

In the more heavily populated parts of Australia, and in the adjacent national parks, fires have long been suppressed, such that when they do occur they are much more violent conflagrations, over a greater area, than would normally be the case.

On one of our trips near Port Macquarie we came across an area of woodland that had burned recently, separated by a small road from an adjacent block that had not burned.  In the following set of images I’ve alternated the two blocks so you can see what the woodland looked like before and after burning.  But remember that this was not an especially intense fire; the trees are still living, and there is foliage in their crowns.  Once there’s been some rain and a chance for the vegetation to regrow, the previously burned block will look identical to the currently unburned area.  Indeed in one shot you can already see some green shoots emerging from the ground:

2019-12-27 15.08.13

2019-12-27 15.07.11

2019-12-27 15.08.08

2019-12-27 15.07.20

2019-12-27 15.08.52

2019-12-27 15.09.25

2019-12-27 15.08.16

2019-12-27 15.09.57

So fire in itself is not a problem for these natural communities.  What is a problem, for nature and for the communities of people who live in and around these woodlands, is the intensity, the scale and the frequency of the fires that are currently occurring.  This morning Karin and I watched silently to a news report of yet another volunteer fire fighter who had lost his life overnight.  In this case he had been part of a crew whose 10 tonne fire truck had been lifted up and overturned by cyclone-strength winds created by the blaze itself – there’s a BBC news account of the tragedy here.  “Unprecedented” is a word we’re hearing a lot on ABC News.

Evidence for the number and size of the fires was everywhere in and around Port Macquarie, as we observed when we took a drive up to the peak of North Brother Mountain in Doorgan National Park.  From a height of about 470 m (1500 ft) we could see some amazing panoramic views of the region that also showed black fire scars on the landscape – this is looking south:

2019-12-27 13.13.49

2019-12-27 13.13.56

2019-12-27 13.14.05

Looking north there’s little evidence of the fires – some have occurred there but much smaller in scale.  But there is a lot of that second element, water.  We were able to explore some shallow coastal lagoons fringed with grey mangroves (Avicennia marina):

2019-12-27 12.07.50

2019-12-27 12.11.47

2019-12-27 12.14.51

Mangrove habitats are fascinating places that are ecologically important as nurseries for marine fish and invertebrates.  They also provide physical protection to coastlines, acting as a buffer to storm surges that would erode the land.  In recognition of this, a recent project around Port Macquarie has involved restoration of these mangrove areas and was instigated by commercial oyster farmers and a local fishing  society.  I’m particularly intrigued by the upward-pointing aerial roots of mangroves; termed pneumatophores, they function to provide oxygen to the trees, but also increase the physical complexity of the floor of the lagoon, providing habitats for small animals:

2019-12-27 12.16.24

2019-12-27 12.14.37

2019-12-27 12.13.28

But evidence of the drought in this part of the world is never far away.  On our seven-hour train trip back to Sydney we passed mile after mile of parched farmland, with dried-up waterholes and dust-filled streams.  The only thing stopping it from burning is the absence of vegetation:

2019-12-28 10.50.38

2019-12-28 10.34.32

As I complete this blog post, it’s 31st December and we’re back in Coogee Bay, ensconced in the apartment of my colleagues Angela and Stephen.  They have headed to Stephen’s native Canada to visit family.  It’s going to be cold!  We’re very happy to house sit and see in the New Year in warmer climes.  Best wishes for 2020 to all of my readers: let’s hope that it’s the start of an environmentally more enlightened decade.

13 Comments

Filed under Australia, Biodiversity, Climate change, Ecosystem services

Biodiversity and climate change: a hierarchy of options

Conservation hierarchy image

The related issues of how to conserve biodiversity and reduce the impacts of climate change have never had such a high public profile as they do at the moment.  The activities of Extinction Rebellion caught the attention of the media around the world, for example here in London.  Numerous organisations, cities, regions and countries have declared a Climate Emergency.  And IPBES – the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Serviceshas released a summary of its first global assessment with the full report due later this year, and explicitly makes the link between conservation of biodiversity and reducing the effects of climate change.

Timed to coincide with all of this, the University of Cambridge has announced that it is setting up a Centre for Climate Repair in order to explore hi-tech “fixes” to climate change, such as spraying sea water into the atmosphere in order to reduce warming at the poles, and sucking CO2 out of the air using large machines.  I think it’s fair to say that this was met with some scepticism on social media; here’s some examples:

Other people have pointed out that nature-based solutions are the most likely to be successful, and provide a boost for biodiversity at the same time:

All of this reminds me of the Waste Hierarchy in its various iterations – you know the sort of thing – “Reduce > Reuse > Recycle”, where reduction in waste produced is best, followed by reuse of waste resources, with recycling being the least good option (but still better than just land-filling the waste).  As far as the link between conservation of biodiversity and reduction of the effects of climate change goes, there’s a parallel hierarchy – see the image at the top of this post – that sets out the order of priorities:

PROTECTION of ecosystems using the full force of national and international laws and conventions has got to be the top priority.  Otherwise any of the other activities will result in, at best, humanity running to catch up with what the world is losing.  Let’s stop cutting down ancient forests and degrading peatlands that have accumulated millions of tons of carbon over thousands of years!

FIX – by which I mean the kind of hi-tech solutions proposed above – should be the lowest priority: they do little or nothing directly for biodiversity and there is no compelling evidence that they will even work as intended.

Between these two are RESTORATION of currently degraded habitats (such as re-wetting peatlands as in the Great Fen Project) and PLANTING of trees, which can be a form of habitat restoration under some circumstances.  Large scale examples of this include

Grain for Green – China’s attempt to restore vegetation to abandoned farmland to reduce soil erosion and flooding.

Great Green Wall – a multinational initiative in Africa aimed at restoring the vegetation on the southern edge of the Sahara to combat desertification and mitigate climate change.

While doing a bit of research for this blog post* I became aware that a Conservation Hierarchy has already been developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity but that really only deals with habitat destruction, mitigation of destructive activities, etc.  What I’m suggesting is related more to the direct link between conservation of biodiversity and mitigation of climate change.  So what to call this particular hierarchy?  Perhaps the BioCC Hierarchy?  Can anyone suggest a better name?  Maybe it doesn’t need a name at all, it just needs people to be aware of it and for governments to act logically.

 

*I googled the term “Conservation Hierarchy” – you get the quality of research you pay for on this blog….

 

2 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Climate change, Ecosystem services, IPBES

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

Climate change at Christmas: did the hot, dry summer of 2018 cause the record-breaking prices of holly and mistletoe?

Over the past two festive seasons I have posted about the research we published assessing the auction prices of holly and mistletoe, two culturally important seasonal crops that are 100% pollinator dependent for berry production.  The first post was called Insect pollinators boost the market price of holly and mistletoe: a new study just published; the second was The holly, the mistletoe, and the pollinators: an update on an old story.

Follow those two links to get the full background to this research and a link to the original paper published in the Journal of Pollination Ecology.

I’ve collated the auction prices for the 2018 season and added them to the time series data set, and it’s clear that something very interesting has occurred.  Both berried holly and mistletoe have achieved record-breaking average prices, whilst auction prices for material without berries have hardly changed at all.  Here are the updated graphs; each data point is the average price per kilo paid at an auction:

Holly and mistletoe prices 2018

So what’s gone on this year?  What could have affected the auction prices?  One interesting possibility is that the long, dry summer of 2018, a likely consequence of climate change, has negatively affected berry production in these two species.  This could come about if the holly or the mistletoe host trees are water stressed and shed part of their berry crops.  It’s unlikely to be a consequence of too few pollinators as these species flower too early in the year to have been affected by the dry weather.   We have more work planned in the future using these data and this will be an interesting question to address.

Yesterday I popped out to do some Christmas shopping and tried to buy mistletoe at a local garden centre.  That’s the second time I’ve tried this year (the first was at a nearby green grocer’s) and the second time that I’ve been told that they have none because it’s very expensive this year and not worth stocking.  That seems predictable from the wholesale auction results I’ve just described.  Has anyone else in the UK had similar experiences this year?

The British holly and mistletoe market is relatively small and clearly seasonal, and probably not worth more than a few millions of pounds each year.  However it seems to be very sensitive to external factors and may be a microcosm for how some crops, at least, might respond to future extreme weather brought about by climate change.  Brexit might also have an effect in the coming years as we import a large amount of mistletoe from northern France.  But then Brexit is going to have an effect on large areas of British society…..

On that sour note, Happy Christmas to all of my readers, however you voted in the referendum.  I hope you have a restful holiday, spending it as you wish, with the people you want to!  And if you, or someone you know, are spending the festive season on your own this year, take a look at Karin’s latest blog post:  Preparing a Christmas Just For You.

14 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Climate change, Ecosystem services, Journal of Pollination Ecology, Pollination

Is there really a “battle for the soul of biodiversity” going on at IPBES? UPDATED x 3

Carved demon

No.  But perhaps I should give some context to both question and answer…

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) describes itself as “the intergovernmental body which assesses the state of biodiversity and of the ecosystem services it provides to society, in response to requests from decision makers”.   Sounds a little dry, I agree, but in fact IPBES is the most exciting and innovative international environmental body to have emerged in recent years.  Exciting because its remit is specifically to assess how society is affecting global biodiversity in toto, but also its value to humans.  Innovative because it’s a broad church that is trying to bring together the knowledge and expertise of both natural and social scientists, practitioners, indigenous peoples, and stakeholders of all kinds. This broad approach is something which some other international bodies have not, traditionally, been so keen to adopt.

IPBES has its critics who see it as superfluous in that its mission overlaps too much with that of organisations such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ecosystem Services Partnership, and the United Nations Environment Programme.  However I certainly think that there’s room for such an organisation.  We need as many voices as possible shouting about how important these issues are, at all levels of society, from the work of local conservation volunteers and the People’s Walk for Wildlife upwards to the highest levels of international governance.  So I’m a supporter of what IPBES is trying to do; perhaps I’m biased but I was especially impressed by the fact that the first major output of IPBES was a badly needed Assessment Report on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production for which I acted as an expert peer reviewer over its two iterations.  I’ve written posts about this a couple of times – see for example this one.

In recent weeks, however, there’s been some reports of in-fighting within IPBES, and between IPBES and other organisations, that science journalists have seen as being a major war of ideas.  It culminated in Nature publishing a piece entitled “The battle for the soul of biodiversity“, backed up by an editorial suggesting that “the global body for biodiversity science and policy must heal rifts“.

The crux of the perceived disagreements centre on terminology and concepts as much as anything, and specifically the notion of ‘ecosystem services’ versus ‘nature’s contributions to people”.  These seem to me to be saying much the same thing using different words, and I have to say that I was shocked when I read those articles and wondered what the hell was going on: was IPBES really falling apart before it had even managed to firmly establish itself (remember it only launched in 2013)?  Or was this just journalistic hyperbole of the kind that serves no real purpose other than to increase sales and page views?

I have no inside track to IPBES’s workings so I kept an eye on developments.  I was delighted, therefore, to see the 19th September issue of Nature publish four letters from IPBES insiders and experts from other organisations.  All of these, plus the articles I linked to above, are open access.

The first letter is from Jasper Montana of Sheffield University pointing out that “ideas need time to mature” and that “debates are grist to the mill of innovation for environmental governance”.  In other words, IPBES is a young organisation and the sorts of terminology being used are far from mature: terms such as “ecosystem services” and “natural capital” are at most a few decades old.  Clearly there is an urgency in building governance systems that can effectively conserve biodiversity, but debates around the best terms to use will not hinder that process.

The second letter from Bernardo Strassburg in Brazil entitled “honour guidelines that reconcile world views” pointed out that IPBES’s own guide to such concepts notes that the ecosystem services approach is just one of several, all perfectly valid, ways of viewing the relationships between people and nature, and of seeing people as part of nature.

The next letter is from IPBES chair Sir Bob Watson assuring us that “squabbles don’t obscure the bigger picture” and that a diversity of opinions and ideas is one of IPBES’s strengths.  It’s worth noting here that the original model for IPBES was the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which has in the past been criticised for not allowing a diversity of opinions among contributors to its reports.  You can’t please all the people all of the time, and clearly not Nature journalists….

Finally Rudolf de Groot, chair of the Ecosystem Services Partnership, plus colleagues Pavan Sukhdev & Mark Gough, argued that “sparring makes us strong” and write the most critical of the four letters, stating that they “strongly object to the tone and content” of the original article.  They assure us that the Ecosystem Services Partnership and IPBES are not in competition and that there is mutual respect for different opinions and concepts.  Furthermore “both organizations…stand united against biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation…. Irrespective of the terminology used, our community is undivided in our knowledge that we fundamentally depend on nature in countless ways.”

So there you have it.  The Nature article and editorial were, in my opinion and those of the letter writers, over the top, exaggerating debates and disagreements that, whilst certainly real, do not endanger IPBES nor its mission.  I urge you to read the original articles then the letters, and make up your own mind.  Comments welcome as always.

UPDATE 1:  Just after I tweeted this post the Natural Capital Coalition added it to the bottom of a tweet thread that they had started when the original articles were published.  I confess that I missed these first time round but the thread adds extra detail to why the articles were misleading.  Well worth reading – here’s the start of the thread:

 

UPDATE 2:  It seems Nature is happy to continue the exchange of views following the article; the current issue of the journal contains another letter (once again open access), this time from Jim Harris (Cranfield University) and Janne S. Kotiah (University of Jyväskylä, Finland) pointing out that “the debate around which framework to use to value biodiversity could stem from the relatively recent coining and adoption of the concept of nature’s contribution to people (NCP).  Google Scholar returns only 19 hits for NCP and nearly 100,000 for ecosystem services, mainly because the latter has been in use for much longer“.

They go on to say (as all the correspondents on this article have) that they see no reason why the two worldviews of NCP and ecosystem services are irreconcilable. NCP seems new and different because it’s unfamiliar jargon   All of this reminded me of one of my first posts on this blog – “Business and biodiversity: oil and water?” which documented an event that I attended in London called “Biodiversity & ecosystem services: new collaboration opportunities for academics with businesses” .  It’s worth quoting what I said with regard to jargon within the field:

“In the workshop I attended there was some discussion as to whether technical language such as “biodiversity”, “natural capital” and “ecosystem services” (which one contributor referred to as “eco-babble”) deters senior business managers from engaging with nature conservation. I pointed out that words and phrases such as “email”, “internet” and “world wide web” were not so very long ago similarly considered to be technical jargon but are now part of our every day language.”

I still stand by this: technical language is only a barrier to engagement if people do not take the time to understand the jargon.  And jargon can become everyday language very swiftly.

UPDATE 3: This issue rolls on and Nature is still allowing commentary.  Just before Christmas Jonathan Davies and Peter Stoett wrote on behalf of the authors of the biodiversity section of the newest Global Environment Outlook (GEO-6) from UNEP  (due March 2019) that “Biodiversity loss is dire, don’t get distracted“.

 

17 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, IPBES, Pollination

Why I’m joining the People’s Walk for Wildlife on Saturday 22nd September

Peoples walk for wildlife

If you live in the UK and have an interest in wildlife you’ve probably heard about the event that takes place in London this coming Saturday:  The People’s Walk for Wildlife.  If you follow that link you’ll find a video of Chris Packham explaining what the walk is all about and why he’s organised it, plus logistical information, timings, etc.

Karin and I are going to join the walk and I thought I’d give a brief summary of why I think it’s important for people to take part.

If you watch the video you’ll see that Chris does a great job of laying out the issue of wildlife loss, a loss not just of species but of abundance.  There are species that still can be found in Britain but which have declined in numbers by 90% or more over my lifetime.  Such species can be found in all of the major groups of biodiversity in this country:  birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, insects and other invertebrates, fungi, and plants.  Many, many millions of individuals gone from our countryside.

Why has this happened?  Well, the causes are complex and inter-related.  Agricultural intensification over the last century has been a major issue as I’ve previously discussed on this blog in relation to pollinator extinctions.  But that’s only part of it. Another big problem that we have in the UK is an unwillingness to let nature just get on with itself.  We feel that we have to manage everything: Too many ravens?  Cull them.  Hedgerows or road verges looking a bit untidy?  Cut them.  Old tree infected with a fungus?  Chop it down.

In part this mindset is linked to an idea of what natural heritage should look like, an idea of order within a landscape, of making the countryside look pretty, and of doing things simply because that’s what our predecessors did.  A good example was recently tweeted by Dave Goulson who had found mole traps on a Natural Trust property that he visited; as Dave rightly said:  “When will we stop slaughtering harmless wildlife that causes us the tiniest inconvenience?”  There is no reason in this day and age to kill moles – what conceivable harm do they do?  In fact, as ecosystem engineers, they are an important part of the ecology of the British countryside.

One of the reasons why this is happening largely unnoticed by the government agencies responsible for the environment is that our landscapes change at a very slow rate.  Indeed places like the Lake District or the Scottish Highlands or the Chiltern Hills look much the same as they have done for hundreds of years.  Visually they are still stunning places to visit and that’s why they attract millions of tourists every year, and also why people enjoy living there.  But they have lost much of their wildlife and, with it, some of the ecological function that makes them work as ecosystems.  If this continues then natural processes such as dispersal of seeds by birds and mammals, and the subsequent maintenance of tree populations, will cease.

But that’s okay isn’t it?  Trees and shrubs not establishing themselves: go out and plant them by hand.  Is this really what we want?  If it is then we will end up turning our countryside into a museum.  And not even a very good museum at that: not a museum with dynamic interactive displays, rather a static, dull set of exhibits that you can only peer at through dusty glass.

So that’s why we are joining the People’s Walk for Wildlife next Saturday: this is an important issue and people need to show government that they are concerned.  I hope you agree and I hope you will join us.

Dave G. has promised to come dressed as a bumblebee; I’ve seen his costume and he’s a man of his word, so it’ll be worth looking out for him.  I can’t promise anything so flamboyant but I may well take a placard that says something like:  “Save ALL of our pollinators, not just bees!”  If you spot it, do some over and say hello.

8 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services

There ain’t no b(ee) in Starbucks

20180906_180451

I do love a road trip.  Karin and I are just back from a drive too and from her homeland of Denmark, via ferry from Harwich to Hook of Holland, in order to pick up a porcelain dinner service that belonged to her grandparents.  It was a great trip and I hope to put up some photos from that shortly.  But before then I thought I’d write a short post about a key element of any good road trip:  coffee.

If I drive for two hours or so I have to take a break and top up with at least a coffee, possibly also a snack, certainly lunch at the appropriate time.  Last Friday, en route to Harwich, we stopped off at a motorway service station that had a Starbucks.  Whilst waiting for my coffee (Americano, no milk, thank you very much) I noticed that there was quite a lot of text on the walls all about where and how coffee grows, its cultivation and harvesting, and so forth.  Being the sort of ecologist who is interested in how plants flower and set fruit I focused on the relevant text (see the photo above).  It’s a little indistinct but, in essence, this is what it says:

“Coffee plants flower once a year…..the flowers are jasmine scented….and then some magic happens….and nine months later you get coffee fruit”

Okay, I made up the bit about “magic” but, seriously, that’s what is implied by this text: that by some hocus pocus, coffee flowers turn into the coffee fruit that contain the beans.  No mention made of the fact that pollinators (mainly wild and managed bees) are important in this process.  Although coffee can self pollinate (which is fairly magical I suppose) without the pollinators we would have much less coffee of poorer quality.

In my recent review of pollinator diversity and conservation I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations of coffee production to illustrate the dependence of modern human society on animal pollination. Here’s what I wrote:

“Coffee is pollinated by a range of wild insects (mainly bees) and managed honeybees (Ngo et al. 2011), is second only to oil in terms of its value as a commodity [turns out this is not true – see below*], and supports millions of subsistence farmers. Global coffee production in 2016 amounted to 151.624 million bags, each weighing 60kg (International Coffee Organisation 2017). One coffee bean is the product of a single fertilisation event following the deposition of at least one pollen grain on a flower’s stigma. The mean weight of a single coffee bean is about 0.1g which means there are approximately 600,000 beans in a 60kg bag. The total number of coffee beans produced in 2016 is therefore 151.624 million bags multiplied by 600,000 beans per bag, which equals 90,974,400,000,000, or >90 trillion coffee beans. However coffee is on average 50% self pollinating (Klein et al. 2003) and a single bee visit may pollinate both ovules in each coffee flower, so we can divide that figure by four: nonetheless global coffee production requires at least 22 trillion pollinator visits to flowers. Clearly the global coffee market is supported by many billions of bees that require semi-natural habitat as well as coffee plantations in order to survive”.

I don’t want to pick on Starbucks, it just so happens that that’s where we stopped, and I have certainly seen similar displays in Costa, for instance, with again no mention of bees.  Apparently Starbucks et al. don’t want to acknowledge the role of these bees in supporting their (very lucrative) industry, at least not in the cafes themselves.  If you Google “Starbucks pollinators” then you find some information online about how the company values bees, etc. etc.  But come on coffee sellers, you’re better than this, let the public know in the places where the public goes!  If you need advice from an expert, someone to write some text for you, I’m more than happy to act as a consultant.

 

*Even careful scientists get things wrong sometimes – this is a myth as you can read if you follow this link.

 

References

International Coffee Organisation. 2017. Coffee production statistics for 2016. http://www.ico.org/prices/po-production.pdf Accessed 20th June 2017

Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T. 2003. Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc. R. Soc. B. 270: 955–961

Ngo HT, Mojica AC, Packer L. 2007. Coffee plant – pollinator interactions: a review. Can. J. Zool. 89:647–660

 

10 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Honey bees, Pollination

XI International Symposium on Pollination, Berlin, April 16th -20th, 2018

P1120404

From the organisers:

Dear Pollination Biologists,

The International Commission for Pollinator-Plant Relationships (ICPPR) invites you to attend, and possibly submit abstracts for. the XI International Symposium on Pollination TO BE HELD IN BERLIN, GERMANY, APRIL 16-20 2018.

Please take advantage of the early-bird registration opportunity.

The deadline for Abstract submissions is MARCH 1ST, 2018

MORE DETAILS AT:

http://www.icppr.com/xi-international-symposium-on-pollination.html

I HOPE TO SEE YOU IN BERLIN!

Carlos H. Vergara

CHAIR OF THE ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

 

1 Comment

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Honey bees, Pollination

The holly, the mistletoe, and the pollinators: an update on an old story

holly-and-mistletoe-20161211_103252

Holly and mistletoe are two of Europe and Scandinavia’s most iconic plants, steeped in folklore and cultural significance, and redolent of the dark days of mid-winter and its festivities.  Last year, together with my colleagues Jim Rouquette and Tom Breeze, I published a study of the value that pollinators add to the wholesale auction prices of these two plants using data from the UK’s largest holly and mistletoe auction that has been held in the town of Tenbury Wells for 160 years.

Holly and mistletoe are excellent subjects for a study of the added value that pollinators bring to a crop as they are 100% reliant on pollination by a range of wild bees, flies and other insects.  This is because both species are dioecious with separate sex plants, therefore any berries produced on a female plant must be due to the activities of pollinators.

Here’s a link to last year’s blog post about that paper and here’s the reference for the paper itself, with a link to the journal where you can download it for free:

Ollerton, J., Rouquette, J.R. & Breeze, T.D. (2016) Insect pollinators boost the market price of culturally important crops: holly, mistletoe and the spirit of Christmas. Journal of Pollination Ecology 19: 93-97

The data set in that paper only developed the story up to 2015 as the 2016 auctions took place too late to include within our analyses.  However I’ve collected the auction reports for 2016 and 2017 and added them to the data set.  The results are graphed below*.

The auction price for holly with berries is rather volatile, but on average over this time period, berried holly has twice the commercial value of holly without berries.  Indeed in the last auction of 2017, holly without berries failed to sell, hence the value of £0.00.  The very wintry weather on the auction day reduced the number of buyers, but nonetheless, to have no one bidding for the unberried holly was unprecedented.

Holly auction prices plot

The pattern for mistletoe is rather similar, but in this case the value of berried material is less volatile than that of holly, and the average value is around three times greater than for auction lots of unberried plants.

Mistletoe auction plot

This data set offers a unique insight into the value of pollinators for two culturally important crops (all other such studies have focused on food or, rarely, fibre crops).  I’ll continue to archive the auction reports and to update these analyses every few years in the run up to Christmas.  If anyone is interested in accessing the data, please drop me a line.

If you want to learn more about the botany of different types of mistletoe follow this link to Mike Fay’s blog post on the Kew website.

Also worth checking out is Manu Saunders’ recent piece highlighting some old Christmas-themed blog posts.

Yesterday was my last day in the office, I’m now officially on leave and looking forward to a restful Christmas and New Year break.  Season’s greetings to all of my readers and thank you for your continued support and interest in biodiversity!

 

 

*There are three auctions each year and therefore three data points per annum, except for 2016 when only two auction reports were produced.

7 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity and culture, Ecosystem services, Pollination