But just as when a movie director says “That’s a wrap” at the end of the final day of filming, the hard work does not stop here. Two people have read the full manuscript as I was producing chapters and their suggestions have been incorporated into this draft. The publisher will now send it to a third, independent beta reader and once their feedback has been acted on it will go to a copy editor who will suggest stylistic changes, check for logic and consistency, and so forth.
At the same time I will be choosing which plates to put in the book, which images to use on the back cover, writing their descriptions and deciding where to cite them; checking the sources and further reading sections for each chapter and formatting the references; and producing an appendix that lists the scientific names against the vernacular names that I am using in the book. I also need to finalise the acknowledgements section.
As an author, producing a book is a long process that doesn’t end with the actual writing of the manuscript. It’s incredibly satisfying, however, and working with Pelagic on my second book for them has been a great experience. All being well, Birds & Flowers should be out by early winter.
Now, I have three options for the next book that I’m writing….which one to choose…?
As a teenager one of my main interests was collecting fossils. In search of specimens I wandered for hours, scouring the Carboniferous coal shale heaps and Permian reef outcrops of my native Sunderland. I spent so much time bothering the geology curator at the local museum with my inquiries that he offered to host me for a year as the placement part of my college course. If I had been able to convince my tutors that paleontology was really just biology in deep time I may have ended up as a professional fossil researcher. But it was not to be and instead I spent a (mostly happy) year working in the microbiology laboratory of a local brewery.
My interest in the ecology of the past has never left me, and over the years I’ve contributed a few articles to journals commenting on the latest fossil findings as they relate to pollination and flowering plant evolution. So I was delighted to be asked by Spanish paleontologist David Peris to help with a new review of insect pollination in deep time, led by PhD candidate Constanza Peña-Kairath. That review has just been published in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, and for the next 50 days it’s available for free download by following the link in the reference:
Inferring insect pollination from compression fossils and amber inclusions is difficult because of a lack of consensus on defining an insect pollinator and the challenge of recognizing this ecological relationship in deep time. We propose a conceptual definition for such insects and an operational classification into pollinator or presumed pollinator. Using this approach, we identified 15 insect families that include fossil pollinators and show that pollination relationships have existed since at least the Upper Jurassic (~163 Ma). Insects prior to this can only be classified as presumed pollinators. This gives a more nuanced insight into the origin and evolution of an ecological relationship that is vital to the establishment, composition and conservation of modern terrestrial ecosystems.
This is a guest post by Dr Annemarie Heiduk about a new species that she’s recently described.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
In an earlier blog post about the discovery of a novel Ceropegia species, Jeff’s finishing sentence was: “I wonder what else is still waiting to be discovered in the stunning grasslands of South Africa?”
I am happy to provide a first answer to this question: Ceropegia stylesii.
This new species does not have the tubular kettle-trap flowers typical of Ceropegia, which temporarily trap pollinators, but open-rotate corollas where the gynostegium (fused male and female reproductive organs) is freely accessible to pollinators. So, in the traditional sense, C. stylesii is not a Ceropegia. This needs some explanation here!
Ceropegia is a genus in the plant family Apocynaceae (Jeff’s favourite family of plants!) and therein the genus is placed in the subfamily Asclepiadoideae which originally was a family on its own (“Asclepiadaceae”).
Within this subfamily, the genus Ceropegia belongs to the Stapeliinae – a subtribe which comprises ca. 720 species. About 220 species thereof have exciting looking and very cleverly designed kettle-trap flowers which attract small flies as pollinators via deceptive strategies (see http://plantlifesouthafrica.blogspot.com/2019/07/plantlife-sa-volume-473-july-2019.html). The remaining species in Stapeliinae are the well-known stem-succulent stapeliads (ca. 355 species in >30 genera) and ca. 140 species known as Brachystelma.
With increasingly better molecular methods to study the evolutionary relationships of species in Stapeliinae, the traditional grouping of the species was illuminated as being artificial, i.e., species with kettle-trap flowers are not actually a natural group and Brachystelma species are scattered among them; the stapeliads are also nested in Ceropegia but as a single (monophyletic) group. These results based on DNA-sequence similarities are not compatible with the traditional generic concept in Stapeliinae, and as a result, changes were instigated.
Some colleagues wish to see all 720 species of Ceropegia, Brachystelma and the stapeliads merged into one single large genus Ceropegia, a solution which would entail more than 400 new name combinations. Others prefer to adopt a less dramatic change of concept and only include Brachystelma in an enlarged Ceropegia while keeping the stapeliads separate based on their monophyly and distinct vegetative features. This pragmatic solution considers both taxonomic and phylogenetic facts and reduces the previously multiple cases of paraphyly to a single case. More importantly, it avoids hundreds of name changes in the group. Both concepts are correct in their own right and justified, so it is a personal decision which one to follow.
The newly described species C. stylesii would traditionally have been placed in Brachystelma as it is lacking tubular kettle-trap flowers. After the inclusion of Brachystelma into Ceropegia, C. stylesii is placed within section Bowkerianae – a group comprising species both with and without tubular kettle-trap flowers. With the description of C. stylesii, the section now has 15 members of which 10 have open-rotate flowers. Among these, C. stylesii appears to be most closely related to C. gerrardii from which it can only readily be distinguished when in flower (see the lower most image above).
The flowers of C. stylesii superficially look like miniature versions of a dark-flowered form of C. gerrardii, which growths in the same habitat. C. stylesii flowers are only about 6 mm in size whereas those of C. gerrardii are about three times larger. While C. gerrardii occurs in grasslands throughout eastern South Africa, C. stylesii is believed to be endemic to Ngome, where it is known from two localities with a total of less than 10 plants. After the recent discovery of C. heidukiae at Ngome, the area revealed another outstanding member of this amazing plant group, and thereby once again proves its conservation importance.
C. stylesii is named for David Gordon Alexander Styles, botanical explorer and collector, to honour his valuable contribution to botanical knowledge in South Africa. David is renowned for “…his daring nature to go leaps and bounds for the specimen he is interested in” (see Chetty 2021), a statement I can readily confirm based on personal experience. Many of David’s collections (by now well over 6000 specimens donated to various herbaria) are novelties awaiting to be described. With C. stylesii, a total of five plant species bear his name. I am delighted that eventually a Ceropegia species could be named for him as David’s knowledge on the distribution and habitats of these special plants is of great value to my research on this plant group.
All organisms – be they plants, animals, fungi, or whatever – interact with other species throughout their lives, in relationships that include predation, parasitism, commensalism, and the many and varied forms of mutualism. But when species are transported to a different part of the world, as has happened often during the Anthropocene, these interactions typically break down because usually only one of the participants moves. This loss of ecological relationships can play a role in whether or not a species becomes established in its new home, and has been mostly explored in the “Enemy Release Hypothesis” (ERH) which predicts that, by leaving behind predators or parasites or herbivores, a species becomes more ecologically successful and ultimately invasive in its novel range.
Less well studied, though potentially just as important, is the “Missed Mutualist Hypothesis” (MMH) which in a sense is the twin of the ERH. As well as leaving behind “enemies”, introduced species leave behind “friends” such as pollinators, seed dispersers, mycorrhizal fungi, defensive partners, and other mutually beneficial associates. Negative effects arising from the loss of these relationships could potentially balance the positive impacts arising from the ERH.
In a new quantitative review just published, we review what’s known about the MMH (currently much less than the ERH) and suggest some fruitful lines of enquiry. The study is led by Angela Moles, my collaborator at the University of New South Wales where I spent time as a Visiting Research Fellow in 2019/20 (see my blog posts about that visit starting here). The paper has had a long gestation and gone through several iterations and revisions since we started writing it in late 2019, not least caused by the covid pandemic, but I think that it’s all the better for it.
Here’s the full reference with a link to the paper:
Introduced species often benefit from escaping their enemies when they are transported to a new range, an idea commonly expressed as the enemy release hypothesis. However, species might shed mutualists as well as enemies when they colonize a new range. Loss of mutualists might reduce the success of introduced populations, or even cause failure to establish. We provide the first quantitative synthesis testing this natural but often overlooked parallel of the enemy release hypothesis, which is known as the missed mutualist hypothesis.
Meta-analysis showed that plants interact with 1.9 times more mutualist species, and have 2.3 times more interactions with mutualists per unit time in their native range than in their introduced range. Species may mitigate the negative effects of missed mutualists. For instance, selection arising from missed mutualists could cause introduced species to evolve either to facilitate interactions with a new suite of species or to exist without mutualisms. Just as enemy release can allow introduced populations to redirect energy from defence to growth, potentially evolving increased competitive ability, species that shift to strategies without mutualists may be able to reallocate energy from mutualism toward increased competitive ability or seed production. The missed mutualist hypothesis advances understanding of the selective forces and filters that act on plant species in the early stages of introduction and establishment and thus could inform the management of introduced species.
The question of whether interactions between different species are more specialised in tropical environments (as theory predicts) has intrigued me for a couple of decades. In fact it’s just occurred to me that August 2022 was the 20th anniversary of my paper in Oikos co-authored with Louise Cranmer entitled: Latitudinal trends in plant-pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? That paper was one of the first to seriously challenge an idea that was long-embedded in the scientific and (especially) popular literature, that tropical ecology was in a sense “special” and that the ways in which species parasitised, consumed, or engaged in mutualistic relationships in the tropics was different to what was happening in the subtropics and temperate zones.
Since then I’ve written about this subject in a number of publications, most recently in my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society and it’s inspired some other researchers to address the topic.
One of the real challenges with asking questions about how plant-pollinator relationships change over large geographical areas is obtaining good, robust data to analyse. It’s a challenge to convince science funding agencies to give money to spend many years travelling the world and collecting the kind of data that are needed. However we can gain some idea of the patterns, and potential processes, that drive the macroecology of plant-pollinator interactions by piecing together databases of interactions for particular taxa, gleaned from published and unpublished sources.
That’s what we have done for the family Cactaceae in a new study led by Pablo Gorostiague from the Universidad Nacional de Salta in Argentina. This collaboration started when Pablo visited Northampton back in 2018 and spent some time with my research group, including helping out with field work in Tenerife. Since then the usual issues (work, COVID, etc.) have delayed publication of our paper, but now it’s finally out. Amongst other results we find that, yes, tropical cacti are pollinated by fewer species on average (though it’s hugely variable – see the figure above) but that functional specialisation (i.e. the number of pollinator guilds that are used by species) is no different in the tropics compared to the extra-tropics (that’s the figure at the end of this post).
The full reference with a link to the paper is below; if anyone wants a PDF, please send me a message via the Contact page:
Biotic interactions are said to be more specialized in the tropics, and this was also proposed for the pollination systems of columnar cacti from North America. However, this has not yet been tested for a wider set of cactus species. Here, we use the available information about pollination in the Cactaceae to explore the geographic patterns of this mutualistic interaction, and test if there is a latitudinal gradient in its degree of specialization.
We performed a bibliographic search of all publications on the pollination of cacti species and summarized the information to build a database. We used generalized linear models to evaluate if the degree of specialization in cacti pollination systems is affected by latitude, using two different measures: the number of pollinator guilds (functional specialization) and the number of pollinator species (ecological specialization).
Our database contained information about the pollination of 148 species. The most frequent pollinator guilds were bees, birds, moths and bats. There was no apparent effect of latitude on the number of guilds that pollinate a cactus species. However, latitude had a small but significant effect on the number of pollinator species that service a given cactus species.
Bees are found as pollinators of most cactus species, along a wide latitudinal gradient. Bat and bird pollination is more common in the tropics than in the extra-tropics. The available information suggests that cacti pollination systems are slightly more ecologically specialized in the tropics, but it does not support any trend with regard to functional specialization.
It’s long been recognised that the scale at which we study the natural world – over long or short time periods, or across small areas or whole regions – affects the conclusions that we draw about ecological patterns and processes. This is certainly true of plant-pollinator interactions. For example, a widely distributed plant can have very different pollinators at the extremes of its range, and pollinators like bees may vary their focus on nectar and pollen sources from year to year.
The analysis of these interactions as networks of actors has become increasingly popular in the last couple of decades. However there is no consensus about how frequent sampling should be, or the geographical scale over which networks should be studied. In fact all scales (from regional “meta-networks” down to single-season, single-site, single taxon observations) are relevant, depending on the questions being asked or the hypotheses posed.
But it’s important that we acknowledge that conclusions drawn at one scale may not apply at other scales.
That’s the take home message from a paper published this week which is the latest output from the PhD work of Australian bee expert Kit Prendergast. We have collaborated on several papers based on her data and this is actually my 100th peer-reviewed publication: a proud milestone for me and one which I’m glad to share with a wonderful early career researcher like Kit!
Here’s the reference with a link to a read-only version of the paper:
Bipartite networks of flowering plants and their visitors (potential pollinators) are increasingly being used in studies of the structure and function of these ecological interactions. Whilst they hold much promise in understanding the ecology of plant– pollinator networks and how this may be altered by environmental perturbations, like land-use change and invasive species, there is no consensus about the scale at which such networks should be constructed and analysed. Ecologists, however, have emphasised that many processes are scale dependent. Here, we compare network- and species-level properties of ecological networks analysed at the level of a site, pooling across sites within a given habitat for each month of surveys, and pooling across all sites and months to create a single network per habitat type. We additionally considered how these three scales of resolution influenced conclusions regarding differences between networks according to two contrasting habitat types (urban bushland remnants and residential gardens) and the influence of honey bee abundance on network properties. We found that most network properties varied markedly depending on the scale of analysis, as did the significance, or lack thereof, of habitat type and honey bee abundance on network properties. We caution against pooling across sites and months as this can create unrealistic links, invalidating conclusions on network structure. In conclusion, consideration of scale of analysis is also important when conducting and interpreting plant–pollinator networks.
Within the last decade there’s been a growing awareness of the importance of urban environments for supporting populations of pollinators, especially bees. Indeed, I devoted a whole chapter of my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society to the topic, though even then I was only able to scratch the surface of the research that’s been done. Since then there’s been some important studies published and this 2020 review by Kath Baldock provides a good starting point for the topic, whilst a recent pre-print by Pietro Maruyama and colleagues emphasises how little we know about pollinators in tropical cities.
One of the most detailed studies of urban solitary bees in a British town was conducted by Muzafar Sirohi when he was a PhD researcher in my department in Northampton. The first paper from that work, documenting the diversity and abundance of bees, came out in 2015, but since then commitments to other projects, plus Muzafar’s return to his university in Pakistan, have meant that we’ve struggled to find the time to publish more. Hopefully that’s changing and the second publication from Muzafar’s thesis is now out, with a third in progress.
This new paper uses a network approach to study the use of flowers by these bees; here’s the reference with a link to a read-only copy of the paper, followed by the abstract.
Biodiversity is declining through human activities and urbanisation is often seen as a particular concern. Urban settings, however, provide diverse microclimatic conditions for plants and pollinating insects, and therefore may be significant habitats for the conservation of solitary and primitively eusocial bees, a major group of pollinators. This study analysed the interactions between these bees and the plants on which they forage, using a network approach. We compared urban habitats (gardens, roadsides, and open vegetation) in a large British town with nearby nature reserves. One native plant Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) was a core generalist species visited in all habitat types. Other core plant species restricted to particular habitats include species of Geranium, Bellis, Crepis, and Ranunculus. Two generalist bee species, Anthophora plumipes and Osmia bicornis were the core visitor species within the networks. The networks were comparatively more nested in urban habitat types than nature areas, suggesting more frequent interactions between generalist and specialist species in urban areas. Network connectance, network level specialisation (H2’ index), and plant generality (network level) were not significantly different in urban and nature areas. However, visitor generality was found to be significantly higher in urban gardens than in nature areas. Careful management of common urban vegetation would be beneficial for supporting urban wild pollinators.
One of the projects with which I’ve been involved over the past few years has been a collaboration with researchers at Imperial College and the Natural History Museum, alongside regional collections in the UK, to assess how museum specimens of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) can be used to look at long-term ecological changes in pollinator populations. The first two papers from that project were published in August but because of my trip to Kenya I’ve only now been able to post about them.
The details of the papers (both of which are open access and free to download) are below, followed by the official press release:
Arce, A., Cantwell-Jones, A., Tansley, M., Barnes, I., Brace, S., Mullin, V., Notton, D., Ollerton, J., Eatough, E., Rhodes, M., Bian, X., Hogan, J., Hunter, T., Jackson, S., Whiffin, A., Blagoderov, V., Broad, G., Judd, S., Kokkini, P., Livermore, L., Dixit, M., Pearse, W. & Gill, R. (2022) Signatures of increasing environmental stress in bumblebee wings over the past century: Insights from museum specimens. Journal of Animal Ecology 00, 1– 13. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.13788
Mullin, V. E., Stephen, W., Arce, A. N., Nash, W., Raine, C., Notton, D. G., Whiffin, A., Blagderov, V., Gharbi, K., Hogan, J., Hunter, T., Irish, N., Jackson, S., Judd, S., Watkins, C., Haerty, W., Ollerton, J., Brace, S., Gill, R. J., & Barnes, I. (2022). First large-scale quantification study of DNA preservation in insects from natural history collections using genome-wide sequencing. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 00, 1– 12. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13945
OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE: Museum collections indicate bees increasingly stressed by changes in climate over the past 100 years
• An analysis of bumblebee wings from a network of UK museums shows signs of stress linked to increasingly hotter and wetter conditions. • As well as revealing what is linked to stress in bees in the past, the study can help predict when and where bees will face most stress and potential decline in the future. • Bumblebees and other insect pollinators have faced population declines in recent years. • The researchers have also for the first time used ancient DNA techniques to sequence bumblebee genomes dating back over 100 years. Scientists from Imperial College London and the Natural History Museum today published two concurrent papers analysing UK bumblebee populations.
The first investigated the morphology (body shapes) of bee specimens dating back to 1900. Using digital images, the group first investigated the asymmetry in bumblebee wings as an indicator of stress. High asymmetry (very differently shaped right and left wings) indicates the bees experienced stress during development – an external factor that affected their normal growth.
Studying four UK bumblebee species, the group found evidence for stress getting higher as the century progressed from its lowest point around 1925. Further analysis showed that each bee species displayed a consistently higher proxy of stress in the latter half of the century.
Learning from the past to predict the future By taking the climate conditions during the year of collection – namely annual mean temperature and annual rainfall – the team found that in hotter and wetter years bees showed higher wing asymmetry. The study is published today in the Journal of Animal Ecology.
Author Aoife Cantwell-Jones, from the Department of Life Sciences (Silwood Park) at Imperial, said: “By using a proxy of stress visible on the bee’s external anatomy and caused by stress during development just days or weeks before, we can look to more accurately track factors placing populations under pressure through historic space and time.”
Author Dr Andres Arce, now at the University of Suffolk, stated: “Our goal is to better understand responses to specific environmental factors and learn from the past to predict the future. We hope to be able to forecast where and when bumblebees will be most at risk and target effective conservation action.”
Senior author Dr Richard Gill, from the Department of Life Sciences (Silwood Park) at Imperial, said: “With hotter and wetter conditions predicted to place bumblebees under higher stress, the fact these conditions will become more frequent under climate change means bumblebees may be in for a rough time over the 21st century.”
DNA from a single leg As well as measuring the wing shapes of bees, in a second parallel study the team successfully sequenced the genomes of over a hundred bumblebee museum specimens dating back more than 130 years. In a pioneering advance, ancient DNA methods typically used for studying woolly mammoths and ancient humans, were for the first time used on an insect population.
Scientists from the Natural History Museum and the Earlham Institute quantified DNA preservation using just a single bee leg from each of the bees studied to create a baseline genome for each of the four species.
From these developments, published today in Methods in Ecology & Evolution, the researchers can now look to determine how the reported stress may lead to genetic diversity loss.
In conjunction with providing a new reference genome, the team will now use this data to study how bee genomes have changed over time, gaining an understanding of how whole populations have adapted – or not – to changing environments.
The value of museum collections Focusing on bumblebee collections, the team worked with curators from the Natural History Museum London, National Museums Scotland, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, World Museum Liverpool, and Tullie House Museum Carlisle.
Author Dr Victoria Mullin, from the Natural History Museum, said: “Museum insect collections offer an unparalleled opportunity to directly study how the genomes of populations and species have been affected by environmental changes through time. However, they are a finite resource and understanding how best to utilise them for genetic studies is important.”
Senior author Professor Ian Barnes, from the Natural History Museum, said: “One of the main problems with museum collections is that the quality of DNA can be very variable, making it difficult to predict which type of analyses we should do. We now have a much better idea about DNA preservation in insect collections, which is a massive boost to our ongoing work to understand the history and future of insect populations.”
Dr Gill concluded: “These studies showcase the value of leveraging museums specimens to go back in time and unlock the past’s secrets. But what we have done is just the beginning, and by continuing our work with these vital public collections and collaborating with curators we can only discover more. All this work was part of a Natural Environment Research Council-funded project and could not have been achieved without the commitment, hard work, and diligence of the museum curators, and our other collaborators”.
The blog has been quiet over August because Karin and I have been in Kenya for most of the month at the Mpala Research Centre. I’m here teaching on a Tropical Biology Association (TBA) field course, as well as doing some writing. In addition to sharing the adventure, Karin is also writing and acting as unofficial field course therapist!
This is the second TBA field course on which I have taught, the other being in Tanzania back in 2011, and it’s a pleasure to give some time to this remarkable organisation. The model is a very simple one: take 24 students, half from Africa and half from Europe, and embed them in a field work environment for a month, where they learn from one another and from their tutors about ecology and conservation. It’s been hugely successful and TBA alumni now hold senior positions in national conservation departments and NGOs, and universities, across Africa and Europe. Some of the African alumni are also returning to help teach on the field course.
We’re back in Denmark around the 9th September but in the meantime here’s a selection of photographs showing where we are staying and the work that we are doing.
Getting up close with an Acacia species that defends itself by housing colonies of ants in its inflated thorns.
Invasive Prickly Pears (Opuntia spp.) are a growing problem in Kenya, where the cochineal bug has been introduced to help control them.Although there’s an electric fence around the camp site, antelope such as Kudu and Dik Dik are regular visitors. This tent has been our home for most of August. Early in the trip we were confined to it when we both caught COVID. There are worse places to recuperate! The students sorting samples in our open-air classroom, while the White-browed Sparrow Weavers tolerate our intrusionsSpot the snake! The Puff Adder is one of the most deadly snakes in Africa. Fortunately one of the students is an experienced herpetologist and qualified to handle these venomous reptiles.As I write, our TBA students are hard at work on their projects. This is Janeth and Swithin who are looking at competition between honey bees and other pollinators on flowers of this Acacia species.Karin in African ornithologist mode!Examining the Kenya Long-term Exclosure Experiment (KLEE) aimed at understanding the role of mega-herbivores in maintaining savanna biodiversityI’ve donated a copy of my book to the TBA’s Africa library and it’s already inspired some student projects.Sunrise on the savanna
Most of us have at some time stared in fascination at the life contained within the pools that form on rocky shores at low tide. But none of us realized that a whole new class of ecological interaction was taking place!
The 12,000 or so described (and many un-named) seaweeds are incredibly important organisms. Their diverse and abundant photosynthesizing fronds make them one of the main primary producers in coastal seas, creating food and habitat for a huge range of animals. Not only that, but some – the coralline seaweeds – lock up vast amount of CO2 as calcium carbonate and help to create reef systems in the same way as coral.
Although scientists have studied seaweeds for hundreds of years, many aspects of their ecology are still unknown. Their detailed mode of reproduction, for example has only been studied in a small proportion of species.
In a newly published study in the journal Science, French PhD researcher Emma Lavaut and her colleagues have shown that small isopod crustaceans – relatives of woodlice and sea slaters – facilitate the movement of the equivalent of seaweed sperm (termed “spermatia”) from male to female reproductive structures in just the same way that bees and other pollinators move pollen between flowers, so fertilizing female gametes.
Your read that correctly: some seaweeds have pollinators!
It’s an incredible finding! And the implications of this are enormous: Emma and her colleagues have added a whole new branch of life to the examples of sedentary (fixed-place) organisms that require a third party to enable their reproduction. In addition to being a fascinating biological discovery, it has significant environmental and sustainability implications.
Seaweeds are a diverse group of macroalgae that appeared more than one billion years ago, at least 500 million years before the evolution of what we think of as “true” plants, such as the flowering plants, conifers, cycads, ferns and mosses. Sexual reproduction in the brown and green seaweeds, which include kelps, wracks and sea lettuces, involves spermatia that are mobile and use a flagellum to swim through the water to seek out female reproductive structures. However, Emma studied a seaweed, Gracilaria gracilis, which belongs to the Rhodophyta or red seaweeds, and none of the species in this group have these swimming sperm equivalents.
Sexual reproduction in the red seaweeds has therefore always been something of a mystery. Three quarters of species have separate male and female individuals and so they cannot mate with themselves. It was assumed that the gametes were just released into water currents that haphazardly transported them to the female reproductive organs, much as wind pollinated grasses and pine trees release their vast clouds of pollen on land. The authors of this new study, however, point out that most sexual reproduction by these red seaweeds takes place in the relatively still waters of rock pools, a habitat that they mimicked in the laboratory in a series of elegant aquarium experiments.
The isopod crustaceans are attracted to the seaweed because they provide a habitat away from predators and a supply of food: they graze on the microalgae that colonise the seaweed’s fronds. Picking up spermatia and moving them between fronds is a side-effect of this activity by the small invertebrates. As you can see from the illustration above, the isopods and the seaweed are engaged in a “double mutualism“: a plus sign (+) indicates a positive effect of one species on another, while a minus sign (-) indicates a negative impact.
What I find especially fascinating about this research is that both the seaweed (Gracilaria gracilis) and the isopod (Idotea balthica) were originally described as species more than 200 years ago. They also have an extremely wide distribution. The isopod is found around the coasts of Europe and down the eastern seaboard of the Americas. The seaweed is pretty much found globally. These are not rare, unusual species, yet the interaction between them has only just been discovered! This is a point that I made in my recent book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society: quite often, species that are well known interact in previously undocumented ways because no one has had the time or inspiration to look closely at them.
Although the idea that small sea creatures might be helping seaweeds to reproduce sounds very fanciful, there is a precedence for this discovery. Back in 2016, in a paper published in Nature Communications, a group of Mexican researchers led by Brigitta van Tussenbroek showed that a species of seagrass is pollinated by a diverse assemblage of small crustaceans and polychaete worms. Seagrasses are flowering plants, not seaweeds, but clearly this type of mutually beneficial relationship can exist between different species in the oceans.
Rhodophyta are the most diverse group of seaweeds, with more than 7,000 known species. They are especially abundant on coastal shores, oceanic habitats that are under huge pressure from infrastructure development, pollution, and climate change. At the same time, these seaweeds are economically important and millions of tonnes of them are collected every year as food, as nutritional and pharmaceutical supplements, and to produce agar. In order to conserve these seaweed populations, we need to better understand their ecology and their environmental requirements.
The work by Emma Lavaut and colleagues suggests that interactions with their “pollinators” may be a critical aspect of this understanding. In the same way that “Save the Bees” has been a rallying call for conserving interactions between species on land, we may soon hear this message echoed in “Save the Isopods”. At the very least, I have to add a new section to the second edition of my book!
Full disclosure: I was one of the reviewers of the original manuscript submitted to Science by Emma and her co-authors. It’s a rare privilege to review a study and think: “Wow! This is a game-changer!” and including this paper it’s happened to me only a handful of times. The editors at Science kindly invited my colleague Dr Zong-Xin Ren and myself to write a Perspective piece about the work and we were delighted to do so.
Image credits: Isopod and diatom images from Lavaut et al (2022). Gracilaria image by Emoody26 at English Wikipedia CC BY 3.0 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3455016. Design by Shijia Wen and Jeff Ollerton.
Prof. Jeff Ollerton - ecological scientist and author 