Category Archives: Pollination

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

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAOLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Apocynaceae, Biodiversity, Biogeography, Butterflies, Pollination

Is pollination really an ecosystem service?

Ashy Mining Bee 2017-06-17 10.55.53

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

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

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

Mace ES image

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

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

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

 

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

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

4 Comments

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

A poem for Valentine’s Day

20180926_121735

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

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

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

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

 

4 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Poetry, Pollination, Wasps

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

2019-02-09 13.47.49

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

UPDATE 1:

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

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

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

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

 

UPDATE: 2

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

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

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

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

 

UPDATE 3:

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

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

 

 

 

4 Comments

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

Tantalising evidence for a new type of pollination system in Madagascan Apocynaceae

cynanchum obovatum with wasp_madag -angavokely_meve 1

As I recounted in my post last summer, the plant family Apocynaceae contains species with a very wide diversity  of pollination systems – see:  The evolution of pollination systems in one of the largest plant families: a new study just published – download it for free.  Confirmed pollinators include bees, birds, moths, butterflies, flies, beetles, and wasps of a dizzying diversity.  So I was intrigued to receive an email earlier this week from my colleague Prof. Dr Ulrich “Ulli” Meve of the University of Bayreuth with the subject line “Wasp expert needed”.  Ulli is an authority on Apocynaceae taxonomy, also has an interest in their pollination biology, and is a co-author of the study last year.

Attached to the email were a couple of images showing a wasp visiting flowers of Cynanchum obovatum, an endemic species of Apocynaceae from northern and eastern Madagascar.  Ulli had taken the photographs during field work there in preparation for the Flora of Madagascar project.  Here’s the global distribution of the species according to GBIF records:

cynanchum obovatum from gbif

I was excited because Madagascar has a very rich diversity of Apocynaceae (between 500 and 1000 species).  However we have flower visitor observations for only a small fraction of them, fewer than 20 species, and good evidence that the visitors are pollinators for only a couple of those.

I didn’t immediately recognise the family to which the wasp belonged: it didn’t look like either Vespidae or Pompilidae, two groups that are known pollinators of Apocynaceae.  So I uploaded the shots to the Hymenopterists Forum on Facebook and within minutes had received an answer:  it was a species of Scoliidae, commonly referred to as scoliid wasps.  The distinctive wing corrugation found in this family is clearly visible on this image:

cynanchum obovatum with wasp_madag -angavokely_meve 2

Scoliids are parasitoids of beetles and are some of the world’s largest wasps, but it’s not a very diverse family, with only about 560 described species, and only a single species in the UK (on the Channel Islands).  Compare that with the Pompilidae and Vespidae, both of which contain c. 5,000 species worldwide.

Ulli tells me that when he saw the scoliid on C. obovatum “the wasp knew what to do with the flowers”, something I’ve experienced with vespid and pompilid wasp pollinated species in Africa: these wasps are really familiar with the flowers, they know how to work them to get a reward as they are regular and committed visitors.  We believe that this is likely to be the legitimate pollinator of the plant, in which case it’s one of the few records for Scoliidae pollinating Apocynaceae, and the first for Madagascar.  Other examples are mainly in South America, India and South Africa, and usually as one of a broad set of other wasps and/or bees visiting generalist flowers.

It’s interesting that this species of Cynanchum is one of the few in which the corona which covers the gynostegium (the fused sexual parts) is closed over:

cynanchum obovatum_madag - angavokely_meve

That means it requires quite a strong, large insect to get inside and access the nectar.  So the prediction is that the pollen masses (pollinaria) will be found on the mouthparts of these wasps.  Intriguingly, a very closely related species C. repandum has no such closed corona, begging the question of whether it might be pollinated by a different type of insect:

cynanchum repandum sl 2867_low

For now this record will go into the Pollinators of Apocynaceae database as pollinator unproven, but i would be great if someone working in Madagascar could confirm the status of this pollination system.

My grateful thanks to Ulli for sharing his pictures and allowing me to tell the story of what may be a whole new Madagascan pollination system for our favourite family.  Apocynaceae is full of surprises!

cynanchum obovatum with wasp_madag -angavokely_meve 3

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Apocynaceae, Biodiversity, Pollination, Wasps

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

Seven things that I learned at the SCAPE 2018 meeting in Ireland

SCAPE 2018 group photo

The 32nd meeting of the Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology took place last week, and from Thursday through to Sunday 87 researchers from around the world met to discuss their latest findings.  For the first time the conference was held outside of Scandinavia, at Avon Rí, Blessington in Ireland.  As always it was a friendly and stimulating meeting, and a great opportunity to catch up with old friends and colleagues, and make new ones.

Here’s a link to the full programme with the abstracts.  I gave a talk about our recent work on the evolution of pollination systems in the plant family Apocynaceae which seemed to go down well enough and generated some discussion later in the bar and over breakfast.  The quality of the research and the standard of the presentations was very high and I don’t intend to single out individuals, but I did learn some things during the meeting that I wanted to highlight:

  • Some bird pollinated penstemons produce scent volatiles, even if we can’t detect them (Amy Parachnowitsch, University of New Brunswick).  Relates to this post of mine from earlier in the year on how hummingbirds have a sense of smell.
  • Staying with the theme of dispelling bird pollination myths – many of the supposedly sunbird-pollinated species of Aloe in southern Africa are in fact pollinated by non-specialist passerines such as bulbuls (Steve Johnson, University of KwaZulu-Natal).
  • There’s a data set on plant-pollinator interactions from the far north of Finland from the end of the 19th century and this area is being re-surveyed to assess changes between then and now (Leana Zoller, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg).
  • Farmers who grow watermelons in Tanzania can improve their yields by encouraging more pollinators in their fields; the yields are better than adding fertliser or irrigating the crop (Thomas Sawe, Norwegian University of Life Sciences).
  • A weevil was introduced into Indonesia in the 1980s to improve yields of oil palm by increasing the rate of pollination (Lynn Jørgensen, University of Oslo).
  • There’s strong evidence that the current distributions of plants with specialised pollination systems in southern Africa are constrained by the environmental niche, and thus the distribution, of their pollinators (Karl Duffy, University of Naples).
  • Mobile saunas are a thing!  I took a photo of one (below) just to prove it.  Thanks to Dara Stanley and Jane Stout for organising that, and the rest of this brilliant conference!  Hope to see you all next year in Lund.

There was a lot more tweeting going on at SCAPE this year and you can see comments and images by searching Twitter for #SCAPE2018

If you attended SCAPE, what did you learn?  What surprised or interested you?  Please comment below.

SCAPE 2018 sauna

2 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Pollination

Pollinator availability, mating system and variation in flower morphology in a tropical savanna tree – a new, open-access study

Curatella image by Pedro Lorenzo

Widespread plant species can encounter a variety of different pollinators across their distributional range.  This in turn can result in local adaptation of flowers to particular pollinators, or to an absence of pollinators that results in adaptations for more self pollination.   A newly published study by one of my former PhD students, André Rodrigo Rech in Brazil, has looked at this in the widespread South American savanna tree Curatella americana.  André studied 10 populations separated in space by thousands of kilometres, in cerrado vegetation, one of the most threatened habitat types in Brazil.  Here’s the abstract:

Widely distributed organisms face different ecological scenarios throughout their range, which can potentially lead to micro-evolutionary differentiation at specific localities. Mating systems of animal pollinated plants are supposed to evolve in response to the availability of local pollinators, with consequent changes in flower morphology. We tested the relationship among pollination , mating system, and flower morphology over a large spatial scale in Brazilian savannas using the tree Curatella americana (Dilleniaceae). We compared fruit set with and without pollinators in the field, and analyzed pollen tube growth from self- and cross-pollinated flowers in different populations. Populations with higher natural fruit set also had lower fruit set in bagged flowers, suggesting stronger barriers to self-fertilization. Furthermore, higher levels of autogamy in field experiments were associated with more pollen tubes reaching ovules in self-pollinated flowers. Morphometric studies of floral and leaf traits indicate closer-set reproductive organs, larger stigmas and smaller anthers in populations with more autogamy. We show that the spatial variation in mating system, flower morphology and pollination previously described for herbs also applies to long-lived, perennial tropical trees, thus reemphasizing that mating systems are a population-based attribute that vary according to the ecological scenario where the plants occur

Here’s the full citation with a link to the paper which is open access:

Rech, A.R., Ré Jorge, L., Ollerton, J. & Sazima, M. (2018) Pollinator availability, mating system and variation in flower morphology in a tropical savannah tree. Acta Botanica Brasilica (in press)

The illustration of Curatella americana  and its pollinators is by Pedro Lorenzo.

This paper is a contribution to a special issue of Acta Botanica Brasilica dedicated to floral biology and pollination biology in Brazil It’s all open access and if you follow that link you can download the papers.

1 Comment

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Biogeography, Brazil, Evolution, 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

Hornets are pollinators too!

20180926_121735

This morning I spent a very pleasant couple of hours walking around the farm that’s at the heart of the Warner Edwards Gin Distillery, in Harrington just north of Northampton.  We are setting up some collaborations around conservation and sustainability between the university and Warner Edwards.  The first of these involves surveys of their farm by one of our final year undergraduates, Ellie West, to assess pollinator diversity and abundance, and opportunities for habitat enhancement on the farm.

One of the highlights of this morning’s visit was seeing this gorgeous hornet (Vespa crabro) taking nectar from common ivy (Hedera helix).  I think that she’s a queen stocking up on energy prior to hibernating.  But just look at how much pollen she’s carrying!  There’s every chance that she’s a very effective pollinator of ivy, which is a key nectar resource at this time of year.  It’s such an important plant in other ways too: ivy binds the landscape physically and ecologically, in ways few other native plants do.  Pollination by insects such as hornets (and hundreds of other species) results in berries that are eaten by birds and mammals, whilst the branches and dense, evergreen canopy provides nesting sites for birds and shelter for over wintering insects.

Hornets and ivy: two of my favourite native British species.

20180926_121532

9 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Birds, Mammals, Pollination, University of Northampton, Wasps