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

Re: Coevolution

Expand Messages
  • nativebeesdotcom
    Peter, The work of Lars Chittka, a scientist from the UK, is a scientist worth studying. Some of the most interesting research on coevolution of flowers and
    Message 1 of 14 , Mar 18, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Peter,

      The work of Lars Chittka, a scientist from the UK, is a scientist worth studying. Some of the most interesting research on coevolution of flowers and pollinators comes from his work.

      His quote below opposes your conclusion. This statement was in response to a questions where a reporter asked him about his memorable moments in science:

      "…I at first interpreted this to mean that this meant bee colour vision had evolved for the efficient coding of flower colours. Unfortunately, phylogenetic analyses later revealed that in fact it was the other way round — the kind of colour vision that bees have is several hundred million years older than the first flower. Flower colours had adapted to bee colour vision, not vice versa."

      http://chittkalab.sbcs.qmul.ac.uk/2010/Chittka%202010%20Curr%20Biol%20Q&A.pdf

      I have other articles that may assist. I would like to read your article when you're finished. Call me, and we'll chat.

      Sincerely,

      Kimball Clark
      www.NativeBees.com
      Kaysville, UT
      801-458-0282

      info@...
      twitter.com/nativebees
      New website forthcoming

      --- 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. (I am a frequent contributor to the
      > American Bee Journal). 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.
      >
      > For example, the relationship between Peponapis and Cucurbits seemed
      > like an ideal candidate with explanatory power and yet the first in
      > depth article I read says:
      >
      > > These results also question the idea of close coevolution between squash and squash bees. It would appear that the bees are much more closely adapted to the flowers than vice-versa (Hurd et al., 1971).
      >
      > Can anyone point to clear evidence for or against coevolution of
      > pollinators and flowers?
      >
      > - - - - - - - - - - - - -
      > Peter Loring Borst
      > 128 Lieb Road
      > Spencer, NY  14883
      >
      > I take the trouble to protest against these assumptions, because they
      > are not merely harmless fancies, but theories that are apt to paralyse
      > action and encourage scientific indolence. -- James Crichton-Browne
      >
    • Peter L Borst
      Hi all I am continuing to explore coevolution with the aim of assembling clear evidence that pollinators are adapted to the plants they pollinate. It is fairly
      Message 2 of 14 , Mar 26, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all
        I am continuing to explore coevolution with the aim of assembling
        clear evidence that pollinators are adapted to the plants they
        pollinate. It is fairly clear that the opposite is true, that
        pollinators have exerted selective pressure on plants and this
        pressure has resulted in the variety of attractions that plants offer
        as well as the various deterrents to non-pollinators (plant
        predators).

        Food for thought:

        It is widely accepted that angiosperm flowers and their insect
        pollinators have influenced each other’s evolution, but there is still
        considerable uncertainty about whether or not coevolution has been a
        major process in the diversification of these groups. -- Steven D.
        Johnson & Bruce Anderson (2010)

        Further, Ethan J. Temeles and W. John Kress suggest:

        Plant-animal interactions, especially those between flowering plants
        and their animal pollinators, provide classic examples of hypothesized
        coadaptations that confer advantages to both mutualists.

        The most convincing investigations of adaptation require:

        (i) the presence of discrete character polymorphisms in natural populations,

        (ii) evidence for the genetic basis of this variation,

        (iii) fitness measures, and

        (iv) comparative studies among populations.


        - - - - - - - - - - - - -
        Peter Loring Borst
        128 Lieb Road
        Spencer, NY 14883

        I take the trouble to protest against these assumptions, because they
        are not merely harmless fancies, but theories that are apt to paralyse
        action and encourage scientific indolence. -- James Crichton-Browne
      • David Inouye
        Here s a list of papers that you might look at because they address the idea of coevolution and pollination. David Inouye Adler, L. S. 2003. Host species
        Message 3 of 14 , Mar 27, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Here's a list of papers that you might look at because they address the idea of coevolution and pollination.

          David Inouye

          Adler, L. S. 2003. Host species affects herbivory, pollination, and reproduction in experiments with parasitic Castilleja. Ecology 84:2083-2091.
          Anderson, B. and S. D. Johnson. 2008. The geographical mosaic of coevolution in a plant-pollinator mutualism. Evolution 62:220-225.
          Anstett, M. C., M. Hossaert-McKey, and F. Kjellberg. 1997. Figs and fig pollinators: evolutionary conflicts in a coevolved mutualism. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12:94-99.
          Atsatt, P. R. and P. W. Rundel. 1982. Pollinator maintenance vs. fruit production: partitioned reproductive effort in subdioecious Fuchsia lycioides. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 69:199-208.
          Bascompte, J. 2010. Structure and dynamics of ecological networks. Science 329:765-766.
          Bascompte, J., P. Jordano, and J. M. Olesen. 2006. Asymmetric coevolutionary networks facilitate biodiversity maintenance. Science 312:431-433.
          Bl N., T. Menzel, T. Hovestadt, B. Fiala, and N. Bl 2007. Specialization, constraints, and conflicting interests in mutualistic networks. Current Biology 17:341-346.
          Bronstein, J. L. and M. HossaertMcKey. 1996. Variation in reproductive success within a subtropical fig pollinator mutualism. Journal of Biogeography 23:433-446.
          Cook, J. M., D. Bean, S. A. Power, and D. J. Dixon. 2004. Evolution of a complex coevolved trait: active pollination in a genus of fig wasps. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 17:238-246.
          Cotton, P. A. 1998. Coevolution in an Amazonian hummingbird-plant community. Ibis 140:639-646.
          Feinsinger, P. 1983. Coevolution and pollination. Pages 282-310 in D. J. Futuyma and M. Slatkin, editors. Coevolution. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.
          Fonseca, C. R. and G. Ganade. 1996. Asymmetries, compartments and null interactions in an Amazonian ant-plant community. Journal of Animal Ecology 65:339-347.
          Ghazoul, J. 2001. Can floral repellents pre-empt potential ant-plant conflicts? Ecology Letters 4:295-299.
          Godsoe, W., J. B. Yoder, C. I. Smith, and O. Pellmyr. 2008. Coevolution and divergence in the Joshua tree/yucca moth mutualism. The American Naturalist 171:816-823.
          G J. M., M. Abdelaziz, J. P. M. Camacho, A. J. Mu and F. Perfectti. 2009. Local adaptation and maladaptation to pollinators in a generalist geographic mosaic. Ecology Letters 12:672-682.
          Grimaldi, D. 1999. The co-radiations of pollinating insects and angiosperms in the Cretaceous. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 86:373-406.
          Hao-Yuan, H. U., N. I. U. Li-Ming, M. A. Guang-Chang, F. U. Yue-Guan, P. Zheng-Qiang, and H. Da-Wei. 2010. Permeability of receptive fig fruits and its effects on the re-emergence behaviour of pollinators. Ecological Entomology 35:115-125.
          Harrison, R. D. 2007. Maintenance of specificity in an isolated fig. Biotropica 39:275-277.
          Herre, E. A. 1989. Coevolution of reproductive characteristics in 12 species of New World figs and their pollinator wasps. Experientia 45:637-647.
          Johnson, S. D. 2010. The pollination niche and its role in the diversification and maintenance of the southern African flora. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365:499-516.
          Jordano, P. 1987. Patterns of mutualistic interactions in pollination and seed dispersal: connectance, dependence asymmetries, and coevolution. American Naturalist 129:657-677.
          Jordano, P., J. Bascompte, and J. M. Olesen. 2003. Invariant properties in coevolutionary networks of plant-animal interactions. Ecology Letters 6:69-81.
          Jousselin, E., F. Kjellberg, and E. A. Herre. 2004. Flower specialization in a passively pollinated monoecious fig: A question of style and stigma? International Journal of Plant Sciences 165:587-593.
          Jousselin, E., J. Y. Rasplus, and F. Kjellberg. 2003. Convergence and coevolution in a mutualism: Evidence from a molecular phylogeny of Ficus. Evolution 57:1255-1269.
          Jousselin, E., S. van Noort, B. Vincent, J.-Y. Rasplus, N. R J. C. Erasmus, and J. M. Greeff. 2008. One fig to bind them all: Host conservatism in a fig wasp community unraveled by cospeciation analyses among pollinating and nonpollinating fig wasps. Evolution 62:1777-1797.
          Kawakita, A. and M. Kato. 2004. Evolution of obligate pollination mutualism in New Caledonian Phyllanthus (Euphorbiaceae). American Journal of Botany 91:410-415.
          Kawakita, A., A. Takimura, T. Terachi, T. Sota, and M. Kato. 2004. Cospeciation analysis of an obligate pollination mutualism: Have Glochidion trees (Euphorbiaceae) and pollinating Epicephala moths (Gracillariidae) diversified in parallel? Evolution 58:2201-2214.
          Kessler, A. and R. Halitschke. 2009. Testing the potential for conflicting selection on floral chemical traits by pollinators and herbivores: predictions and case study. Functional Ecology 23:901-912.
          Kevan, P. G., W. G. Chaloner, and D. B. O. Savile. 1975. Interrelationships of early terrestrial arthropods and plants. Palaeontology 18:391-417.
          Kiester, A. R., R. Lande, and D. W. Schemske. 1984. Models of coevolution and speciation in plants and their pollinators. American Naturalist 124:220-243.
          LaPlaca Reese, C. S. and E. M. Barrows. 1980. Coevolution of Claytonia virginica (Portulacaceae) and its main pollinator, Andrena erigeniae (Andrenidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 82:685-694.
          Lindberg, A. B. and J. M. Olesen. 2001. The fragility of extreme specialization: Passiflora mixta and its pollinating hummingbird Ensifera ensifera. Journal of Tropical Ecology 17:323-329.
          Llandres, A. L., F. M. Gawryszewski, A. M. Heiling, and M. E. Herberstein. 2011. The effect of colour variation in predators on the behaviour of pollinators: Australian crab spiders and native bees. Ecological Entomology 36:72-81.
          Lunau, K. 2004. Adaptive radiation and coevolution - pollination biology case studies. Organisms Diversity & Evolution 4:207-224.
          Machado, C. A., N. Robbins, M. T. P. Gilbert, and E. A. Herre. 2005. Critical review of host specificity and its coevolutionary implications in the fig/fig-wasp mutualism. PNAS 102:6558-6565.
          Moldenke, A. R. 1979. Host-plant coevolution and the diversity of bees in relation to the flora of North America. Phytologia 43:357-419.
          Morton, E. S. 1979. Effective pollination of Erythrina fusca by the Orchard Oriole (Icterus spurius): Coevolved behavioural manipulation? Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 66:482-489.
          Muchhala, N. and J. D. Thomson. 2009. Going to great lengths: selection for long corolla tubes in an extremely specialized bat - flower mutualism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:2147-2152.
          Patel, A., M. C. Anstett, M. Hossaert-McKey, and F. Kjellberg. 1995. Pollinators entering female dioecious figs: Why commit suicide? Journal of Evolutionary Biology 8:301-313.
          Pauw, A., J. Stofberg, and R. J. Waterman. 2009. Flies and flowers in Darwin's race. Evolution 63:268-279.
          Pellmyr, O. 1992. The phylogeny of a mutualism - evolution and coadaptation between Trollius and its seed-parasitic pollinators. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 47:337-365.
          Pellmyr, O., L. K. Massey, J. L. Hamrick, and M. A. Feist. 1997. Genetic consequences of specialization: Yucca moth behavior and self pollination in yuccas. Oecologia 109:273-278.
          Petanidou, T., A. S. Kallimanis, J. Tzanopoulos, S. P. Sgardelis, and J. D. Pantis. 2008. Long-term observation of a pollination network: fluctuation in species and interactions, relative invariance of network structure and implications for estimates of specialization. Ecology Letters 11:564-575.
          Powell, J. A. 1992. Interrelationships of yuccas and yucca moths. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7:10-15.
          Santamar L. and M. A. Rodr 2007. Linkage rules for plant-pollinator networks: Trait complementarity or exploitation barriers? PLoS Biology 5:e31.
          Smith, C. I., W. K. W. Godsoe, S. Tank, J. B. Yoder, and O. Pellmyr. 2008. Distinguishing coevolution from covicariance in an obligate pollination mutualism: Asynchronous divergence in Joshua tree and its pollinators. Evolution 62:2676-2687.
          Smith, C. I., W. K. W. Godsoe, S. Tank, J. B. Yoder, O. Pellmyr, and L. L. Knowles. 2009. Distinguishing coevolution from covicariance in an obligate pollination mutualism: Asynchronous divergence in Joshua Tree and its pollinators. Evolution 62:2676-2687.
          Smith, T. B., L. A. Freed, J. K. Lepson, and J. H. Crothers. 1995. Evolutionary consequences of extinctions in populations of a Hawaiian honeycreeper. Conservation Biology 9:107-113.
          Steiner, K. E. 1993. Has Ixianthes (Scrophulariaceae) lost its special bee? Plant Systematics and Evolution 185:7-16.
          Tan, K. H., R. Nishida, and Y. C. Toong. 2002. Floral synomone of a wild orchid, Bulbophyllum cheiri, lures Bactrocera fruit flies for pollination. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28:1161-1172.
          Thompson, J. N. 1997. Evaluating the dynamics of coevolution among geographically structured populations. Ecology 78:1619-1623.
          Thompson, J. N. and B. M. Cunningham. 2002. Geographic structure and dynamics of coevolutionary selection. Nature 417:735-738.
          Thompson, J. N. and C. C. Fernandez. 2006. Temporal dynamics of antagonism and mutualism in a geographically variable plant-insect interaction. Ecology 87:103-112.
          Thompson, J. N., A.-L. Laine, and J. F. Thompson. 2010. Retention of mutualism in a geographically diverging interaction. Ecology Letters 13:1368-1377.
          Tschapka, M. 2003. Pollination of the understorey palm Calyptrogyne ghiesbreghtiana by hovering and perching bats. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80:281-288.
          Ware, A. B. and S. G. Compton. 1992. Breakdown of pollinator specificity in an African fig tree. Biotropica 24:544-549.
          Ware, A. B., P. T. Kaye, S. G. Compton, and S. Vannoort. 1993. Fig volatiles. Their role in attracting pollinators and maintaining pollinator specificity. Plant Systematics and Evolution 186:147-156.
          Wasserthal, L. T. 1997. The pollinators of the Malagasy star orchids Angraecum sesquipedale, A. sororium and A. compactum and the evolution of extremely long spurs by pollinator shift. Botanica Acta 110:343-359.
          Weiblen, G. D. 2001. Phylogenetic relationships of fig wasps pollinating functionally dioecious Ficus based on mitochondrial DNA sequences and morphology. Systematic Biology 50:243-267.
          Weiblen, G. D. 2002. How to be a fig wasp. Annual Review of Entomology 47:299-330.
          Weiblen, G. D. 2004. Correlated evolution in fig pollination. Systematic Biology 53:128-139.
          Wiens, D., J. P. Rourke, B. B. Casper, E. A. Rickart, T. R. LaPine, C. J. Peterson, and A. Channing. 1983. Nonflying mammal pollination of southern African Proteas: a non-coevolved system. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 70:1-31.


          At 09:16 AM 3/26/2011, you wrote:
          Hi all
          I am continuing to explore coevolution with the aim of assembling
          clear evidence that pollinators are adapted to the plants they
          pollinate. It is fairly clear that the opposite is true, that
          pollinators have exerted selective pressure on plants and this
          pressure has resulted in the variety of attractions that plants offer
          as well as the various deterrents to non-pollinators (plant
          predators).

          Food for thought:

          It is widely accepted that angiosperm flowers and their insect
          pollinators have influenced each other�s evolution, but there is still
          considerable uncertainty about whether or not coevolution has been a
          major process in the diversification of these groups. -- Steven D.
          Johnson & Bruce Anderson (2010)

          Further, Ethan J. Temeles and W. John Kress suggest:

          Plant-animal interactions, especially those between flowering plants
          and their animal pollinators, provide classic examples of hypothesized
          coadaptations that confer advantages to both mutualists.

          The most convincing investigations of adaptation require:

          (i) the presence of discrete character polymorphisms in natural populations,

          (ii) evidence for the genetic basis of this variation,

          (iii) fitness measures, and

          (iv) comparative studies among populations.


          - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Peter Loring Borst
          128 Lieb Road
          Spencer, NY  14883

          I take the trouble to protest against these assumptions, because they
          are not merely harmless fancies, but theories that are apt to paralyse
          action and encourage scientific indolence. -- James Crichton-Browne


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

          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/
        • Peter Loring Borst
          ... 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
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 16, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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
          • Charles Guevara
            ... From: Charles Guevara To: Peter Loring Borst Sent: Sat, April 16, 2011 10:04:39 PM Subject: Re:
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 16, 2011
            • 0 Attachment


              ----- 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/

            • Peter Bernhardt
              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
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 16, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                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/


              • Peter Loring Borst
                Pollination ecology is a complex area and despite more than 200 years of study, many topics are not yet fully understood, whilst all the time new questions
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 17, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Pollination ecology is a complex area and despite more than 200 years of study, many topics are not yet fully understood, whilst all the time new questions arise as our environment changes and novel mechanisms for investigation and interpretation appear.

                  An understanding of patterns and processes is necessary if we are to fully comprehend the rich ecological and evolutionary interplay between pollinators and the plants they service, and how these interactions can be conserved in an anthropogenically changing world.

                  The main questions are therefore expressing the concern on raising awareness, capacity building and closing the enormous knowledge gaps on pollination services in a systematic way including all major pollinator groups over all major terrestrial ecosystems worldwide.

                  from: POLLINATION ECOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY

                  * * *

                  Hi all
                  I am not "saying anything" but asking questions. What can be said for certain about co-evolution? Or is it too jumbled and shape-shifting so say anything more than "it's going on"? By the way, lest I be accused of pretending, it's Mr. Borst, not Dr.
                • Charles Guevara
                     I see no problem with study of interelationships between organisms , and analyzing for trends (could be a cline geographically of individual
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 17, 2011
                  • 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/




                  • Charles Guevara
                       That 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
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 17, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                         That 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 beemonitoring@yahoogroups.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?

                      PLB

                    • Peter Loring Borst
                      Thompson writes: In extreme forms of mutualism, a pair of interacting species, such as a gut symbiont and its host, might coevolve to be so complementary that
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 17, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thompson writes:

                        In extreme forms of mutualism, a pair of interacting species, such as a gut symbiont and its host, might coevolve to be so complementary that they literally cannot survive without each other. Such extreme complementarity occurs commonly in mutualistic interactions in which symbionts live in the host and are passed directly to the offspring of the host (Moran et al. 2008).

                        But coevolution does not lead to extreme reciprocal specialization in all mutualistic interactions. It is *uncommon* in mutualisms between free-living species such as those between plants and their pollinators and seeddispersal agents.

                        That lack of extreme specialization appears to be a result of the coevolutionary process itself (Thompson 2005). It may seem paradoxical that coevolution would actually favor larger groups of interacting species rather than highly specialized pairs of species, but we are now beginning to understand how this process of multispecific coevolution may work.

                        The reason is the coevolutionary vortex. Mutualisms among free-living species tend to draws in other species over time, creating a tangled web of interactions. As coevolution favors complementarity between partners (e.g., flowers and hummingbirds), it simultaneously favors other related or unrelated species that evolve to exploit the interaction by converging on those same traits. I

                        n one well studied community in Costa Rica 65 hawkmoth species interact with 31 plant species from various plant families that have converged on floral traits adapted to pollination by hawkmoths (Haber and Frankie 1989). The scientific problem of how coevolution shapes larger webs of interacting species is one of the most active areas of current coevolutionary research, and there is still a great deal to learn ...
                      • Charles Guevara
                           But again I suggest orchids pairing with specific insects in their ( the orchids flowers) floral morphology/floral biochemistry, ants pairing with
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 17, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                             But again I suggest orchids pairing with specific insects in their ( the orchids flowers) floral morphology/floral biochemistry, ants pairing with specific trees, many tropical flowers are bird pollinated and tailor their floral colors to the sensitivities of avian vision ( red colors mainly?), these are examples of rather 'tight pairing between plant/other organism'.
                           
                             Of course there is a strategy to be adapted to the general 'mean' pollinators in ecosystems where many species compete in each niche/each trophic levels microhabitat.  But our novel/recent absurd stressors of huge monoculture plantings, coupled with genetically engineered plantings (? 'round-up ready crops', 'terminator gene plants', etc. .), coupled with plain old-fashioned habitat destruction, coupled with encumbered air-water-soil-climate courtesy of mankinds 'industry', coupled with the 'misnomer-bioivassions' ( why for petes sake can't we honestly admit that human activities import species...species do not 'invade'?!!)...our anthropogenic usual sloppy ways of 'thriveing in our environments' ( for example: 'so what if diesel-fuel is literally pumped into the ground in various states for hydro-fracking methane gas ...duggh...it is a misnomer to term it:"hydrofracking"...when you use diesel-fuel as the fluid pumped into the ground.)...all these stressors make studies of flower/pollinator pairing a quaint exercise.  Better one honestly studies what is best for sustainable agriculture/sustainable energy sources/regional economies...IMHO.
                           
                             all the best, Peter.    charlie guevara
                           
                           

                           


                          From: Peter Loring Borst <peterlborst1@...>
                          To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Sun, April 17, 2011 9:50:15 PM
                          Subject: Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution

                          Thompson writes:

                          In extreme forms of mutualism, a pair of interacting species, such as a gut symbiont and its host, might coevolve to be so complementary that they literally cannot survive without each other. Such extreme complementarity occurs commonly in mutualistic interactions in which symbionts live in the host and are passed directly to the offspring of the host (Moran et al. 2008).

                          But coevolution does not lead to extreme reciprocal specialization in all mutualistic interactions. It is *uncommon* in mutualisms between free-living species such as those between plants and their pollinators and seeddispersal agents.

                          That lack of extreme specialization appears to be a result of the coevolutionary process itself (Thompson 2005). It may seem paradoxical that coevolution would actually favor larger groups of interacting species rather than highly specialized pairs of species, but we are now beginning to understand how this process of multispecific coevolution may work.

                          The reason is the coevolutionary vortex. Mutualisms among free-living species tend to draws in other species over time, creating a tangled web of interactions. As coevolution favors complementarity between partners (e.g., flowers and hummingbirds), it simultaneously favors other related or unrelated species that evolve to exploit the interaction by converging on those same traits. I

                          n one well studied community in Costa Rica 65 hawkmoth species interact with 31 plant species from various plant families that have converged on floral traits adapted to pollination by hawkmoths (Haber and Frankie 1989). The scientific problem of how coevolution shapes larger webs of interacting species is one of the most active areas of current coevolutionary research, and there is still a great deal to learn ...





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

                          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/

                        • Peter Loring Borst
                          On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Peter Bernhardt wrote: Just how much selection must a bee species and a plant species exert on each other before we are willing
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 18, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Apr 16, 2011, at 11:13 PM, Peter Bernhardt wrote:
                            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?

                            Scott L. Nuismer, et al. write:

                            Although studies of correlations between traits of interacting
                            species are intuitively appealing, it has been argued
                            that such studies cannot provide unequivocal evidence
                            for coevolution. The argument against using
                            correlated trait values as evidence for coevolution was
                            made most forcefully by Janzen (1980) in his paper entitled
                            "When is it coevolution?" He argued that well-matched
                            or strongly correlated traits could evolve between interacting
                            species through processes other than coevolution
                            (Janzen 1980). At least three noncoevolutionary
                            mechanisms could explain correlations between
                            the traits of interacting species across sites.

                            When Is Correlation Coevolution?
                            Scott L. Nuismer, Richard Gomulkiewicz, and Benjamin J. Ridenhour
                            vol. 175, no. 5 the american naturalist may 2010
                          • Peter Loring Borst
                            ... I guess this is not the group with which to discuss this topic after all. My apologies. Any suggestion where else I might go to get some feedback on the
                            Message 13 of 14 , Apr 18, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com, Peter Bernhardt <bernhap2@...> wrote:
                              > Perhaps Drs Raven and Ehrlich could be brought into the greater discussion

                              I guess this is not the group with which to discuss this topic after all. My apologies. Any suggestion where else I might go to get some feedback on the topic?

                              PLB
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.