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

Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution

Expand Messages
  • Charles Guevara
       I see no problem with study of interelationships between organisms , and analyzing for trends (could be a cline geographically of individual
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.