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!
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:
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.
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!
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):
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.
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.
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:
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.
Is it too early to talk about Christmas? Not if you’re interested in pollinators and pollination! The mid-winter festival has featured quite a number of times on my blog over the years, especially in relation to the iconic plants that represent this time of year in Northern Europe, and what one might describe as the ‘cultural biodiversity‘ of Christmas. The final plant that I included in that last post was the poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) – this is how I described it:
In many ways this is an unusual plant to have such a strong cultural association with Christmas: it’s a mildly toxic species of spurge from tropical Mexico that was introduced to North America in the 19th century, then subsequently to Europe. However its festive connotations date back to the earliest period of Spanish colonisation in the 16th century, so it’s older than some…other Christmasy traditions…
Just occasionally one sees a bird-pollinated tree planted in a city. The most common in my experience are various banksias in Australia, and the Royal Poinciana (from Madagascar) and the African Tulip Tree in the urban tropics and subtropics elsewhere in the world. I’ve also occasionally encountered large specimens of Poinsettia: when they are given free rein they are a much more impressive plant than their Christmas cousins. The vivid red bracts that surround the clusters of flowers suggest that they may be hummingbird-pollinated in their native Central America, but as far as I know their pollination ecology has not been studied.
Here at the Kunming Botanic Garden there’s several quite large specimens of poinsettia that, as I write, are in full flower, their red bracts a signal to pollinators that can be seen for quite a distance. However we’ve not seen any of the local sunbirds or white-eyes visit the flowers, and, as I said in the book, as far as I know the pollination ecology of poinsettia has never been studied in the wild. Close inspection of the flowers in the garden revealed that almost all of the nectaries had at least one nectar-collecting ant sticking out from it, their prominent backsides a deterrent to the Asian Honey Bees (Apis cerana) that also wanted a piece of the action.
Based on the position of the nectaries in relation to the stamens, if the plant is hummingbird-pollinated then the pollen is likely to end up under the chin of the bird. That’s certainly been described in other plant-bird pollination systems. But it does not have to be birds that move the pollen around – red flowers are also associated with other kinds of pollinators, for example butterflies and beetles. But until someone in Mexico does the necessary field work, we’ll just have to speculate.
The reintroduction of the Chequered Skipper butterfly to England is one of the outstanding conservation success stories of the last ten years. I’ve been proud to play a part – see these old posts here, here and here – and in particular supervising Jamie Wildman’s PhD work. The second paper from his thesis has just been published and in it Jamie documents how you can identify individual butterflies by their markings and use this information to estimate the population size, life-span, and movements of Chequered Skippers. The technique could also be applied to other distinctively marked butterflies.
Here’s the reference with a link to a read-only version of the study:
If you need a PDF, get in touch via my Contact page.
Here’s the abstract:
The chequered skipper butterfly Carterocephalus palaemon was reintroduced to Fineshade Wood, England in 2018 as part of a Butterfly Conservation-led project following several years of planning. From 2019–2022, the population was sampled each May–June by the lead author, timed count volunteers, Butterfly Conservation staff, and casual observers.
A novel photographic mark-recapture (PMR) technique was trialled as an alternative to mark-release-recapture (MRR). In conjunction with timed counts, PMR was used to photoidentify individual C. palaemon through each butterfly’s upperside (ups) wing markings, estimate daily and gross population size, detect movements, and determine lifespan. As capture and recapture can be achieved non-invasively using PMR, habitat disturbance, the potential to influence butterfly behaviour, accelerate wing wear, affect mate selection and predation, and heighten mortality risk through handling are eliminated. We found PMR to be a viable alternative to MRR for a sensitive reintroduction of a low-density species with unique ups markings such as C. palaemon. Using capture histories generated through PMR, from a known founder population size of 42 butterflies in 2018, we estimated the population at Fineshade Wood had increased to 618 butterflies (+ 1371.43%) by 2022.
Movements of up to 2.22 km over a time period of 17 days were also detected. Lastly, we discuss the implications of PMR for population sampling of other Lepidopterans, and the potential to improve cost-efficiency of the technique using machine-based learning tools.
Back in August 2022, Karin and I traveled to Kenya where I was teaching on a Tropical Biology Association field course at the Mpala Research Centre – see my posts from the time here and here.
Students on the course have to complete an extended group project, with supervision by teaching staff. Two of the groups looked at the visitors to flower heads of one of the dominant savannah acacias and the interactions between wild honey bees of the native subspecies and the other insects. There have been rather few studies of this honey bee in the wild and so we wrote up the work as a short research note that has now been published in the African Journal of Ecology.
The photo above shows the authors – ‘Team Etbaica’ – from left to right: Luis Pfeifer, Swithin Kashulwe, me, Caka Karlsson, and Janeth Mngulwi.
Here’s the reference with a link to the publisher’s site – the paper is open access:
The East African lowland honey bee (Apis mellifera scutellata) is reported as an aggressive subspecies of the Western honey bee, but few studies have investigated the impact of its aggressiveness on other insect pollinators. Observations of flower visitors to Vachellia (Acacia) etbaica and interactions between honey bees and other insects were conducted in 2022 in Mpala, Kenya. A total of 873 individual flower visitors were recorded, the most frequent being Hymenoptera, followed by Diptera and Lepidoptera. Honey bees dominated floral resources in the morning and late afternoon. When honey bees encountered other types of insects, they displaced the latter from flowers 100% of the time. This has never been observed in other Western honey bee subspecies, and we recommend further research on these taxa.
During the 2020 lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, I coordinated an international network of pollination ecologists who used standardised methods to collect data in their gardens. I blogged about it at the time – see here and here for instance – and also put up a post when the data paper from that work was published.
Several research groups are now working with that huge data set and interrogating it for answers to a wide range of questions. The first group to actually publish a paper from the data is a largely Chinese set of researchers from the Key Laboratory of Plant Resources, Conservation and Sustainable Utilization, at the South China Botanical Garden in Guangzhou, assisted by Kit Prendergast and myself.
In this paper we’ve considered how robust these plant-pollinator networks are to simulated extinctions of species, and how this is affected by the elevation, latitude, and plant species diversity of the network.
Here’s the full reference with a link to the study:
If you can’t access it and need a PDF, please send me a request via my Contact page.
Here’s the abstract:
Plant-pollinator interactions play a vital role in the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem function. Geographical variation in environmental factors can influence the diversity of pollinators and thus, affect the structure of pollination networks. Given the current global climate change, understanding the variation of pollination network structure along environmental gradients is vital to predict how global change will affect the ecological interaction processes. Here, we used a global plant-pollinator interaction data collection by the same sampling method at the same period to explore the effects of elevation, latitude, and plant richness on the structure and robustness of pollination networks. We analyzed a total of 87 networks of plant-pollinator interactions on 47 sites from 14 countries. We conducted a piecewise structural equation model to examine the direct and indirect effects of elevation, latitude, and plant richness on the network robustness and analyzed the function of network structure in elucidating the relationship between robustness and these gradients. We found that plant richness had both positive effects on robustness under random and specialist-first scenarios. Elevation, latitude, and plant richness affected network connectance and modularity, and ultimately affected network robustness which were mediated by nestedness under specialist-first and random scenarios, and by connectance under the generalist-first scenario. This study reveals the indirect effects of elevation, latitude, and plant richness on pollination network robustness were mediated by nestedness or connectance depended on the order of species extinctions, implying that communities with different pollination network structures can resist different extinction scenarios.
Prof. Jeff Ollerton - ecological scientist and author 