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

Re: [beemonitoring] Bombus-GroundIvy Connection?

Expand Messages
  • Liz Day
    ... No. ... visit Ground Ivy because they are desparate, not because they prefer it? ... there are plenty of places where bumblebee forage seems to be scarce.
    Message 1 of 15 , Dec 21, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      >Are you suggesting that Ground Ivy nectar/pollen is inferior to that which
      >is produced by other flowers?

      No.

      >And, what study/data are you drawing from which demonstrates bumblebees
      visit Ground Ivy because they are desparate, not because they prefer it?

      >No data; I'm guessing. My impression from living in the Midwest is that
      there are plenty of places where bumblebee forage seems to be scarce. I
      sometimes wonder how they survive. But you would have to study the
      resources in each area to get a definitive answer.

      Liz Day
      Indianapolis (where they seem especially scarce)
      USA
      > >That's interesting that bees of all those proboscis lengths will use the
      >
      > >same flower. Quantitative data on frequency of use by each of those
      > >species would be interesting. Bumble bees will investigate a wide range
      > of
      > >flowers, in my experience, but typically settle quickly on those that
      > are
      > >a good morphological match and rewarding.
      >
      >I would guess they are short of food in early spring and desperate for
      >anything with nectar. Often in early spring I have walked around urban
      >areas and there is very little of *anything* in bloom (at least on the
      >ground; there may be bleeding sap or nectar/pollen in some trees).
      >
      >Liz Day
      >Indianapolis Indiana USA
      >
      >
      >
    • Mary Travaglini
      Liz, To be certain, as someone who works in the field of invasive species, there likely will never be a way to wholesale get rid of a non-native species once
      Message 2 of 15 , Dec 22, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Liz,
         
        To be certain, as someone who works in the field of invasive species, there likely will never be a way to wholesale get rid of a non-native species once it is well established, especially established for so long that some co-evolution has occurred, unless it was something we as humans desire to kill for food, fur, or fun, or a major disease gets it. Something like ground ivy, even if natural lands managers were able to eliminate it, will continue to love people's gardens and lawns. So part of my job is to never dream of elimating anything on a large scale, or think that way.
         
        In the long run, we should ultimately be concerned about the loss of habitat that harbor the native plants insects need, as well as protect those plants from new invasions by pests and pathogens. If the habitat is healthy enough, and native plant populations diverse enough, any insect that adapted to an intoduced plant ought to be able to readapt back to its original hosts if they are there or populations are restored.
         
        From my perspective, scientists only lump exotics together when they are addressing policy and public education issues, as we all agree there is no one single approach to any solution, and even policy issues each have a different approach when dealing with aquatic freshwater, aquatic marine, forest, wetland, grassland, soil and other pests, etc. Just like the CDC lumps diseases into bigger categories and then breaks down each one for solutions to the problem. We also don't treat all exotics as invasive, as they are not all invasive, so not every exotic is considered for control. You brought up apples and oranges--for instance, oranges are exotic in the US, but no one ever considers thinking of them as a problem in natural areas, and therefore would not get lumped with starlings for any sort of discussion, unless someone linked their country of origin, etc. I think you'll find there is not one "non-native" container definition among those of us addressing these issues and that the definitions out there are not quite so vague and poorly defined, but that perhaps public education is not getting out the way it should or that the issue is more complex than can be easily disseminated well--I agree that there could be a whole library on associations that have occurred through introductions, and the complexities of the issues. Not being an entemologist, my perspective is that insects are more likely to experience adaptations and evolutions faster than other species, and my biggest concern is that the rate of exotic exchange that has blossomed with global trade and travel, and habitat degredation and loss will ultimately be more of a detriment to insect diversity than anything.
         
        Mary Travaglini
        Potomac Gorge Habitat Restoration Manager
        The Nature Conservancy of MD/DC
        5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100
        Bethesda, MD  20814
        (301) 897-8570 x235
        fax: (301) 897-0858
         
        "In ecological release, an organism escapes its home and parachutes into an ecosystem that has never encountered it before...a few...look around with the hopeful incredulity of juvenile delinquents who discovered the mall's security cameras are broken--and wreak havoc." Charles Mann
        -----Original Message-----
        From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto:beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Liz Day
        Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:06 PM
        To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Bombus-GroundIvy Connection?


        >Learning more about what "role" that native species play in the spread of
        >non-native species is important because it reframes the conversation away
        >from the highly-charged and vague, but thoroughly unscientific terminology
        >like "alien" and "invasive". By asking, what if the native Bombus prefer
        >Ground Ivy because the Ground Ivy's flower evolved to serve Bombus better,
        >we shift away from looking for a one-sized-fits- all diagnostic that
        >explains the how and why of each and every successful species
        >introduction- naturalization.
        >
        >In the background is an unexamined bias against "non-native" species. If
        >anything points to a bias against "non-native" species it is that the
        >"non-native container" is so poorly defined and vague that anything can be
        >placed into it or removed at will.

        This assertion confuses me. Is there not usually fairly good concensus
        for most organisms of concern that they either were present in N. America
        well before European immigration, or else have been brought in by people
        since then? Perhaps I am not up to speed on this.

        There is a big difference between the question of whether something is
        native or exotic, and the question of whether an exotic organism's presence
        is desirable or detrimental or both or neither.

        >There are many apples and oranges to be sorted out, too. How shameful
        >that the science community allows the Chestnut Blight, Siberian Elm, and
        >the Starling to be lumped into a group together!
        > The most dangerous result of this "lumping" iwould be attempts to
        > fashion one-size-fits- all responses to dealing with them (ie,
        > eradication, chemicals/poisons, propaganda).

        >Consider this: Not long ago, the New England population of the Baltimore
        >Checkerspot butterfly "discovered" that Plantago lanceolata contains the
        >same chemicals needed for its larvae to develop. By adding the Plantain
        >to its menu, the New England Baltimore Checkerspot' s population is
        >expanding for the first time.
        >
        >In contrast the Mid-Atlantic population of Baltimore Checkerspots has not
        >adopted Plantain so Maryland's state insect (which I've never seen in
        >person) continues to decline in this area along with its wetland habitat.
        >
        >With that in mind, is wholesale and wanton eradication of the non-native
        >P. laceolata still called for?

        Is it occurring?

        >Or, does the emergent Baltimore Checkerspot- P. lanceolata ecological
        >association demonstrates how far along Plantago has integrated into the
        >environment. (By integrate I mean the constellation of ecological
        >associations formed between Plantago and other New England lifeforms since
        >it arrived.) How many micro-associations between Plantago and other
        >species have taken place which are not as easily noticed as the
        >Checkerspot- Plantago relationship?

        Surely the topic of the ecological changes caused by new species
        associations as our world is flooded with non-indigenous plants and animals
        would need a whole library of studies to cover it.

        Liz Day
        Indianapolis Indiana USA
        (where bumblebees do use ground ivy)

      • Thomas of Baltimore
        Mary: Liz didn t post what you responded to... I, Thomas of Baltimore, did. I notice you work in the Potomac Gorge which I was surprised to read is one of the
        Message 3 of 15 , Dec 22, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Mary:
           
          Liz didn't post what you responded to... I, Thomas of Baltimore, did. 
           
          I notice you work in the Potomac Gorge which I was surprised to read is one of the most biologically rich areas in the U.S. park system.  Does the Nature Conservancy think that this biodiversity sprung out of the ground?   Does the Conservancy teach that the richness of species resulted only from "natural" forces (as opposed to human intervention?)   Or, does the N.C. include the Native American people in the category of "natural" influences on the biodiversity of the gorge?
           
          Can you prove that some of the biodiversity in the Gorge is not a result of species introductions by the indigenous people over time? 
           
          The landscape that John Smith "found" along the Chesapeake Bay was a managed landscape which reflected the sum total impact of every choice made by the local (Native) people as well as the accumulation of impacts from every human activity that took place. 
           
          Surely, the Native Americans favored some local plants for food and medicine and discouraged others (poison ivy).  And we know that there was a network of footpaths upon which Native families and tribes traded food and furs with each other.  Then is it also not reasonable that seeds and plants also moved along these byways (both intentional and not?)
           
          Can you prove that non-local (non-native) plant species were not introduced (intentionally or not) to the Mid-Atlantic from New England, and vice versa?  How about from the Gulf Coast to New England (and vice versa?)  And what about between the tribes across the Appalachians from each other?  Can you prove that none of the plant species living in the Gorge were introduced (intentionally or not) by Native people's from as far away as Mexico? 
           
          Can you share the pollen analysis data of the Gorge soil which show what percentage of the species living there when John Smith sailed the Chesapeake were living there before humans crossed the landbridge onto N.A.?  Specifically I'd love for you to show the pollen analysis data of the period when Natives arrived in the Gorge until John Smith's sailing.  If nothing changed, then my hypothesis is wrong.
           
           
           
           
           
           
          On 12/22/06, Mary Travaglini <mtravaglini@...> wrote:

          Liz,
           
          To be certain, as someone who works in the field of invasive species, there likely will never be a way to wholesale get rid of a non-native species once it is well established, especially established for so long that some co-evolution has occurred, unless it was something we as humans desire to kill for food, fur, or fun, or a major disease gets it. Something like ground ivy, even if natural lands managers were able to eliminate it, will continue to love people's gardens and lawns. So part of my job is to never dream of elimating anything on a large scale, or think that way.
           
          In the long run, we should ultimately be concerned about the loss of habitat that harbor the native plants insects need, as well as protect those plants from new invasions by pests and pathogens. If the habitat is healthy enough, and native plant populations diverse enough, any insect that adapted to an intoduced plant ought to be able to readapt back to its original hosts if they are there or populations are restored.
           
          From my perspective, scientists only lump exotics together when they are addressing policy and public education issues, as we all agree there is no one single approach to any solution, and even policy issues each have a different approach when dealing with aquatic freshwater, aquatic marine, forest, wetland, grassland, soil and other pests, etc. Just like the CDC lumps diseases into bigger categories and then breaks down each one for solutions to the problem. We also don't treat all exotics as invasive, as they are not all invasive, so not every exotic is considered for control. You brought up apples and oranges--for instance, oranges are exotic in the US, but no one ever considers thinking of them as a problem in natural areas, and therefore would not get lumped with starlings for any sort of discussion, unless someone linked their country of origin, etc. I think you'll find there is not one "non-native" container definition among those of us addressing these issues and that the definitions out there are not quite so vague and poorly defined, but that perhaps public education is not getting out the way it should or that the issue is more complex than can be easily disseminated well --I agree that there could be a whole library on associations that have occurred through introductions, and the complexities of the issues. Not being an entemologist, my perspective is that insects are more likely to experience adaptations and evolutions faster than other species, and my biggest concern is that the rate of exotic exchange that has blossomed with global trade and travel, and habitat degredation and loss will ultimately be more of a detriment to insect diversity than anything.
           
          Mary Travaglini
          Potomac Gorge Habitat Restoration Manager
          The Nature Conservancy of MD/DC
          5410 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 100
          Bethesda, MD  20814
          (301) 897-8570 x235
          fax: (301) 897-0858
           
          "In ecological release, an organism escapes its home and parachutes into an ecosystem that has never encountered it before...a few...look around with the hopeful incredulity of juvenile delinquents who discovered the mall's security cameras are broken--and wreak havoc." Charles Mann
          -----Original Message-----
          From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Liz Day
          Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 8:06 PM
          To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Bombus-GroundIvy Connection?


          >Learning more about what "role" that native species play in the spread of
          >non-native species is important because it reframes the conversation away
          >from the highly-charged and vague, but thoroughly unscientific terminology
          >like "alien" and "invasive". By asking, what if the native Bombus prefer
          >Ground Ivy because the Ground Ivy's flower evolved to serve Bombus better,
          >we shift away from looking for a one-sized-fits-all diagnostic that
          >explains the how and why of each and every successful species
          >introduction-naturalization.
          >
          >In the background is an unexamined bias against "non-native" species. If
          >anything points to a bias against "non-native" species it is that the
          >"non-native container" is so poorly defined and vague that anything can be
          >placed into it or removed at will.

          This assertion confuses me. Is there not usually fairly good concensus
          for most organisms of concern that they either were present in N. America
          well before European immigration, or else have been brought in by people
          since then? Perhaps I am not up to speed on this.

          There is a big difference between the question of whether something is
          native or exotic, and the question of whether an exotic organism's presence
          is desirable or detrimental or both or neither.

          >There are many apples and oranges to be sorted out, too. How shameful
          >that the science community allows the Chestnut Blight, Siberian Elm, and
          >the Starling to be lumped into a group together!
          > The most dangerous result of this "lumping" iwould be attempts to
          > fashion one-size-fits-all responses to dealing with them (ie,
          > eradication, chemicals/poisons, propaganda).

          >Consider this: Not long ago, the New England population of the Baltimore
          >Checkerspot butterfly "discovered" that Plantago lanceolata contains the
          >same chemicals needed for its larvae to develop. By adding the Plantain
          >to its menu, the New England Baltimore Checkerspot's population is
          >expanding for the first time.
          >
          >In contrast the Mid-Atlantic population of Baltimore Checkerspots has not
          >adopted Plantain so Maryland's state insect (which I've never seen in
          >person) continues to decline in this area along with its wetland habitat.
          >
          >With that in mind, is wholesale and wanton eradication of the non-native
          >P. laceolata still called for?

          Is it occurring?

          >Or, does the emergent Baltimore Checkerspot-P. lanceolata ecological
          >association demonstrates how far along Plantago has integrated into the
          >environment. (By integrate I mean the constellation of ecological
          >associations formed between Plantago and other New England lifeforms since
          >it arrived.) How many micro-associations between Plantago and other
          >species have taken place which are not as easily noticed as the
          >Checkerspot-Plantago relationship?

          Surely the topic of the ecological changes caused by new species
          associations as our world is flooded with non-indigenous plants and animals
          would need a whole library of studies to cover it.

          Liz Day
          Indianapolis Indiana USA
          (where bumblebees do use ground ivy)


        • Thomas of Baltimore
          [EDIT] Can you share the pollen analysis data of the Gorge soil which show what percentage of the species living there when John Smith sailed the Chesapeake?
          Message 4 of 15 , Dec 22, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            [EDIT]
             
            Can you share the pollen analysis data of the Gorge soil which show what percentage of the species living there when John Smith sailed the Chesapeake?  And from that analysis please indicate which species were living there before humans crossed the landbridge onto N.A.? 
             
            Specifically I'd love to see the pollen analysis data from the period when Native peoples arrived in the Gorge until John Smith's sailing.  If nothing changed, then my hypothesis is wrong.
          • Thomas of Baltimore
            Mary: I am not suggesting that wholesale eradication of non-native plants will automatically result in extirpation of local bee species but I do am suggesting
            Message 5 of 15 , Dec 28, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Mary:
               
              I am not suggesting that wholesale eradication of non-native plants will automatically result in extirpation of local bee species but I do am suggesting that in the absence of wholescale replacement of my local non-native dominated plantscape with a comparable and sustainable plantscape dominated by natives would unnecessarily compromise the stability of my local bee diversity.
               
              I am suggesting that the presence of the non-native plants at my local scale has served to bridge the survival of my local bee species into the present.  Knowing this does not give me the luxury to be so cavalier in my attitudes toward "non-native" species.  In fact, this has made me appreciate and respect them more!
               
              Do you not see the bias against non-natives that so obviously infects the quote chosen for your signature?   What kind of thinking sees a parallel between a kind of human pathology (often impoverishment) and Cirsium arvense (Canada Thistle), for example?
               
              -Thom
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.