1477Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution
- Apr 17, 2011That is why the very specific and very robust pairings of insect to specific plant ( such as ants with a specific tree species)...these systems may offer insights, what to notice as crucial interacting components of an insect/flower pair.I noticed when our crocuses first 'came up and openned' a few weeks ago, the type of bees visiting these flowers just 4"-5" above ground ( central NY,fingerlakes region), these bees ( I took a few pictures of this activity) had deep orange-red full pollen 'baskets' on their legs.Was this deep orange-red harvest primarily crocus-pollen, crocuses then were the 'only game in town' for the bees? Do the morphology and density of the appendage 'pollen baskets' change to adapt to the 'pollen type harvested' by these bees? For about five days now our areas daffodils have been opened. For about two weeks our 2"-3" above ground violets have been openned. A type of yellow flower which resembles a dandolion flower, but is on a strong angular cross-sectioned stem, this has been opened for about a week.Do the bristles/the structures and density of these apendage-bristles comprizing the bees pollen baskets , do they change when crocuses are the primary pollen target, vrs latter in a 'pollen harvest season'? Are these pollen baskets static entities, one morphology with no interaction with the pollen targets? Has a functional analysis of the morphology and static vrs plasticity of the pollen baskets morphology been looked at to see if there is evidence of: specific flower/specific bee interaction ( here as for a time, crocuses seemed the only plentiful pollen target in central NY/fingerlakes area...I thought of this one level of interacting plant/pollinator pair). Should variations occur in pollen basket morphology, are the changes interactive with the target pollen, with the time into the growth season? The gene systems turned on/expressed are then approached if a trend appears in morphologic reactivity in the structures of the pollen baskets.This blue sky speculation on one means of an intergrated approach to flower/pollinator coevolution( sorry, I could,nt resist dropping down the word one more time)..avoids the need for an a priori precise definition of: signal vrs noise.Should morphologic structures (pollen basket components on bee appendages) manifest seasonal changes, the ant/tree pair offers insights to synchronized expressed genes interacting between the ants and their tightly commited plant partners. Do different secretions extruded to the pollen basket bristles/mouthed onto the pollen basket bristles by the bees...does a functional analysis show pollen targets change the applications bees groom their own basket structures with? No need for precise foreknowledge to delegate a humble grad student to do the initial study...do the baskets change, are their functional reasons the baskets change, are the baskets groomed...or is it just like my Bernese Mt. dog bringing in all sorts of burrs and seeds after our hikes?Best of luck with your article, Peter. charlie guevara
From: Peter Loring Borst <peterlborst1@...>
To: Charles Guevara <icecilliate123@...>
Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 11:45:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution
--- In email@example.com, Charles Guevara <icecilliate123@...> wrote:
> our churned up environments 'give off so much noise' ...
Ah ha! You have hit upon the exact problem. What is noise in this case? When one designs a "noise filtering algorithm", one commences with a precise definition of what is signal and what is noise.
To simply apply a particular hypothesis to a noisy data set and sort for that -- is fatal to discovering anything except the data that completely agree with the hypothesis, and disregarding the rest!
That's why we must commence with the null hypothesis, that nothing is correlated and the field is a hodge podge, and attempt to disprove that. If the evidence is overwhelming for lack of correlation, then what?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>