Tag Archives: Pollinators

Was this the first online database of plant-pollinator interactions?

Over the past few years, the ways in which we collate and use large databases of plant-pollinator interactions, and make them publicly available according to FAIR data principles, has been much on my mind. These were and are important considerations for several projects, including the Pollinators of Apocynaceae Database; the pandemic garden pollinators initiative that I coordinated during lock-down; the WorldFAIR project; and, most recently, an EU-funded project called BUTTERFLY that launches in April and involves both the DoPI and GloBI databases.

The latter are just two of a growing number of databases making information about plant-pollinator interactions in wild and agricultural settings freely available to other scientists and to wider stakeholders. An intriguing question to those of us interested in the history of pollination ecology as a science is: what was the first such online database? I think that I have the answer, but I’m happy to be corrected. But first some background.

Since returning to Britain from Denmark in March, Karin and I have been renting a house from some friends as a temporary measure before we found somewhere else to live. A really nice property became available late last year and we decided to move in on 18th December. Then last week the final consignment of boxes and furniture that we’d had in storage arrived at our new home and we’ve been spending time deciding what we want to keep and what needs disposing of.

I’d be the first to admit that I’ve always been something of a hoarder when it comes to books and paperwork, so one of my priorities has been thinning out the contents of old folders and box files. Yesterday I opened one that contained a sheaf of papers related to the study that Sigrid Liede-Schumann and I published on pollination systems in the family Asclepiadaceae (now subsumed into Apocynaceae). One of the items I found is, I think, a fascinating piece of history with regard to online interaction databases.

As you can see in the image above, it’s a print-out* of an email that I received on 31st December 1995 from Mark Fishbein. If I recall correctly, I’d met Mark at a conference and he’d mentioned that he’d been compiling published and unpublished records of pollinators of North American Asclepiadaceae into a database. In this email he tells me that:

“I now have my data base accessible (primitively) on the World Wide Web. It would be easiest for me if you accessed the data base this way…Here’s what to do (if you have access to a web browser)…”

As we complete the first quarter of the 21st century it’s difficult to conceive that, less than 30 years ago, people were saying things like “if you have access to a web browser”! But the World Wide Web was only opened to public use in 1991 and even by the mid-90s, was not being widely used even in academia. Note also that Mark’s database was not password protected – it was freely (FAIRly?) available to anyone who could access it. In this regard Mark was certainly ahead of his time and, as far as I know, “pollrec” was the first online database of plant-pollinator interactions.

After we published our paper in 1997, Sigrid and I made what was then termed ASCLEPOL (including Mark’s and our own records) available online, and this was later merged with APOPOL to form the basis of the Pollinators of Apocynaceae Database. The latter is not formally available online, but it is available as supplementary information in the paper and has been merged into GloBI.

Thirty years is not a long time in real terms, but over that period there’s been huge cultural changes as far as society is concerned, and we take for granted things like online access to information that were hardly conceived of back then. But in 1995, Mark’s approach was revolutionary, even if we didn’t appreciate it at the time. When I emailed him about it yesterday he told me that he was “comfortable with my new role of being someone of historical interest”, followed by a smiley face emoji (another late 20th century development). So thank you Mark, this blog post is for you!

—————————————————————————————————

*Yes kids, back in the day grandpa printed out some important emails so as not to lose them.

Join me for two talks next week: South Leicester Birdwatchers (in person) and the Countryside Regeneration Trust (online)

2 Replies

It’s been a busy year for talks! But next week sees the final two of 2024 put to bed:

On Tuesday 12th November at 6.45pm I’ll be speaking in person about my recent book Birds & Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationship at South Leicester Birdwatchers – details can be found by following this link. I’ll bring along copies of my books to buy – the perfect Christmas gift!

On Thursday 14th November at 7pm I’ll be giving an online presentation to the Countryside Regeneration Trust about UK pollinators and how farmers and other large landowners can help to conserve their populations – booking details are here.

I hope to see you at one or both of these talks.

Join me ‘In Conservation With’ David Lindo – The Urban Birder – Thursday 7th November 7pm GMT: free and online!

Leave a reply

This Thursday at 7pm I’ll be chatting online with David Lindo – the Urban Birder – who is an award-winning broadcaster, writer, speaker, tour leader and educator. According to David’s website,’his mission is to engage city folk around the world with the environment through the medium of birds’.

We will be talking about my recent book Birds & Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationship, and the urban birding theme is very relevant as chapter 16 is called ‘Urban flowers for urban birds’. Our conversation will range much wider than that, however, to include the importance and diversity of birds as pollinators, threats to that diversity, habitat restoration schemes, and the cultural importance of flower-visiting birds.

David’s had some really stellar guests on his ‘In Conservation* With…’ series (which he describes as ‘Zoom interviews with some of the leading figures in the natural history sector’) including Kate Bradbury, Stephen Moss, Mark Cocker, Bella Lack, Ben Fogle, Caroline Lucas, Iolo Williams, and Margaret Atwood!

You can sign up for this free event by following this link. I’m really looking forward to it and I hope that you can join us.

———————————————————————————————–

*A deliberate pun, not a typo!

What are the limits to pollinator diversity? A new article poses the question

Leave a reply

The most globally significant groups of pollinators are well known and have been studied for a long time: bees and wasps, flies, butterflies and moths, birds, bats and beetles are all familiar to those of us with an interest in pollination ecology. However, every few years a new type of pollinator or a novel pollination system is described from nature or from the fossil record, or we add further examples of previously neglected pollinator groups such as cockroaches.

This begs the question: how much is there still to discover? How close are we to describing the full diversity of animals that act as pollen vectors? Can looking at the past help us to predict what we might find in the future? That’s the topic of a Perspective article that I was invited to write for the special issue of the Journal of Applied Entomology on the theme of The Neglected Pollinators that I mentioned last month. It’s a subject that I’ve thought about a lot over the last few decades and it was great to get an opportunity to air some ideas and speculation.

The article is open access and you can download a copy by following the link in this reference:

Ollerton, J. (2024) What are the phylogenetic limits to pollinator diversity? Journal of Applied Entomology (in press)

Here’s the abstract:

Although huge progress has been made over the past 200 years in identifying the diversity of pollinators of angiosperms and other plants, new discoveries continue to be made each year, especially in tropical areas and in the fossil record. In this perspective article I address the following questions: Just how diverse are the pollinators and what are the phylogenetic limits to that diversity? Which other groups of animals, not currently known to regularly engage with flowers, might be found to be pollinators in the future? Can we predict, from the fossil record and from discoveries in under-researched parts of the world, which animal groups might turn out in the future to contain pollinators? I also discuss why adding to our knowledge of plant–pollinator interactions is important, but also stress that an incomplete knowledge may not be a bad thing if it means that remote, inaccessible and relatively pristine parts of the world remain that way.

The diverse nature of ‘nature writing’: in conversation with Jack Cornish and Ben Masters – 5th October

5 Replies

Why do authors write about ‘nature’? What are their motivations and how did they start their writing journey? Do they even recognise this label of ‘nature writer’?

These are just some of the questions I’ll be exploring with two other authors at the Market Harborough Book Festival on Saturday 5th October.

Jack Cornish is author of The Lost Paths, an exploration of the ancient pathways that have criss-crossed England and Wales since prehistoric times, the peoples who made them, and the landscapes through which they currently run. It’s a reminder of ‘just how precious these paths are, and have been, to the human story of this island’. I’ve only just started The Lost Paths, but what I’ve read so far is wonderful. Check out this recent review on The Great Outdoors site.

Ben Masters’ most recent book is The Flitting, an account of the final months of his relationship with his late father, a keen natural historian with a devotion to butterflies, and how they come to share ‘passions, lessons and regrets as they run out of time’. There’s a nice review of The Flitting by Mark Avery on his blog, and I have to agree with him, it’s a lovely book.

Coincidentally, earlier this year Mark wrote a review of the book that I will be discussing, my recent Birds & Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationship, though I may also dip into Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society, because there’s at least one thing that unites the three of us as writers: a love of the poet John Clare! Ben discusses him at length in The Flitting, and indeed Clare provided the title of the book. Likewise, Jack name checks Clare in The Lost Paths, and I used the poet as the jumping off point for a couple of explorations of the importance and conservation of bees and other pollinators.

As well as discussing our roles as ‘nature writers’ we’ll be reading extracts from our books and answering audience questions. There will also be an opportunity to buy personally signed copies of our books. We look forward to seeing you there!

Butterflies, bumblebees and hoverflies can be equally effective pollinators of some plants says a new study

1 Reply

Just after I arrived in Northampton in 1995, I set about looking for suitable local sites for conducting pollination ecology field work for myself and students. The campus on which we were situated at the time was adjacent to an urban park – Bradlaugh* Fields – parts of which were designated as local nature reserves. In the intervening years, data from that area have made their way into a wide range of published studies, including:

I still have data collected during that time that have never been published, but good data are hard won and they may see the light of day at some point. Case in point is that we’ve just published a paper based on data from Bradlaugh Fields, the first of which were collected in 2001!

In this paper we’ve tested how effective hoverflies, butterflies and bumblebees are at pollinating the flowers of a common generalist grassland plant, colloquially called Field Scabious (Knautia arvensis). The expectation was that bumblebees, being generally larger, hairier and more flower-focused than the other groups, would be the most effective at transferring pollen to stigmas. To our surprise, they were not: hoverflies and butterflies performed just as well! In fact we argue that butterflies may be MORE important as pollinators of this plant because they fly further distances between individual plants, rather than hopping between the inflorescences of the same plants, as bumblebees tend to do.

Crucially, the importance of these different groups of pollinators varies enormously as the relative abundance of the insects visiting the flowers differs between seasons. In some years butterflies dominate as pollinators, in other years bumblebees or hoverflies. This is driven, we think, both by fluctuations in the populations of these insects and by the availability of other, more preferred flowers that may bloom at the same time.

The paper is part of a special issue of the Journal of Applied Entomology devoted to The Neglected Pollinators. It’s open access and you can download a copy by following the link in this reference:

Ollerton, J., Coulthard, E., Tarrant, S., Woolford, J., Ré Jorge, L. & Rech, A.R. (2024) Butterflies, bumblebees and hoverflies are equally effective pollinators of Knautia arvensis (Caprifoliaceae), a generalist plant species with compound inflorescences. Journal of Applied Entomology (in press)

Here’s the abstract:

Plant-pollinator interactions exist along a continuum from complete specialisation to highly generalised, that may vary in time and space. A long-held assumption is that large bees are usually the most effective pollinators of generalist plants. We tested this by studying the relative importance of different groups of pollinators of Knautia arvensis (L.) Coult. (Caprifoliaceae: Dipsacoideae). This plant is suitable for such a study because it attracts a diversity of flower visitors, belonging to different functional groups. We asked whether all functional groups of pollinators are equally effective, or if one group is most effective, which has been documented in other species with apparently generalised pollination systems. We studied two subpopulations of K. arvensis, one at low and one at high density in Northampton, UK. To assess pollinator importance we exposed unvisited inflorescences to single visits by different groups of pollinators (butterflies, bumblebees, hoverflies and others) and assessed the proportion of pollinated stigmas. We then multiplied the effectiveness of each pollinator group with their proportional visitation frequency in five different years. For each group we also compared time spent on flowers and flight distance between visits. The relative importance of each pollinator group varied between years, as did their flight distances between flower visits. Butterflies were the best pollinators on a per visit basis (in terms of the proportion of stigmas pollinated) and flew further after visiting an inflorescence. Different measures and proxies of pollinator effectiveness varied between taxa, subpopulations, and years, and no one group of pollinators was consistently more effective than the others. Our results demonstrate the adaptive value of generalised pollination strategies when variation in relative abundance of different types of pollinators is considered. Such strategies may have buffered the ability of plants to reproduce during past periods of environmental change and may do so in the future.

*Named after the estimable local MP and radical Charles Bradlaugh – see my blog post When Charles collide: Darwin, Bradlaugh, and birth control for Darwin Day 2016

Speaking at Oxford Ornithological Society – 11th September

Leave a reply

Later this month I’ve been invited by the Oxford Ornithological Society to give a talk about my new book Birds & Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationship. The talk will summarise the main themes from the book, particularly the sheer diversity of birds that can act as pollinators, what it means for the ecology and evolution of flowers, why the conservation of such interactions matters, and the cultural significance of bird-flower interactions. I’ll also deal with the question of why Europe is so odd when it comes to the question of birds as pollinators.

The talk is on Wednesday 11th September at Exeter Hall, Kidlington, starting at 7.45 pm; it’s free to society members, and non-members are invited to make a donation. Do come along if you’re in the area!

More details here: https://www.oos.org.uk/programme.php

I’ll bring a few copies of Birds & Flowers and Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society if anyone wants to buy a signed book.

Also in the diary are talks at South Leicester Birdwatchers (13th November) and Northamptonshire Bird Club (5th March).

If you represent a birding club or natural history society and wish to book me for a talk, please get in touch via my Contact page.

Urban bees are often early bees says a new study

1 Reply

The latest paper from Muzafar Sirohi‘s PhD work on urban solitary bees has just been published in the journal Zoodiversity, a publication of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. In this paper we looked at how the flight periods of urban populations of bees differ from those in surrounding nature reserves and other “natural” settings. One of the most interesting findings is that urban bees tend to emerge earlier, and be active longer, than their rural counterparts. The quote the study:

“We observed a substantial effect of urban microclimate on bee flight periods. A total of 153 individuals of nine bee species were recorded one to nine weeks before or after their expected flight periods. In contrast, only 14 individuals of four species were seen at unusual flight periods in nature sites.”

In my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society I discussed the importance of towns and cities for supporting pollinator populations, and conversely how important those populations are for urban food production. Likewise, in Birds and Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationship I have a chapter entitled “Urban flowers for urban birds”. The relationship between our built environment and pollinators is a fascinating topic, but there’s still much we don’t understand about how these insects and vertebrates respond behaviorally to urbanisation. Are they adapting in an evolutionary sense, or simply responding flexibly to the different conditions that cities impose on their biologies? Will future climate change make towns and cities uninhabitable for these animals? Hopefully our paper will stimulate further work on these and other topics.

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

Sirohi, M. H., Jackson, J., & Ollerton, J. (2024). Comparison of Flight Periods of Solitary and Primitively Eusocial Bees in Urban Environments and Nature Conservation Areas: a Preliminary Report. Zoodiversity 58: 317-334

Here’s the abstract:

Solitary and primitively eusocial bees, an important group of pollinators, have declined in the past few decades. In view of the recent focus on safeguarding pollinating insects, it is vital to understand the basic ecology of species for their conservation, for example their phenologies. We observed the flight periods of solitary and primitively eusocial bees in both the urban core of a large British town and nearby nature conservation areas. The bee surveys were conducted with standardised methods, on warm sunny days from the first appearance of bees in March 2012 and continued until October 2012. This study confirmed that a high number of species are active in the spring season. The emergence dates of species in urban areas and nature sites varied; about 26 of the 35 species were recorded at least one week earlier in urban areas; in contrast, only four species were seen earlier in nature conservation sites. When comparing this with the expected flight periods recorded (largely in nature sites) in the literature, many species were recorded at their expected time. However, a few individuals were recorded after their usual flight activity time, suggesting that the populations were possibly affected by the microclimate in urban areas. More urban phenological data are needed to understand the phenological trends in bees in urban habitats.

Pollination by birds: the curious case of Europe

2 Replies

Earlier this year I was invited by the editor of British Wildlife magazine to write a piece for their Changing Perspectives section about how odd Europe is when it comes to bird pollination. It’s based on one of the chapters in my book Birds & Flowers: An Intimate 50 Million Year Relationship.

If you subscribe to the magazine, it will appear in the August issue, though I’m happy to send a PDF to anyone who doesn’t subscribe (or has not read the book) – use the Contact Page. The main accompanying photograph is by one of my former students, Lisa King, who kindly allowed me to use it.

Introduced species shed friends as well as enemies – a new study published this week

4 Replies

As I’ve previously discussed on the blog, when species are moved to a different part of the world they lose many of the ‘enemies’ – such as predators, herbivores and pathogens – that would normally keep their populations in check. This can have implications for the likelihood of a species becoming invasive, and it’s called the Enemy Release Hypothesis (ERH) and has been well studied. Less well researched is the flip side of the ERH, the Missed Mutualist Hypothesis (MMH), in which species lose their ‘friends’, such as pollinators, seed dispersers, symbiotic fungi, and so forth. It’s a topic I’ve worked on with my colleagues at the University of New South Wales, principally Angela Moles and her former PhD student Zoe Xirocostas.

Another paper from Zoe’s PhD work has just been published and in it she carried out a comparison of European plants that have been transported to Australia, and asked whether they had fewer pollinators in their new range. It turns out that they do!

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

Xirocostas, Z.A., Ollerton, J., Peco, B., Slavich, E., Bonser, S.P., Pärtel, M., Raghu, S. & Moles, A.T. (2024) Introduced species shed friends as well as enemies. Scientific Reports 14: 11088

Here’s the abstract:

Many studies seeking to understand the success of biological invasions focus on species’ escape from negative interactions, such as damage from herbivores, pathogens, or predators in their introduced range (enemy release). However, much less work has been done to assess the possibility that introduced species might shed mutualists such as pollinators, seed dispersers, and mycorrhizae when they are transported to a new range. We ran a cross-continental field study and found that plants were being visited by 2.6 times more potential pollinators with 1.8 times greater richness in their native range than in their introduced range. Understanding both the positive and negative consequences of introduction to a new range can help us predict, monitor, and manage future invasion events.