Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1476Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution

Expand Messages
  • Charles Guevara
    Apr 17 6:33 AM
    • 0 Attachment
         I see no problem with study of interelationships between organisms , and analyzing for trends (could be a cline geographically of individual pollinator/flower pairings, could be demes 'spun off' near huge monoculture plantings at geographically distant locals, could be morphologic-functional analysis studies, could be time-seasonal pattern studies of the flower/pollinator pair, it could be biochemical interaction studies, it could be population genetic studies of the pairing, etc. .)
       
         I see the concept of 'a pair', a specific flower/pollinator pair interacting through time,through generations, with environment and climate regimes changes....I see this as very important area of : coevolution studies.
       
         I see no problems of 'setting standards by whom?'.  I see no need to coment on 'alive and mentally fit persons' being a requisit to further discussions on this area of specific flower/specific pollinator interactions to glean when the interaction becomes manifesting: coevolution aspects.
       
         I just sense this huge subject area (specific flower/specific pollinator coevolution) requires a very ambitious integrated approach...and our churned up environments 'give off so much noise' , it is hard to see the time frames necessary for some of the levels of approach in the studies.
       
      charlie guevara
       
       

       


      From: Peter Bernhardt <bernhap2@...>
      To: Charles Guevara <icecilliate123@...>; Peter Loring Borst <peterlborst@...>
      Cc: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com; Peter Raven <peter.raven@...>
      Sent: Sat, April 16, 2011 11:13:40 PM
      Subject: Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution



      It sounds like we all need yet another lesson.  Someone needs to define or redefine the word, coevolution.  Perhaps Drs Raven and Ehrlich could be brought into the greater discussion Dr Borst craves as both remain alive and most mentally fit.  Frankly, I'm not sure what Dr. Borst is trying to say?  Surely, coevolution occurs without a precise, 50/50 commitment between one plant species (or lineage) and one animal species (or lineage).  Just how much selection must a bee species and a plant species exert on each other before we are willing to identify the pollinator/flower interaction as an example of coevolution?  Just who is setting the standards?  

      Peter Bernhardt   

      On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 9:06 PM, Charles Guevara <icecilliate123@...> wrote:
       



      ----- Forwarded Message ----
      From: Charles Guevara <icecilliate123@...>
      To: Peter Loring Borst <peterlborst1@...>
      Sent: Sat, April 16, 2011 10:04:39 PM
      Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Coevolution

         Perhaps we can utilize the robust understanding of specific ants with specific trees?  The molecular interactions, the anatomic responses to initial ant collinization of such plants, perhaps these offer generalities at several levels of the: plant-insect coevolution experience?
       
         Pollinators are quite less 'comited to the relationship' than are specific:'ants-trees coevolution relationships', but the criteria, the various levels...molecular, community mutual parasites, anatomic coevolution, etc. , mutual environmental stressors, perhaps the : ant/tree systems offer guides to traits/benchmarks of 'level of inter-dependance', 'level of comittment to the coevolution relationship'?
       
         just an area to consider, charlie guevara
       
       

       


      From: Peter Loring Borst <peterlborst1@...>
      To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, April 16, 2011 8:58:04 PM
      Subject: [beemonitoring] Coevolution

      --- In beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com, Peter L Borst <peterlborst1@...> wrote:

      Hi all

      I have been doing research with the idea of writing an article on
      insect/flower coevolution. While it is easy enough to demonstrate
      correlations using "show and tell", getting good evidence has been
      surprisingly difficult. In fact, the deeper I delve into this topic,
      the more contradictory evidence I seem to encounter.

      I was hoping to get a conversation going on this, but was not successful. Since then, I have found several journals which have devoted whole issues to the topic.

      The following seems to echo what I was saying: 

      We think that, despite the extensive literature on the effects of floral traits on pollinators and vice versa, the field is still in the early stages of moving from describing patterns to understanding processes. The full integration of molecular and ⁄ or quantitative genetics as prepollination processes with measures of phenotypic selection and postpollination processes is a promising direction for future studies of evolutionary pollination ecology. 

      Pollinator-mediated selection and floral evolution: from pollination ecology to macroevolution. Yuval Sapir and W. Scott Armbruster. New Phytologist (2010) 188: 303–306 

      * * *

      Plant-pollinator interactions have always provided excellent model systems to test and develop new theories in ecology and evolution (Mitchell et al. 2009). Nevertheless, because of the huge breadth (for a few examples see Fig. 1), depth and scope of this discipline, there is no doubt that many issues remain unresolved or have not been fully explored. All of the questions that we present in this paper have previously been addressed by researchers to some degree and we do not wish to give the impression that they have never been investigated. However, these are questions that, in the minds of a significant sample of researchers in the field, are not yet fully resolved. 

      Pollinators exert selective pressures on plants and their floral traits, and, similarly, plants may influence the evolution of pollinating animals. The evolution of floral traits has been proposed to be moulded by the most frequent and effective pollinators. However, it is increasingly recognised that the evolution of flowers is probably not so straightforward because many plants have more than one type of pollinator and floral evolution can be driven by conflicting selection by these pollinators, as well as by herbivores and other antagonists.

      We conclude that sufficient unanswered questions remain to feed research for several generations to come.

      POLLINATION ECOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY: KEY QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Carolin Mayer, et al. Journal of Pollination Ecology, 3(2), 2011, pp 8-23

      PLB





      ------------------------------------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beemonitoring/

      <*> Your email settings:
          Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/beemonitoring/join
          (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
          beemonitoring-digest@yahoogroups.com
          beemonitoring-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          beemonitoring-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




    • Show all 14 messages in this topic