Tag Archives: Bees

Keeping up with pollination: using ChatGPT as a research alert

There is too much science.

That is not a complaint about the quantity of research being done. Quite the opposite: it is remarkable how much good work is now being published across the world. But the sheer volume creates a serious practical problem. How can any researcher keep track of what is relevant to their field, let alone read and properly absorb it?

For someone interested in pollination, the difficulty is compounded by the extraordinary breadth of the subject. Pollination is not confined to a single academic discipline, or even to a small cluster of them. It cuts across botany, zoology, ecology, evolution, conservation biology, agriculture, economics, food security, national security, palaeontology, biogeography, genetics, behaviour, climate science and many other areas.

A paper that changes how I think about pollination might appear in a specialist plant journal, an entomological publication, or journals covering conservation, agricultural economics, or palaeontology. It might concern the structure of ecological networks, the nutritional quality of crops, the evolution of flowers, pesticide regulation, the movements of migratory birds or the fossil record of insects. It may not even use the word “pollination” prominently in its title or abstract.

That breadth is one of the great attractions of a subject that has kept me fascinated for 35 years, and which I tried to capture in my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society. It is also what makes keeping up with it so challenging.

The limitations of conventional alerts

There are, of course, many ways to receive information about new research. Journals send tables of contents. Google Scholar provides alerts based on keywords or authors. ResearchGate regularly tells me that someone has cited one of my publications.

These services have their place, but they tend to provide a rather narrow window onto the literature.

For example, Google Scholar can alert researchers to newly indexed material matching a search query. This is useful, but it is neither a comprehensive record of everything published nor a carefully curated selection: broad searches produce noise, while narrow ones inevitably miss relevant work.

A citation alert from ResearchGate tells me about research connected to work that I have already published. That can be valuable, and occasionally flattering, but it inevitably looks backwards. It shows me the expanding wake of my own research rather than offering a broad view of where the subject is moving.

Keyword alerts have a different problem. They can generate large quantities of material with very little discrimination. A search for “pollination”, “pollinator” or “plant–pollinator interactions” will retrieve many relevant papers, but also conference notices, marginally related studies, duplicate records and work of highly variable importance.

More restrictive searches reduce the noise but risk excluding the unexpected paper that turns out to be especially interesting.

What I need is not simply a larger stream of titles. I want something closer to an informed research assistant: a system that could search widely, exercise some judgement, explain why particular items might matter, and alter its approach in response to my comments.

I have therefore been experimenting with ChatGPT’s scheduling function as a weekly research-alert system.

A scheduled conversation

My current instruction is for ChatGPT to provide a shortlist every Friday morning of the most worthwhile new papers, preprints, reports and substantive analyses relating to plant–pollinator interactions, pollination networks, bird pollination and related broader biodiversity topics.

I have asked it to include no more than ten items, and fewer when the available material is weak. That final qualification is important: I do not need ten references merely to fill ten spaces, I’d rather receive four genuinely interesting papers than a padded list containing six that I will never read.

For each item, the system can provide the citation, a short account of the main finding and an explanation of why it may be relevant to my interests. It can also distinguish between peer-reviewed research, preprints, reports and other forms of analysis.

In that sense, the alert is already more useful than a conventional automated search. But the most important difference is that it is a conversation.

I can tell it that a particular paper was especially useful and ask it to look for more work of that kind. I can point out that another item was only marginally relevant. I can ask it to widen its search into palaeontology, ecological economics or agricultural policy, or to pay closer attention to a particular taxonomic group.

I can also tell it what not to do. When a major European pollinator-research white paper appeared, for example, the alert quite reasonably identified it as relevant. But I was one of its co-authors and did not need an artificial intelligence system to introduce it to me as a new discovery. I could therefore instruct the system to recognise my own publications and either omit them or flag them only when they were strategically relevant.

That adaptability is difficult to reproduce with conventional keyword alerts. The scheduled search is therefore not a fixed filter, it can be refined as my interests, projects and frustrations change.

From retrieval to assessment

The distinction between finding research and assessing it is also important.

A long list of newly published papers transfers the problem of selection from the search engine to the researcher. A useful alert should do more than retrieve documents. It should offer some preliminary judgement about novelty, relevance and significance.

Does a paper introduce a genuinely new idea, or does it repackage a familiar concept in new terminology? Is a striking conclusion supported by a strong study design? Does a paper matter because of its empirical results, its methods, its conceptual framework or its policy implications? Is it directly relevant to my work, or merely adjacent to it?

ChatGPT cannot answer such questions infallibly. Nor should its assessment be accepted without scrutiny. But it can help to triage the literature and identify which papers deserve closer attention.

This is particularly valuable outside one’s immediate specialism. I can usually make a rapid initial judgement about a field study of flower visitors or a paper on pollination networks. I may need more assistance in deciding whether a new economic analysis, remote-sensing method or palaeontological reconstruction is likely to be important.

The purpose is not to delegate scientific judgement, it is to direct that judgement more efficiently.

A few necessary cautions

There are obvious limitations.

An AI-generated research brief is only as good as the literature it can locate and the instructions it has been given. It may miss relevant work, misunderstand a paper, exaggerate novelty or place too much weight on a fashionable topic.

There is also a danger of creating an intellectual echo chamber. If I repeatedly tell the system what interests me, it may become increasingly good at confirming those interests while overlooking research that sits outside them. A useful alert needs some permission to surprise.

For that reason, I think the instructions should combine a clear core remit with an explicit request to include occasional unexpected items that could change how the field is viewed.

The summaries themselves must also remain starting points. Important papers need to be read, methods inspected and conclusions considered in relation to the evidence. An articulate paragraph generated by ChatGPT is not a substitute for engaging with the original study.

A better kind of alert

Used carefully, however, scheduled ChatGPT alerts offer something that conventional notification services do not: an iterative relationship between the researcher and the search process.

The system can learn that I am interested not only in pollination as an ecological interaction, but also in its agricultural, economic, evolutionary, historical and political dimensions. It can respond when I say that a particular area is becoming more important to a project. It can explain its selections, accept criticism and search differently the following week.

That makes it less like an electronic table of contents and more like a research assistant who arrives on Friday morning with a small pile of papers and a cup of coffee and says: “These are the ones I think you should look at, and this is why.”

Like any research assistant, it will sometimes be wrong. It may overlook something obvious, become overenthusiastic about a weak paper or misunderstand why a study matters. But it can be corrected. The conversation continues, and the next briefing can be better.

For a field as broad and rapidly expanding as pollination research, that may be the most useful feature of all.

I will finish with an example. Today’s alert arrived at the scheduled 08:00 (though I had to make my own coffee…) and included four items for me to look at; this was the fourth, which I’m reproducing verbatim:

4. Agarwala et al. — Biodiversity loss will decrease the future creditworthiness of nations

The authors incorporate projected losses of wild pollination, tropical timber and marine fisheries into sovereign credit-risk models for 23 countries. Their scenarios suggest that partial ecosystem collapse could substantially increase national borrowing costs and expose a major omission in conventional credit ratings.

Why it matters: This is one of the clearer attempts to translate pollination loss from ecosystem-service valuation into a decision framework already used by governments and financial markets. For ecological-economics work, the methodological bridge—from spatial ecosystem-service scenarios through macroeconomic models to sovereign credit ratings—is more important than the headline monetary totals.

The ecological assumptions deserve scrutiny. “Wild pollination” is compressed into a tractable economic input, so uncertainty in crop dependence, substitution, adaptation and spatial mismatch may be obscured once propagated through the financial model.

Assessment: Strategically consequential interdisciplinary analysis, not new pollination biology.

The paper actually appeared on 4th June but I missed it, even though it cites this paper by Millard et al., in which I was involved, and presumably appeared on a ResearchGate citation alert last month. ChatGPT rightly spotted that it was something which would interest me and that’s what’s so fascinating about this approach to keeping up with the literature – this system is intelligent enough to “understand” my needs, even if it’s not conscious of precisely why it understands them.

As always, I’d be pleased to hear your views on this topic – feel free to comment below.

When an old experiment revealed a new story about flowers

14 Replies

Sometimes, science does not go the way you plan.

That is usually framed as failure: the experiment did not work, the results were inconclusive, the story was unclear. But science can also advance when we go back to old data and ask a different question. That is exactly what happened with a study of Field Scabious, Knautia arvensis, a familiar wildflower of meadows and grasslands.

Back in 2001, I carried out an experiment to test the function of the showy outer florets around the edge of the flower head. These enlarged “ray florets” look as though they ought to be important in attracting pollinators. The idea was simple: trim them in different ways and see whether pollinating insects responded – you can see the results of that trimming in the photo above.

The answer, at the time, was baffling. Bumblebees, hoverflies and butterflies (all of which are effective pollinators of this plant) did not seem to care very much. Visitation rates by the insects hardly changed, and neither did seed set. But seed weight did change, as did the amount of sugar being produced by the trimmed flower heads. At the time I could not make sense of this in relation to the question I had asked, so the data were archived and left alone.

But not forgotten.

Fast forward 25 years, and I was chatting about this data set with colleagues when I was at the Kunming Institute of Botany in China. That got me reading some more recent work about florivory -the damage done to flowers by animals – and I realised that this old experiment might make more sense if viewed from another angle. Perhaps I had not really been testing floral attraction at all. Perhaps, without intending to, I had carried out a simulated florivory experiment.

Seen in that light, the results became much more interesting.

Cutting the ray florets did not stop pollinators from visiting. Nor did it reduce the number of seeds produced. But it did change the plant’s internal economics. Nectar quality declined in the most heavily cut flowers, and the seeds that those flower heads produced were consistently lighter. In other words, the flowers still functioned well enough to get pollinated, but the plant appeared to invest less in rewards for pollinators and less in each of its offspring.

That matters because lighter seeds may have poorer prospects later in life, even if the plant initially appears to reproduce successfully. The damage did not cause total reproductive failure. Instead, it produced a subtler effect: hidden costs that only become visible when you look beyond simple seed counts.

Newly contexualised in this way, we wrote up this work, being completely honest about the history of the study, submitted it to the Journal of Pollination Ecology, where it received very positive reviews. It’s now been published and you can download a copy by following the link in the reference:

Ollerton, J., Xu, X. & Ren, Z.-X. (2026) Misconceived experiments may yield valuable insights: simulated florivory has unpredictable consequences for plant reproduction in Knautia arvensis (Caprifoliaceae). Journal of Pollination Ecology (in press)

I like this study because it tells two stories at once. One is ecological: florivory may not always reduce pollinator visits, but it can still alter plant reproduction in potentially important ways. The other is about how science actually works. Not every good paper begins with a perfect hypothesis and a clean result. Sometimes the value lies in returning to an awkward, neglected dataset and realising that it was trying to tell you something different all along.

Science does not always go the way you plan. But occasionally that is when it becomes most revealing.

What the COVID lockdowns taught us about plant-pollinator specialisation in gardens

1 Reply

One of the few positive things to come out of the COVID lockdowns was the unexpected opportunity to look much more closely at the nature right outside our doors. In 2020 I coordinated the Lockdown Gardens initiative, bringing together pollination ecologists from around the world to carry out standardised surveys of flower visitors in the gardens they could access during that strange and constrained period. That project generated an unusually rich global dataset: 67 gardens, almost 47,000 flower visits, and records from more than 650 pollinator species.

Since then, the dataset has started to yield some really interesting insights. A new paper led by Luis Perugini uses the Lockdown Gardens data to ask a deceptively simple question: what determines how specialised plant–pollinator interactions are in gardens? In other words, are garden flowers in some places visited by a narrow set of pollinators, while elsewhere they are more generalist?

The answers are not quite what we expected. Looking at 40 garden networks from four continents, we found that larger gardens support more plant species, and that suburban gardens tended to be richer in plant species than either rural or urban gardens. We also found that pollinator richness increased with plant richness and with precipitation. But when it came to the actual specialisation of interactions, climate and species richness did not seem to matter very much at all. Instead, variation in specialisation was mostly species-specific and showed no clear phylogenetic pattern.

That’s an important result, because it suggests that the factors that drive biodiversity in gardens are not necessarily the same factors that shape the ecological relationships within those gardens. Put more simply: having more species does not automatically mean having more specialised interactions.

For me, this is a nice example of how a project born out of a global crisis can continue to produce useful science. The Lockdown Gardens surveys began as an improvised response to an extraordinary moment, but the data are now helping us to understand how gardens function as ecological systems, and how they might better support pollinators in an increasingly human-dominated world.

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

Perugini, L., Rech, A., Ollerton, J. & Jorge, L. (2026) Global drivers of plant-pollinator interaction specialization in gardens. Ecology and Evolution (in press)

Help us uncover the hidden lives of Europe’s ground-nesting bees

Leave a reply

When most people think about pollinators, they picture bees visiting flowers. But for many species, a large part of life happens elsewhere: in the soil. Many pollinators do not just feed above ground, they also nest, shelter or develop below it

Discovering more about this aspect of pollinator life histories is the focus of ProPollSoil, a major new European research project exploring the links between soil health and pollinator health that kicked off last year. I’m excited to be part of it because the soil component of pollinator ecology and conservation is important but often overlooked.

As part of ProPollSoil, we are asking the public to help us find and document ground-nesting bees through a citizen science initiative called EuroBeeSoil. If you spot a bee nest in soil, sand, a lawn, a path edge or a sunlit bank, you can photograph it and upload your record to iNaturalist.

It’s a simple idea, but potentially a very powerful one. These observations will help us understand where bees are nesting, what kinds of soils they use, and how we can better conserve them.

We often talk about pollinator-friendly flowers. But bees need more than food, they also need somewhere to live. For many species, that means the ground beneath our feet.

So please follow this link and consider how you might take part if you can. You do not need to be a bee expert. You just need to look down a little more often.

What China’s mountain meadows and forests can teach us about pollinators

Leave a reply

For several years now I have been fortunate to collaborate with colleagues in China on the ecology of plant–pollinator interactions. One of the things that makes that work so exciting is the sheer variety of landscapes in which these interactions play out. In a newly published paper led by Dr Xin Xu, we have studied pollination networks on Yulong Snow Mountain in Yunnan, in south-west China, a place where forests and flower-rich meadows sit side by side in a spectacular high-elevation environment.

The question we asked was simple enough: how do these adjacent habitats – woodland and grassland – differ in the way that plants and pollinators interact? But answering it required a huge amount of field effort. Over two flowering seasons, the team recorded more than 11,000 interactions between 229 pollinating insect species and 89 flowering plant species. That is an extraordinary reminder of how much ecological complexity can be packed into a relatively small area of mountain landscape.

What emerged was a very clear pattern. The open meadows supported far more activity than the neighbouring forests: more visits, more pollinator species, more plant species, and more interaction links. In fact, nearly 9,700 of the recorded interactions took place in meadow habitat, compared with about 1,365 in forest. Meadows were especially important for bumblebees, which are among the key pollinators in these cool, high-elevation systems.

But the forests were not simply poor relations. They supported their own distinctive subset of the wider pollinator community, and the network of interactions there was structured differently. Some pollinator species altered their daily foraging schedules depending on whether they were in meadow or forest, suggesting that they are responding flexibly to changes in light, temperature, floral resources, and perhaps competition. That is one of the aspects of pollination ecology that fascinates me most: these are not static systems, but living networks that shift across space and time.

More broadly, the study reinforces something that has become increasingly clear from ecological research: habitat heterogeneity matters. A landscape made up of different, connected habitat types can support a richer and more resilient community than one that is uniform. On Yulong Snow Mountain, the meadows seem to act as hotspots of pollinator diversity, while the forests add further complexity and help shape how those pollinators behave. Conserving that mosaic is therefore likely to be crucial if we want to maintain pollination services and biodiversity in mountain regions facing rapid environmental change.

For me personally, this paper is also a reminder of why international collaboration is so valuable. Working with Chinese colleagues has opened a window onto ecological systems that are both scientifically important and visually stunning. Yunnan is one of the world’s great biodiversity regions, and studying pollination there helps us understand not only how these mountain ecosystems function, but also how species interactions may respond to climate change and habitat alteration in the future.

Pollination ecology is about more than just bees, birds, or other animals visiting flowers. As a focus of study, it is much richer. It is about networks of interactions, about the timing of activity through the day, about the way species respond to different habitats, and about how whole ecosystems are stitched together. High on a Chinese mountain, among meadows and forests, we can see that complexity in action.

Here’s the full reference:

Xu, X., Maruyama, P.K., Ollerton, J., Wang, H. & Ren, Z.-X. (2026) Spatio-temporal variation in plant–pollinator networks between adjacent meadow and forest habitats in a high-elevation environment. Oecologia (in press)

Here’s the abstract:

Understanding how habitat heterogeneity influences the structure and stability of ecological networks is critical for predicting ecosystem responses to environmental change. In alpine ecosystems, open meadows and forests represent contrasting habitats with distinct vegetation structures, resource availability, and microclimatic conditions. In this study, we integrated spatial and temporal data on pollinator-plant interactions to investigate network structure, species roles, and diurnal foraging dynamics across meadow and surrounding forest habitats during two flowering seasons on Yulong Snow Mountain, Yunnan, China. A total of 11,094 plant–pollinator interactions were recorded, involving 229 pollinator and 89 flowering plant species. Meadows supported significantly higher interaction frequencies, species richness, and α-diversity for both plants and pollinators, although they showed a striking numerical dominance of a single key pollinator, Bombus friseanus. Network dissimilarity analyses revealed substantial differences between habitats, with both species turnover and rewiring contributing to interaction dissimilarity. Diurnal foraging dynamic analysis revealed that some key species, such as Bombus lepidus, displayed distinct foraging patterns across habitats indicating behavioral adaptation and temporal niche partitioning to microclimate. Our findings highlight the strong influence of habitat type on pollination network architecture and reveal many shared pollinator species, indicating some degree of cross-habitat linkage. These results underscore the importance of habitat heterogeneity and spatial coupling in shaping pollination services and sustaining biodiversity in mountain ecosystems under environmental change.

Join me at the Wildlife Gardening Virtual Symposium 14th January 2026 – Registration Now Open!

Leave a reply

At a time when the UK’s wildlife is under increasing pressure, the everyday spaces we manage—especially gardens—are becoming ever more important. Although interest in wildlife-friendly gardening has grown enormously in recent years, the evidence behind different approaches is not always clear. Well-meaning interventions can be highly effective, but some can miss the mark without a grounding in sound ecological knowledge.

That’s exactly why the Wildlife Gardening Virtual Symposium has become such a valuable annual event. It brings together researchers, practitioners, and anyone involved in managing green spaces to explore what the science is actually telling us about creating gardens that support biodiversity.

This year’s programme, chaired by Hafsah Hafeji of the Wildlife Gardening Forum, features four invited talks covering ponds, pollinators, fungi, and urban mammals, along with an update on emerging policies and projects shaping the wildlife-gardening landscape.

2026 Speaker Programme

Fragments of Paradise: Garden Ponds as Wildlife Habitat
Dr Mike Jeffries – Northumbria University
Gardening for Pollinators: It’s About More Than Just Flowers!
Prof Jeff Ollerton – University of Northampton & Kunming Institute of Botany
How Fungi Make Gardens Flourish
Dr Jassy Drakulic – Royal Horticultural Society
Recording Wild Mammals in Urban Spaces: A Multidecadal Study
David Wembridge – People’s Trust for Endangered Species

Whether you’re involved in ecology, horticulture, landscaping, consultancy, education, or simply interested in the future of wildlife in our gardens, the symposium offers a concise way to catch up on current evidence and emerging thinking.

Reserve your place here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/wildlife-gardening-virtual-symposium-2026-tickets-1419239717199

Connecting soils and pollinators: the ProPollSoil project kicks off in Germany!

1 Reply

The ProPollSoil project officially got underway on 1st October, and this week (16th–20th November) our consortium gathered in Freising, Germany, for the kick-off meeting hosted by the Technical University of Munich. It was an inspiring start: dozens of experts from across Europe coming together to explore two big questions: How does the health of our soils shape the fate of pollinators? And how do pollinators influence soil health?

Most people think of pollination as something that happens in the air or on flowers, but for many species the story begins underground. Thousands of bees, hoverflies, beetles and wasps depend on soil to nest, overwinter, or complete parts of their life cycle. For example, around half of the solitary bee species in Britain and Ireland are what we term “ground nesting” and make their nests in different types of soil. Yet soil conditions—structure, temperature, contaminants, farming practices—are changing rapidly. As part of the EU’s Mission Soil programme, ProPollSoil aims to understand these hidden links so we can better protect the pollinators that support our food systems and ecosystems.

The project brings together specialists in entomology, soil science, ecology, modelling, agriculture, economics, and communication, forming a truly interdisciplinary team. Through desk-based reviews, fieldwork, lab experiments, monitoring and advanced modelling techniques, we’ll be investigating how soil influences pollinator survival and what we can do to improve it.

ProPollSoil is built around six key goals, including identifying the soil conditions that help pollinators thrive, testing innovative ways to monitor soil-dependent species, evaluating how different land-use and farming practices affect pollinators, and developing practical soil-management solutions—from reduced tillage to cleaner soils—that can slow or reverse their decline.

My own role mainly focuses on understanding the state of our current knowledge of the biology and ecology of soil-dependent pollinators and their interactions with soils, other invertebrates, and plants. I’ll also be working on integrating information about pollinators’ soil dependencies into the European Atlas of Plant-Pollinator Associations (EuroAPPA), part of the related Butterfly Project, whose kick-off meeting I documented on the blog earlier this year.

Together, these efforts will help build a clearer, more complete understanding of how life belowground supports life aboveground. It’s an exciting journey, and we’re only just getting started!

My sincere thanks to all of the ProPollSoil consortium members whose passion and expertise made for a stimulating few days in Germany. And a special shout-out for the team from Poland who brought with them some delicious, PropPollSoil branded sweets:

Pollinators and politics in China

3 Replies

Last week I returned from a 14 day visit to China to colleagues at the Kunming Institute of Botany in Yunnan, part of a three-year commitment to working there that I documented on the blog last year, starting here. Some of my recent trip involved a long weekend in the city of Nantong, just north of Shanghai, where I was an invited speaker at the International Pollinator Insect Biology and Pollination Symposium. During a full day of talks from researchers and practitioners, via the excellent simultaneous interpretation service provided by the organisers, we learned about recent developments in the world of Chinese honey bees and wild pollinators. There were also international guest speakers from Australia, Argentina, and the UK, in person and online.

Too much was presented to give you a full account of the meeting – if you’re interested in details I’ve uploaded a copy of the English version of the symposium brochure here – but several themes emerged that I think are worth noting.

First of all, a number of speakers commented on the growing realisation in China that the value of crop pollination services by honey bees (both the native Asian Apis cerana and the European A. mellifera) far outweighs the value of the hive products such as honey, wax and royal jelly – see this from the 2021 study by Shibonage K Mashilingi and colleagues:

The total economic value of pollination amounted to US$ 106.08 billion in 2010, representing 19.12% of the total production value of Chinese agriculture

In comparison, the global honey market was valued at just US$ 9.01 billion in 2022. That such an understanding of the much greater economic value of pollinators to agriculture was relatively slow in coming is perhaps not surprising – it’s easier to weigh a physical product than it is to assess the contribution of bees and other insects to an apple harvest, for instance. But this awareness is a crucial step towards understanding the many reasons why pollinators need protection.

Which leads me to my next point: there was considerable political interest in the conference and in the topic more broadly. The meeting opened with almost an hour of introductory remarks by high-ranking Chinese officials, including the Vice Mayor of the regional government, the Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and the Secretary General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China. All of them commented on the importance of pollination to both crops and wild plants, and the need to reduce the amount pesticides being used in Chinese agriculture. I can’t recall ever being in a pollination symposium in any other country where there was such a political presence. I think that it says a lot about the Chinese willingness to translate science and technology into government policy and actions.

At the end of the opening session I had the chance to talk briefly with Liu Jian, former Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of China. Via an interpreter we agreed on the importance of pesticide reduction for protecting pollinators, a theme he had emphasised strongly in his talk, and I presented him with a copy of my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society:

Following the opening addresses there was a talk by the President of the Apicultural Science Association of China, Prof. Peng Wenjun, who gave us “An overview of the development of China’s bee pollination industry”. He described pollinators as the “invisible pillar” of agriculture, which is a wonderful phrase, and set out a strategy for greater integration of government policies, science, and technological innovation in order to support both managed and wild pollinators.

The first set of talks ended about 6pm, then it was back to the hotel for a quick dinner, before returning to the venue for a set of 15 shorter, but no less excellent, talks by postgraduate and postdoctoral researchers. This over-ran slightly and finally drew to a close at about 10pm, signalling the end of a very long, but very stimulating, day.

The following morning we were up early for a tour of some local agricultural facilities, including a high-tech glasshouse demonstration project and a loquat orchard that included trees which are thought to be around 300 years old. The thing that links these two contrasting agricultural systems is the requirement for managed pollinators to produce a crop: bumblebees (Bombus spp.) in the case of glasshouse tomatoes and the Asian honey bee (Apis cerana) for the winter-flowering loquat. Here are some photographs from that trip:

My sincere thanks to the organisers of the symposium for the invitation to speak and to my colleagues Zong-Xin Ren, Scarlett Howard, Yuansheng Fu, and Carlos Matallana-Puerto for their companionship on the trip. I’m grateful also to our personal translator-guides Yang and Gao who surprised us at the airport and made us feel so welcome:

Do birds pollinate the iconic Golden Lotus? A new study suggests that they do!

Leave a reply

The Golden Lotus (Musella lasiocarpa) is one of China’s most iconic plants — a striking member of the banana family (Musaceae) that seems to bloom forever. Its brilliant yellow, lotus-like bracts have long made it a favourite of subtropical gardeners, though it also has utility as a food and fibre crop, and is associated with Chinese Buddhism. As you can see above it often features stylistically in Chinese temples, and in my visits to Yunnan we frequently encounter it during fieldwork on farms, planted to support terraced fields:

But despite its fame, one mystery has lingered for decades: what actually pollinates it?

Until now, Musella was thought to rely mainly on insects, particularly bees, for pollination. That assumption made it something of an outlier within the banana family, where most species are pollinated by birds or bats. But a new study, in which I was involved as part of an international team of predominantly Chinese and Brazilian researchers, has turned that view on its head.

By combining careful field observations with citizen science records, our team found that the Golden Lotus is regularly visited by an impressive diversity of birds — twelve species from five different families. As I documented in my recent book Birds & Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationships, many of these visitors, such as bulbuls and sunbirds, are known nectar-feeders, and their behaviour at the flowers suggests that they are acting as effective pollinators. This discovery significantly expands what we know about the pollination ecology of the Golden Lotus, and places it firmly within the broader pattern of bird pollination that characterises much of the banana family.

Interestingly, the plant’s features — large, robust, vividly coloured bracts, abundant accessible nectar, and long-lived blooms — make perfect sense in this new light. These are traits that favour bird pollination rather than the short, concentrated visits typical of bees.

But the significance goes beyond one species. Bird pollination plays a vital, and often overlooked, role in China’s native flora, linking ecosystems from tropical rainforests to mountain valleys. Understanding these relationships is important not only for biodiversity conservation but also for horticulture — helping gardeners and landscape designers to create spaces that attract and sustain pollinators of all kinds.

The Golden Lotus has always been celebrated for its beauty and longevity. Now, we can add another layer to its story: a reminder that even the most familiar plants can still surprise us, and that nature’s partnerships are often more complex — and more colourful — than we imagine.

Here’s the reference with a link to the paper, which is open access:

Albuquerque-Lima, S., Ferreira, B. H. d. S., Rech, A. R., Ollerton, J., Lunau, K., Smagghe, G., Li, K.-Q., Oliveira, P. E., & Ren, Z.-X. (2025). Beyond Bees: Evidence of Bird Visitation and Putative Pollination in the Golden Lotus (Musella lasiocarpa)—One of the Six Buddhist Flowers—Through Field Surveys and Citizen Science. Plants, 14(20), 3157. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14203157

Pollinators need more space and 10% habitat is not enough says a new study just published in Science

2 Replies

Pollinators such as wild bees, butterflies, and hoverflies are in trouble worldwide. A major new study, published in Science and led by Gabriella Bishop and other scientists at Wageningen University & Research, shows that the oft-quoted figure of 10% semi-natural habitat in farmland landscapes is far too little to safeguard pollinators. Instead, the evidence points to a need for somewhere between 16% and 37% habitat cover, depending on the type of pollinator, if we are serious about halting declines. Suitable habitats include hedgerows, patches of woodland, species-rich grasslands, and flowering margins, and as a general rule, hoverflies need less of it whilst bumblebees and butterflies require more.

I was fortunate to play a part in this global assessment, contributing an unpublished dataset collected with my former PhD student, Sam Tarrant, who studied plant-pollinator interactions on restored landfill and established grassland sites. Seeing those data joined with dozens of other studies from around the world underlines something we have known for years: no single dataset, however carefully gathered, can give us the whole picture. To really understand what is happening to biodiversity—and to design conservation solutions that work—we need these kinds of global, mega-author syntheses that draw together evidence from many landscapes, taxa, and approaches.

The message from this analysis is stark but hopeful. More habitat means more pollinators, across all groups. Richer habitats with abundant flowers give an additional boost, but the overriding priority must be to increase the sheer area of natural habitat in farmed landscapes. Small-scale fixes like wildflower strips offer short-term benefits, but without enough space they can’t deliver recovery at scale. Long-term, secure habitat creation—on the order of decades, not seasons—is what pollinators, farmers, and ecosystems need.

Although the policy debate in Europe provided the backdrop for this study, the lessons (and the data) are global. Wherever agriculture dominates, the health of pollinator populations—and by extension our food security and biodiversity—depends on our willingness to give these insects the space and quality of habitat they require.

Looking ahead, we need to think bigger and work together. That means more international collaborations, more sharing of data, and more commitment to long-term solutions that transcend borders. The image at the start of this post is from my trip back to China in July this year. I deliberately chose it because, as you’ll see from the map below which is taken from the paper, there was no suitable data available for the study from that country. Or from Africa. Or Australasia. Or from most of tropical South America. That shows that as pollination ecologists we need to coordinate more in advance on these types of syntheses, and maximise the value of the kinds of data that we collect. The main take away from this study, however, is that if we want to reverse the declines in biodiversity, scientists, policymakers, businesses, farmers, and citizens all have a role to play. Pollinators remind us that nature is interconnected and global—our conservation efforts must be, too.

Here’s the full reference with a link to the study:

Bishop, G.A., Kleijn, D., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Isaacs, R., Kremen, C., Magrach, A., Ponisio, L.C., Potts, S.G., Scheper, J., Smith, H.G., Tscharntke, T., Albrecht, J., Badenhausser, I., Åström, J., Báldi, A., Basu, P., Berggren, N., Beyer, N., Blüthgen, R., Bommarco, B.J., Brosi, H., Cohen, L.J., Cole, K.R., Denning, M., Devoto, J., Ekroos, F., Fornoff, B.L., Foster, M.A.K., Gillespie, J.L., Gonzalez-Andujar, J.P., González-Varo, J.P., Goulson, D., Grass, I., Hass, A.L., Herrera, J.M., Holzschuh, A., Hopfenmüller, S., Izquierdo, J., Jauker, B., Kallioniemi, E.P., Kirsch, F., Klein, A.-M., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Krauss, J., Krimmer, E., Kunin, B., Laha, S.A.M., Lindström, Y., Mandelik, G., Marcacci, D.I., McCracken, M., Monasterolo, L.A., Morandin, J., Morrison, S., Mudri Stojnic, J., Ollerton, J., Persson, A.S., Phillips, B.B., Piko, J.I., Power, E.F., Quinlan, G.M., Rundlöf, M., Raderschall, C.A., Riggi, L.G.A., Roberts, S.P.M., Roth, T., Senapathi, D., Stanley, D.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stout, J.C., Sutter, L., Tanis, M.F., Tarrant, S., van Kolfschoten, L., Vanbergen, A.J., Vilà, M., von Königslöw, V., Vujic, A., WallisDeVries, M.F., Wen, A., Westphal, C., Wickens, J.B., Wickens, V.J., Wilkinson, N.I., Wood, T.J., Fijen, T.P.M. (2025) Critical habitat thresholds for effective pollinator conservation in agricultural landscapes. Science 389: 1314-1319

Here’s the abstract:

Biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes is declining, but evidence-based conservation targets to guide international policies for such landscapes are lacking. We present a framework for informing habitat conservation policies based on the enhancement of habitat quantity and quality and define thresholds of habitat quantity at which it becomes effective to also prioritize habitat quality. We applied this framework to insect pollinators, an important part 5 of agroecosystem biodiversity, by synthesizing 59 studies from 19 countries. Given low habitat quality, hoverflies had the lowest threshold at 6% semi-natural habitat cover, followed by solitary bees (16%), bumble bees (18%), and butterflies (37%). These figures represent minimum habitat thresholds in agricultural landscapes, but when habitat quantity is restricted, marked increases in quality are required to reach similar outcomes.