Tag Archives: Biodiversity

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….

 

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Climate change, Ecosystem services, IPBES

Have we broken the planet?

sea-ice-graph-november-2016

A graph showing this year’s figures for area of global sea ice, in comparison with the same data for the past c. 40 years, was widely shared on Twitter yesterday, resulting in a lot of discussion and consternation.  I’m not on Twitter (yet…) and picked this up from Terry McGlynn’s Facebook feed.  The graph shows an anomalously low extent of sea ice compared with what we would expect at this time of the year, in fact a drop of about 25%.

As you can see, something looks to be seriously wrong.  For more discussion about the graph, see this piece over at The Verge.

I’ve not discussed climate change much on this blog, it’s not my area of specialism and there are plenty of other good bloggers out there who are far more knowledgeable than I.  But graphs like this are hugely worrying because they not only suggest that aspects of our climate may be at a tipping point where they change from one state/predictable pattern to another.  That’s a concern on a global level, because it’s strong evidence for global warming.  However the reduction in sea ice also has huge implications for the biodiversity that depends upon the ice.

If I hear any more news on this I’ll post it, but in the meantime it’s worth pondering whether perhaps the UK’s signing up for the Paris Climate Agreement this week is a bit too late.  As my colleague Duncan McCollin put it: “we’ve broken the planet”.  I hope he’s wrong.

6 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Climate change

The macroecology of animal versus wind pollination – a new study just published

In collaboration with colleagues in Brazil, Denmark, and elsewhere in the UK, we’ve just published a new research paper which looks at the global spatial distribution of wind and animal pollinated plant species, and the underlying historical and contemporary ecological causes of that distribution.  It’s a study that builds on my “How many flowering plants are animal pollinated?” paper in Oikos, and has been a long time in its gestation.  We’re very excited by its findings and plan to develop this project in the future.

As a bonus we made the cover of the journal with the amazing image below!  Big thanks to Pedro Viana and Jesper Sonne for the photos.

Here’s the citation with a link to the publisher’s website; the abstract is below.  If anyone wants a PDF copy, please ask.

Rech AR, Dalsgaard B, Sandel B, Sonne J, Svenning J-C, Holmes N & Ollerton J (2016) The macroecology of animal versus wind pollination: ecological factors are more important than historical climate stability. Plant Ecology & Diversity 9: 253-262

 

Abstract:

Background: The relative frequency of wind- and animal-pollinated plants are non-randomly distributed across the globe and numerous hypotheses have been raised for the greater occurrence of wind pollination in some habitats and towards higher latitudes. To date, however, there has been no comprehensive global investigation of these hypotheses.

Aims: Investigating a range of hypotheses for the role of biotic and abiotic factors as determinants of the global variation in animal vs. wind pollination.

Methods: We analysed 67 plant communities ranging from 70º north to 34º south. For these we determined habitat type, species richness, insularity, topographic heterogeneity, current climate and late-Quaternary climate change. The predictive effects of these factors on the proportion of wind- and animal-pollinated plants were tested using correlations, ordinary least squares (OLS) and logistic regression analyses with information-theoretic model selection.

Results: The proportion of animal-pollinated plant species was positively associated with plant species richness and current temperature. Furthermore, in forest, animal pollination was positively related to precipitation. Historical climate was only weakly and idiosyncratically correlated with animal pollination.

Conclusion: Results were consistent with the hypothesised reduced chance for wind-transported pollen reaching conspecific flowers in species-rich communities, fewer constraints on nectar production in warm and wet habitats, and reduced relative effectiveness of wind dispersal in humid areas. There was little evidence of a legacy of historical climate change affecting these patterns.

andre-capa-1

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Biodiversity, Biogeography, Brazil, Climate change, Macroecology, Pollination

Bees and pesticides – a major new study just published – UPDATED

Male B lap on Salvia cropped P1120309

An important new study about the effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on wild bees has just been published in the journal Nature Communications – here’s the details and a link to the paper, which is open access:

Woodcock, B. A. et al. (2016) Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat. Commun. 7:12459 doi: 10.1038/ncomms12459

As I’ve previously discussed on this blog (e.g. here and here) there are widespread concerns amongst environmentalists, and some scientists, about the impact that these relatively new pesticides are having on pollinators and other biodiversity.  The Woodcock et al. paper is a major contribution to this discussion as it uses a huge dataset to model the changes in populations of 62 wild bee species that are known to forage on oilseed rape (canola) over 18 years.  These changes can be related to the spatial extent of oilseed rape cultivation and the authors found that whilst bees “….foraging on oilseed rape benefit from the…[nectar and pollen provided by]….this crop….[they]….were on average three times more negatively affected by exposure to neonicotinoids than…” bees which didn’t forage on the crop.

The authors further conclude that “This study provides the first evidence for community level national scale impacts on the persistence of wild bee populations resulting from exposure to neonicotinoid treated oilseed rape crops.”

Neonicotinoid pesticides are, of course, not the whole story when it comes to understanding declines in pollinator diversity and abundance.  But these pesticides are the latest in a long history of changes to British agriculture that have had significant consequences for the biodiversity of our country (as we showed in our study of bee and wasp extinctions).

Reactions to the study have been, well, predictable.  A long feature on the BBC News website* quoted a representative from Bayer as saying:

“we believe….[the study’s]….findings would be more correctly headlined that intensive agriculture is causing some issues with pollinators…..  Whether this is due to the use of insecticides is not clear; a lack of nesting sites and pollen and nectar sources in these areas may also be critical factors.”

Which rather ignores the fact that this was a comparative study of bees that forage on oilseed rape versus those that don’t.

Likewise the National Farmer’s Union’s position was that:

“While this study claims to provide an important contribution to the evidence base underpinning the current EU moratorium on some uses of neonicotinoids, experts reviewing all the evidence have concluded that there are still major gaps in our knowledge and a limited evidence base to guide policymakers”

Which sounds to me like a statement designed to fudge the issue: the “experts reviewing all the evidence” would not have reviewed this particular study!  And which begs the question – how much evidence and how many studies would be enough for the NFU?

The study’s authors do not make any suggestions as to what the next step should be in this continuing saga but are quoted as saying that “simplistic solutions” such as banning these pesticides are not the answer because this will encourage use of pesticides that are even more damaging.  That may be the case but it’s clear that an independent root-and-branch reassessment of the use of pesticides (and herbicides) in UK agriculture is long overdue.

 

*As an aside, this BBC News piece wrongly states that bumblebees were not included in the study, which is not the case.

 

UPDATE:  After I published this post I noticed that Manu Saunders has also written about the bee study, plus a second study that I’d not seen linking neonicotinoid use to declining butterfly populations in California.  Here’s a link to Manu’s blog.

 

5 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Neonicotinoids, Pollination

The biodiversity of restored landfill sites: a new study of snails just published

Snails - 20160813_124310

The latest paper in a series* studying the biodiversity of restored landfill sites in comparison to nearby nature reserves has just been published.  This work comes from the linked PhD research of two of our former students, Dr Lutfor Rahman and Dr Sam Tarrant.

This new paper deals with the larger snails to be found on these novel grasslands and assesses the value of such sites for conserving the diversity of an ecologically important group of molluscs.  Snails play a vital role in nutrient turnover and are a major food source for higher trophic levels, such as some birds, small mammals, and beetles.

The take home message from the study:  restored landfill sites are as rich in species as nature reserves, but a higher proportion is of non-native, introduced species.

Here’s a link to the paper, with the abstract below; it’s paywalled but if you’d like a PDF, just ask:

Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S.,Ollerton, J. & McCollin, D. (2016) Effect of soil conditions and landscape factors on macro-snail communities in newly created grasslands of restored landfill sites in the UK.  Zoology and Ecology (in press)

 

Abstract

Though restored landfill sites provide habitat for a number of taxa, their potential for land snails remains unexplored. In this study, large-sized land snails (>5 mm) were surveyed using transect sampling at nine restored landfill sites and nine corresponding nature sites in the East Midlands region of the UK, during 2008. The effect of restoration was investigated by examining the composition, richness and diversity (Shannon index) of land snail species in relation to habitat and landscape structure. Thirteen macro-snail species were recorded in total, and rarefied species richness and diversity at restored landfill sites was not found to be statistically different from that of reference sites. One third of the snail species at restored landfill sites accounting for 30% of their total abundance were non-native species. Soil electrical conductivity was the strongest predictor of richness and diversity of land snails. Road density was found to be positively related to snail species diversity. Given the high percentage of introduced species at study sites, further research is needed to elucidate management implications of restored landfill sites and dynamics of native vs. non-native species.

 

*The other papers in this series are:

Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. & Ollerton, J. (2015) Vegetation cover and grasslands in the vicinity accelerate development of carabid beetle assemblages on restored landfill sites. Zoology and Ecology 25: 347-354

Tarrant, S., Ollerton, J., Rahman, L. Md., Griffin, J. & McCollin, D. (2013) Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands, UK: an evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects. Restoration Ecology 21: 560–568

Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. Ollerton, J. (2013) Plant community composition and attributes reveal conservation implications for newly created grassland on capped landfill sites. Journal for Nature Conservation 21: 198-205

Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. & Ollerton, J. (2012) Influence of habitat quality, landscape structure and food resources on breeding skylark (Alauda arvensis) territory distribution on restored landfill sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 105: 281–287

Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. and Ollerton, J. (2011) The conservation value of restored landfill sites in the East Midlands, UK for supporting bird communities. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1879-1893

Again, if you’d like PDFs of any of these, just ask.

 

 

 

3 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Snails, University of Northampton

Identifying the “Wild Bees” in John Clare’s poem – UPDATED

P1030210

John Clare is one of the most celebrated English poets of rural landscapes and nature in the 19th century. To quote his biographer, Clare was “the greatest labouring-class poet that England has ever produced. No one has ever written more powerfully of nature”.  Not only that, he was born and lived for much of his life in my adopted county, hence his epithet as “The Northamptonshire Peasant Poet”.

One of his less well-known poems is called Wild Bees and is a stunning example of Clare’s ability to make detailed observations of the natural world and to translate those observations into poetry.  So good are those observations that, as I show below, it’s possible to identify Clare’s bees from the descriptions he gives.  First of all, here’s the full poem:

Wild Bees

These children of the sun which summer brings
As pastoral minstrels in her merry train
Pipe rustic ballads upon busy wings
And glad the cotters’ quiet toils again.
The white-nosed bee that bores its little hole
In mortared walls and pipes its symphonies,
And never absent couzen, black as coal,
That Indian-like bepaints its little thighs,
With white and red bedight for holiday,
Right earlily a-morn do pipe and play
And with their legs stroke slumber from their eyes.
And aye so fond they of their singing seem
That in their holes abed at close of day
They still keep piping in their honey dreams,
And larger ones that thrum on ruder pipe
Round the sweet smelling closen and rich woods
Where tawny white and red flush clover buds
Shine bonnily and bean fields blossom ripe,
Shed dainty perfumes and give honey food
To these sweet poets of the summer fields;
Me much delighting as I stroll along
The narrow path that hay laid meadow yields,
Catching the windings of their wandering song.
The black and yellow bumble first on wing
To buzz among the sallow’s early flowers,
Hiding its nest in holes from fickle spring
Who stints his rambles with her frequent showers;
And one that may for wiser piper pass,
In livery dress half sables and half red,
Who laps a moss ball in the meadow grass
And hoards her stores when April showers have fled;
And russet commoner who knows the face
Of every blossom that the meadow brings,
Starting the traveller to a quicker pace
By threatening round his head in many rings:
These sweeten summer in their happy glee
By giving for her honey melody.

 

Here are the bees that I think Clare is talking about:

The white-nosed bee that bores its little hole, In mortared walls and pipes its symphonies

This is the least obvious of the bees to identify, but my best guess, due to the “little hole” and “white nose“, is one of the small Yellow-Faced Bees (Hylaeus spp.) some of which (despite the name) have white faces.  UPDATE:  following discussion with Matt Smith in the comments (below) I’m going to change my mind and suggest that Clare is referring to male Hairy-footed Flower Bee (Anthophora plumipes) – I think the “never absent couzen” part is the give-away.

And never absent couzen, black as coal, That Indian-like bepaints its little thighs

This has to be the female Hairy-footed Flower Bee (Anthophora plumipes) which is all black except for its orange pollen brush on its rear legs, and which also nests in old walls.

The black and yellow bumble first on wing, To buzz among the sallow’s early flowers, Hiding its nest in holes from fickle spring

I’m going to suggest that this is referring to the Buff-tailed Bumblebee (Bombus terrestris), the queens of which tend to emerge earlier than other, similar species, hence “first on wing“.  It also usually nests in rodent holes.

In livery dress half sables and half red, Who laps a moss ball in the meadow grass

This can only be the Red-shanked Carder Bee (Bombus ruderarius) the only red and black bee in the UK that makes a mossy nest above ground.

And russet commoner who knows the face, Of every blossom that the meadow brings

Finally, this must be one of my favourite bumblebees, the all-brown, Common Carder Bee (Bombus pascuorum), which is as common as the name suggests, and is renowned for foraging on a wider range of flowers than most others, and therefore “knows the face of every blossom“.

If you have any suggestions for alternative bee identifications, please comment below.

UPDATE:  it occurred to me after I posted this that all of the bees that Clare describes are still common in Northamptonshire with the exception of the Red-shanked Carder Bee (Bombus ruderarius) which has seen a huge decline throughout its range – see the BWARS account for this species.

 

 

 

 

 

16 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Poetry

Brexit and biodiversity: submissions invited to a Government inquiry

20160520_114743

Following on from my posts regarding how Brexit may affect the UK’s environmental policies and activities (see here and here) the Government has moved (surprisingly) quickly to begin an inquiry into how leaving the EU may affect issues that [quote] “include the future of funding for biodiversity and agri-environment schemes, the likely changes in the devolved administration, and the role that managed rewilding can play in conservation and restoration”.

I say “surprisingly” because the Government is no doubt focused on what they might see as more pressing concerns; but then much of this inquiry relates to how Brexit might affect biodiversity via subsidies to farmers, and the farming lobby is very powerful of course, and is no doubt pressing Defra to get a move on.

Here’s a link to the inquiry’s official website.  From that site I’ve pulled out the following text:

The Environmental Audit Committee invites submissions on some or all of the questions below:

  • What are the implications for UK biodiversity of leaving the EU, in particular the Common Agricultural Policy? To what extent do initiatives to support biodiversity in the UK depend on CAP-related payments? What risks and opportunities could developing our own agri-environment policy and funding present?
  • How should future support for UK agriculture be structured in order to ensure there are incentives for environmentally-friendly land management? What are the positives/negatives of current schemes (e.g. Countryside Stewardship) that should be retained/avoided?
  • How should future UK agri-environment support be administered, and what outcomes should it focus on?
  • What are the prospects and challenges for future environmental stewardship schemes in the devolved administrations? How much divergence in policy between the nations of the United Kingdom is likely? How can divergence be managed?
  • What are the future risks and opportunities to innovative land practices, such as managed rewilding? What role can rewilding play in conservation and restoration of habitats and wildlife? What evidence is there to support the incentivising of such schemes in any new land management policies?

There is a form for submissions (available on the website) and the deadline is Friday 9th September 2016.

I’ll be submitting a response via the Northamptonshire Local Nature Partnership, and welcome comments and ideas from any readers.

5 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Northants LNP, Rewilding

The influence of floral traits on specialization and modularity of plant–pollinator networks in a biodiversity hotspot in the Peruvian Andes – Watts et al. (2016)

Watts et al Figure 1

The second paper from the PhD thesis of my former student Dr Stella Watts has just been published in Annals of Botanyhere’s a link to the journal’s website.  It summarises the major findings from her field work on plant-pollinator interactions in the high Andes of Peru:

Watts, S., Dormann, C.F., Martín González, A.M. & Ollerton, J. (2016) The influence of floral traits on specialization and modularity of plant–pollinator networks in a biodiversity hotspot in the Peruvian Andes.  Annals of Botany doi: 10.1093/aob/mcw114

This paper represents a major piece of research, including extensive field data collection over multiple sites in a challenging environment at altitude; state-of-the-art data analysis; and then summarising all of this into a single, digestible paper, with some great figures.  I’m very proud to have been part of it!

Here’s the abstract; please email me or Stella if you’d like a copy of the full PDF:

Background and Aims:  Modularity is a ubiquitous and important structural property of ecological networks which describes the relative strengths of sets of interacting species and gives insights into the dynamics of ecological communities. However, this has rarely been studied in species-rich, tropical plant–pollinator networks. Working in a biodiversity hotspot in the Peruvian Andes we assessed the structure of quantitative plant–pollinator networks in nine valleys, quantifying modularity among networks, defining the topological roles of species and the influence of floral traits on specialization.

Methods: A total of 90 transects were surveyed for plants and pollinators at different altitudes and across different life zones. Quantitative modularity (QuanBiMo) was used to detect modularity and six indices were used to quantify specialization.

Key Results:  All networks were highly structured, moderately specialized and significantly modular regardless of size. The strongest hubs were Baccharis plants, Apis mellifera, Bombus funebris and Diptera spp., which were the most ubiquitous and abundant species with the longest phenologies. Species strength showed a strong association with the modular structure of plant–pollinator networks. Hubs and connectors were the most centralized participants in the networks and were ranked highest (high generalization) when quantifying specialization with most indices. However, complementary specialization d’ quantified hubs and connectors as moderately specialized. Specialization and topological roles of species were remarkably constant across some sites, but highly variable in others. Networks were dominated by ecologically and functionally generalist plant species with open access flowers which are closely related taxonomically with similar morphology and rewards. Plants associated with hummingbirds had the highest level of complementary specialization and exclusivity in modules (functional specialists) and the longest corollas.

Conclusions: We have demonstrated that the topology of networks in this tropical montane environment was non-random and highly organized. Our findings underline that specialization indices convey different concepts of specialization and hence quantify different aspects, and that measuring specialization requires careful consideration of what defines a specialist.

2 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Birds, Honey bees, Mutualism, Pollination, University of Northampton, Wasps

Third International Conference on Pollinator Biology, Health and Policy – Pennsylvania – 18-20 July, 2016

P1030210

Keeping with the theme of Bees’ Needs Week, and the importance of pollinators to natural and agricultural ecosystems*, the Third International Conference on Pollinator Biology, Health and Policy takes place at Penn State University, USA,  from the 18th to 20th July.

Here’s a link to the PDF of the programme with the abstracts, speakers’ details, etc.  I won’t be attending** but I am involved as a collaborator*** in one of the talks being presented – Luísa Carvalheiro’s project on “Direct and indirect effects of soil eutrophication on pollination services“.

Best of luck to all the speakers and attendees, looks like it’s going to be a great conference.
 

 

*Wednesday’s grumpiness has almost disappeared, though it reached a new peak yesterday when we had a paper rejected by a journal after 10 months.  There was one positive review, one middling review, and then a third in which the reviewer provided no comments – just “reject”!  I was not happy about that and made my feelings known to the editor…..

**I’m actually in the Azores next week attending the Island Biology 2016 conference.  More about that at the weekend.

***With about a gazillion other people!  Luisa has pulled together an amazing data set.

 

 

Leave a comment

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

“Insect pollinated” crops that don’t actually require insect pollination

Cucumber fruit 20160713_103558

Yesterday evening I learned that a large grant application that I’d submitted earlier this year had failed to secure funding.  Statistically there was a high likelihood of this happening but that doesn’t make it feel any better: weeks and weeks of work have come to nothing.

So in a mood of bloody-minded contrariness and general displeasure at the unfairness of the world I thought I’d provide an alternative to the Bees’ Needs week I mentioned yesterday by focusing on food crops that look as though they should be insect pollinated (and their ancestors certainly were) but which don’t actually require pollinators.

The example pictured above is an F1 hybrid cucumber (Cucumis sativus) variety called “Mini Munch”, kindly grown from seed and given to me by my friend and colleague Dr Janet Jackson.  Many cucumbers don’t need insect pollination, despite their large, colourful flowers, and the fact that related crops (melons, courgettes, squashes, etc.) generally do require pollinators.  Indeed some varieties taste bitter if they are pollinated.  I can recommend this web page on how to grow cucumbers for further advice.

As I was taking that photograph, and in another demonstration of how the world is against me at the moment, I spotted a bee feeding on one of the all-female flowers of this variety.

Megachile on cucumber 20160713_103627

It spent some time there probing the centre with its tongue, so I think these flowers still produce nectar despite them not needing pollinators, a hang-over from their ancestry.  Plants have a whole range of mechanisms that ensure reproduction without the agency of insects and other animal pollinators, and this has been exploited by crop breeders who have selected crop varieties for their ability to self pollinate or to reproduce asexually via apomixis (as in the case of this cucumber).

The same bee then flew onto a tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) flower (another group which varies in its demands for pollination) and I got a better look – seems to be a Leaf-cutter Bee of the genus Megachile.

Megachile on tomato 20160713_103712

The final example of a crop which requires little or no insect pollination are the chillies (Capsicum spp.) all of which are self-pollinating, I believe.  This variety is a scrambling purple type called Orzoco*.

Orzoco chilli 20160713_102213

So, crops vary hugely in their need for pollinators and the presence of certain traits of animal pollination, such as large, brightly coloured flowers and nectar, is no guarantee that the crop really does have to be serviced by pollinators.  The only way to be certain is to experimentally test the plants, a topic I hope to come back to later in the summer.

Don’t worry, this grumpiness won’t last long, in no time at all I’ll be back to banging on about the importance of pollinators.  At least Monty, one of our two cats, still loves me.

 

*At least, that’s what it said on the seed packet; I’ve also seen it referred to as Orozco – does anyone know which name is correct?

19 Comments

Filed under Bees, Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Gardens