Tag Archives: Science

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

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 Comments

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

“I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread” – Why scientists need to learn to say “no” to themselves

20190131_091055.jpg

Earlier this week I had to write an email to some potential collaborators that I really wasn’t looking forward to sending.  I’ve been doing some hard thinking since Christmas and had decided not to go ahead with a grant submission for a project that was my idea, that I had initiated.  I was now pulling back from that and feeling as though I was letting people down.

The fundamental reason is lack of time, of being really over-stretched at the moment.  Just before the Christmas break I received word that two grants that I’m involved with, one funded by NERC, the other by the Australian Research Council (ARC), were both successful. This is on top of four existing projects, funded by NERC, BBSRC, Heritage Lottery Fund and Butterfly Conservation. Plus the non-funded work I’m doing.  One of my tasks this week was to add a Current Projects and Collaborations page to this blog, so I can keep track of what I’m doing as much as anything!  Although I’m a minor partner in many of these projects, it’s still a lot of work to keep on top of everything, plus teaching,  the Research Excellence Framework for which I’m departmental lead, etc.  I’m also trying to complete a book which I’ve promised to deliver to the publisher soon.  And blogging of course….

There’s a line in the Lord of Rings in which Bilbo tells Gandalf that “I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.” Intellectually that’s how I’m feeling at the moment.

It’s my own fault, I say “yes” to things too readily, something which a lot of academics do and which is being widely discussed on Twitter and in other blogs.  Most of this discussion focuses on saying “no” to other people, to manuscript and grant reviews, to offers of collaborations, and so forth.

But I think it’s just as important that we learn to say “no” to ourselves.  We need to realise that, however great an idea that we’ve had is or however enthusiastic we are about a project or a paper or a book or organising a conference, if we don’t have the time and energy to follow through and do it properly, we are selling ourselves and our collaborators short.

Of course this is easy to say but not so easy to put into practice.  There are a lot of external pressures on academics to write more grant proposals and papers, to do more work on the impact of their research, to take on tasks within and without their institutions, and thus spread themselves too thin.  Being a scientist and teacher in a university is a great job and I feel very fortunate to be doing what I do.  But in the long term we’re doing no one any favours, not least our employers and our families, if we burn out early.

9 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, University of Northampton

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

Should environmentalists be optimistic in a time of uncertainty?

zoogeo-ussr

Over at the Ideas for Sustainability blog Joern Fischer posted a really interesting piece on 1st January called “A new kind of hope” about the current state of the world and whether, from an environmental perspective, there’s really anything to be optimistic about.  If environmental collapse via climate change and over-exploitation is inevitable, the collapse of civilization is not far behind.  Joern’s piece is well worth reading, lots to think about in there, and I highly recommend that you take a look.

I posted a comment there which I’m going to copy here and add to because I think it bears repeating.

Going back to at least my student days I always thought that there was only a slim chance of our civilization making it to the end of the 20th century without some kind of catastrophe wiping us out.   So it was a surprise to celebrate the millennium as December 1999 segued into January 2000. Since then, whilst I think there’s lots to be optimistic about such as the increase in renewable energy, large-scale habitat restoration in some regions, and a growing recognition of the environmental damage of biocides and plastics, there’s also the nagging fear that it’s too little, too late.

These days I alternate between wild optimism and deep depression over the fate of humanity and of the planet. It’s so easy to get sucked into the vortex of negative environmental narratives and ignore the positive ones. Especially so if you actively use social media.  So I try hard to be optimistic and resist the urge to just give up, but the political situation across much of the world makes that difficult. As I learn more about the natural world through my own research and that of others’, and as world events such as Brexit and the rise of the Far Right unfold, I realise how little any of us really know about anything at all. Thus I have a deep suspicion of anyone who spouts certainties, whether they be moral, philosophical, religious, scientific, political, or artistic. All we can do is feel our way into the future, cautiously.

With respect to the question that Joern poses of “If we have to re-build something after some kind of collapse … do we have ideas for what that something will be?”, this is the rationale behind the Dark Mountain Project, a loose collaboration of writers, artists, thinkers, etc., who are trying to look for new narratives for humanity and the planet we depend upon. I’ve written a couple of pieces for their journal, most recently for issue 10 where I discussed the role of poetry in science.  And although I don’t buy into their certainty that there will be a collapse, I think it’s an important project for understanding where we are now, where we’ve been, and where we might be going to.  Here’s a link to the project’s website.

The discussion over whether we should be optimistic about the future of the planet that supports us, and how that optimism will play out, is important for scientists, and society at large, to be having.  By coincidence as I was writing this post the map above started circulating on Twitter.  It’s a Russian teaching aid from 1928 showing the different biomes of the USSR and can be downloaded from this site.

What really struck me about this graphic was the certainty with which it represents the natural world, as if all of this could never change. There are polar bears on ice flows and a frozen tundra in the far north; water still fills the Aral Sea, hyenas feast in the steppe, snow leopards haunt the mountains, Siberian tigers prowl the pine forests.  And an optimistic looking whale heads towards Japan.  Some of this is gone, some will almost certainly change, but a lot of it we could save, if we want to, saving ourselves in the process.

13 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity, Biodiversity and culture, Climate change, Dark Mountain Project

When scientists get things wrong: is coffee the second most valuable global commodity?

2018-12-22 13.12.38

If this blog has a purpose beyond highlighting the importance of biodiversity, and recent developments in the field of pollination biology in particular, it’s to demystify science and the scientists who produce new knowledge.  Hopefully my posts over the past seven years have shown that scientists can have all kinds of backgrounds, even northern English working class, and need not have attended the most prestigious universities.  I’d also hope that what I write about my own research gives some insights into how new knowledge is generated and how it can be communicated to both specialist and non-specialist audiences.

Something should be clear from all of this: scientists are human just like everyone else, with the same foibles, foolish notions, prejudices, passions, and blind spots.  And they make errors.  Just like everyone else.

This is by way of an introduction to admitting that I made a mistake in one of my recent papers.  Not a massive mistake, and not one that requires me to retract the paper, but one which bugs me and which I need to correct for the sake of accuracy.  Hopefully it will stop others repeating the same error.

In “Pollinator Diversity: Distribution, Ecological Function and Conservation” (Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 2017) I stated that:

“Coffee…is second only to oil in terms of its value as a commodity”.

That’s a “fact” that I’ve heard repeated for years, in lots of different places, so I didn’t bother citing a source because, well, it’s just true, isn’t it?  Only trouble is, it’s not true.  It’s been debunked several times over the years, as discussed in this summary on the Politifact.com website:  No, coffee is not the second-most traded commodity after oil.

Mea culpa.  I should have done due diligence and checked my facts, especially as I’ve posted before about how many of the “facts” concerning bees as pollinators are incorrect – see Who is feeding the honey bee bullshit machine?   

But, we all get stuff wrong.  I’m sure I’ve made other errors in the past and not spotted them, and I bet there’s not a published scientist who hasn’t made some kind of mistake in their writing.  We may all be standing on the shoulders of giants, but even giants have their flaws….  That doesn’t make me feel any better though.

13 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity

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

Which h index should I use? UPDATED

2018-09-16 10.04.28

UPDATE:  Thanks to my kind commentators (below) who pointed out that one can change Google Scholar, taking out papers that don’t belong, merging variants, etc.  It had been a while since I looked at Google Scholar and perhaps I knew this in the past but had forgotten.  However I had an issue with it linking to my Google account and so had to delete the old profile and set up a new one.  That seems to have worked OK, I have got rid of the publications that weren’t mine, and my h-index looks to be fairly accurate at 38.  I have adjusted the text below to reflect this.

————————————————————————-

Despite some (well founded) criticism as to its usefulness, the h-index seems to be with us to stay.  In a couple of posts I’ve articulated some of its advantages and disadvantages – see for example What’s the point of the h-index? and How does a scientist’s h-index change over time? – and it’s clear that more and more funding agencies are using it to evaluate the track record of applicants.  Just this afternoon I finished the second of a couple of grant reviews in which the applicant was asked to state their h-index.  What they were not asked was which h-index they should state, i.e. the source of the value, though I think that this is important information.  Why?  Because it varies so much depending on where the it comes from.  I’ll give you an example – here’s my own h-index values taken from a few different sources:

Google Scholar: h = 38

ResearchGate: h = 36

ResearchGate (excluding self citations): h = 34

Web of Science (all databases): h = 34

Web of Science (Core Collection): h = 29

Scopus: h = 29

There’s a 10 point difference (almost 25%) between the largest and the smallest values.  So which one should I cite in grant applications, on my CV, etc.  Well the largest one, obviously!  Right?  Well maybe, but not necessarily.  In fact none of these values are completely accurate, though some are more accurate than others.

Web of Science includes papers and book chapters that don’t belong to me, and I can easily shave a couple of points off that value.  Some of these mis-attributions are chapters from a volume that I co-edited.  Some are papers that I edited for PLoS ONE and which have been assigned to my record.  Others are for the two or three other researchers named “J. Ollerton” who are out there.  Google Scholar had some entries which are just bizarre, such as “The social life of musical instruments” by Eliot Bates, which Google Scholar seems to think I wrote and has credited me with its 102 citations.  However, as you can see form the update, I’ve corrected this.

Web of Science and Scopus don’t pick up as many citations in books or reports as does Google Scholar which is a deficiency in my opinion.  Being cited in a peer-reviewed journal is often thought of as being the gold standard of citation but frankly I’m very happy to be cited in government and NGO reports, policy documents, etc., which themselves may often be peer reviewed, just by a different type of peer.

Poised in the middle of this range, ResearchGate may be most accurate but it lacks transparency: as far as I can see there isn’t a way to look at all of your citation data per paper in one go, you have to look at each publication individually (and who has time for that, frankly?)

As far as calculating an accurate h-index is concerned I don’t think we will ever come to an agreement as to what should be considered a publication or a citation.  But systems like Google Scholar and Web of Science should at least try to be accurate when assigning publications to an individual’s record.

So which h-index should you use?  In the interests of accuracy and honesty I think it’s best to state a range and/or add a proviso that you have corrected the value for mis-attribution of publications.  In my case I’d say something like:

“Depending on source my h-index lies between 29 (Scopus) and 38 (Google Scholar)”.

If the h-index is to have any value at all (and there are those who argue that it doesn’t and shouldn’t) then it requires us as scholars to at least try to make it as accurate as we can.  Because frankly I don’t think it’s going to go away any time soon.

 

 

12 Comments

Filed under Biodiversity

The evolution of pollination systems in one of the largest plant families: a new study just published – download it for free

Figure 1 JUNE revision

Interactions between flowering plants and the animals that pollinate them are known to be responsible for part of the tremendous diversity of the angiosperms, currently thought to number at least 350,000 species.  But the diversity of different types of pollination system (bird, bee, moth, fly, etc.) is unknown for most large, related groups of plants (what systematists term “clades”) such as families and subfamilies.  In addition we know little about how these interactions with pollinators have evolved over time and in different parts of the world.  Only a handful of groups of flowering plants have been studied with respect to questions such as:

How much do we currently know about the diversity of pollination systems in large clades?

How is that diversity partitioned between the smaller clades (e.g. subfamilies, tribes, genera) of a family, and what are the evolutionary transitions between the major groups of pollinators?

Do these pollination systems vary biogeographically across the clade’s range?

These sorts of questions have been addressed for the massive, globally distributed Apocynaceae (one of the top 10 or 11 largest angiosperm families with more than 5,300 species) in a study just published using a new database of pollinators of the family.  What’s more, the work is open access and anyone can download a copy for free.  Here’s the citation with a link to the paper:

Ollerton, J., Liede-Schumann, S., Endress, M E., Meve, U. et al. [75 authors in all] (2018) The diversity and evolution of pollination systems in large plant clades: Apocynaceae as a case study. Annals of Botany (in press)

In this study we have shown that (among other things):

  • The family is characterised by an enormous diversity of pollination systems involving almost all of the major pollen vectors and some that are nearly unique to the Apocynaceae.
  • Earlier diverging clades have a narrower range of pollination systems than those that evolved later.
  • Transitions from one type of pollination system to another are evolutionarily constrained, and rarely or never occur, whereas others have taken place much more often, e.g. between wasp and beetle pollination.
  • There is significant convergent evolution of pollination systems, especially fly and moth pollination, by geographically and phylogenetically distinct clades.

You’ll notice that there are 75 (!) authors on this paper.  That’s because we’ve pulled together a huge amount of previously unpublished data and used some state of the art analyses to produce this work.  It was a monumental effort, especially considering that my colleague Sigrid Liede-Schumann and I only decided to push ahead with this project about a year ago when we chatted at the International Botanical Congress that I posted about at the timeIn truth however the origins of this paper go back over 20 years to 1997 when when Sigrid and I published a study of what was then known about pollination systems in the Asclepiadaceae (the asclepiads).

In that paper we said that the research “is intended to be ongoing…[we]…hope to re-review asclepiad pollination within the next decade”.  At the time I didn’t think it would actually take more than 20 years!  However over that period a lot has changed.  For one thing the Asclepiadaceae no longer exists, broken up and subsumed within a much larger Apocynaceae.  Also, I’ve done a lot of work in the field and in the herbarium on some of the smaller groups within the family, such as CeropegiaOthers, including many of my co-authors, have also been working on different groups in various parts of the world.  Finally the level of sophistication of the analyses we are now able to do has increased beyond recognition compared to what we could achieve in the mid-1990s.  All of this means that now is the right time to produce this study.

Having said all of that, this is still a work in progress.  Our Pollinators of Apocynaceae Database contains a sample of just over 10% of the species in the family.  So lots more data on plant-pollinator interactions needs to be collected before we say we fully understand how pollination systems have evolved in this most remarkable family.  I’d be happy to talk with anyone who is interested in the family and being involved in future data collection.

The database will be freely available to anyone who wants to use it – lots more can be done with this information and, once again, I’m happy to chat with potential collaborators.

I was recently interviewed about the study, and about plant-pollinator interactions and the Apocynaceae more generally, for the In Defense of Plants podcast – here’s a link to that interview.

Finally, I’d like to express my sincerest thanks to my co-authors on this study – I really couldn’t have done it without you guys!

12 Comments

Filed under Apocynaceae, Biodiversity, Biogeography, Evolution, Pollination, Wasps