Category Archives: Ecosystem services

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.

Advertisements

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

Pollinator biodiversity and why it’s important: a new review just published – download it for free

P1110763

In a new review paper that’s just been published in the Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics I have looked at the question of just how diverse the pollinators are, and why pollinator biodiversity is ecologically important and therefore worthy of conservation.  I’ve taken a deep time and wide space approach to this, starting with what the fossil record tells us about when animal pollination evolved and the types of organisms that acted as pollinators in the past (the answer may surprise you if you’re unfamiliar with the recent paleontological literature on this topic).  Some of the most prominent biogeographical patterns have been highlighted, and I have tried to estimate the global diversity of currently known pollinators.  A conclusion is that as many as 1 in 10 described animal species may act as pollen vectors.

As well as this descriptive part of the review I’ve summarised some recent literature on why pollinator diversity matters, and how losing that diversity can affect fruit and seed set in natural and agricultural contexts.  Extinction of pollinator species locally, regionally, and globally should concern us all.

Although I was initially a little worried that the review was too broad and unfocused, having re-read it I’m pleased that I decided to approach the topic in this way.  The research literature, public policy, and conservation efforts are currently moving at such a fast pace that I think it’s a good time to pause and look at the bigger picture of what “Saving the Pollinators” actually means and why it’s so important.  I hope you agree and I’d be happy to receive feedback.

You can download a PDF of the review entitled Pollinator Diversity: Distribution, Ecological Function, and Conservation by following that link.

Pollination ecologists should also note that in this same volume of Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics there’s a review by Spencer Barrett and Lawrence Harder called The Ecology of Mating and Its Evolutionary Consequences in Seed Plants.  If you contact those authors I’m sure they’d let you have a copy.

13 Comments

Filed under Apocynaceae, Bees, Biodiversity, Biogeography, Birds, Butterflies, Climate change, Ecosystem services, Evolution, Honey bees, Hoverflies, IPBES, Macroecology, Mammals, Moths, Mutualism, Neonicotinoids, Pollination, Urban biodiversity, Wasps

The Buzz Club: citizen scientists protecting pollinators

Buzz Club 1.png

This is a guest post by Charlie Dance who is Development Officer at The Buzz Club.


It’s hard to over-stress the importance of pollinators. Not only do they play an indispensable role in global food security, they’re also essential in maintaining the diversity of plant species in natural habitats, thus supporting nature as a whole. The UK is home to thousands of different pollinators including bees, wasps and hoverflies. However, while many of these species seem to be declining or disappearing, we know surprisingly little about the majority of them. Why are some disappearing, and how quickly is it happening? What can we do to help? How can we turn our gardens into pollinator havens? It was to help answer questions like these that the Buzz Club was founded in 2015.

Run by volunteers at the University of Sussex, The Buzz Club is a citizen-science charity using the power of the public to provide important data on pollinators. We run a variety of nationwide surveys and experiments suitable for all ages and ideal for wildlife and gardening enthusiasts. Furthermore, we provide information about how to make our urban landscapes more pollinator friendly.

For more information and for a list of current projects, please visit our website: http://thebuzzclub.uk/

As a membership-based organisation, we rely on the small donation of £2 per month from members, all of which goes directly towards running the charity. Not only do new members receive a complementary welcome pack containing a specially designed seed mix, bee identification chart, pollinator-friendly gardening guide, magnifying lens and stickers (see photo below), they also get to learn more about pollinators whilst helping to generate useful data that can be used in our projects.

We believe that with your help we can find out how best to conserve bees and other pollinators. Our ultimate goal is to ensure that we look after insects, giving them and us a future.

Join the Buzz Club here: https://alumni.sussex.ac.uk/buzzclub

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/TheBuzzClubUK

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/The_Buzz_Club


From Jeff:  if citizen science is your thing, don’t forget that the Ivy Pollinators project will run again this year: https://jeffollerton.wordpress.com/2016/10/11/ivy-pollinators-citizen-science-project/

 

Buzz Club 2.png

Leave a comment

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Butterflies, Ecosystem services, Gardens, Hoverflies, Moths, Pollination, Urban biodiversity, Wasps

When did plastic plants become acceptable?

Plants are important.  Really, really important.  They play important roles in society and in the nature that supports our societies: plants feed us; they are a source of many pharmaceuticals; they produce oxygen and store up carbon dioxide; they can remove pollutants from city atmospheres; and they are the foundation for much of the world’s ecological functioning.  In addition they inspire poets, artists, musicians, and have huge cultural significance, as well as bringing beauty and biodiversity to even the most urban of environments. Plants positively add to our quality of life, and make us happy, whether we are aware of it or not.

OK, there’s a bit of personal bias going on here: I’ve always loved studying and growing plants, they are a huge part of my life.  But the basic facts of what I laid out in that opening paragraph are correct: plants matter.  So I find it troubling that there seems to be a recent trend in using artificial (mainly plastic) plants indoors and in outside “gardens”.  When did this happen?  When did plastic plants become acceptable?

It first struck me that there had been a recent shift in how we view plastic plants back in the summer when I visited the newly refurbished main restaurant at the university’s Park Campus.  The refurb was very nicely done and there’s a big display about how much of the university’s waste we are recycling, and there’s lots of greenery about the place – except that most of it is plastic.

Then in November we visited my son Patrick in Lancaster.  We stayed a night in a nice hotel in the city centre, in a room that led out into a private courtyard – full of plastic plants.  There was a plastic lawn, a plastic palm, even plastic ivy.  Ivy!  One of the easiest plants in the world to grow – why would you need to make it out of plastic?!  It makes itself perfectly well which you can see if you peep over the wall at the back of the courtyard:

lancaster-courtyard-20161113_101336

Then the following week I was in London at the Wellcome Trust to take part in a project review panel.  The Wellcome’s building near Euston Station is wonderful, really striking on the inside, full of light and life.  I was initially please to see an avenue of fig trees in large containers arrayed along the centre of the main concourse:

wellcome-trust-20161115_123554

But when I looked closely I realised that although the trunks and branches were real, these were not living plants: the leaves are artificial, made from wire and synthetic material.  So someone has gone to the trouble of growing real fig trees only to dismember them and festoon them with faux foliage.  Please, no one tell Mike Shanahan!

I’m really surprised at the Wellcome Trust, an organisation I have a lot of respect for;  we know that real plants have a positive effect on psychology and health, though I very much doubt that the same can be said for artificial ones.  In their defence the Wellcome Trust building does have some real plants scattered about the place, but they missed a huge opportunity in not using real figs here.  Even that cathedral to capitalism that is the Milton Keynes shopping centre uses real plants in most of its displays, including some lovely tree ferns:

mk-tree-fern-20161204_162151

And splendid palms:

mk-palm-20161204_150755

Finally, insult was added to injury as we entered the New Year.  As I mentioned in my Spiral Sunday post a couple of weeks ago, we bought a wreath as a Christmas decoration and I took it apart to compost and recycle at the start of the year.  What I hadn’t noticed when we bought it was that half of the holly berries were plastic:

wreath-20170107_130333

This was hugely ironic given our recent study of how insects boost the value of holly by pollinating the female flowers that produce the berries!

All of this is more than just snobbery on my part.  Yes, you can argue that plastic plants are a bit naff and can never take the place of the “real” thing.  But my main concern here is an environmental one: plastic plants require resources (usually oil-based polymers and energy) to make.  And I doubt very much whether they are recycled very often.  Yes, real plants also cost resources to grow (though that can be minimised depending on how they are grown).  But they also provide a range of benefits and, at the end of their life, they can be composted.  Not something I can do with my plastic holly berries.  Not only that, but I suspect that most (all?) of the plastic plants that are sold are manufactured in the Far East.  Using British- or Europe-grown real plants would cut down on the carbon-miles required and support more local horticultural industries.

Early in 2017 Andrew Lucas at Swansea University, on Twitter, described what he thought was the most depressing tweet of 2017 so far:  “Transform your garden today: buy Artificial Grass from ExpressGrass. Cut to your size for easy DIY installation”.

Agreed, hugely depressing, but we can do something about it: stop buying fake plants.  Perhaps we need a Campaign for Real Plants?  Its theme tune could be Radiohead’s Fake Plastic Trees:

Her green plastic watering can
For her fake Chinese rubber plant
In the fake plastic earth
That she bought from a rubber man
In a town full of rubber plans
To get rid of itself…..

……It wears me out

21 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Ecosystem services, Gardens, Personal biodiversity, Pollination, University of Northampton, Urban biodiversity