科学网 › 标签 › 传粉者

标签: 传粉者

相关帖子	版块	作者	回复/查看	最后发表

没有相关内容

相关日志

传粉者分布、生态功能以及保护措施的多样性: 热度 3 zhuchaodong 2017-11-18 16:02; 传粉者分布、生态功能以及保护措施的多样性原文： http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022919 题目： Pollinator Diversity: Distribution, Ecological Function,and Conservation 作者： Jeff Ollerton , Faculty of Arts, Scienceand Technology, The University of Northampton 翻译：张丹摘要：传粉者具有重要的生态学功能，在植物的多样性，繁衍生息，与其他生物的关系以及全球农业等方面都非常重要。因此，传粉者无论是在全球生态系统还是食物安全方面都扮演非常重要的角色，而这在生物群体中是独一无二的。在过去的 20 年，人们对传粉者以及传粉生态的兴趣空前上升，这种现象可能源于人们对传粉者物种多样性和丰富度下降的担忧。这篇综述主要包括传粉者的物种多样性；目前以及更久远以前的分布；其多样性对生态系统功能的作用（包括 agro-ecology ）；当前时间尺度上多样性和丰富度的改变，包括 non-native 物种；以及传粉者多样性保护的讨论等几个方面。关键词：蜜蜂，多样性，生物地理学，互利共生，传粉者 1. 前言：传粉者无论是在科学领域还是在人们普遍的意识中都有很重要的位置。一些“拯救蜜蜂”的宣传活动以及植物与传粉者之间有趣的相互作用（在生态学和农业中都非常重要同时也涉及到进化的主要问题）在证明传粉者的重要性方面起了很大的作用。在陆地生态系统中，这是最重要的生态相互作用之一，这种相互作用为大多数依靠传播种子繁殖后代的植物以及推动进化水平多样化的植物和传粉者提供服务。植物本身是静止的，无法主动寻找配偶。因此它们必须通过自花授粉（有近亲繁殖以及遗传多样性丢失的风险的繁殖策略）或者依靠外界的帮助传粉产生后代。这些外界的帮助包括风，水以及动物（包括脊椎动物和无脊椎动物）。在这篇文章中关注的主要是动物传粉。但在一些植物中发现了复杂的传粉系统，有风、动物、称为风虫媒（ ambophily ）。这也更加确信一些没有记载的传粉方法应该更值得被关注。大多数的有花植物都依靠动物传粉。最近的一项全球评估显示， 87.5% 的被子植物依靠无脊椎和脊椎动物传粉，而部分重要的裸子植物也用同样的方法传粉。然而，传粉者的重要性以及多样性也存在误传和偏见，蜜蜂的广泛关注与它们的重要性以及保护需求不成比例。因此，这篇文章的主要叙述传粉者的物种多样性；这种多样性是如何进化；传粉者的全球分布以及为什么这种多样性的保护至关重要。 2. 传粉者的多样性有花植物（裸子植物和被子植物）出现的最早时期大概是侏罗纪中期，约 1.7 亿年前，是进化生物学的历史标志，在那个时期，有花植物中原始的裸子植物依靠风传粉的方式可能会被复杂的动物传粉替代，因此也出现了被子植物的优势地位和多样性。这是教科书和纪录片中多次出现甚至在最近也出现的一个说法。问题是这个说法是不正确的：最早的被子植物在复杂的环境中进化：昆虫为裸子植物传粉而且对于有花植物昆虫传粉可能是最原始的传粉方式。早期裸子植物的传粉方式在 1970s 的时候就开始讨论研究。但直到最近昆虫授粉在被子植物中真正的多样性和重要性才开始显现。来自中国，西班牙、俄罗斯的化石昆虫在解释昆虫的口器和传粉的联系，揭示了古代昆虫已经成为传粉者：包括中生代的蓟马，苍蝇，草蛉，蝎蛉以及甲虫。尤其是草蛉和蝎蛉与蜜蜂，蝴蝶，蛾类相比不再是重要的传粉者。有花植物从白垩纪中期（大约 1 亿年前）开始的优势地位，似乎与传粉者的多样性有关。例如， 2013 年， Cardinal 和 Danforth 猜测现存蜜蜂的主要进化分支也始于白垩纪中期到后期。这个预测以蜜蜂主要类群分子系统学为基础。琥珀和分子系统学的知识也给植物和传粉者之间的相互作用关系提供了更新颖的观点，例如，兰花与其蜜蜂之间的关系至少有 1500 万年之久，而且兰花大概起源于 8000 万年前。同样，最近在多明尼加发现了马利筋（夹竹桃科：夹竹桃亚科）的花与其传粉者白蚁的琥珀，这种现象在古生物学中第一次发现，同时也是传粉者和植物相互作用的新发现。毫无疑问，化石记录在未来还会给我们带来更多意想不的惊喜。 2.1 目前传粉者的多样性目前，我们无法准确估计多细胞生物的多样性，已经公布的结果显示，物种的数量大概是从 200 万到 1 亿不等，但是较低的估计会更精确一点。其中昆虫是主要物种，也是主要的传粉者；因此对现如今传粉者多样性的估计还是尚未解决的。然而，我们对其他生物类群多样性的估计相对比较准确（尤其是鸟，哺乳动物以及一些蜜蜂），对整体的系统多样性研究和所涉及到的研究物种数量都在逐步增加。表一中可以看到对已记录的传粉者多样性的估计，以及一些研究比较多的类群。 Wardhaugh 于 2015 年发表了最新的关于节肢动物作为访花者（而不仅仅是传粉者本身）的综述，但是他的分类单元中包含了捕食性的蟹蛛和螳螂，而这两个物种不是常见的传粉者，因此我在表一中没有列出这两个物种。多样性最高的传粉类群是鳞翅目，该类群中超过 14 万的物种都有访花习性，其 90% 以上的成虫都有功能性口器。鳞翅目的多样性大约是第二大传粉类群膜翅目和鞘翅目的两倍，双翅目是传粉昆虫主要四个目中多样性最小的一个，但在未来随着更多工作的深入以及蝇类真正多样性的发现这个现状可能被改变。剩下其他的类群虽然在某些特定的地理环境条件下对植物有重要的生态作用，但它们整体的多样性都较很低。这个表一将来肯定会发生变化，因为大多数的昆虫还没有被发现描述。例如， Kristensen 等 2007 年的研究显示，鳞翅目的现存种大约为 50 万，而且大多数为飞蛾，有虹吸式口器。这也引出了一个问题，在文献记载中飞蛾为什么不是最普遍的传粉者，最可能的原因是对飞蛾的研究太少。如果对飞蛾这个类群的研究得到重视，将会发现更多不多传粉者（ D evoto et al. 2011, Haber Frankie 1989 ）。脊椎动物中传粉者的多样性也相对较低。这其中鸟类的多样性最高，物种数超过了 1000 种。夜行鼠也似乎比我们想象的更加重要，尤其是在热带雨林中，但问题是对这个类群的研究程度不及鸟类甚至都不及蝙蝠。蜥蜴也是如此，尤其在海岛上，这里植物和传粉者之间协同进化比较好，而且植物与传粉者之间的相互作用也和陆地上的有很大不同。虽然 Ollerton 认为，在很久以前鱼可能也有传粉作用，但到目前为止还没有观察到这一现象， Tussenbroek 等人 2016 年对海草传粉的研究可能会让这个现象存在的可能性增加。总的来说，我们现在预计，大约有 35 万种传粉者为将近 35.2 万种有花植物传粉，这是一个很有意思的对应现象（仅仅是一个巧合）。有花植物的物种数量大约为 40 万，由此可见表一中对传粉昆虫多样性的估计还是太保守，如果 Costello 估计的真核生物的多样性为 500 万是准确的，同时考虑到这些物种中至少有 100 万是真菌，藻类，植物以及原生生物，而且在余下的生物中有很大的一部分是水生生物，那么陆地生物中每 10 个种中至少有一个物种是传粉者。所有的这些动物都可能是有效的传粉者至少对于它们访问的植物来说是这样的。但不同的授粉者授粉的有效性也有区别，这种不同主要表现在三个方面：群体中动物丰富度的差异；动物对花粉偏好性的不同；动物是否会落到相同物种的花上以及它们移动距离的不同（ Herrera 1987 ， Rodriguez et al. 2013 ）。造成这些差异的最主要原因是传粉者数量的预计；其次是传粉者的质量。虽然对传粉者重要性的预测是从多样性较低的生物开始，但是这种预测很耗费时间而且很难做到整个群落水平，全球水平上的预计就更不用说了（ Ballantyne et al. 2015 ）。此外，种内传粉能力的差异也让这个问题更加的复杂，例如，个体较大的雄峰相对于个体较小的来说，每次访花时携带的花粉更多，而且每天的活动时间也较长（ Willmer Finlayson 2014 ）。另外一种获得不同传粉者相对重要性的方法是从植物的角度出发。图一展示了在 32 个植物群落系统中，不同传粉系统的平均相对频率（ see Supplemental Materials ）。这些数据包含了北极，温带，亚热带以及热带的植物系统。毫无疑问的是，较高的标准差和平均值为代表，可以看出区域间存在生物地理差异，但在一个小的数据集（代表了大多数当前可用的数据）中我们法法解决去这个问题。结合图一我们可以看到，最主要的传粉类群是蜜蜂，其次是苍蝇。其他的昆虫在传粉中的重要性相对较低，但毫无疑问它们对植物的传粉也有重要的作用。蝴蝶和飞蛾的重要性不是很明显，这可能是因为对蛾子的研究还不够。图一的结果与表一的物种丰富度没有关系，但也告诉我们，不同类群作为传粉者传粉有效性的差别：蜜蜂和苍蝇的多样性远低于鳞翅目，但是它们浓密的体毛让它们成为有效传粉者传粉者。另外，蜜蜂是唯一一个成虫和幼虫都依赖于花资源的类群。生物多样性名录是全球对生态系统保护结果的重要部分，而且长期以来我们已经意识到，在实施保护的措施之前理解生态系统的功能很关键。植物—传粉者之间相互作用的关系从保护生物学角度来说有两个方面，第一，传粉者的多样性植物繁衍方面非常重要；第二，长期以来传粉者的多样性在陆地生态系统中的作用。文章前面的部分给人感觉是在说动物作为传粉者的多样性以及大部分的植物都需要访花者帮助它们传播花粉，因此，在第四部分我们探讨了这种多样性的重要性以及如果这种多样性丧失对整个生态系统的影响。但目前植物和它们的传粉者之间的相互作用关系还没有被完全发掘，研究者继续发现新的传粉系统的比例将不会下降。 2016 年甚至发现了一个被证实地传粉系统，包括海草，访花的甲壳类动物以及多毛虫等都在描述之列（ Tussenbroek et al. 2016 ）。生物多样性的研究可能会忽略物种之间相互作用的多样性，但目前我对物种之间相互作用多样性的研究已经有很长的历史了。尤其是植物—传粉者之间的相互作用，自 18 世纪以后，一些研究者们就已经开始关注这个问题，其中包括一些很重要的科学家，例如 Joseph Gottlieb Koelreuter 、 Christian Konrad Sprengel 、 Charles Darwin 和 Hermann Muller （ Waser 2006 ）。一个重要的问题是，在这个时期以后，是否全面探究了植物—传粉者之间相互作用多样性，或者说我们现在是否仍然处于发现和分类的阶段。全球分类学中物种积累的增长对于某些物种已经趋于平稳，这并不适用于所有的物种（ Costello et al. 2013 ）。尽管植物与传粉者相互作用的研究历史已经有 200 年了，但是我们对这些相互作用的总体模式的理解，以及包含的物种的探索还有待完善。传统意识上对于传粉者的预测都以蜜蜂、蝴蝶以及食蚜蝇作为主要传粉者。事实上传粉系统包括一些不常见或者意想不到的类群，例如：花金龟，捕食蜘蛛，胡峰，蜥蜴，啮齿类动物等依旧认为是例外，但实际上一些认为不可能的种也可能成为主导（ Johnson 2004 ， Olesen Valido 2003 ， Ollerton et al. 2003 ， Shuttleworth Johnson 2009 ），而且传粉者类群的范围可能比我们现在认识到的还要广。同时这也引出了一个问题：植物——传粉者之间的相互关系在热带和高纬度地区有什么不同，这是在过去几年中越来越引起人们兴趣的一个问题，在第三部我也探讨了这个问题。 3. 在空间领域传粉者的多样性在空间领域，传粉者多样性是不确定的：无论是对于来自世界不同区域传粉者的数量，还是它们的分类学地位，都具有重要的生物地理结构。特别是传粉者生物多样性会随着纬度和陆地的变化而变化，这反映了地球不同地区的多元化演化历史。但是，目前一些主要的地理差异已经影响了我们对不同传粉群体的相对重要性的理解，而且还存在很多研究没有涉及到的区域。同样，对很多引入传粉者带来的潜在影响我们还知之甚少。 3.1 传粉者的多样性和分布的生物地理学模式一般来说，传粉者生物多样性遵从预期的物种丰富度随着纬度增加而增加的模式：正如我们所料，由于热带地区具有较丰富的植物群体，所以热带地区的传粉者也更胜一筹（排除一些例外），这二者之间是相互关联的（见 Section 6.2 ）。然而，人们早就蜜蜂作为传粉者中的一个主要群体，热带地区并不是其多样性最高的地区，而是在干燥的亚热带的地中海类型的区域（见图 2 ）（ Michener 2007 ， Ollerton et al. 2006 ）。需进一步预计更完整的热带地区蜜蜂多样性列表以便证实这种模式（ Michener 2007 ）。相反地，其它传粉者类群（非蜜蜂）却很符合这种普遍发生在热带地区的最大生物多样性模式；例如印度 - 澳大利亚动物群与古北区的类群相比，新热带地区的鳞翅目物种数目几乎是新北区鳞翅目的五倍（单位面积的物种数量），尽管非洲鳞翅目昆虫多样性几乎是古北区的两倍之多（ Kristensen et al. 2007 ）。全球某些区域例如南非（ Johnson2004 ），蜜蜂的多样性显著低于预期值。这似乎是植物寻找特殊（从北温带的角度来说）传粉者的演化结果，这些传粉者例如甲虫、黄蜂以及啮齿动物群体，而这些动物在世界的其他地方几乎不作为专门的传粉者存在（ Johnson 2004; Ollerton et al. 2003 ， 2006; Shuttleworth Johnson 2009 ）。同样，在澳大利亚植物已经与通常意义上的非专业传粉者之间形成了新的传粉关系（ Armstrong 1979 ）。在北极，苍蝇是主要的传粉者（ Tiusanen et al. 2016 ），在北半球除北极以外的大部分地区以及南美，熊蜂属 Bombus 物种是更具优势的传粉者。而在撒哈拉以南的非洲地区，即使有的物种已经成杰出的传粉者，但某些属的物种仍然欠缺，这依旧是未解难题（见 Section 3.4 ）。另一个著名的传粉者生物地理分布模式是，在大部分大部分欧洲地区以及地中海区域（少许例外），鸟类是本土植物的传粉者，这是一种比较少见的现象，而世界的其他地区包括不同访花鸟物种（例如美国蜂鸟，非洲、亚洲和澳大利亚的太阳鸟，还有澳大利亚的食蜜鸟； Cronk Ojeda 2008 ）。在欧洲，专性传粉鸟类相对匮乏，而在渐新世期间蜂鸟存在的历史原因尚不明朗。然而，许多非专性授粉的雀形目物种，总是携带多种多样的本土植物和外来引进植物的花粉（ da Silva et al. 2014 ），所以鸟类传粉可能更加普遍，只是目前我们还没有认识到或者还没有相关的记录而已。 3.2 在热带地区，植物与传粉者之间的相互作用有何不同？从两极到热带物种丰富度有增加的趋势，这在 18 世纪就已经成为共识（ Hillebrand2004 ）。而更高的物种丰富度则表明，热带地区物种之间的相互作用过程，可能会或由于资源竞争（包括相互影响的物种）而使得专一化的比例更高，这是在狭窄的生态幅中不断演化的结果（ but see Moles Ollerton 2016 ， Vazquez Stevens 2004 ）。平均地，在热带地区，专性植物 - 传粉者相互作用的功能多样性更高（ Ollertonet al. 2006 ），这可能是由于热带地区蜜蜂多样性相对较低（图 2 ；见我在 Section3.1 关于亚热带南非的评述）。然而，对热带地区的植物 - 传粉者相互作用更加专一化的这个假设的检验很少，而这些检验都有不同的结果（ e.g., Olesen Jordano 2002 ， Ollerton Cranmer 2002 ）。近期， Schleuning 等人（ 2012 ）从生态学观点出发，揭示了热带植物与其访花者之间的网络关系实际上缺乏专一化趋势，然而 Pauw Stanway （ 2015 ）则拿出了证据，证明热带地区专一化相互作用增加的趋势发生在南半球（而不是北部）。他们认为南半球气候的长期稳定性以维系这种专一的相互作用（ see also Dalsgaard et al. 2011 ）。以我们目前的知识理解生物传粉，其作为一种生态功能在某些区域可能更容易被破坏，如在北温带和南半球，而不是热带区域作为整体，对干扰的敏感性是一个地理上的错综复杂因素而不是仅从纬度就可以预测的（ Vizentin-Bugoni et al. 2017 ）。 3.3 非本地传粉者的引入某些地方通过引入非本土物种特别是蜜蜂（ Goulson2003 ， Russo 2016 ），人为的增加传粉昆虫的多样性，有目的地或偶然地提高作物授粉情况。在一些海洋岛屿上，引入传粉者物种的数量要比本土传粉者数量多；例如，一个最近发表的亚速尔群岛 Azores 蜜蜂名册显示，该岛的 19 个记录种（包括蜜蜂蜂巢的管理）中只有 4 种可能是来自本土（ Weissmannet al. 2017 ）。如此高的外来物种比例是异常的，而且引入传粉者的数量在调查结果中也有增加，以至海洋岛屿似乎特别容易被入侵（ Olesen et al. 2002 ）。这些引入种的生态效应从有害到有益，这都取决于引入物种，引入的环境背景以及（特别是）本土传粉物种的多样性（ Russo 2016 ）。最具有影响力的引入种是西方蜜蜂（ Apis mellifera ），西方蜜蜂农业授粉上的作用远超出其本土领域。大量的研究表明西方蜜蜂的传粉能力超过本土蜜蜂和其它访花者，尽管这与地貌结构是否单一、均匀或者复杂、多样化，以及关于可供蜜蜂觅食的半自然栖息地的数量等都有关（ see Herbertsson et al. 2016 ）。研究也表明蜜蜂能很好地融入到局部传粉网络中，且没有明显的负面效应，至少在较低密度的情况下是如此（ Watts et al. 2016 ）。其他的引入蜜蜂包括 B. terrestris ，在非原产地，该种被认为是一个入侵物种（ Dafni et al. 2010 ），而且它还与本地熊峰的丢失有关（ Morales et al. 2013 ）。保护生物学家关心的不仅仅是竞争的直接效应，还担心引入的蜜蜂带来的疾病可能会在本地物种中传播（ e.g. ， Arbetmanet al. 2013 ）。当然引入传粉者也有积极的一面，大量的研究表明非本土的传粉者会促进一些由于缺乏本地传粉者而受威胁植物的繁殖。例如在二十世纪八十年代， Cox （ 1983 ）确定了一种夏威夷攀岩植物（ Freycinetia arborea ）的传粉者是一种外来引入鸟 - 暗绿绣眼鸟（ Zosterops japonica ），伴随着本地鸟类传粉者的灭绝。十年前， Lord （ 1991 ）揭示了在新西兰，一种负鼠（ Trichosurus vulpecula ）作为传粉者取代了两种本地蝙蝠（一种非常罕见，另一种可能已经灭绝）。最近， Fox 等人（ 2013 ）表明，过去九年对北美受到威胁的西部草原上的研究发现，带穗兰花（ Platanthera praeclara ）的专性传粉者是一种天蛾（ Hyles euphorbiae ），这种天蛾最初是为了控制入侵植物而引入到本地的。然而，这种引入蛾数量上可能已经超过了本地兰花的传粉者。传粉者引入后的结果主要取决于当地的环境，当然这些环境会随着时间的推移而改变，例如当前的良性引入物种在未来可能会出现问题。因此，禁止引入非本土熊蜂到澳洲大陆为温室作物授粉一个明智的决定，为了塔斯马尼亚岛 Tasmania 免受影响（ Hingston2007 ），而且事实上，这种商业作物完全可以由本地蜜蜂完成传粉工作（ Hogendoorn et al. 2006 ）。 3.4 传粉者扩张和收缩的自然范围除了一些认为因素对物种分布的影响外，我们也预计了一些自然发生的改变，因为物种的扩张和收缩与资源可利用性、天气、扩散机会等的变化（当然，其中一些也可能是人为介导的因素）有关。这种自然变化在英国新世纪时期就已经出现，在英国，许多没有记录的蜜蜂物种数量已经趋于稳定。最完整的文献记载是关于 ivy bee （ Colletes hederae ）和三种熊峰（ Bombus hypnorum ）的研究，于 2001 年开始（ Goulson Williams 2001 ， Roberts Vereecken 2010 ），跟踪过程由 BWARS 社团负责。 2015 年 Rasmont 等人的研究显示，熊峰在英国的扩张恰巧在欧洲广布物种扩张的下一阶段。这不是唯一的例子， Rasmont 等人（ 2015 ）也发现亚洲熊蜂 Bombus schrencki 已经扩张到了西方的波兰和芬兰， Lopez-Uribe 和 Cane （ 2016 ）记录了南瓜专性传粉蜜蜂（ Peponapis pruinosa ）的扩张与作物驯化的平行过程，并且 Russo （ 2016 ）引用了其他北美的例子。这样的扩张幅度并不惊讶，因为我们早就知道黄蜂和熊峰蜂后能在开放的水域进行数十公里长距离扩散事件（ Mikkola 1984 ）。相比之下，人们对自然收缩的幅度的认识较少，一部分原因是人类自以为是地认为任何一个物种数量的局部下降都有人为因素的干扰，这显然是不可信的，化石记录已经在时间尺度上告诉我们一个物种进入并贯穿整个区域的时间幅度。但是将自然因素从人类主导的地貌分离开来是不可能的。在十九世纪五十年代，英国的 23 种蜜蜂和访花黄蜂被告知即将灭绝，几乎可以肯定一个或更多的物种已经消失了（ Ollerton et al. 2014 ）。的确，在修订这个文章的很长一段时间，一个物种被再次发现并且很自然地从大陆再度迁移到英国。以前发现的某个类群的化石记录显示，以前有该物种的地方物种已经不再存在，而且它们祖先生存的地方完全出乎意料。近年来研究表明，蜂鸟这种长期以来只人为在新世界中发现的传粉者，竟然出现在欧洲大约三千万年前的渐新世纪（ Louchart et al. 2008 ， Mayr 2004 ）。这些发现让我们的未知领域变得更多，同时目前还需要更多传粉者和植物之间相互作用的生物地理和生物多样性的研究。 4. 全球，地区以及地域水平传粉者多样性的减少相比当前传粉者在时间和空间上多样性的预测，在全球，地区以及地域尺度上多样性的下降可能更加重要，更加紧迫，这种变化可能意味着传粉的生态功能和生态系统服务功能的下降。在这部分、第 5 部分，我将概述这些内容。 4.1 授粉者多样性降低的基本证据很多重要的研究和综述都概述了授粉者多样性和丰富度的减少，例如， Biesmeijer （ 2006 ）， Potts （ 2010a ），以及 Lebuhnet （ 2013 ）。但是，对这些物种估计的准确性，传粉者多样性降低（尤其是蜜蜂）是否是文献记载和媒体夸大叙述等方面有不同的意见（ Ghazoul 2005 ）。 2015 年 Goulson 和他的同事给出了导致蜜蜂数量下降的证据，同时人们对他们的研究结果也有质疑，尤其是传粉者多样性下降的证据不足（ Ghazoul 2015 ），作者做了相应的回应（ Goulson et al.2015b ）。从某些方面来说，这不是一个令人满意的交流，交流的重点是农业传粉者而不是所有植物的传粉者。从更加广泛的层面看待传粉者发现：多样性下降的证据更加明显，传粉者的多样性与丰富度在区域和全球范围内都有所下降。 2015 年 Ghazoul 最突出的声明是“在欧洲和北美，传粉者数量多样性下降的证据几乎都是以蜜蜂和蜂为重点”。这个声明更深层的意思是对全球生物多样性下降的担忧是以分类学和地理学为基础，因此证据的涉及面比较窄。总结目前已有的研究显示，很显然事实不是这样的。虽然这个总结并不全面，但是显示了目前分类学和地理学证据的深度和广度。 4.1.1 野生蜜蜂（包括熊蜂，独居型以及社会型蜜蜂）这些物种的多样性和丰富度已经有所下降，而且在英国和欧洲大陆 Biesmeijer et al. 2006 ， Nieto et al.2014 ， Ollerton et al. 2014 ），南美（ Morales et al. 2013 ），亚洲（ Williams et al. 2009 ），南非（ Pauw 2007 ），北美（ Burkle et al. 2013 ， Cameron et al. 2011 ）已经有文献记载。在美国，相关部门已经将夏威夷的全部 7 种蜜蜂列为濒危物种，这是蜜蜂第一以这种形式在美国出现。 4.1.2 蜜蜂北美和欧洲的一些地方都有蜂群数量下降的记载，但在别的地方蜂巢数量保持稳定可能还会增加（ see Potts et al. 2010b ）。尽管全球蜂巢的数目在增加，但是有证据表明，蜜蜂的授粉依然供不应求（ Aizen Harder 2009 ）。 4.1.3 食蚜蝇食蚜蝇多样性的降低在荷兰和英国都已经有文献记载（ Biesmeijer et al. 2006 ） . 但是其他地方的现状还不是很清楚。 4.1.4 蝴蝶和飞蛾鳞翅目的物种多样性和丰富度在英国已经开始下降（ Fox 2013 ， Thomas et al. 2004 ），在南美，大约有 60 个物种已经被列为易危，濒危或极度濒危物种，而且特别值得关注的是帝王蝶。同样，环保人士担心，在世界其他地方蝴蝶也是主要濒危对象（例如南非，澳大利亚，欧洲）。 4.1.5 访花胡峰在英国已经发现多刺黄蜂的物种多样性已经有所下降（ Ollerton et al. 2014 ）。但是其他国家还没有发现，尽管非常重要，但是在其他国家该类群不像其他传粉者那样被广泛关注（ Ollerton et al. 2003 ）。人们现在也开始关注气候变化对榕小蜂的影响（ Jevanandam et al. 2013 ）。 4.1.6 鸟类和哺乳动物 2015 年 Regan 借助世界自然保护联盟红色名录估计了全球主要哺乳动物传粉者的物种多样性。作者认为，在过去的几十年里，平均每年有 2.5 个物种被列入该名录，接近灭绝。已有报道称，岛屿上的授粉鸟类已经出现灭绝，例如，夏威夷和新西兰的两种授粉蝙蝠，其中一种在 1960s 可能已经灭绝，另外一种的数量也急剧下降。当然，上面提到的这些研究表明，一些物种相比其他物种更具传粉的优势，而且这些分类群的数量相对稳定甚至有所上升。另外，在欧洲西北部传粉者减少的速度也在下降（ Carvalheiro et al. 2013; but see Ollerton et al. 2014 ）。但总的来说，目前在大范围尺度上，传粉者物种多样性和丰富度的下降还没有确凿的证据。现在人们已经开始普遍的关注引起这种变化的下原因，但是土地使用方式的转化以及农业集约化以后土地的管理导致动物栖息地的丧失是最有可能的原因（ Bartomeus et al. 2013 ， Goulson et al. 2015a ， Ollerton et al. 2014 ， Potts et al. 2010a ）。最近关于气候变化对传粉者多样性变化的预测显示，未来传粉者多样性的下降和分布范围的变化仍然存在。 4.2 气候变化与传粉者多样性一直以来，访花昆虫都是研究气候变化对物种分布影响的主要内容， 1999 年 Parmesan 等人首先从蝴蝶开始这个研究（ Parmesan et al. 1999 ， Settele et al. 2008 ），最主要的原因是相对于其他类群昆虫可以获得更多的数据，并不是因为它们是传粉者。最近，在北温带地区，对蜜蜂包括熊峰属的研究，可能是对植物传粉者单一属的最重要的研究。这个属一直是“欧洲熊峰气候风险和分布区域”研究的主要对象（ Rasmont et al. 2015 ）。主要表现在熊峰对寒冷气候的适应，尤其是它们浓密的体毛，这也可能是它们成为优秀传粉者的原因。根据这一点，我们假设熊峰对气候变化可能很敏感（虽然其他的蜜蜂可能会从某地的气候气候变得温暖和干燥中获益）。 2015 年， Rasmont 和他的同事，试验气候变化对 56 种熊峰的影响，结果显示 36% 的物种面临的气候风险较高， 41% 的物种正处在危险之中（消失率为 50%-80% ），略高于 5% （三个物种）的物种扩大其在欧洲的分布范围。总的来说，在 2050 年之前， 34-52 种熊峰适合生存的气候条件将会下降，而到 2100 年将会扩大到 49-55 个种。在欧洲南部，熊峰的分布已经较少，因此这种气候的改变最应当引起关注。到 2050 年，西班牙和葡萄牙可能只存在一种熊峰，这对水果，野生植物以及栽培植物将产生有很大影响。在极地地区，人们最初认为人为造成的气候变化对生态有影响。 1996-2009 年，北极圈的开花季节开始变短，访花者的丰富度也开始下降（ Høye et al. 2013 ），尤其是影响力最大的一个类群（双翅目蝇科），它们是仙女木属的主要传粉者，仙女木属也是这个区域主要的蜜源植物（ Tiusanen et al. 2016 ）。但是，热带的物种可能对热量有严格的要求，因此很容易受到全球变暖的影响（ Jevanandam et al. 2013 ）。推测授粉者对气候变化的反应，主要依赖于物种对气候变暖的适应性以及在新区域适应和扩散的能力。物种保护计划显示，传粉者应当具备在经过一定恢复的区域间迁移的能力，在很多国家这被认为是传粉策略最有影响的规则，例如英国，美国，爱尔兰。在区域水平上，很多实际的保护监控，概念验证工作正在重建以及预测栖息地的多样性，例如欧洲的石楠（ Forup et al.2008 ），北方的松林（ Devoto et al. 2012 ），垃圾填埋场（ Tarrant et al. 2013 ），城市中心（ Baldock et al.2015 ， Sirohi et al. 2015 ）以及热带岛屿和孤山（ Kaiser-Bunbury et al. 2017 ）。非政府组织的倡议，例如英国的 Buglife’s B-Lines 计划，美国的 Xerces Society 等都在不断地努力。但是，有的策略在阿尔卑斯山和北极地区是不可行的，这些地区传粉者被可移动的范围限制。 5. 为什么保护传粉者的多样性很重要？关于保护传粉者多样性的争论通常包括三个主要因素即实用性、理论性或者观点的抽象性。首先，多样化的生态和农业功能，避免农作物发育不良，传粉者贡献突出。第二，多元化的类群为将来提供生态保障，万一某个关键传粉者种群下降或者灭绝。最后，物种多样性本身就是人类、以及地球生物文化遗传的一部分。这些不是相互排斥的争论，确实反映了目前的紧张局势，传粉者多样性保护是保护生物学家和生态学家提出的为了社会发展的策略。反过来，在自然和生态系统服务（ NC-ES ）下也可以提出这三个争论，在过去的二十多年， NC-ES 已经得到社会的广泛认可（ Maceet al. 2012 ）。然而，一个未解决的问题是， NC-ES 对农业服务的争论并不总是反映生物群落的生态现状，这个生物群落中物种稀有性和专一性是生态复合体的一个重要组成部分。 5.1 专一性 - 普遍性的连续统一体在过去的 30 年，有很多关于植物 - 传粉者相互作用的专一性 - 普遍性的连续统一体的研究，都表达了不同的观点（ Brosi 2016 ， Fenster et al. 2004 ， Jordano 1987 ， Waser et al. 1996 ）。最近，这个工作由 Armbruster （ 2016 ）修订和探讨， Armbruster 将其描述成“我们思考的主要问题，不仅仅与植物 - 传粉者相互作用和传粉者服务的生态有关，而且还包括生殖隔离、物种形成、灭绝和群落的集结”。同时，这也是传粉者为什么必须受到保护的核心内容。这种连续统一体的一个极端是高度专一化，即植物和它传粉者之间一对一的关系。这种关系包括一些相互依赖的授粉系统，例如无花果和无花果黄蜂、叶下花和叶下花蛾、丝兰和丝兰蛾等之间的关系，这些匹配关系从种子寄生关系演化而来（ Hembry Althoff 2016 ）。另外当涉及到昆虫不访花的欺骗行为时，它们没有相互依赖，例如吊灯花属 Ceropegia spp. （ Apocynaceae ）与其双翅目传粉者之间的关系（ Ollerton et al. 2009 ）。这种连续统一体的另一个极端是植物的花和所吸引的大范围传粉者之间的普遍性。例如一些北美的乳草（ Asclepias ）物种因能被 100 多种不同的昆虫传粉而出名（ Ollerton Liede 1997 ），例如熊蜂和蜜蜂（ Bombus and Apis ）的传粉者可以为一个群落中大部分的植物授粉，还有一些岛屿上的传粉范围特别广的传粉者（ Olesen et al. 2002 ）。对于植物或传粉者分类并将其置于这个连续统一体中，取决于对它们之间相互作用观测的空间和时间尺度。我们希望得到的是广布种在它们目前分布区域的专一性而不是考虑到它们全部分布范围的普遍化（ e.g., Gomez et al. 2013 ， Herrera 1988 ， Ollerton et al. 2009 ）。同样地，花和传粉者之间关系的变化，依赖于物种的相对丰度。从时间和空间方面去理解物种相互关系的如何做到专一性和普遍性，在生态取样方面围绕以下几个问题：如何知道已经用足够的时间去理解一个研究系统？取样不足会带来一个植物或传粉者专一化水平的错误结论，但过多样本的收集几乎是不可能的，除非在相互作用很快达到渐近线（平衡）的情况下，但这需要花费一些时间。大部分植物和传粉者都处于专一性 - 普遍性连续体之间的位置，而且相比专一性更接近普遍性，至少在生态特化方面是这样的。这意味着（至少在理论上），在大多数植物和传粉者的生态学中存在一定程度的冗余，就好比特定的传粉者可以从不同类型的花中获取资源，反之一个特定的植物也可以被任何一个访花者授粉。对传粉者多样性局部缺失与这种冗余之间的重要性的研究正在展开，通过传粉者互斥实验，得到了不同的结论（见 Section 5.2 ）。对植物传粉者多样性的一个很普遍的是：“传粉者”的调查通常是花的访问者而不是真正意义上的传粉者。这种批评尤其针对在植物 - 访花者集合体网络的研究，而这种批评也有一定的效果（但值得注意的是访花行为而不是植物最终的结果，而从访问者的角度来看通常是一种积极的相互作用）。不幸的是，很少有对某一植物访花者和传粉者之间对应关系的数据可以用来理解哪部分访问者是真实有效的花粉载体。因此，一个重要的问题是，对传粉者的调查经常忽略除蜜蜂以外的其他传粉者（假设“蜜蜂是最重要的授粉者”）（ Rader et al. 2015 ）。萝藦科植物（ Apocynaceae:Asclepiadoideae ）可以有效解答这个问题，它们的花粉是以花粉粒黏在动物身上的方式进行传播，这使得有效传粉者的鉴定工作相比于其他植物群体更加容易（ Ollerton Liede 1997 ）。图 3a 展示了观察到的（这些花来自于南非的夸祖鲁 - 纳塔尔省 KwaZulu-Natal 草原上的 8 个萝藦科物种）访花昆虫的数量和证实过的传粉者的数量关系。很明显，大部分有一个或者两个访花者的专性植物被所有或者大多数访花者授粉，如果所有的访花者都是传粉者，那这个关系的比例就接近 1:1 。但随着物种数量逐渐增多更普遍化，出现了访花者中传粉者的比例较低的情况。事实上，对于大多数植物只有不到三分之一的访问者才是有效的传粉者（图 3b ），尽管这被认为是保守估计，就像有的昆虫没有观察到携带花粉的现象，可能是因为低访问频率或者样本限制。值得注意的是，这些访花者中只有很少一部分是蜜蜂：黄蜂，甲虫以及蝴蝶更为常见（ see Ollerton et al. 2003 ， Shuttleworth Johnson 2009 ， and comments regarding southern Africa in Section 3.1 ）。只有维持物种多样性才可能有物种的冗余：在物种已经开始灭绝的群落中，尤其是在某些物种稀缺的时期，传粉者缺失可能意味着一个植物种群的衰退，或者说缺少了一个至关重要植物会导致一个传粉者种群的衰退。这种现象在单一作物农业生态系统中最极端的例子中可以看到，即这个农业生态系统失去了本土植被以及与植被相关的花和传粉者时将出现情况，这时要么在该系统中引入传粉者（例如在杏仁果园加入蜜蜂）要么忍受作物产量的下降。在接下来的部分我们将进一步探索丧失传粉者带来的潜在后果。 5.2 传粉者减少的后果：传粉者多样性，植物多样性，以及内在联系的种子库由于土地使用方式的改变引起的植物多样性丧失已经被认为是传粉者多样性丧失的主要因素，尽管还有一些其他原因，例如杀虫剂、气候改变、疾病等等（ Goulson et al. 2015a ， Ollerton et al. 2014 ， Potts et al. 2010a ）。非常重要的是在一个群落中植物物种数量和访花者的数量之间有很强的正相关关系（图 4 ）。通常传粉者要比植物数量多，比如传粉者与植物的平均比率在此设置为 2.4 （ SD=1.5 ），换句话说，在这个群落中，平均每个植物存在一到两个额外的传粉者，有时候会更多。植物多样性与传粉者多样性的关系也因此有了内在联系：举一个修复项目的例子，我们在群落中增加越多的动物授粉的植物，我们就会找到如预期一样地更多的传粉者。这种关系对保护传粉者有重要的意义，并且是“为了传粉者而种植”全球首创精神和农业管理工作政策的核心内容，但这一定不是需要考虑的唯一因素，因为传粉者也需要繁殖地点和补充资源，包括除了花蜜和花粉以外的食物。或许是因为植物和传粉者多样性之间的关系太过于明显，所以对它的研究相当少。在生态学中我们经常看到的模型都是尺度依赖型的；例如 Hegland Boeke （ 2006 ）利用 1.5 ×1.5 m 小区域发现植物和传粉者的丰富度整体不具有相关性。与此相反， Ebeling et al. （ 2008 ）在一个相当大（ 20 ×20 m ）的草地上同样在德国研究了这种关系。他们发现传粉者物种丰富度与植物多样性有关，然而 Steffan-Dewenter Tscharntke （ 2001 ）在同一个国家的农业区域做了连续梯度实验，发现蜜蜂和有花植物物种丰富度之间存在显著正相关关系。图 4 显著的正相关关系可以被认为是发生在较小空间尺度的多样性的和局部地区的多样性之间关系的全球性表达。传粉者丰富度和多样性的下降引起了一些研究人员对丧失传粉者隐藏的后果的思考：这会不会导致更大的花粉局限性和种子库的减少，进而影响植物群落的结构？花粉局限性可能由许多因素引起（ Knight et al. 2005 ），其中之一就是某一物种的种群中传粉者多样性较低，就像 Gomez et al. （ 2010 ）对 Erysimum mediohispanicum 的研究。与此相关联， Biesmeijeret al. （ 2006 ）观察到在英国和荷兰，传粉者和虫媒植物的下降相互关联，这可能表明了原因和结果：较低的传粉者多样性会减少种子的产量进而长期影响植物新种群的产生。然而，用一种实验方法验证这个观点却得到了不同的结论。例如，在 Asclepias verticillata （ Apocynaceae ）斑块中移除熊蜂（ Bombus spp. ）对这些植物的繁殖并没有明显的影响，因为熊蜂的角色被相同作用的 Polistes wasps 接替（ Hallett et al. 2017 ），系统内的生态冗余例子见 Section 5.1 。相反， Brosi Briggs （ 2013 ）发现从局部斑块中移除单一熊蜂物种降低了毛茛科植物飞燕草 Delphinium barbeyi （ Ranunculaceae ）的结实成功率，尽管该斑块中存在可供选择的传粉者。很明显，局部丧失传粉者的后果有特异性，根据涉及的物种和群落环境的不同而发生变化。 2012 年 Albrecht 等人用不同的方法发现，在萝卜（ Raphanus sativus ）群体中增加传粉者将有更大的果实和种子库。在更大的生态学尺度上， 2016 年 Lundgren 等人在 10 个多年生牧草实验中，以群落水平上传粉者的可利用性减少 40 年，预测了传粉者的减少对籽苗的影响。结果很复杂而且在某种程度上取决于研究的物种，但总的来说传粉者的减少使籽苗丰富度和多样性下降。到目前为止，这是唯一一项研究揭示传粉者衰退和植物物种丰富度或个体丰富度减少之间的直接因果关系。因此，传粉者减少对农作物的影响更容易预测（如产量），特别是那些具有两性花或其他高度依赖于传粉者的杂交物种。在农作物中有很多传粉者多样性高时产量也增加的例子，例如咖啡（ Klein et al. 2003 ），樱桃（ Holzschuh et al. 2012 ），苹果（ Blitzer et al. 2016 ， Garratt et al. 2014a ），以及冬青树和槲寄生（ Ollerton et al. 2016 ）。但是，传粉者不足影响农作物产量的好例子依旧较少（ Aizen et al. 2008 ），尽管英国苹果产量可能是一个新兴的例子（ Garratt et al. 2014b ）。但显然传粉者丰富度和多样性的维持对于农业服务和生态功能二者都是至关重要的：等传粉者数量下降到影响农作物产量的水平时再采取保护行为是不可取的。尽管动物授粉的农作物比例较少，但是在富含人类必要营养元素的饮食和经济价值中（ IPBES 2016 ），它们作用重大。一个案例就能说明现代人类社会对动物授粉的依赖程度。咖啡由许多野生昆虫（主要是蜜蜂）授粉（ Ngo et al. 2007 ），而咖啡作为商品就其价值而言仅次于石油，它维持了数百万农民的生计。 2016 年全球咖啡产量直冲 151 ， 624 万袋，每袋 60kg （ Int. Coffee Org. 2017 ）。一个咖啡豆来自于一个单受精事件，至少一个花粉落在柱头上。平均每个咖啡豆约为 0.1g ，这就意味着大约每包有 600 ， 000 个咖啡豆。而 2016 年的咖啡豆总产量就超过了 90 万亿个。咖啡的自花传粉概率为 50% （ Klein et al. 2003 ），蜜蜂访咖啡花时，可能携带足够的花粉去使每一个咖啡花的卵子受精，所以我们可以把这个数字除以四。尽管如此，全球咖啡产量仍然需要至少 22 万亿个传粉者去访花。显然，有了数十亿只需要半栖息地和咖啡种植园的蜜蜂，全球咖啡市场才得以生存。 6. 总结自中生代以来，传粉者已经为植物服务了至少 1.7 亿年，可能比想象的更久。在那个时期，不同传粉者群体的相对重要性也有变化，但整体传粉者的多样性与有花植物平行增加，直到目前，多达 350 ， 000 个传粉昆虫被描述记载（还有更多的有待于科学发现）。不同分类群体（从属的水平到目的水平）的相对重要性也存在变化，但总体来说，生物多样性很重要，任何一个物种的丢失（无论在什么地理尺度）都应该避免。同时，我们不希望当前的模式一成不变，排除人为干扰过程，地方和全球物种的丢失和增加都将成为自然生物多样性波动的一部分。目前，对传粉者多样性和重要性的全球模式的理解，以及对不同授粉系统的角色（特别是风与动物授粉相比）的理解具有重要意义，但仍有许多需要探讨的地方。在过去的 20 年里，科学家对这些问题产生兴趣并开始就这些问题收集全球数据，如在世界上风和动物传粉是如何变化的，作为传粉者不同群体的动物的重要性如何显现，花粉限制模式是怎样的，以及这些模式是如何联系植物性别和交配系统的。理解传粉者多样性，传粉系统的演化过程，传粉者扮演了什么样的角色，传粉者嵌入生态网络等问题（所有的这些是如何作为生物多样性至关重要的一方面而被保存的）需要更多的观察和实验数据以及监控和详细的调查才能确定一个传粉者多样性下降的画面。现代传粉者的多样性是数百万年来裸子植物和被子植物紧密扩散、协同进化的结果。作为植物多样性的关键延续，传粉者也通过间接地支持大量其他有机体提供巨大的附加价值，这些有机体包括酵母以及花蜜中的其他微生物，花的寄生真菌，盗寄生蜜蜂物种和其他的寄生虫，专一的捕食者和食草动物，食果 - 食种子动物等等。失去这其中任何一个多样性将是我们地球生物遗产的悲剧性损失。; 个人分类: 论文精读|12332 次阅读|3 个评论

“传粉者多样性与动植物互作”分组研讨邀请报告人: zhuchaodong 2016-12-3 15:39; The Past, Present, and Future of Asian Biodiversity: XTBG, China March 25-28th 2017 Welcome to Xishuangbanna! A3. Pollinator diversity and animal-plant interactions; Chao-Dong Zhu and Yan-Qiong Peng This session will highlight the diversity of pollination research being carried out in Southeast Asia and China, covering taxonomy, pollination, gene flow, and interspecific interaction, and the appropriate methodologies utilized in the field. Contacts - Chao-Dong ZHU, zhucd@ioz.ac.cn Yan-Qiong PENG, pengyq@xtbg.ac.cn Dear Symposia Chairs It is with great pleasure I announce the opening of registration for the 10th annual meeting of the Asia-Pacific chapter of the Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation! Please register prior to submitting an abstract (all abstracts will be accepted as either Oral or poster presentations) http://atbcmeeting.csp.escience.cn/dct/page/70015 Please do circulate around your networks and ensure that your speakers do submit to your symposia! Very best wishes Alice Alice C. Hughes ATBC Asia-Pacific Secretary ATBC Capacity Building Committee Chair Associate Professor and Landscape Ecology Group PI Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanic Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences Skype: Alice.Catherine.Hughes For research related emails (students and collaborators) please use ACH_conservation@hotmail.com For emails related to the ATBC, please use Asia2@tropicalbio.org; 3240 次阅读|0 个评论

[转载]Jeff教授关于IPBES最新报告的最新博客: zhuchaodong 2016-3-6 11:23; Jeff Ollerton是较早提出传粉者危机的专家之一。他的工作大大提高了公众和政府对传粉者的认识。他通过他的博客持续传播他对生物多样性研究和保护的认识和进展。 Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production: IPBES gains momentum The over-arching themes of this blog have been about understanding biodiversity; the science behind its study; why it’s important; how it contributes to human well being, (including both intangible and economic benefits); and how policy informed by science can support the conservation of species and ecosystems. These are all issues that have a global perspective beyond the bounds of my home country (the United Kingdom), or even my continent (Europe) because species, ecosystems and the threats to them do not respect political borders. Enter IPBES – the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (sometimes shortened to Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). IPBES is a United Nations body established in 2012 that in many ways is a parallel entity to the IPCC ( Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), bringing together scientists, policy makers and stakeholders, with a mission: “ to strengthen the science-policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, long-term human well-being and sustainable development “ Which has got to be a good thing: science informing policy, what’s not to like? The first output from IPBES will be a Thematic Assessment of Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production , and it’s just been discussed (today) at the 4th Plenary meeting of IPBES in Kuala Lumpur – here’s a link to the press release . In the coming weeks I’ll talk more about IPBES and its Thematic Assessment (for which I acted as a reviewer), but for now I’ll just repeat some of the headline figures from the report: 20,000 – Number of species of wild bees. There are also some species of butterflies, moths, wasps, beetles, birds, bats and other vertebrates that contribute to pollination. 75% – Percentage of the world’s food crops that depend at least in part on pollination. US$235 billion–US$577 billion – Annual value of global crops directly affected by pollinators. 300% — Increase in volume of agricultural production dependent on animal pollination in the past 50 years. Almost 90% — Percentage of wild flowering plants that depend to some extent on animal pollination*. 1.6 million tonnes – Annual honey production from the western honeybee. 16.5% — Percentage of vertebrate pollinators threatened with extinction globally. +40% – Percentage of invertebrate pollinator species – particularly bees and butterflies – facing extinction. *They are quoting a figure that I calculated , and very proud of it I am too :-); 1627 次阅读|0 个评论

[转载]关注IPBES关于传粉昆虫多样性评估报告: zhuchaodong 2016-3-6 09:38; 关注IPBES报告。中国传粉功能研究严重滞后的原因：1、缺乏面向传粉者的分类队伍，本底不清；2、对传粉者多样性价值认识不够，缺乏监测数据；3、对重要作物主要传粉者缺乏长期规范的基础生物学研究；4、传粉昆虫迫切需要包括分类学、进化生物学和农学、林学方面多学科交叉合作。中国昆虫学会传粉昆虫专业委员会正在考虑筹备传粉昆虫学科届会及首次会议需要考虑的重要议题。敬请各位学者就届会名称、时间间隔、培训班内容等问题提出您的宝贵意见，供委员会讨论。 Global biodiversity report warns pollinators are under threat First assessment from intergovernmental body set up to track world's ecosystems suggests curbing pesticide use to save bees. Natasha Gilbert 26 February 2016 Article tools Rights Permissions Frank Bienewald/LightRocket/Getty Images Honeybees (pictured) are among pollinators whose population is in decline. An international science body tasked with tracking the ecological health of the planet has announced the findings of its first report. The review warns that the ongoing decline in the number of pollinating insects and animals threatens global crop production. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services ( IPBES ) was established in 2012 , and is roughly modelled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reponse to the pollinator report, announced on 26 February at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur , may be an early sign of whether the body's influence will one day match the IPCC's political and scientific clout. Robert Watson, an environmental scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who is vice-chairman of the IPBES, says that he is confident that the assessment will have an impact. The IPBES has 124 member governments, and its pollinator assessment went through two rounds of external peer review. And just as with the IPCC’s climate reports, the assessment was debated word for word, Watson says. “The fact that all governments requested this document really bodes well that they will use the results,” he says. Related stories Entomology: The bee-all and end-all Bee studies stir up pesticide debate Major biodiversity initiative needs support More related stories But Dave Goulson, a bee researcher at the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK, says: “I would question whether any practical on-the-ground action to help pollinators will happen as a result of this document. We are in the midst of the sixth global mass-extinction event, and we sit around spending thousands of hours writing documents about biodiversity, but we do not take action to address the fundamental issues that are causing this ecological catastrophe.” Pollinator warning The report offers a sober assessment of the decline in populations of pollinating insects and animals , affected by factors including climate change, disease and pesticide use. The global production of crops that depend on pollinators is an industry worth up to US$577 billion annually, the report says. “If we get further declines in wild and managed pollinators, it would be a serious risk to foods that rely on those pollinators, especially food of high nutritional quality such as seeds and fruits,” says Watson. It is “becoming very clear” that pesticides have “definite harmful effects” on wild bees, says Simon Potts, a biodiversity scientist at the University of Reading, UK, and co-chair of the report. “There needs to be less application and smart application” of such chemicals, he adds. Studies have yielded mixed results on the link between pesticides and declining bee health, the IPBES assessment notes. Critics have questioned some studies for using doses that are much higher than those typically found in pesticide residues on farmers’ fields, and also ask whether sub-lethal effects seen in individual insects are relevant to whole populations. The review acknowledges these limitations, but it says that some lab studies do use realistic doses. The harmful effects seen on individual bees in one recent field-based study 1 are “ so huge and so strong”, adds Potts, that it indicates that effects on populations and colonies will likely be negative. The next step is to get direct evidence of long-term population effects, he says. “Exposure of pollinators to pesticides can be decreased by reducing the use of pesticides,” the report says, and by using other forms of pest control. It also suggests that farmers could adopt ecologically friendly farming techniques, such as planting strips of flowers to boost pollinating insect numbers. In 2013, the European Commission imposed a temporary ban on the use of three controversial ‘neonicotinoid’ insecticides — clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, is reviewing their safety and expects to complete its analysis by January 2017. IPBES controversy The IPBES assessment attracted controversy before its release: some scientists complained of a lack of transparency in the appointment of two agrochemical scientists among 40 lead authors involved in the review. Axel Hochkirch, a biodiversity scientist at the University of Trier, Germany, says that he is still concerned about how the scientists from industry were selected, even though the IPBES requires all lead authors to complete conflict-of-interest statements. Watson told Nature that the IPBES conflict-of-interest committee “looked carefully” at the industry scientists’ CVs and “concluded there is no conflict”. In addition, Watson says that the IPBES has “checks and balances” in place — such as planned independent reviews of its procedures in 2017 and 2018 — to ensure that everything is above board. “The independent review will be critical,” says Thomas Brooks, head of science at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Gland, Switzerland. The IPBES has proposed to hand over the leadership of the review to the International Council for Science, a non-governmental organization representing scientific bodies and unions, but Brooks says that the IPBES should select a consultancy company through a competitive and open process. Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of the IPBES, says that the body will decide how to conduct the reviews at the end of its Kuala Lumpur meeting, on 28 February. The meeting will also set the IPBES budget for the next two years and decide whether it should conduct a global assessment of sustainable biodiversity use, as well as a separate review on invasive species. The IPBES is currently working on four regional biodiversity assessments including in Africa and the Americas, and a separate assessment of land degradation, all of which it hopes to complete by 2018. Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19456 Tweet Facebook LinkedIn Weibo References Rundlöf, M. et al . Nature 521 , 77 – 80 ( 2015 ). Show context Related stories and links From nature.com Entomology: The bee-all and end-all 20 May 2015 Bee studies stir up pesticide debate 22 April 2015 Major biodiversity initiative needs support 03 February 2015 Pollinator assessment: IPBES responds on conflicts of interest 14 January 2015 ‘Life on Earth’ project gets under way 25 June 2014 IPBES: Biodiversity panel should play by rules 12 February 2014 World governments establish biodiversity panel 23 April 2012; 1626 次阅读|0 个评论

[转载]小型农庄传粉者多样性显著提高产量: zhuchaodong 2016-3-2 09:14; Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms Lucas A. Garibaldi et al., 2016 * Corresponding author. E-mail: lgaribaldi@unrn.edu.ar Science 22 Jan 2016: Vol. 351, Issue 6271, pp. 388-391 DOI: 10.1126/science.aac7287 More-diverse pollinators improve crop yields It is known that increased pollinator diversity can improve the yield of agricultural crops. However, how best to both produce food and maintain diversity is still debated. Garibaldi et al. show that on small farms, which provide food for the most vulnerable populations globally, pollinator diversity can significantly increase productivity. Thus, the management of crops and surrounding areas for ecological health is likely to benefit both wild pollinator populations and farmers. Abstract Ecological intensification, or the improvement of crop yield through enhancement of biodiversity, may be a sustainable pathway toward greater food supplies. Such sustainable increases may be especially important for the 2 billion people reliant on small farms, many of which are undernourished, yet we know little about the efficacy of this approach. Using a coordinated protocol across regions and crops, we quantify to what degree enhancing pollinator density and richness can improve yields on 344 fields from 33 pollinator-dependent crop systems in small and large farms from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For fields less than 2 hectares, we found that yield gaps could be closed by a median of 24% through higher flower-visitor density. For larger fields, such benefits only occurred at high flower-visitor richness. Worldwide, our study demonstrates that ecological intensification can create synchronous biodiversity and yield outcomes.; 1065 次阅读|0 个评论

生物多样性教授Jeff Ollerton博士学术报告（2016年3月7日上午）: zhuchaodong 2016-3-1 06:58; 英国 Northampton 大学生物多样性教授 Jeff Ollerton 博士将到访动物研究所开展合作交流，并做学术报告。报告题目： Pollinator function, diversity and declines: the view from central England 报告时间： 2016 年 3 月 7 日上午 10:00-11:30 报告地点：中国科学院动物研究所 C101 会议室 Jeff Ollerton 教授作为主要或唯一作者在 Science 、 Ecology 、 Proceedings B 、 Ecology Letters 等期刊上发表了 60 余篇研究论文。其中 Waser etal. （ 1996 ）是传粉生态学领域被引用最高的论文之一。他和他的团队关于植物－传粉者相互作用生态学和多样性的研究成果在国际学术界得到公认： 1 ）为传粉者种群保护提供了科学依据，并影响了英国及世界保护政策； 2 ）提高了英国及世界对传粉者保护的公众意识； 3 ）引领了英国园林业的改变。附： Jeff Ollerton 教授简历 P rofessor J EFF O LLERTON BSc (Hons), PhD C ONTACT D ETAILS AND L INKS Email: jeff.ollerton@northampton.ac.uk Personal blog: http://jeffollerton.wordpress.com/ ResearchGate profile: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff_Ollerton/ Google Scholar profile: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=6zHjOd8AAAAJhl=enoi=ao ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-8235 The Landscape and Biodiversity Research Group atthe University of Northampton: http://oldweb.northampton.ac.uk/aps/env/lbrg/index.html E MPLOYMENT AND E DUCATION September2014 to present Head of Research and Enterprise in the School of Science and Technology. September2012 Promoted to Professor of Biodiversity, School of Science and Technology, The Universityof Northampton. Current roles include: chair of theSchool of Science and Technology Research and Enterprise Committee; membershipof the Science Research Degrees Board; contributing to research student andearly career researcher training across the university; teaching and moduleleadership within the Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences; leadershipof the Landscape and Biodiversity Research Group. I also led the Research Excellence Framework(REF) submission to UoA17 (Geography and Environmental Studies) and in thatrole sat on the University’s REF Working Group. September2010 Promoted to Reader in Biodiversity, School of Science and Technology, The University ofNorthampton. In addition I was theSchool’s Research Coordinator (0.5 appointment, effective October 2009). 1995- 2010 Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, in the Division of Environmental Science, School ofApplied Sciences (now School of Science and Technology), The University ofNorthampton (formerly Nene College, then University College Northampton). Lecturing on BSc courses in ConservationBiology, Biology and Environmental Science, and MSc Environmental Management. Previous duties have included:Admissions Tutor for Ecology (1995-1999); Course Leader for MSc EnvironmentalManagement (1997-1999); founder and course leader for BSc (Hons) Biology (1999to 2010); Postgraduate Degrees Tutor for the Division of Environmental Science(2001-2004); member of the Research Degrees Committee of the University(2004-2007); Postgraduate Research Training Framework Coordinator for theUniversity (2001-2007). The role ofPostgraduate Research Training Framework Coordinator is particularly noteworthyas this was in the period just prior to the then University CollegeNorthampton’s application for Research Degree Awarding Powers and fulluniversity status. The generic trainingprogramme that I developed and implemented was widely acknowledged within theuniversity, and in the QAA’s subsequent report, as playing a significant rolein the institution successfully attaining full university status. Although I stepped down from this role in 2007to focus on other activities, I continue to be involved in the twice-yearlyresearch student induction weeks, and the evening and weekend trainingworkshops. The time that I spent in therole of Postgraduate Research Training Framework Coordinator is one of the mostfulfilling periods of my career to date and I was pleased to play a part,however minor, in a significant developmental stage of the University ofNorthampton. 1994 - 1995 Parttime lecturer, Oxford Brookes University. 1993 - 1994 Visiting postdoctoral researcher based at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia,studying the pollination ecology of Australian Piperaceae. Hosted by Professor Andrew Beattie and fundedby grants from the British Ecological Society, the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund(Linnean Society of London) and the British Council. 1989- 1993 PhD:Ecology of flowering and fruiting in Lotuscorniculatus L., Oxford Brookes University (Supervisors: Dr. AndrewLack and Dr Denis Owen). This research was anassessment of the interaction of flowering phenology, pollinator activity,plant size, seed predation and reproductive output using the Wytham Woodspopulations of Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae) as a case study. Whilstcarrying out the research I was at the same time employed as a PostgraduateTeaching Assistant, running tutorials and assisting with laboratory and fieldwork for undergraduate courses. 1987- 1989 BSc(Hons) Environmental Biology (2:i) Oxford Brookes University. R ESEARCH AND S CHOLARLY I NTERESTS The ecology, evolution and conservation the Earth’s biodiversity defines the broad scope ofmy professional interests. Within thisvast field I mainly work on the biogeography and biodiversity of mutualisticspecies interactions, such as plant-pollinator relationships, in which allparticipants benefit from the relationship. Mutualisms are hugely important ecological relationships that play keyroles in determining community structure and ecosystem function, as well asbeing the basis for ecosystem services of human value, for example croppollination. As well as plant-pollinatorrelationships, I also work on non-terrestrial mutualisms such as those betweenanemonefish and sea anemones. In addition I havea wider interest in how biodiversity contributes to human society throughecosystem goods and services, how that biodiversity may be conserved in anever-changing world, and how we have arrived at our current understanding ofthe biogeography and biodiversity of the natural world. This links to the research and writing I doin the area of the history of human understanding and exploitation ofbiodiversity, specifically botanical science and horticulturalexploration. The main current project isa biography of John Tweedie, a notable 19th Century plant collector who was asignificant early collector working in the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil and inthe pampas grasslands. In addition heintroduced a number of plants from South America that continue to be grown inBritish gardens. Current internationalresearch collaborations include projects related to the biogeography ofplant-pollinator interactions (e.g. Prof. Nick Waser, Prof. Mary Price, Dr Ruben Alarcón in the USA); the ecology of flowering time with Mexicancolleagues (Prof. Victor Parra-Tabla and Dr Miguel Munguía-Rosas) and theeffect of historical climates on pollination systems (Dr Bo Dalsgaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark). This research has been covered by a range of local, national and international media, and I am regularly interviewed about my work. C ONFERENCE P RESENTATIONS Only those from the last ten years that Ipersonally presented are listed: 2015 - Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology , Denmark ( paper ) - Ecological Networks Conference ,University of Bristol ( paper ) 2014 - Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology , Sweden ( paper ) 2014 - BES Macroecology Special Interest Group ,University of Nottingham ( paper ) 2013 - 64 th NationalBotanical Congress , Belo Horizonte, Brazil ( invited paper ) 2012 - Hedgerow Futures ,University of Staffordshire ( invited paper ) 2011- Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology , Denmark ( paper ) 2010 - Linnean Society - Palynology SpecialistGroup , London ( invited paper ) - ScandinavianAssociation for Pollination Ecology , Sweden ( paper ) 2009 - Origin of Biodiversity byBiological Interactions , Tokyo ( invited paper ) 2008 - The Ecology and Evolutionof Plant-Pollinator Interactions , Milwaukee ( invited paper ) - Biodiversity Research - Safeguarding the Future ,Bonn ( invited paper – see conference report at: http://www.iubs.org/pdf/publi/PreCOP9%20Report.pdf ) 2007 - Royal Entomological SocietyMeeting , Edinburgh ( invited paperand symposium co-organizer ) 2005 - Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology , Sweden ( invitedspecial paper ) - 17 th InternationalBotanical Congress , Vienna ( invited paper ) 2004 - Southern Connections Conference , Cape Town ( invited paper ) - RoyalEntomological Society Meeting , London ( invitedpaper ) P ROFESSIONAL A CTIVITY Member of The British Ecological Society since 1990 Active participant of the Bumblebee Working Group Grant reviewer for the Natural Environment Research Council, Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council, Science Foundation Ireland, the Norwegian Research Council, Linnean Society of London, the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, the Czech Science Foundation, National Geographic, the Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium), the National Science Foundation of South Africa, the Swiss National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Army Research Office Academic referee for manuscripts in over 30 journals including: Science, Nature Communications , PNAS-USA , Trends in Ecology and Evolution , Proceedings of the Royal Society series B ., Ecology , Ecology Letters , Evolution , Biology Letters , American Naturalist , PLoS Biology , PLoS ONE , Heredity , Oikos , Journal of Tropical Ecology , Oecologia and Journal of Ecology Academic referee for books published by Blackwell Science, Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press Founding member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Pollination Ecology Academic Editor for PLoS ONE Internal examiner for 4 PhDs at The University of Northampton External examiner for 23 PhD candidates, as follows: (1) Cambridge University – February 2002 (Lynn Dicks) (2) Open University – February 2002 (Mark Gardener) (3) University of Bristol – February 2003 (Mikael Forup) (4) University of Southampton – September 2004 (James Peat) (5) University of Stockholm – May 2004 (Kjell Bolmgren) (6) University of Sydney – June 2006 (Yvonne Davila) (7) University of Zurich – August 2006 (Christopher Kaiser) (8) University of Leeds – January 2007 (Shazia Raja) (9) University of Edinburgh – May 2007 (Kath Baldock) (10) Swedish Agricultural University,Uppsala – May 2007 (Erik Sjödin) (11) Norwegian University of LifeSciences – May 2007 (Anders Nielsen) (12) University of Lausanne – March 2008(Antonina Internicola) (13) Trinity College Dublin – May 2009(Caroline Nienhuis) (14) Queen Mary, University of London –May 2010 (Sarah Arnold) (15) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,Spain – November 2010 (Ana María Martín González) (16) University of KwaZulu-Natal, SouthAfrica – February 2011 (Adam Shuttleworth) (17) Rhodes University, South Africa –February 2011 (Gareth Coombs) (18) University of Bristol – February2013 (Rachel Gibson) (19) Trinity College Dublin – May 2013(Sarah Mullen) (20) University of Sydney – September2013 (Tony Popic) (21) University of Birmingham – November2014 (Robert Fowler) (22) University of Lausanne – June 2015(Tomasz Suchan) (23) University of Reading – September2015 (Jennifer Wickens) Invited research lectures have been presented at the Universities of Cambridge, York, Lancaster, Portsmouth, KwaZulu-Natal, California (Riverside), Southampton, Bayreuth, Mainz, Copenhagen and Zurich, as well as Royal Holloway, Rothamsted Research, Oxford Brookes University, Trinity College, Dublin, the Institute of Zoology (London), the University of Tübingen (the Hilgendorf Lecture) and the University of Lausanne. In November 2013 I spoke at five different Brazilian universities as part of a month-long research and teaching visit External panel member for a number of course reviews and validations, most recently at the Open University and the University of Brighton Reviewer and Panel Member (2010) for the L’Oreal-UNESCO Women in Science Fellowships 2010 - 2015 External examiner for MRes theses at University of Brighton – 2010 - 2103 Tutor for Tropical Biology Association Tanzania field course (July-August 2011). External examiner for undergraduate and postgraduate environmental science courses at University College, Dublin (2011 - 2015) Member of the British Ecological Society Grant Review College (2012 - present) Member of the Northamptonshire Local Nature Partnership committee, representing The University of Northampton (2012 to present) Visiting Professor at the University of Campinas, Brazil (2013) S CIENTIFIC A DVISORY A CTIVITIES Script advisor for the BBC Scotland series How to Grow a Planet , broadcast 2012 Science advisor for a feature length documentary Hidden Beauty: A Love Story That Feeds the Earth (Cinesite and the Walt Disney Studios). First international premier was in Spring 2011 in France (renamed Pollen ) Science advisor and on-screen participant in the BBC three part series Bees, Butterflies and Blooms with Sarah Raven. Filming and advising during 2010 and 2011, broadcast 2012 Science advisor and on-screen participant in the BBC Gardeners’ World - Science in the Garden special edition with Carol Klein. Filmed August 2009, broadcast November 2010 Member of the Wildlife Gardening Forum: Research Working Group (Royal Horticultural Society). Invited to join 2010, ongoing Advisor to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology for their POSTnote briefing on Insect Pollination (POSTnote number 348, January 2010) Invited participant in the International Insect Pollinators Workshop at Westminster, hosted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Science and Innovation Network and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (February 2012) Invited participant in the Pollinator Monitoring Workshop, Natural History Museum, London (October 2013) Science advisor and on-screen participant in the BBC series Plant Odyssey with Carol Klein. Filming and advising summer 2014 for broadcast 2015 Expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Pollination Assessment Report (2015) Invited participant in a two-day RC-funded workshop at Imperial College to develop novel research actions to support the National Pollinator Strategy (2015) R ESEARCH I MPACT The decline of bees, hoverflies, and other pollinators has been widely described as a“pollination crisis” (e.g. Progress Report of FAO on the Implementation of theInternational Pollinators Initiative – September 2012) which could haveprofound effects on both food security, and wild plant populations and theecosystem services they support. Researchby myself and colleagues into the ecology and diversity of plant-pollinatorinteractions has: (a) provided a scientific evidence base that has influencednational and international policies relating to the conservation of pollinatorpopulations; (b) raised national and international public awareness of thesubject of pollinator conservation; and (c) led to positive changes in UKgardening practices. This wasacknowledged by a successful REF Impact Case Study entitled “Pollinatorconservation: impact on government policy and public practices – 1996 to 2013”(copy available on request) P UBLICATIONS Since1992 I have published or in press, 60 peer reviewed research papers, bookchapters and edited books, the majority as first or sole author. High Impact Factor journals publishing mypeer-reviewed work include Science , Ecology , Proceedings of the Royal Society B , and Ecology Letters . One ofthese papers (Waser et al. 1996) isnow the third most highly cited paper in the field of pollination ecology with904 citations. The average citation ratefor my peer-reviewed research outputs is 49.5 citations per paper and myh-index currently stands at 23 (source for all statistics: ISI Web of Science,all databases, October 2015). Citationrates and h-index using the less conservative Google Scholar are, of course,significantly higher. As well as these peer reviewed research outputs I have contributed non-peerreviewed commentaries, book reviews, popular articles and editorials tomagazines and journals, including Nature and Science . I have co-editedand contributed chapters to two collections of papers: a festschrift in honour of the late Professor Knut Faegri (Totland et al. 2000); and a major volume for theUniversity of Chicago Press (Waser Ollerton 2006). The latter received a series of enthusiasticreviews in international journals, with statements such as: “ an important contribution to ourunderstanding of plant–pollinator interactions ” and “ a masterful overview of a rich field in a stage of dynamic ferment ”. P UBLICATIONS Since1992 I have published or in press, 60 peer reviewed research papers, bookchapters and edited books, the majority as first or sole author. High Impact Factor journals publishing my peer-reviewedwork include Science , Ecology , Proceedings of the Royal Society B , and Ecology Letters . One ofthese papers (Waser et al. 1996) isnow the third most highly cited paper in the field of pollination ecology with 904citations. The average citation rate formy peer-reviewed research outputs is 49.5 citations per paper and my h-indexcurrently stands at 23 (source for all statistics: ISI Web of Science, alldatabases, October 2015). Citation ratesand h-index using the less conservative Google Scholar are, of course,significantly higher. As well as these peer reviewed research outputs I have contributed non-peerreviewed commentaries, book reviews, popular articles and editorials tomagazines and journals, including Nature and Science . I haveco-edited and contributed chapters to two collections of papers: a festschrift in honour of the lateProfessor Knut Faegri (Totland et al. 2000); and a major volume for the University of Chicago Press (Waser Ollerton 2006). The latter received aseries of enthusiastic reviews in international journals, with statements suchas: “ an important contribution to ourunderstanding of plant–pollinator interactions ” and “ a masterful overview of a rich field in a stage of dynamic ferment ”. All of my publicationsare listed below; peer-reviewed journal papers, edited volumes and chapters aremarked* *Sonne, J., Kyvsgaard, P., Maruyama, P.K.,Vizentin-Bugoni, J., Ollerton, J., Sazima, M., Rahbek, C. Dalsgaard, B.(in press) Spatial effects of artificial feeders on hummingbird abundance,floral visitation and pollen deposition. Journalof Ornithology *Bailes, E., Ollerton, J., Pattrick, J. Glover, B.J. (2015) How can an understanding of plant-pollinator interactionscontribute to global food security? CurrentOpinion in Plant Biology 26: 72-79 *Moles, A. Ollerton, J. (in press) Is thenotion that species interactions are stronger and more specialized in thetropics a zombie idea? Biotropica *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. Ollerton,J. (2015) Vegetation cover and grasslands in the vicinity acceleratedevelopment of carabid beetle assemblages on restored landfill sites. Zoologyand Ecology (in press) *Sirohi, M.H., Jackson, J., Edwards, M. Ollerton, J. (2015) Diversity and abundance of solitary bees in an urbancentre: a case study from Northampton (England). Journalof Insect Conservation 19: 487-500 Ollerton, J. (2015) Book review of: “ A Veritable Eden ” by A. Brooks. Manchester Region History Review inpress *Ollerton, J. Waser, N.M., Rodrigo Rech, A. Price, M.V. (2015) Using the literature to test pollination syndromes — some methodologicalcautions. Journal of Pollination Ecology 16: 119- 125 *Ollerton, J., Erenler, H., Edwards, M. Crockett, R. (2014) Extinctions of aculeate pollinators in Britain and the roleof large-scale agricultural changes. Science 346: 1360-1362 Ollerton, J. (2013) The Biodiversity Index – atool for facilities management. Essential FM Report 109: 2-3 *Dalsgaard, B., Trøjelsgaard, K, Martín González,A.M., Nogués-Bravo, D., Ollerton, J., Petanidou, T., Sandel, B., Schleuning, M., Wang, Z., Rahbek,C., Sutherland, W.J., Svenning, J.C. Olesen, J.M. (2013) Historical climate-change influencesmodularity of pollination networks. Ecography 36: 1331–1340 *Tarrant, S., Ollerton, J., Rahman, L. Md.,Griffin, J. McCollin, D. (2013) Grassland restoration on landfill sitesin the East Midlands, UK: an evaluation of floral resources and pollinatinginsects. Restoration Ecology 21: 560–568 *Ollerton, J. Nuttman, C. (2013) Aggressivedisplacement of Xylocopa nigrita carpenter bees from flowers of Lagenariasphaerica (Cucurbitaceae) by territorial male Eastern Olive Sunbirds ( Cyanomitra olivacea ) in Tanzania. Journalof Pollination Ecology 11: 21-26 *Parker, W. Ollerton, J. (2013) Immunologyenlightened by evolutionary biology and anthropology: an approach necessary forpublic health. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 2013(1): 89-103 doi:10.1093/emph/eot00 *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D.Ollerton, J. (2013) Plant community composition and attributes revealconservation implications for newly created grassland on capped landfill sites. Journal for Nature Conservation 21:198-205 Vanbergen, A.J., Ambrose, N., Aston, D., Biesmeijer,J.C., Bourke, A., Breeze, T., Brotherton, P., Brown, M., Chandler, D., Clook,M., Connolly, C.N., Costigan, P., Coulson,M., Cresswell, J., Dean, R., Dicks, L., Felicioli, A., Fojt, O., Gallai, N., Genersch,E., Godfray, C., Grieg-Gran, M., Halstead, A., Harding, D., Harris, B., Hartfield,C., Heard, M.S., Herren, B., Howarth, J., Ings, T., Kleijn, D., Klein, A., Kunin,W.E., Lewis, G., MacEwen, A., Maus, C., McIntosh, L., Millar, N.S., Neumann,P., Ollerton, J., Olschewski, R., Osborne,J.L., Paxton, R.J., Pettis, J., Phillipson, B., Potts, S.G., Pywell, R., Rasmont,P., Roberts, S., Salles, J.-M., Schweiger, O., Sima, P., Thompson, H., Titera,D., Vaissiere, B., Van der Sluijs, J., Webster, S., Wentworth, J. Wright,G.A. (2012) Insect pollinators: linking research and policy. Workshopreport, U.K. Science and Innovation Network . Ollerton, J. (2012) The names of pubs and inns:not just for the birds. Bulletin of theBritish Ecological Society 43: 46-47 Ollerton, J. (2012) Biogeography: are tropical speciesless specialised? Current Biology 22:R914-R915 Ollerton, J. (2012) The importance of nativepollinators. The Plantsman 11:86-89 *Ollerton, J., Watts, S., Connerty, S., Lock, J.,Parker, L., Wilson, I., Schueller, S., Nattero, J., Cocucci, A.A., Izhaki, I., Geerts,S. Pauw, A. (2012) Pollination ecology of the invasive tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca : comparisons acrossnative and non-native ranges. Journal ofPollination Ecology 9: 85-95 *Dalsgaard, B., Timmermann, A., Martín González,A.M., Olesen, J.M, Ollerton, J. Andersen, L.H. (2012) Heliconia -hummingbird interactions inthe Lesser Antilles: a geographic mosaic? CaribbeanJournal of Science 46: 328-331 *Ollerton, J., Chancellor, G. van Wyhe, J.(2012) John Tweedie and Charles Darwin in Buenos Aires. Notesand Records of the Royal Society 66: 115-124 Ollerton, J. (2012) The importance of LWS meadowsfor pollinating insects. WildPlaces – the Local Wildlife SitesNewsletter 3: 10 *Watts, S., Huamán Ovalle, D., Moreno Herrera, M. Ollerton, J. (2012) Pollinator effectiveness of native and non-native flowervisitors to an apparently generalist Andean shrub, Duranta mandonii (Verbenaceae). PlantSpecies Biology 27: 147–158 *Cranmer, L., McCollin, D. Ollerton, J.(2012) Landscape structure influences pollinator movements and directly affectsplant reproductive success. Oikos 121:562-568 *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. Ollerton,J. (2012) Influence of habitat quality, landscape structure and food resourceson breeding skylark ( Alauda arvensis )territory distribution on restored landfill sites. Landscapeand Urban Planning 105: 281–287 Ollerton, J., Price, V., Armbruster, W.S., Memmott,J., Watts, S., Waser, N.M., Totland, Ø., Goulson, D., Alarcón, R., Stout, J.S. Tarrant, S. (2012) Overplaying the role of honey bees as pollinators: Acomment on Aebi and Neumann (2011). Trendsin Ecology and Evolution 27: 141-142 *Munguía-Rosas, M.A., Parra-Tabla, V., Ollerton,J. Carlos Cervera, J. (2012) Environmental control of reproductivephenology and the effect of pollen supplementation on resource allocation inthe cleistogamous weed, Ruellia nudiflora (Acanthaceae). Annals of Botany 109:343-350 *Dalsgaard, B., Magård, E., Fjeldså, J., MartínGonzález, A.M., Rahbek, C., Olesen, J.M., Ollerton, J., Alarcón, R., Araujo, A.C.,Cotton, P., Lara, C., Machado, C.C., Sazima, I., Sazima, M., Timmermann, A.,Watts, S., Sandel, B., Sutherland, W.J., Svenning, J.C. (2011) Specialization in plant-hummingbird networks is associatedwith species richness, contemporary precipitation and Quaternary climate-changevelocity. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25891.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025891 *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. and Ollerton,J. (2011) The conservation value of restored landfill sites in the EastMidlands, UK for supporting bird communities. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1879-1893 *Munguía-Rosas, M.A. Ollerton, J. Parra-Tabla, V. Arturo De-Nova, J. (2011) Meta-analysis of phenotypic selection onflowering phenology suggests that early flowering plants are favoured. Ecology Letters 14: 511-521 *Munguía-Rosas, M.A. Ollerton, J. Parra-Tabla,V. (2011) Phenotypic selection on flowering phenology and size of two dioeciousplant species with different pollen vectors. Plant Species Biology 26: 205–212 * Parra-Tabla, V., Vargas C.F., Naval, C., Calvo,L.M. Ollerton, J. (2011) Population status andreproductive success of an endangered epiphytic orchid in a fragmentedlandscape. Biotropica 43: 640-647 *Mayer, C., Adler, L., Armbruster, W.S. Dafni, A.,Eardley, C., Huang, S.-Q., Kevan, P.G., Ollerton, J., Packer, L. Ssymank, A.,Stout, J.C. Potts, S.G. (2011) Pollination ecology in the 21st century:key questions for future research. Journal of Pollination Ecology 3: 8-23 *Waser, N.M., Ollerton, J. Erhardt, A.(2011) Typology in pollination biology: lessons from an historical critique. Journalof Pollination Ecology 3: 1-7 *Ollerton, J., Tarrant, S. Winfree, R. (2011)How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120: 321–326 Ollerton, J. and Waser, N.M. (2010) Pollinatorsas critical ecosystem service providers: the biodiversity of speciesinteractions . Proceedings ofthe CBD – COP 9 Associated Scientific Conference on Biodiversity Research(including the COP 9 President’s Conclusions and the Recommendations to COP 9), Bonn, May 12 – 16, 2008. BiologyInternational 48: s.n. Ollerton, J. (2010) W(h)ither science? Dark Mountain 1: 146-149 *Erenler, H.E., Ashton, P., Gillman, M. Ollerton,J. (2010) Factors determining species richness of soil seed banks in lowlandancient woodlands. Biodiversity andConservation 19: 1631-1648 *Ricciardi, F., Boyer, M. Ollerton, J.(2010) Assemblage and interaction structure of the anemonefish-anemonemutualism across the Manado region of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 87: 333-347 Ollerton, J. Coulthard, E. (2009) Evolutionof animal pollination. Science 326:808-809 *Martin Gonzalez, A.M., Dalsgaard, B., Ollerton,J., Timmermann, A., Olesen, J.M., Andersen, L. Tossas, A.G. (2009)Effects of climate on pollination networks in the West Indies. Journal of Tropical Ecology 25: 493-506 *Ollerton, J., Masinde, S., Meve, U., Picker, M. Whittington, A. (2009) Fly pollination in Ceropegia (Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae): Biogeographic andphylogenetic perspectives. Annals ofBotany 103: 1501-1514 *Ollerton, J., Alarcón, R., Waser, N.M., Price,M.V., Watts, S., Cranmer, L., Hingston, A. Peter, C.I. Rotenberry, J.(2009) A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis. Annals of Botany 103: 1471-1480 *Dalsgaard, B., Martín González, A.M., Olesen,J.M., Ollerton, J., Timmermann, A., Andersen, L.H., Tossas, A.G. (2009)Plant–hummingbird interactions in the West Indies: floral specialisationgradients associated with environment and hummingbird size. Oecologia 159: 757-766 *Ollerton, J., Cranmer, L., Stelzer, R.,Sullivan, S. Chittka, L. (2009) Bird pollination of Canary Island endemicplants. Naturwissenschaften 96:221-232 *Alarcón, R., Waser, N.M. Ollerton, J.(2008) Year-to-year variation in the topology of a plant-pollinator interactionnetwork. Oikos 117: 1796-1807 *Dalsgaard, B., Martín González, A.M., Olesen,J.M. Timmermann, A., Andersen, L.H. Ollerton, J. (2008) Pollinationnetworks and functional specialization: a test using Lesser Antilleanplant-hummingbird assemblages. Oikos 117:789-793 Ollerton, J. (2008) Blogging from Bonn – apersonal account of the pre-COP9 meeting: “Biodiversity Research – Safeguardingthe Future”. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 39: 35-38 Ollerton, J. (2008) Book review of: “ Ecology and Evolution of Flowers ” byL.D. Harder S.C.H. Barrett. Systematic Biology 57: 516-517 *Ollerton, J., Killick, A., Lamborn, E., Watts,S. Whiston, M. (2007) Multiple meanings and modes: on the many ways to bea generalist flower. Taxon 56: 717-728 *Ollerton, J., Grace, J. Smith, K. (2007)Pollinator behaviour and adaptive floral colour change in Anthophora alluadii (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Erysimum scoparium (Brassicaceae) on Tenerife. Entomologia Generalis 29: 253-268 *Ollerton, J., McCollin, D., Fautin, D.G Allen, G.R. (2007) Finding NEMO – nestedness engendered by mutualistic organisationin anemonefish and their hosts. Proceedingsof the Royal Society series B 274: 591-598 *Ollerton, J., Stott, A., Allnutt, E., Shove, S.,Taylor, C. Lamborn, E. (2007) Pollination niche overlap between aparasitic plant and its host. Oecologia 151: 473-485 *Stelzer, R.J., Ollerton, J. Chittka, L.(2007) Keine Nachweis für Hummelbesuch der Kanarischen Vogelblumen (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomologia Generalis 30: 153-154 Ollerton, J. Raguso, R. (2006) The sweetstench of decay. New Phytologist 172: 382-385 *Ollerton, J. (2006) “Biological Barter”: patterns ofspecialization compared across different mutualisms. Pp. 411—435 in: Waser, N.M. Ollerton,J. (eds.) Plant-Pollinator Interactions:from Specialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA *Ollerton, J. Johnson, S.D. Hingston, A.B.(2006) Geographical variation in diversity and specificity of pollinationsystems. Pp. 283—308 in: Waser, N.M. Ollerton, J. (eds.) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: fromSpecialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA *Waser, N.M. Ollerton, J. (2006) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: fromSpecialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA Ollerton, J. Dafni, A. (2005) Functionalfloral morphology and phenology. pp. 1-26 in: Dafni, A., P.G. Kevan Husband, B.C. (Eds.) PracticalPollination Biology . Enviroquest, Cambridge, Ontario Ollerton, J. (2005) Flowering time and theWallace Effect. Heredity 95: 181-182 *Ollerton J., Johnson S. D., Cranmer, L. Kellie, S. (2003) The pollinationecology of an assemblage of grassland asclepiads in South Africa. Annals of Botany 92: 807-83 *Ollerton, J. Liede, S. (2003) Coronastructure in Cynanchum : linkingmorphology to function. Ecotropica 9: 107-112 Ollerton, J. (2002) Book review: Vuorisalo, T.O. Mutikainen, P.K. (eds.) Life History Evolution in Plants. PlantSystematics and Evolution 232: 138-141 *Ollerton, J. Cranmer, L. (2002) Latitudinaltrends in plant-pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? Oikos 98:340-350 *Ollerton,J. Watts, S. (2000) Phenotype space and floral typology: towards anobjective assessment of pollination syndromes. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi I.Matematisk-Naturvitenskapelig Klasse, Avhandlinger, Ny Serie 39: 149-159 *Totland,Ø., Armbruster, W.S., Fenster, C., Molau, U., Nilsson, L.A., Olesen, J.M.,Ollerton, J., Philipp, M. Ågren, J. (2000) The ScandinavianAssociation for Pollination Ecology honours Knut Fægri. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi I. Matematisk-Naturvitenskapelig Klasse,Avhandlinger, Ny Serie 39: The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters,Oslo *Lamborn, E. Ollerton, J. (2000) Experimental assessment of the functional morphologyof inflorescences of Daucus carota (Apiaceae): testing the fly catcher effect. FunctionalEcology 14: 445-454 Ollerton, J.(1999) The evolution of pollinator-plant relationships within thearthropods. pp. 741-758 in Melic, A.,DeHaro, J.J., Mendez, M. Ribera, I. (eds.) Evolutionand Phylogeny of the Arthropoda . Entomological Society of Aragon, Zaragoza Ollerton, J.(1999) Fly trapping in Ceropegia flowers - evidence of ant predation of pollinators. Asklepios 77: 31-32 *Ollerton,J. Diaz, A. (1999) Evidence forstabilising selection acting on flowering time in Arum maculatum (Araceae): the influence of phylogeny onadaptation. Oecologia 119: 340-348 *Kite, G.C.,Hetterscheid, W.L.A., Lewis, M.J., Boyce, P.C., Ollerton, J., Cocklin, E.,Diaz, A., Simmonds, M.S.J. (1998) Inflorescence odours and pollinators of Arum and Amorphophallus (Araceae). pp. 295-315 in Owens, S.J. Rudall, P.J. (eds.) ReproductiveBiology in Systematics, Conservation and Economic Botany . Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew Ollerton, J.(1998) Sunbird surprise for syndromes. Nature 394: 726-727 Ollerton, J. McCollin, D. (1998) Insect and angiosperm diversity in marineenvironments: a response to van der Hage. Functional Ecology 12: 976-977 *Ollerton,J. Lack, A.J. (1998) Relationships between flowering phenology, plantsize and reproductive success in Lotuscorniculatus (Fabaceae). Plant Ecology 139: 35-47 *Ollerton,J. Liede, S. (1997) Pollination systems in the Asclepiadaceae: a surveyand preliminary analysis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 62: 593-610 *Goulson, D.Ollerton, J. Sluman, C. (1997) Foraging strategies in the small skipper butterfly, Thymelicus flavus ; when to switch? Animal Behaviour 53: 1009-1016 *Ollerton,J. (1996) Reconciling ecological processes with phylogenetic patterns: theapparent paradox of plant-pollinator systems. Journal of Ecology 84: 767-769 *Ollerton,J. (1996) Interactions between gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) andinflorescences of Piper novae-hollandiae (Piperaceae) in Australia. The Entomologist 115: 181-184 *Ollerton,J. Lack, A.J. (1996) Partial predispersal seed predation in Lotus corniculatus L. (Fabaceae). SeedScience Research 6: 65-69 *Waser,N.M., Chittka, L., Price, M.V., Williams, N. Ollerton, J. (1996)Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77: 1043-1060 Ollerton, J.(1996) An update of the ASCLEPOL project. Asklepios 67: 31-32 Ollerton, J. Forster, P. (1995) Dipteraassociated with flowers of Ceropegiacumingiana in Australia. Asklepios 66: 21-22 Ollerton Lack (1993) Plant phenology -selection and neutrality – reply. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 35-35 *Ollerton, J. Lack, A.J. (1992) Flowering phenology: an example of relaxation ofnatural selection? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 274-276 Ollerton, J.(1992) Asclepiad cultivation in the early 19th Century: part 2. Asklepios 57: 22-23 Ollerton, J.(1992) Asclepiad cultivation in the early 19th Century: part 1. Asklepios 56: 27-28 Ollerton, J.(1989) A lesson from the students. New Scientist 1685: 69 Ollerton, J.(1989) The Walls of the Garden. OxfordWildlife News 4: 1-2 Ollerton, J.(1986) Adaptations to arid environments in the Asclepiadaceae. British Cactus and Succulent Journal 4:94-98; 4693 次阅读|0 个评论

[转载]Thyreus decorus (Smith,1852): sunnyblue 2015-5-23 10:51; 波琉璃紋花蜂 (蜜蜂科)小型，前胸背板黑色，中央有一條青色縱斑，左右各有一枚圓斑，腹部青色，各節具黑色橫紋，第2腹節以下中央有一條黑色縱紋達腹端，各腳黑色，脛節具青色斑。本種舊分類於淮蜂科，通稱准蜂，屬於寄生性的蜜蜂總科類，外觀近似青條花蜂科的種類但其腹背的青色橫紋中央不具斷紋。本科台灣生物網分類於蜜蜂科 / Thyreus 屬下，本屬10種。其外观拟态成青条花峰 (Amegillaspp.)，好让牠把卵寄生在青条花蜂的巢里，这是很有趣的生态世界。网址： http://gaga.biodiv.tw/new23/cp03_76.htm; 0 个评论

讨论：分类学者的贡献: 热度 1 zhuchaodong 2015-2-15 17:43; 前天刚开过Zoological Systematics（原动物分类学报）的编委会。会上，作为新编委成员，我建议开辟专栏，邀请专家围绕动物系统学的概念、理论、方法等方面的进展和对其它学科的贡献等进行述评。学术期刊是分享科学发现、研究成果的地方，更应该是学术观点纷呈的园地。恰好最近英国皇家学会会刊发表了一篇传粉者多样性的论文。该论文弱化了最关键的物种鉴定部分，把作出重要贡献的分类学工作者放到了致谢中，忽略了他们在整个项目中的作用和投入的时间。这在蜜蜂分类学者圈中引起了较为热烈的讨论。我把问题也转到昆虫分类鉴定群、ResearchGate、LinkedIn等，期待同行的关注和思考。实际上，这样的问题不仅仅出现在蜜蜂的研究工作中。以传粉者为例，膜翅目、鞘翅目、双翅目、鳞翅目等四大目物种数量仍然占多数。每个类群的分类、鉴定都是建立在长期的积累基础之上。而到了物种水平，分类学者的结果是慎之又慎。英国拥有英国自然历史博物馆这样超级分类学机构，拥有丰富的模式标本和一流的分类学家。但是，即便是在那里，也有许多类群无法得到轻易的鉴定。以蜜蜂总科为例， Hylaeus ， Lasioglossum 、 Nomada 、 Sphecodes 等种类仍然有大量的种类有待研究并定名。如何优化分类学者和其他学科队伍的科学合理的互动？其他学科工作者对分类学有什么样的需求？分类学者本身有哪些环节有待改进？分类学者和爱好者之间可以如何进行互动？关于最后一点，引用Science上最近一篇综述的部分内容：虽然 GBIF 是存放其它生物多样性来源数据的数据库，但是这些来源有待更多的注释。有些比如 Tropicos 很专业，拥有 420 万号标本。物种分布知识中增长最快的资料库来源于大量的爱好者提供数据。观鸟者是数量最多的， eBird 成为了一个国际储蓄库。在 2010 年已经有超过 10 万观鸟者和超过 1 亿的观测记录。这就允许做精密的动物分布图和以月份为单位的动物分布的动态变化。如此丰富的数据扭曲了更加全面的生物多样性的统计和评估，但也推动着其它非明星类群的研究。要想做到有效，观测需要鉴定，而鉴定需要训练和技能的掌握。最近在图片共享技术和社交网络提供新的机遇和进展。就拿 iNaturelist 来说，应用程序让业余的观测者和专业工作者之间进行分工。前者通过智能手机熟练地分辨并上传图片，后者鉴定并编目，形成观测结果。在业余观察者和专家的合作中，现在在不同的分类单元中有了高质量的产物。 iNaturalist 已经记录了超过了 50 万条记录，而且也成为了较受欢迎的应用程序。自：Science 30 May 2014: Vol. 344 no. 6187 DOI: 10.1126/science.1246752 我在ResearchGate、LinkedIn上发起讨论： https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chao-Dong_Zhu/questions Being a taxonomist, how and what do you contribute to teams or projects in other fields? I'm conceiving a few paragraphs to discuss on contributions from taxonomists, demands from other topics and gaps between taxonomists and other researchers. Here, taxonomists are not limited to alpha level who focus mainly on species identification and classification. Certainly, taxonomists have been spending much valuable time and rich expertise to contribute a lot to some important projects, especially those on biodiversity, ecology, evolutionary biology, invasion biology, plant protection, conservation biology, and emerging genome biology. Also, governments demands more for quarantine of pests. However, there is a trend that more and more teams appreciate taxonomists' contributions only in the acknowledgement part of papers. Why? How to fill in the gaps? How to optimise the interactions between taxonomists and other researchers? Your answers/comments are mostly welcome. If you are willing to act as the coauthor(s) of this potential manuscript to Zoological Systematics, please kindly email me at sea@ioz.ac.cn. 转自John Ascher博士在论坛的内容 Where is the UK's pollinator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for flower-visiting insects Katherine C. R. Baldock , Mark A. Goddard , Damien M. Hicks , William E. Kunin , Nadine Mitschunas , Lynne M. Osgathorpe , Simon G. Potts , Kirsty M. Robertson , Anna V. Scott , Graham N. Stone , Ian P. Vaughan , Jane Memmott DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.2849 Published 11 February 2015 http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1803/20142849 Insect pollinators provide a crucial ecosystem service, butare under threat. Urban areas could be important for pollinators, though theirvalue relative to other habitats is poorly known. We compared pollinatorcommunities using quantified flower-visitation networks in 36 sites (each 1 km2)in three landscapes: urban, farmland and nature reserves. Overall,flower-visitor abundance and species richness did not differ significantlybetween the three landscape types. Bee abundance did not differ betweenlandscapes, but bee species richness was higher in urban areas than farmland.Hoverfly abundance was higher in farmland and nature reserves than urban sites,but species richness did not differ significantly. While urban pollinatorassemblages were more homogeneous across space than those in farmland or naturereserves, there was no significant difference in the numbers of rarer speciesbetween the three landscapes. Network-level specialization was higher infarmland than urban sites. Relative to other habitats, urban visitors foragedfrom a greater number of plant species (higher generality) but also visited alower proportion of available plant species (higher specialization), bothpossibly driven by higher urban plant richness. Urban areas are growing, andimproving their value for pollinators should be part of any national strategyto conserve and restore pollinators. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Mark Pavett, John Deeming, Brian Levey, Mike Wilson, Ray Barnett, Roger Ball and Stuart Morris for taxonomic expertise, along with land owners and managers for access to sites. We thank Daniel Montoya, Ian Cleasby and Beth Atkinson for statistical advice and the following field assistants: Sally Donaldson, Peter Harris, Joe Hicks, Jasmine King, Olivia Norfolk, Mark Otieno, Despoina Roumpeka and Juan Carlos Ruiz-Guajardo. This work is based on data provided through the NERC (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology), Ordnance Survey, Office for National Statistics, UK Data Service (EDINA UKBORDERS, and Casweb MIMAS), Natural England, Countryside Council for Wales and Scottish Natural Heritage, and uses boundary material which is copyright of the Crown. rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org John Ascher ： These folks categorize bees as: bees, bumblebees, honeybees,and solitary bees. That more than one-quarter of bee species in the UK are obligate parasites does not seem to be of interest to them. I see that theyhave no known (to me) taxonomists as authors and those that were involved can,I suppose, count themselves fortunate to have their name cited in theacknowledgments. I suppose that's the formula for publishing bee ecology in agood journal Claus Rasmussen ： The issue is probably deeper than this and relates toacademic appointment and funding for taxonomists in Europe. Some of the bestbee-workers in Europe are not to be found at Universities... John Ascher ： I would say most of the best at the very least, and not inthe national collections either John Ascher ： Interesting that the most important workers publishing inthe best journals are happy to rely on amateur researchers provided they don'thave to pay them or include such troublesome people as authors John Ascher ： It certainly is important to know about parasites! Gidi Pisanty ： Two questions: 1. Most ecological bee research involves IDing bees byseveral different experts, to cover all taxonomic groups. There are not manyexperts like John that can cover so many different taxa altogether, most limittheir expertise to anywhere from family to a single genus. Here in Israel weusually send our bees to around 10 different experts each year. Should allthese appear on our papers? Or just the ones of the common groups? Where do youdraw the line? And how many people, to start with, should appear on such apaper? 2. I thought the important work of taxonomists was to dospecies revisions and similar stuff, not to ID specimens. This is why L Packerand others promote bee barcoding, and this is why Brazilian experts train otherpeople to do their IDing work (so I heard?). So you disagree with theseinitiatives? John Ascher ： 1. At least one person who has at least minimal competenceregarding bee diversity and life history should be respected. Maybe you can'tenlist Paul Westrich or Max Schwarz but at least you can get someone who has abasic understanding of these matters. Furthermore, the paper in question has 12non-taxonomist authors, which I find absurd, yet your comment implies that itwould be problematic to add a mere ten taxonomic experts. Gidi Pisanty ： I don't imply anything, I wanted to understand yourposition. Waiting for No. 2... John Ascher ： 2. The important work of taxonomists is to do speciesrevisions but this work is low impact so we can't do this if wewant to have viable careers. Statistical meta-analyses and the like are what ispermissible in good journals. Not having Stockholm Syndrome myselfI have little interest in supporting such efforts if senior taxonomists are notrespected. I am extremely disappointed by your comment as it implies that theability of those who can actually identify bees and know where they live tocontribute to an important paper is limited to trivial ID ofspecimens. On that subject, you can imagine the quality of the IDing done byparataxonomists. That's a failed model as shown by implosion of INBIO. Idisagree strenuously with any and all exploitative or ill-conceivedinitiatives! John Ascher ： To be fair to Gidi his views are generally held by thecommunity so he is not personally to blame John Ascher ： Regarding barcoding, that's another effort that, likeparataxonomy, has failed to reach its stated goals due to its fundamentaldisrespect of collections-based taxonomy and its practitioners Gidi Pisanty ： As I said, I don't really have a strong view on the subject.This is what I used to think and I fully understand your points and open tochange my view. John Ascher ： I suggest reviewing the science in good journals andprestigious status assessments asking yourself if it is correct and useful tous, policy makers, the public, and other stakeholders. If so, no worries. Ifnot, I suggest that we need to make a change starting now. James C. Trager ： Not just a problem for bees. I see this for ants, plants,grasshoppers, etc. where great ecological conclusion are proclaimed while theauthors have an appalling lack of taxonomic and natural history knowledge John Ascher ： I would ask for support from my peers in academia but few ofthese exist as they can't find jobs... John Ascher ： Wouldn't mind if scientists in general were struggling butit seems they are doing fine as long as they say as far away as possible fromanything that might be construed as taxonomy John Ascher@James C.Trager ： ants and grasshoppers are already too specific for animportant study. Don't get down in the weeds like that. Better to call themterrestrial arthropods Gidi Pisanty ： I still find it a bit odd, that even for the fauna of theUK, which is not very diverse and is so well studied and characterised inpublications including detailed keys (correct me if I'm wrong) - even thisfauna, in your opinion, necessitates IDing by the professional taxonomiststhemselves and no-one else? (I acknowledge your point about the parasitesthough) Liz Day ： IDing specimens never seemed trivial to me. John Ascher@Liz ： the PIs of important studies surely agree that specimenidentification (etc.) is really important when it's becomes a bottleneck fortheir work, and then suddenly become quite friendly, but somehow are not sowelcoming when allocating funding, leadership of important projects, andauthorship or, if you do make the cut, when sorting out the more contentiousscientific issues (what does a mere content provider have to offer,having discredited themselves by generating actual data?) John Ascher ： Point taken, Gidi, but the UK has an exceptionally small andexhaustively surveyed fauna and even there very few can hope to identify themore difficult Lasioglossum , Andrena , Nomada and Sphecodes etc.Also, we're still waiting for the definitive work on the British fauna aren'twe? Has Else published his masterwork? I thought the best European keys wereby, e.g., Scheuchl and Amiet et al., and the best photo documentation for CzechRepublic (i.e. non-British). Finally, did you miss my point that those who canidentify bees might perhaps also know enough about their behavior to preventthe 25% of parasites in the fauna being lumped in an amorphous beeor solitary bee category. The idea that professional taxonomistshave only their ID skills to offer diversity studies is ludicrous. You shouldknow better! Among other things, it is the taxonomists who bother to track downthe old literature. A lot to learn from that if you are a scholar, even if itwon't help you publish in good journals John Ascher ： Also, did you miss my comment where I said you don't needthe best or all taxonomic experts involved, but consulting (and crediting!) atleast one of the better ones wouldn't hurt. Otherwise the work suffers (see anynumber of recent projects and publications) Stuart Roberts ： As far as I am aware, every specimen collected in the UrbanBees project was identified to species by a properly paid bee specialist at theCardiff Museum. Their funding was an integral part of the bid process John Ascher ： Too bad none the species-level or even thesubfamily-level information seems to have made it into the paper.Evidently in Britain you have advanced to the point where you can outsourcethis sort of tedious work to a contract bidder, as opposed toenlisting at least one academic peer, but at a cost to the final product,wouldn't you say? How come you never see the stats outsourced to non-authors? Gidi Pisanty ： I agree that ecological community research can easilyneglect and exploit the field and experts of taxonomy which it so much reliesupon. When you send material to taxonomists, they can be reimbursed in severalways: 1) They get to keep duplicates from your material 2) They sometimes discover new species which they thenpublish 3) They benefit from the distributional data of yourspecimens 4) Some of them get paid directly for their work 5) Sometimes you add them as coauthor Our lab depends heavily on taxonomists for its work, and wemake an effort to keep up good relations with them. Some of them get paid, themajority don't. I admit that adding them as coauthors is usually not consideredan option. We could, theoretically, add one or two experts to each paper -probably those that received the majority of specimens. But since most of ourstudies are concerned with the community and not specific taxa, it then becomesa bit awkward why one is coauthor and not the other. No doubt, taxonomists are also a valuable and rare source oflife history information, which I personally acquired from them for my recentpublished paper. Specifically, the example of neglect of parasitic bees is nota sound one - this is neglect at the level of the ecologist, not thetaxonomist! Any serious bee ecologist should know and notice that, consideringthe parasitism usually characterizes whole genera or subgenera, and not onlyisolated species. John Ascher ： Gidi, there may be misunderstanding in that my concern isnot about professional taxonomists per se (hardly any of those in Europe anywayto worry about) but rather that at least one of the authors understands beediversity and life history and ensures this is not neglected. Doesn't matter ifthat person is primarily a taxonomist or an ecologist or something else. Inmuch of the world it is the collections-based taxonomists doing extensivefieldwork and possessing taxonomic libraries of old lowimpact publications who have an adequate understanding of bee diversity,not ecologists, but that may not be the case in Europe or in Israel. Also,Gidi, please consider that most taxonomists who want any sort of aviable career cannot follow the model you give above, although that may workfor retirees and amateurs or those very few who have secured a strictlytaxonomic position. Many colleagues who could be considered the besttraditional taxonomists are also deeply involved with bee ecology,conservation, molecular systematics, and other relevant fields. This is bynecessity, as even with broadly relevant skills it is really difficult toadvance in a world where sometimes you add them is a fifth optionto be employed by hypothesis-based scientists in a far superiorposition if they are so inclined. John Ascher ： The example is a very sound one Gidi, as in my experience itis always those who understand specific taxa (whatever you may wishto call such people and however they are or are not paid or employable) who cancorrectly characterize the community, networks, conservation status, etc. Ifthere is a case where someone contemptuous of specific taxa andthose who know them made a correct insight into bee community ecology pleasesend me the reprint and I'll stand corrected. John Ascher ： Gidi, when I think of ecologists I tend to think of the statisticalor theoretical ecologists who are running the show rather than seriousbee ecologists who concern themselves with trivial empirical matters likewhat tiny insects do in nature. Of course the latter would know aboutcleptoparasitic bees, but would likely be in the same leaky boat as thetaxonomists professionally (and would likely be a taxonomist at some level),i.e. hoping to be at best tacked on belatedly as option #5 for funding orauthorship by a benevolent statistician. John Ascher ： Here is what an urban ecologystudy can include when led by ataxonomist: http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/27559/1/19%281%29_P190-250.pdf Also instructive to compare the quality of ecological work on bees led by E. G. Linsleywith modern efforts.; 4447 次阅读|1 个评论

野生传粉者监测（Monitoring Wild Pollinators in China）: 热度 1 zhuchaodong 2014-4-5 10:40; 传粉是维持与提升生物多样性的最重要机制之一。只有在传粉之后，植物才能座果结籽，才能靠种子繁衍生息。全世界被子植物有80%为虫媒传粉, 被人类食用的植物种类约有3000 种（钦俊德，1987），绝大多数为显花植物。全球75%的作物需要昆虫传粉，粮食产量的35%与昆虫传粉有关。大众普遍熟知的传粉者主要是蜜蜂总科的西方蜜蜂（ Apis mellifera ）。它是一种社会性昆虫，可以给许多农作物授粉，适合蜂箱养殖，并生产蜂蜜。但是随着该物种进入中国，也带来了一些生态风险。杨冠煌（2005：引入西方蜜蜂对中蜂的危害及生态影响）发现西方蜜蜂挤占了东方蜜蜂（ Apis cerana ）的分布区。后者分布区缩小75%以上。另外，西方蜜蜂也不是万能的授粉者。不同大小、类型的显花植物需要不同的传粉者。有些野生蜜蜂个体只有2毫米以下，可以给一些小型花授粉。随着气候变化、土地利用变化、耕作制度变化、环境污染加剧等不利素，包括野生蜜蜂在内的传粉者栖息地也收到较大的影响。以油茶为例：通过人工或者药剂除草，精细管理油茶林下杂草，加重了水土流失，严重破坏了油茶地蜂等主要油茶授粉者的巢穴，导致它们局部密度大大下降；而在缺乏管理的山间，授粉者的巢穴则随处可见。而更多的其它传粉者物种或者种群，在分类学工作者采集到它们之前，就已经消失了。更无法开展对这些物种的传粉者-植物之间关系、它们的缺失对植物繁殖的效应的深入研究。根据目前统计，中国已有野生蜜蜂纪录1340余种（牛泽清，整理中），大约还有2000-2500种有待发现和描记。它们是包括多种农作物在内的绝大部分显花植物的主要传粉者。在信息技术高度发达的今天，文献资料早已经不是传粉者长期监测、研究的瓶颈。但是，野生蜜蜂的发现、采集、保藏和分类仍然存在一定的问题。以发现和采集环节为例，仅仅依靠专业工作者远远不够。是否可以考虑广大爱好者、其它行业工作人员、保社区大众，通过图像、采集等方式提供数据信息或者标本？随着生活水平的提高，配置照相功能的手机已经非常普及。以中国人口的技术，一旦大众参与传粉者图片的采集，数据量将非常巨大。如何从海量的图片数据中筛选并提取出专家可以鉴定、分析的信息？欧美发达国家已经有些经验可以借鉴：编写野生蜜蜂野外监测手段，建立交互信息与数据分析平台，鼓励大众参与图像、数据或者标本的采集，拓宽了信息的来源，大大提高了野生蜜蜂研究的效率。网络上存在一些相关信息，既可以方便有兴趣的同仁研究，也可以提高大众了解传粉者现状和研究手段等情况。野生传粉者监测的思路是：1）大众尽量打开GPS功能，随机拍摄访花昆虫；2）在网站注册并上传图片，获得编号；3）通过图像自动筛选出不同的图片群；4）研究人员对标本获取高质量传粉者图片，并纪录其详细信息；5）传粉者、植物分类专家群提供属级鉴定结果；6）自动在数据库中给重复的图片赋名，并提取分布等相关信息；7）将鉴定结果通过邮件分别反馈给图片上传者，并鼓励后续提交时提供初步鉴定结果；8）定期发布传粉者动态报告。先期可以考虑吸纳保护区的相关人员、中大学的生物兴趣小组参与，积累数据和信息，并逐步推广到社区大众。图示法国大众参与图像采集，调查野生传粉者的标准流程：1）招募自愿者对特定植物的访花昆虫进行拍摄；2）筛选照片，每个形态“种”挑选1张照片；3）上传照片，提供地点等信息，并尽可能根据在线检索表鉴定昆虫和植物；4）校验结果。附一、部分相关文献 1、网络信息： Wild Pollinator Web Resources North American Pollinator Protection Campaign NAPPC Taxas Bee Watchers Pollination Biology : Bee Watchers the Great Sunflower Project 2、调查与监测： The Photographic Survey of Flower Visitors (Spipoll), a national monitoring program of insect pollinators based on citizen science ； Survey Protocols for Monitoring Status and Trends of Pollinators ； Citizen Scientist Pollinator Monitoring Guide ； The Very Handy Manual- How to Catch and Identify Bees ；传粉昆虫物种多样性监测、评估和保护概述 3、评估方法： Rapid Assessment of Pollinators’ status 4、传粉者现状： Status of Pollinators in North America ； 5、传粉者的影响因素 Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems ; Potential effects of climate change on crop pollination ; Causes and effects of the worldwide decline in pollinators and corrective measures ; The effects of landscape fragmentation on pollination dynamics- absence of evide nce 6、传粉者和传粉功能 Pollinators and pollination- A resource book for policy and practice ; The Economic Value of the Pollination Service, a Review Across Scales ； Guidelines for the economic valuation of pollination services at a national scale ；全球农作物蜜蜂授粉概况；中国水果和蔬菜昆虫授粉的经济价值评估 7、传粉者数量下降效应 Flowering plants under global pollinator decline ; Economic Consequences of Pollinator Declines- A Synthesis 8、传粉者保护措施 Polinator Conservation Strategy 附二、相关标准采集方法： 1、Sampling insects: general techniques, strategies and remarks： http://www.abctaxa.be/volumes/volume-8-manual-atbi/volumes/volume-8-manual-atbi/chapter-15/Chapter_15.pdf 2、Flight interception traps for arthropods： http://www.abctaxa.be/volumes/volume-8-manual-atbi/volumes/volume-8-manual-atbi/chapter-17/Chapter_17.pdf 3、The Swedish Malaise Trap Project (SM TP) - http://www.stationlinne.se/en/research/the-swedish-malaise-trap-project-smtp/; 6872 次阅读|1 个评论

更多...

帐号		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

关闭 安全验证

标签: 传粉者

相关帖子

相关日志

关闭安全验证