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

Re: Fw: [beemonitoring] Coevolution

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.