164 posts · 137,436 views
Mennonite, evolutionary biologist, cat-4 cyclist. Not necessarily in that order.
Denim and Tweed
161 posts
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense!
3 posts
Sort by Latest Post, Most Popular
View by Condensed, Full
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Nature News is reporting some interesting results presented as a paper at a meeting of the International Society for the Psychology of Science & Technology last week: articles published in the journal Science with longer "Works Cited" sections are themselves more frequently cited [$$]. A plot of the number of references listed in each article against the number of citations it eventually received reveal that almost half of the variation in citation rates among the Science papers can be attributed to the number of references that they include. And — contrary to what people might predict — the relationship is not driven by review articles, which could be expected, on average, to be heavier on references and to garner more citations than standard papers.The same authors did a similar analysis of papers published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior over 30 years, and found similar results [PDF]. Here's the relevant figure from that paper:
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; } Cite more, be cited more. Figure 2 from Webster et al. (2009) [PDF].
The lack of a "review effect" is surprising, but I don't think this overall result is. Academia, as much as we might describe it as cutthroat, also runs on reciprocal altruism. Authors notice when their papers are cited, and are more likely to cite papers that build on or relate to their own work. I'd be interested to see the network of citation underlying the pattern Webster et al. have found—I suspect that there's a lot of clustering around disciplines and sub-disciplines and sub-sub-sub-disciplines that contributes to all this mutual back-scratching citing.
Reference
Webster, G.D., Jonason, P.K., & Schember, T.O. (2009). Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979-2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7 (3), 348-348 Other: http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep07348362.pdf
... Read more »
Webster, G.D., Jonason, P.K., & Schember, T.O. (2009) Hot topics and popular papers in evolutionary psychology: Analyses of title words and citation counts in Evolution and Human Behavior, 1979-2008. Evolutionary Psychology, 7(3), 348-348. info:other/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep07348362.pdf
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
The cover article from this week's PNAS has important implications for how we plan for, and deal with, climate change. Post and Pedersen report that the way an arctic plant community changes in response to warming depends heavily on the presence of large herbivores [$-a], like muskoxen and caribou.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-frameleft { float: left; text-align: left; margin-right: 15px;... Read more »
E. Post, & C. Pedersen. (2008) Opposing plant community responses to warming with and without herbivores. PNAS, 105(34), 12353-8. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0802421105
F.L. Russell, D.B. Zippin, & N.L. Fowler. (2001) Effects of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) on plants, plant populations and communities: A review. The American Midland Naturalist, 146(1), 1-26. DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031(2001)146[0001:EOWTDO]2.0.CO;2
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Andrew Sullivan links to a thought-provoking 1998 essay by E.O. Wilson, in which the champion of sociobiology delves into the question of whether morality arises from divine revelation or natural selection. Wilson takes an interesting position, attempting to turn the question around by ninety degrees:But the split is not, as popularly supposed, between religious believers and secularists. It is... Read more »
J.D. Greene, R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley, & J.D. Cohen. (2001) An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105-8. DOI: 10.1126/science.1062872
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
The question of offspring size - that is, how big a child is relative to its parent - can seem downright absurd. In fact, it was the subject of the only paper (to my knowledge) ever published in the journal Evolution that ends with a punch line. That piece, written by Ellstrand in 1983, pretended to seriously address the question of why juveniles are smaller than their parents [$-a]. It was... Read more »
N.C. Ellstrand. (1983) Why are juveniles smaller than their parents?. Evolution, 1091-4. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2408423
D.S. Falster, A.T. Moles, & M.Westoby. (2008) A General Model for the Scaling of Offspring Size and Adult Size. The American Naturalist, 172(3), 299-317. DOI: 10.1086/589889
C.C. Smith, & S.D. Fretwell. (1974) The optimal balance between size and number of offspring. The American Naturalist, 499-506. DOI: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2459681
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
In this week's PNAS is a tidy result that demonstrates what you ca get away with when you study invertebrates: butterflies and moths can still fly if their hindwings are amputated, but they can't take evasive action [$-a]. That summary tells you just about all you need to about the reported experimental result; but the rest of the article has some interesting speculation.
.flickr-photo { }.... Read more »
B. Jantzen, & T. Eisner. (2008) Hindwings are unnecessary for flight but essential for execution of normal evasive flight in Lepidoptera. PNAS, 105(43), 16636-40. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0807223105
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
A couple of weeks ago, I introduced Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho's friendly neighborhood theocracy-in-embryo, which weds garden-variety Christian Right hypocrisy with creepy, racist Neo-Confederate overtones. Today, I'm going to have a look at the Christ Church-affiliated New Saint Andrews College.
NSA cultivates a reputation as the ivory tower's ivory tower - the curriculum includes lots of... Read more »
W. Godsoe, J.B. Yoder, C.I. Smith, & O. Pellmyr. (2008) Coevolution and Divergence in the Joshua Tree/Yucca Moth Mutualism. The American Naturalist, 171(6), 816-23. DOI: 10.1086/587757
R. Gomulkiewicz, D.M. Drown, M.F. Dybdahl, W. Godsoe, S.L. Nuismer, K.M. Pepin, B.J. Ridenhour, C.I. Smith, & J.B. Yoder. (2007) Dos and don'ts of testing the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution. Heredity, 98(5), 249-58. DOI: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800949
G.L. Wilson, & C.H. Ernst. (2005) Reproductive Ecology of the Terrapene carolina carolina (Eastern Box Turtle) in Central Virginia. Southeastern Naturalist, 4(4), 689. DOI: 10.1656/1528-7092(2005)004[0689:REOTTC]2.0.CO;2
J.B. Yoder, & B. Shneiderman. (2008) Science 2.0: Not So New?. Science, 320(5881), 1290-1. DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5881.1290
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
In this week's PNAS: capsaicin, the stuff that makes chili peppers hot, may have originally evolved as an anti-fungal agent [$-a].
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-frameleft { float: left; text-align: left; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
Photo by bleu celt.Tewksbury et al. examine variation in "pungency" (that is, concentration of... Read more »
J. J. Tewksbury, D. J. Levey, M. Huizinga, D. C. Haak, & A. Traveset. (2008) Costs and benefits of capsaicin-mediated control of gut retention in dispersers of wild chilies. Ecology, 89(1), 107-17. DOI: 10.1890/07-0445.1
J. J. Tewksbury, & G. P. Nabhan. (2001) Seed dispersal: Directed deterrence by capsaicin in chilies. Nature, 412(6845), 403-4. DOI: 10.1038/35086653
J. J. Tewksbury, K. M. Reagan, N. J. Machnicki, T. A. Carlo, D. C. Haak, A. L. C. Penaloza, & D. J. Levey. (2008) Evolutionary ecology of pungency in wild chilies. PNAS, 105(33), 11808-11. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0802691105
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
This week's issue of Science starts the new year with an exciting application of evolutionary dynamics: a sort of biological warfare agent to control disease-bearing mosquitoes.
Even in the twenty-first century, mosquito-borne diseases like malaria and Dengue fever remain major public health challenges, particularly in the developing world. When vaccines are not available, the only way to... Read more »
C.J. McMeniman, R.V. Lane, B.N. Cass, A.W.C. Fong, M. Sidhu, Y.-F. Wang, & S.L. O'Neill. (2009) Stable introduction of a life-shortening Wolbachia infection into the mosquito Aedes aegypti. Science, 323(5910), 141-4. DOI: 10.1126/science.1165326
A.F. Read, & M.B. Thomas. (2009) MICROBIOLOGY: Mosquitoes cut short. Science, 323(5910), 51-2. DOI: 10.1126/science.1168659
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Even without following the Olympics in any detail, it's hard not to hear about the success of U.S. swimmer Michael Phelps: a new record for career gold medals won by an athlete in any sport, and new time records for just about every race he swims.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-frameright { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em;... Read more »
Chatterjee, S, & Yilmaz, MR. (1999) The NBA as an Evolving Multivariate System. The American Statistician, 257-262. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2686106
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
The latest results from the Pellmyr Lab's ongoing study of Joshua tree and its pollinators are online as part of the new October issue of Evolution. It's the cover article, no less. The study, whose lead author is Chris Smith (now on the faculty at Willamette University) compares patterns in the population genetics of Joshua trees and the moths that pollinate them, and shows that although the... Read more »
W. Godsoe, J.B. Yoder, C.I. Smith, & O. Pellmyr. (2008) Coevolution and Divergence in the Joshua Tree/Yucca Moth Mutualism. The American Naturalist, 171(6), 816-23. DOI: 10.1086/587757
C.I. Smith, W.K.W. Godsoe, S. Tank, J.B. Yoder, & O. Pellmyr. (2008) Distinguishing coevolution from covicariance in an obligate pollination mutualism: asynchronous divergence in Joshua tree and its pollinators. Evolution, 62(10), 2676-87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00500.x
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Plants put up with a lot - everyone wants to eat them! And, basically, there are two ways a plant might respond to being eaten. They can put energy into regrowing bits that get eaten, or they can put energy into making a lot of some nasty chemical, like the milky sap in milkweed. The trouble with the first option is obvious - it doesn't do anything to stop the damage. But the trouble with the... Read more »
A. A. Agrawal, & M. Fishbein. (2008) Phylogenetic escalation and decline of plant defense strategies. PNAS, 105(29), 10057-10060. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0802368105
P.R. Ehrlich, & P.H. Raven. (1964) Butterflies and plants: A study in coevolution. Evolution, 18(4), 586-608. http://www.jstor.org/pss/2406212
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Yuccas and yucca moths have one of the most peculiar pollination relationships known to science. The moths are the only pollinators of yuccas, carrying pollen from flower to flower in specialized mouthparts and actively tamping it into the tip of the pistil. Before she pollinates, though, each moth lays eggs in the flower—the developing yucca seeds will be the only thing her offspring eat. How does such a specialized, co-adapted interaction evolve in the first place? My coauthors and I attempted to answer this question in a paper just published in the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, by reconstructing the ecology of yucca moths before they were yucca moths [PDF].
Using the present to reconstruct the past
Before I describe our study's results, let me explain a little about how biologists can reconstruct the characteristics of extinct species using what we know about living ones. First, we use DNA data to reconstruct evolutionary relationships between our favorite living species—this gives us an evolutionary tree, or phylogeny, like the ones in the illustration below. A phylogeny diagrams the branching evolutionary history that led to the living species at the tips of the tree. If we map the different states of some character that all those species have—say, the color of their feathers, onto the tips, we can infer what the ancestors at each of the inner branch points might have been like.
For instance, consider the possible scenarios for species A, B, C, and D in the illustration below. In the first case, if A and B are both red, then their common ancestor was probably red, too. However, C is blue—what does that mean for the common ancestor of C, A, and B? Because D is blue, we infer that the common ancestor of C, A, and B was also blue, as was the common ancestor of all four species. This is the most parsimonious reconstruction—it minimizes the number of times that color changes in the evolutionary history of the four species.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; } Knowing evolutionary relationships between living species helps us estimate the characteristics of their ancestors. Image by jby.In the second scenario, species D is red, so the same logic infers that the common ancestor of A, B, and C was red. In the third scenario, adding another red species (E) to the tree might also alter the most likely character states for the ancestral species on the tree—but this depends on where the DNA suggests that the new species fits on the tree. Most modern reconstructions of ancestral character states are more statistically complex than what I've just described, but the underlying logic is the same.
What did the ancestors of yucca moths do for a living?
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-frameright { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:40%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
A small sample of Prodoxid diversity: Greya politella (above) and Tegeticula synthetica (below). Photos by jby.So in order to reconstruct what yucca moths were like before they became yucca moths, we need to know the evolutionary relationships between yucca moths and their close relatives, the other members of the moth family Prodoxidae. This is a diverse group, including The yucca-pollinating genera Tegeticula and Parategeticula;
The genus Prodoxus, moths that lay eggs on various parts of yuccas (and other related plants) without pollinating them;
The genus Mesepiola, which lay eggs on the flowers of plants similar to yuccas—woody desert monocots;
The genus Greya, which lay eggs in the flowers of a number of different plants, and pollinates some in the process [PDF]; and
The genus Lampronia, which lay eggs in another wide assortment of plants.
This diversity offers some intriguing possibilities—depending on how these genera are related to each other, the moths that would colonize yuccas and evolve obligate pollination mutualism might have lived on anything from roses to saxifrages, and their larvae might have eaten leaf tissue, woody twigs, fruit, or flowers. However, the last study to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships among these groups included only one species of Lampronia, leaving a number of current host plant associations and larval feeding habits unrepresented.
So we collected new DNA sequences from another dozen species in the genus Lampronia, reconstructed their relationships to the rest of the Prodoxidae, and used the resulting phylogeny to estimate the host plant association and larval feeding habit of the ancestral species that gave rise to the yucca moths. The results are presented in the large, color-coded figure below. Interpretation of this figure is similar to the example I gave above, except that the reconstruction method we used allows us to estimate the relative probability of each character state at the ancestral nodes, which we present in color-coded pie charts.
This gives us a better picture of the evolutionary changes in the lineage that would become yucca moths. The ancestral moths probably fed inside floral ovaries all the way back to the origin of the Prodoxidae. Before colonizing woody monocots (the Agavaceae, the family including yuccas, and possibly the Ruscaceae, the family fed on by Mesepiola), they most likely fed on plants in the rose family.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
A simplified phylogeny of the Prodoxidae, with reconstructions of ancestral host plant associations (by family) and larval feeding habits. Image from Yoder et al., Figure 2.This reconstruction gives us the best picture we've had to date of the conditions under which yucca moths evolved obligate mutualism—before they were active pollinators, the moths were already feeding inside developing flowers. This suggests that active pollination evolved to help ensure a larval food supply. We might imagine, then, that plants used by these pollinating seed parasites would evolve greater dependence on their highly efficient pollen delivery, moving toward the yucca-yucca moth mutualism we see today.
References
Brown, J., Leebens-Mack, J., Thompson, J., Pellmyr, O., & Harrison, R. (1997). Phylogeography and host association in a poll... Read more »
Brown, J., Leebens-Mack, J., Thompson, J., Pellmyr, O., & Harrison, R. (1997) Phylogeography and host association in a pollinating seed parasite Greya politella (Lepidoptera: Prodoxidae). Molecular Ecology, 6(3), 215-24. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-294X.1997.t01-1-00171.x
Pellmyr, O. (1999) Forty million years of mutualism: Evidence for Eocene origin of the yucca-yucca moth association. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 96(16), 9178-83. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.96.16.9178
Yoder, J.B., Smith, C.I., & Pellmyr, O. (2010) How to become a yucca moth: minimal trait evolution needed to establish the obligate pollination mutualism. Biol. J. Linnean Soc., 100(4), 847-55. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2010.01478.x
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
The new issue of The Journal of Evolutionary Biology has a great article on a question that dates back to Darwin: sympatric speciation[$-a].
Sympatric speciation is simply speciation that occurs when a species splits into two reproductively isolated groups without any physical barrier arising between those groups. It's often treated as the opposite of allopatric speciation, in which a species is... Read more »
B.M. Fitzpatrick, J.A. Fordyce, & S. Gavrilets. (2008) What, if anything, is sympatric speciation?. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 1452-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01611.x
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Last year Bioscience published a review article proposing a new discipline in conservation ecology: warfare ecology [PDF]. It's now making the rounds in the science blogosphere, with good coverage at Conservation Blog and Deep Sea News, where I first happened upon it - and it deserves all the attention it can get.
In the U.S., at any rate, war and preparation for war tend to get priority over everything - especially tree-hugging environmental concerns. Exhibit A is last year's Supreme Court decision that the Navy's need to practice with sonar trumps the damage sonar can do to whale populations, to the extent that the Navy could not be required to do an environmental impact assessment before beginning the exercise. War is treated as an emergency, and who worries about environmental impacts during emergencies?
Yet environmental damage caused in the course of war has direct impact on the human aftermath of conflict. Refugees provided with nowhere else to go will often set up camp in protected lands. Materials used in warfare - Agent Orange defoliant used in Southeast Asia, depleted uranium in Iraq - can continue to kill people long after the fighting ends. On the other hand, the review's authors, Machlis and Hanson, point out that demilitarized zones and military training grounds often serve as (perhaps overly-well protected) accidental preserves.
This is a subject I've thought about quite a bit before - way back in my undergraduate days, I won a Mennonite Central Committee oratorical contest with a speech that connected peace theology to environmental concerns. That speech now looks to me like slightly embarrassing juvenalia, but the central idea still holds, and it's great to see that working ecologists are thinking along similar lines. By laying out a framework for thinking about the environmental impacts of war, Machlis and Hanson's paper can hopefully help push governments to consider the longer-term environmental, economic, and social consequences of ecological decisions made in the course of preparing for and prosecuting war.
Reference
G. Machlis, & T. Hanson (2008). Warfare ecology BioScience, 58 (8), 729-36 DOI: 10.1641/B580809... Read more »
G. Machlis, & T. Hanson. (2008) Warfare ecology. BioScience, 58(8), 729-36. DOI: 10.1641/B580809
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Like pretty much anyone else writing about this, I'm in it for the headline. Well, maybe 30% for the headline -- this is also just freaky natural history. A paper in Biology Letters reports that great tits (Parus major -- basically big chickadees) will hunt and eat hibernating bats [$-a] if they can't find other food sources.
The paper reports on ten years of recorded bat-eating by a population of great tits in Hungary, capped by two years of systematic observations and a couple simple experiments. Are the tits hunting bats because other food is scarce? The authors put out birdseed and bacon near the bat cave, and observed that the birds killed many fewer bats. Do the tits use audio cues to find their prey? The authors played a tape recording of bats calling, and watched as the birds oriented to the sound and approached the speaker. There are also a number of grisly photos of tit-killed bats.
This is really the kind of work that attracts most field biologists to science in the first place -- a wild, interesting observation that provides an excuse to do some really unusual (and thorough) birdwatching. More complicated science will follow, I hope, like an estimate of the selective advantage this new food source provides to the birds. But it all starts with an incredible story.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: center; text-align: left; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
You might want to count your fingers after hand-feeding a great tit. Photo by joyrex.
Reference
Estok, P., Zsebok, S., & Siemers, B. (2009). Great tits search for, capture, kill and eat hibernating bats Biology Letters DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0611
... Read more »
Estok, P., Zsebok, S., & Siemers, B. (2009) Great tits search for, capture, kill and eat hibernating bats. Biology Letters. DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2009.0611
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Following up on last week's post about uncovering hidden species using DNA diversity (or "DNA barcoding"), an open-access paper in this week's issue of PNAS demonstrates a potentially significant glitch in the system: mitochondrial pseudogenes.
The original DNA barcoding concept is straightforward, if not uncontroversial - use a standard DNA sequence marker to identify ("barcode") species that... Read more »
P.D.N. Hebert, A. Cywinska, S.L. Ball, & J.R. deWaard. (2003) Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. Royal Society B, 270(1512), 313-21. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2002.2218
H. Song, J.E. Buhay, M.F. Whiting, & K.A. Crandall. (2008) Many species in one: DNA barcoding overestimates the number of species when nuclear mitochondrial pseudogenes are coamplified. PNAS, 105(36), 13486-91. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803076105
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Plants' ancient relationship with animal pollinators is pretty crazy, when you think about it. On the one hand, it gives plants access to mates they can't go find on their own, and it's more efficient than making scads of pollen and hoping the wind blows some onto another member of your species. On the other hand, it can leave a plant totally dependent upon another species for its reproduction.
This catch is probably why lots of plants still use wind pollination strategies, or reserve the option to pollinate themselves if animals don't do the job for them. Avoiding complete dependence on animal pollinators is likely to become more important in the modern era, as human disruption of the environment amplifies the inherent risk of entrusting your reproduction to another species [$a], a study in the latest issue of Science shows.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; } A flower of Rhabdothamnus solandri, waiting for pollinators who may never show up. Photo by Tonyfoster.Sandra Anderson and her coauthors examined the health of populations of Rhabdothamnus solandri, a forest shrub native to the North Island of New Zealand. The flowers of R. solandri are classic examples of the pollination syndrome associated with birds—bright red-orange, with long nectar tubes. Rhabdothamnus solandri is incapable of self-pollinating, because its The flowers attract three native bird species, the tui, the bellbird, and the stitchbird. Thanks to human activity, all three of these birds "functionally extinct" in most of the range where R. solandri grows.
The bellbird and the stitchbird were eliminated from much of the North Island in the Nineteenth Century as European colonists cleared forests for farmland and introduced cats, rats, and dogs that preyed on the native fauna. Tuis have persisted, but tend to stay in the upper forest canopy—possibly to avoid rat predation—and don't visit lower-growing shrubs. However, all three birds are still living as they did before Europeans arrived on two island nature preserves just a few kilometers off the North Island's shores. This creates an inadvertent experiment in pollinator loss, allowing Anderson et al. to compare R. solandri populations on the mainland with those on the preserve islands to see how the plant gets on without its pollinators.
The short answer is: not well.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; } The three principle pollinators of R. solandri, the tui, the bellbird, and the stitchbird. Only the Tui is still common in most R. solandri habitat. Photos by kookr, angrysunbird, and digitaltrails.To test whether R. solandri's reproduction is limited by pollen supply (as opposed to water or nutrients), the authors compared flowers that were either enclosed to prevent pollinator access, left open to natural pollination, or pollinated artificially. On the islands, plants left open set about as much fruit as plants pollinated by hand—but on the mainland, plants pollinated by hand set much more fruit than those left open. Mainland plants also produced smaller fruits, with fewer seeds per fruit, than island plants. The enclosed flowers set very little fruit, so it seems clear that pollen is the limiting factor for island and mainland R. solandri populations, and mainland populations aren't getting enough.
The age structure of island and mainland R. solandri populations bears this out. Anderson et al. surveyed the island and mainland sites and counted the number of "adult" shrubs in a given area relative to recently sprouted seedlings. Island and mainland sites had similar densities of adult shrubs, but mainland sites had much lower densities of seedlings. It looks very likely that R. solandri populations on the North Island mainland are in decline as a direct result of losing pollinator services.
As Cagan Sekercioglu points out in an invited commentary [$a], this study demonstrates that species' ecological roles can be strongly compromised even if they don't go extinct. Tuis and bellbirds are not considered particularly endangered, and the stitchbird is classified as "vulnerable," the lowest level of "threatened" under the system used by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Yet these birds' local losses and adaptation to human activity have left R. solandri without adequate pollination services. Conserving biodiversity requires more than preventing extinction—but it can be quite a bit harder to preserve important relationships between species such as this one.
References
Anderson, S., Kelly, D., Ladley, J., Molloy, S., & Terry, J. (2011). Cascading effects of bird functional extinction reduce pollination and plant density. Science, 331 (6020), 1068-1071 DOI: 10.1126/science.1199092
Sekercioglu, C. (2011). Functional extinctions of bird pollinators cause plant declines. Science, 331 (6020), 1019-20 DOI: 10.1126/science.1202389
... Read more »
Anderson, S., Kelly, D., Ladley, J., Molloy, S., & Terry, J. (2011) Cascading effects of bird functional extinction reduce pollination and plant density. Science, 331(6020), 1068-1071. DOI: 10.1126/science.1199092
Sekercioglu, C. (2011) Functional extinctions of bird pollinators cause plant declines. Science, 331(6020), 1019-20. DOI: 10.1126/science.1202389
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
In a special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society on speciation, James Mallet argues that the Biological Species Concept is at odds with Charles Darwin's original ideas about what a species is - and that current research supports Darwin [$-a].
When The Origin of Species was first published, biologists mostly thought species were easy to recognize - they looked different from each other, and they couldn't successfully interbreed with each other. This view was a problem for Darwin's ideas about gradual evolution by natural selection, since gradual divergence shouldn't give rise to nice, discrete species. In fact, as Darwin argued, different groups of organisms exhibit a whole spectrum of reproductive isolation, from complete interfertility to total isolation - and the degree of isolation is not easy to predict based on how similar organisms look. In Darwin's description, species are just labels that humans put on clusters of similar-looking organisms.
By the mid-Twentieth Century, evolutionary biologists favored what is commonly called the Biological Species Concept (BSC), defining species as non-interbreeding populations of living things. Research on speciation has accordingly focused on the ways that evolution creates reproductive isolation between populations. Mallet argues that this amounts to an abandonment of Darwin's insights, and that by focusing on isolating mechanisms, biologists have returned to viewing species as distinct, "real" entities, missing much of the evolutionary process as a result.
I'm not sure I believe the distinction that Mallet makes between Darwin's description of species and the BSC; they seem to me more different in their emphasis than in their fundamentals. Darwin was interested in demonstrating that species arise gradually, as accidents of adaptation to different environments - and, as Mallet says, he was trying to overcome the then-predominant view that species were real, discrete entities instead of the names that humans assign to clusters of similar organisms. Research motivated by the BSC generally takes this view as well, but it's interested in the processes that create such clusters, and can prevent them from merging into nearby clusters by interbreeding.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-frameleft { float: left; text-align: left; margin-right: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
Two types of Joshua tree
Photo by jby.Research on the evolution of isolating mechanisms necessarily focuses on cases where isolation is incomplete, somewhere between complete speciation and free interbreeding. A prime example is my lab's research on the two pollinator-associated types of Joshua tree, Yucca brevifolia. It's not clear that the two types are reproductively isolated - preliminary genetic data suggests they're not [PDF] - even though they're pollinated by different moth species, and classified as separate subspecies, the taller Y. brevifolia brevifolia and the short, bushy Y. brevifolia jaegeriana. They may be on the way to becoming different species, but they're not there yet. Two other examples out of the endless forms available: marine snails that choose mates by their slime trails, and wildflowers that would interbreed if only they could survive each other's habitat.
As Mallet concludes in the more empirical part of his review, this is what we see across the diversity of life: a continuum of reproductive isolation between populations, not a granular world of neatly divided, obviously different species. Rather than over-simplifying this reality, the Biological Species Concept gives us a framework through which to understand it.
References
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. First ed. London: John Murray. Full text on Google Books.
Mallet, J. (2008). Hybridization, ecological races and the nature of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363 (1506), 2971-86 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0081
Smith, C., W. Godsoe, S. Tank, J. Yoder, & O. Pellmyr (2008). Distinguishing coevolution from covicariance in an obligate pollination mutualism: asynchronous divergence in Joshua tree and its pollinators. Evolution, 62 (10), 2676-87 DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00500.x... Read more »
Mallet, J. (2008) Hybridization, ecological races and the nature of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B, 363(1506), 2971-86. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0081
Smith, C., W. Godsoe, S. Tank, J. Yoder, & O. Pellmyr. (2008) Distinguishing coevolution from covicariance in an obligate pollination mutualism: asynchronous divergence in Joshua tree and its pollinators. Evolution, 62(10), 2676-87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00500.x
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Growing up in suburban Pennsylvania, where the most hazardous wildlife not extirpated from our woods is the occasional crazed whitetail deer, there was really only one danger I associated with the outdoors -- ticks. Specifically, ticks carrying Lyme disease, a not-very-pleasant bacterial infection that attacks the joints, heart, and nervous system if left untreated. According to a paper released online early in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, my risk of picking up Lyme disease on an excursion into the woods behind my parents' house may have depended on the diversity of bird and mammal species in those woods [$-a].
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-frameright { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:40%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }
Sure, it looks like a giant rat, but that opossum is a walking death trap for disease-carrying ticks. Photos by ricmcarthur and jkirkhart35.In a way, the ticks that carry Lyme disease are a threat to humans precisely because they don't rely on us as a regular source for blood. Instead, they feed on a variety of mammals and birds, which allows them to maintain population densities high enough that a human wondering into a woodlot stands a good chance of picking up one or two of the little buggers.
But it turns out that not all of these non-human hosts are equally hospitable for ticks. The new paper's authors, Keesey et al., caught a range of tick hosts -- white-footed mice, eastern chipmunks, gray squirrels, opossums, veeries, and catbirds -- and experimentally infested them with ticks. They found a huge range of tick success across the six host species: almost half of all ticks introduced onto mice were able to feed, while only 3.5% of ticks introduced onto opossums were. Most ticks that failed to feed disappeared -- they were probably eaten when the host groomed itself.
The authors' field surveys of ticks carried by these animals in the wild make the difference even more pronounced. Wild-caught opossums carried an average of almost 200 ticks -- if that's 3.5% of the ticks that try to feed on a opossum, then that means each opossum had attracted, and eaten, up to 5,500 ticks!
But the real impact of this result comes into focus in a mathematical model the authors develop to determine the effects of removing each of the six hosts from a woodland ecosystem. Removing intermediately-useful hosts like veeries or catbirds doesn't have much effect on tick density. On the other hand, if you remove very tick-friendly hosts like the white-footed mice, tick populations plummet. And if you remove opossums, they increase dramatically. This is important because, the authors say, larger mammal species are the first to leave as patches of woodland are reduced to make way for human development -- so an early effect of woodland fragmentation may be to reduce or eliminate opossums in that woodland, and boost the density of disease-bearing ticks.
This result goes a long way to fulfilling a proposal the authors made in a 2006 review article, that the diversity of alternative hosts for disease vectors like mosquitoes and ticks may shape the risk they pose to human populations [$-a]. It shows that, even in the relatively tame landscapes of suburbia, the way we humans manage what wildlife remains may have real consequences for our own well-being.
References
Keesing, F., Holt, R., & Ostfeld, R. (2006). Effects of species diversity on disease risk Ecology Letters, 9 (4), 485-98 DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00885.x
Keesing, F., Brunner, J., Duerr, S., Killilea, M., LoGiudice, K., Schmidt, K., Vuong, H., & Ostfeld, R. (2009). Hosts as ecological traps for the vector of Lyme disease Proc. R. Soc. B, (online early) DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1159
... Read more »
Keesing, F., Holt, R., & Ostfeld, R. (2006) Effects of species diversity on disease risk. Ecology Letters, 9(4), 485-98. DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00885.x
Keesing, F., Brunner, J., Duerr, S., Killilea, M., LoGiudice, K., Schmidt, K., Vuong, H., & Ostfeld, R. (2009) Hosts as ecological traps for the vector of Lyme disease. Proc. R. Soc. B. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2009.1159
by Jeremy Yoder in Denim and Tweed
Over the last few months I've been writing a lot about how different species interactions have different evolutionary effects. The studies I've looked at so far focus on effects over just a few generations—barely time to take notice, in evolutionary time. The February issue of The American Naturalist remedies this short-term perspective with a paper showing that over millions of years, two different kinds of mutualists had very different effects on the history of one group of orchids [$a].
The new study examines the evolutionary history of coryciinae orchids, a group of South African orchids that rely on two major groups of mutualists. The first, and perhaps most obvious, are pollinating bees, which coryciinae orchids attract not with nectar but with oils. Like most other orichids, this group of flowers interacts with its pollinators in very specific ways, to the point that different coryciinae species can share a single pollinator by placing pollen on different parts of the pollinator's body, as seen in the image below.
.flickr-photo { }.flickr-framewide { float: right; text-align: left; margin-left: 15px; margin-bottom: 15px; width:100%;}.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; } Double duty: This bee is carrying pollen from one orchid species on its forelegs, and pollen from another orchid species on its abdomen. Photo from Waterman et al (2011), figure 1.The second important group of mutualists are mycorrhizae, a class of fungus found in soil, which colonize plants' roots. Mycorrhizae aid their hosts in taking up minerals, particularly phosphorus, in exchange for sugar supplied by the host. In certain kinds of soil, having the right mycorrhizae is the difference between life and death for a plant.
Although both pollinators and mycorrhizae are vital to an orchid's success, they should contribute to forming new orchid species in very different ways. Evolving a new pollinator relationship can directly create reproductive isolation for a flowering plant, independent of other ecological considerations. On the other hand, mycorrhizae are closely linked to basic ecology, because the mycorrhizae in a plant's roots determine what kinds of soils it can use—wet or dry, acidic or alkaline. If new orchid species usually form by adapting to new habitats, they probably acquire new mycorrhizae while doing so.
If changing a trait—in this case, a mutualistic relationship—is related to forming new species, then closely related orchid species will be more likely to differ in that trait. This turns out to be the case for pollinators—the more closely related two orchid species are, the more likely they are to use different pollinators, or different parts of the same pollinator. However, the reverse is true for mycorrhizae. The more closely related two orchids are to each other, the more likely they are to have the same mutualistic fungi in their roots. This finding that pollination matters most to species formation is right in keeping with Verne Grant's classic study noting that animal pollinated plants tend to differ more in their floral structures—the parts that interact with pollinators—than in other traits.
The authors followed up on these results with field experiments on a few selected species, and found that co-occurring orchids could often successfully pollinate each other, if the pollen was deliberately placed. In these cases, differences in specialized pollination interactions are most of what maintains the orchid species as separate genetic entities. On the other hand, closely related orchids that grow in adjacent habitats did just fine when transplanted into each others' soil—and mycorrhizae.
Biologists studying the effects of pollination on plant species formation have recently become more aware that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. New pollinator interactions certainly might form new species—but it is also possible that new orchid species created by other forces must rapidly evolve new pollinator interactions to compete with existing species.
References
Armbruster, W., & Muchhala, N. (2008). Associations between floral specialization and species diversity: cause, effect, or correlation? Evolutionary Ecology, 23 (1), 159-79 DOI: 10.1007/s10682-008-9259-z
Waterman, R., Bidartondo, M., Stofberg, J., Combs, J., Gebauer, G., Savolainen, V., Barraclough, T., & Pauw, A. (2011). The effects of above- and belowground mutualisms on orchid speciation and coexistence. The American Naturalist, 177 (2) DOI: 10.1086/657955
... Read more »
Armbruster, W., & Muchhala, N. (2008) Associations between floral specialization and species diversity: cause, effect, or correlation?. Evolutionary Ecology, 23(1), 159-79. DOI: 10.1007/s10682-008-9259-z
Waterman, R., Bidartondo, M., Stofberg, J., Combs, J., Gebauer, G., Savolainen, V., Barraclough, T., & Pauw, A. (2011) The effects of above- and belowground mutualisms on orchid speciation and coexistence. The American Naturalist, 177(2). DOI: 10.1086/657955
Do you write about peer-reviewed research in your blog? Use ResearchBlogging.org to make it easy for your readers — and others from around the world — to find your serious posts about academic research.
If you don't have a blog, you can still use our site to learn about fascinating developments in cutting-edge research from around the world.