entomology

by

Vacant Lots as Habitat for Insects

Urban areas are increasingly being studied for their potential to help conserve biodiversity and provide habitat for numerous plants and animals. Despite the harsh conditions of the built environment, organisms of all kinds are able to survive in our cities, and as we find ways to make these spaces more hospitable for them, cities actually have great potential for species conservation, even for species that are rare, threatened, or specialized. One obvious way to accomplish this is to manage our yards, parks, and gardens as habitat, such as planting flower strips for pollinators. Another way, perhaps overlooked at times, is to manage and maintain vacant lots as habitat. Every urban area has some degree of vacant land that for one reason or another has not been developed, or that once was developed but has since been bulldozed or abandoned. Spontaneous vegetation quickly moves in to occupy these sites, and while some may see them as eyesores, their potential for providing habitat for an untold number of plants and animals is substantial.

In cities that are growing – like Boise, Idaho – vacant and abandoned lots are disappearing quickly as development strives to keep up with population growth. My first Weeds of Boise post took place at an abandoned Pizza Hut, which has since been demolished and is now the future site of a large building (see photo below). This is happening all over the city – the City of Trees is looking more like the City of Cranes these days. On the other hand, cities that are shrinking due to economic downturn, loss of industry, and other factors, have an increasing number of vacant lots, which offers the opportunity not only to maintain these lots as habitat, but also to carry out research that will help us understand how these locations can be best managed for species conservation.

Abandoned Pizza Hut Lot Now Under Construction

Cleveland, Ohio is one example of a “shrinking city.” Due to significant population decline, Cleveland has a growing number of vacant lots, many of which are maintained by the City of Cleveland Land Bank. For researchers at The Ohio State University, all of this vacant land presents an opportunity to study, among other things, urban biodiversity. Hence, the Cleveland Pocket Prairie Project was born. By assigning different management treatments to groups of vacant lots and observing the differences between each treatment, researchers can help determine the best strategies for managing vacant lots, particularly when it comes to biological conservation. One of the major focuses of the Cleveland Pocket Prairie Project is to determine how vacant land can provide habitat for insects and other arthropods.

In a study published in Sustainability (2018), researchers in Cleveland compared the species richness and abundance of bees found on vacant lots to those found on urban farms. Bee collections were made three times a year over a three year period. Of the more 2733 bees collected, researchers identified 98 total species representing 5 different families. The vast majority of the species were native to the area. Significantly more bees were found in vacant lots compared to urban farms. In both vacant lots and urban farms, the total number of ground nesting bees decreased as the proportion of impervious surfaces near the study sites increased. Plants that received the most bee visits on the urban farms during the study period were common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca), chives (Allium schoenoprasum), and squash (Cucurbita pepo); while the top three plants with the most bee visits on vacant lots were red clover (Trifolium pratense), white clover (Trifolium repens), and Queen Anne’s lace (Daucus carota).

ground nesting bee (photo credit: Sierra Laverty)

Bee communities differed between vacant lots and urban farms: 29 of the 98 total species were seen only in vacant lots, while 14 species were seen only at urban farms. Most of the bees collected in this study were ground nesting species, and researchers suspect the reason more bees were found on vacant lots compared to urban farms is that farms experience frequent soil disturbance in the form of tillage, weeding, mulching, and irrigation, while vacant lots generally do not. The researchers conclude that their study “adds to the growing body of literature advocating for the maintenance of minimally-managed vacant lot habitats as a conservation resource.” Vacant land that is “surrounded locally by high concentrations of impervious surface,” however, may not be the most suitable location to carry out conservation efforts.

In a study published in Urban Ecosystems (2020), researchers in Cleveland looked at the species richness and abundance of lady beetles in vacant lots. They were particularly interested in the potential that vacant lots may have in providing habitat for lady beetles that are native to the region. The study consisted of 32 vacant lots, each assigned one of four habitat treatments: control (seeded with turfgrass and mowed monthly), meadow (seeded with turfgrass and mowed annually), low-diversity prairie (seeded with three species of prairie grasses and four species of native prairie forbs), and high-diversity prairie (seeded with three species of prairie grasses and sixteen species of native prairie forbs). The two prairie treatments were mown annually. The majority of the nearly 3000 lady beetles captured across all of the plots over a two-year study period were exotic (introduced) species. Sixteen species total were collected: four exotic and twelve native.

The researchers predicted that the lots seeded with prairie plants native to the region would support a higher abundance of native lady beetles than those composed of turfgrass, especially those that are frequently mown. Surprisingly, a similar abundance and species richness of both native and exotic lady beetles were found across all treatments. What appeared to be important for native lady beetle abundance were vegetation features like bloom abundance, height, and biomass. The surrounding environment also matters. As the researchers put it, “vacant lots embedded in landscapes dominated by impervious surface and with a high degree of habitat isolation were less suitable habitats” – a similar conclusion to that made in the bee study.

Brachiacantha ursina (photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / NY State IPM Program at Cornell University)

The most abundant native lady beetle collected in the study was the ursine spurleg lady beetle (Brachiacantha ursina). The larvae of this beetle “infiltrate the nests of Lasius ants,” which is “one of the most common genera of ants found in urban environments.” Researchers posit that the abundance of B. ursina reflects the habitat preferences of ants in the Lasius genus. Several species of lady beetles native to the region are experiencing significant population declines, and the researchers were disappointed to find that none of the most rare species were collected during their study period. However, it was promising to find that “pollen and nectar provided by both seeded native and naturally occurring weedy plants” appeared to be important food sources for native lady beetles.

Both studies indicate that vacant lots can be important locations for habitat conservation in urban areas, particularly when they are part of a larger collection of greenspaces. In combination with managing our yards, parks, and urban farms as quality habitat for plants and animals, conserving vacant lots that consist of diverse vegetation (both planted and spontaneous) can help support insect populations within our cities.

Advertisement
by

All the Plant Shows, part three

In part one and part two of this series, I introduced you to at least 23 plant-themed and plant-related podcasts. But wait, there’s more. As podcasts continue to be such a popular medium for entertainment and education, plant podcasts proliferate. You won’t see me complaining. I’m always happy to check out more botanical content. What follows are mini-reviews of a few more of the plant shows I’ve been listening to lately.

Plants Grow Here – Based in Australia, this is a horticulture and gardening podcast hosted by Daniel Fuller (and the occasional guest host). What separates it from other horticulture-related podcasts is the heavy focus on ecology and conservation. As Daniel says in the introductory episode, “there’s no point in talking about plants at any length without acknowledging that they exist within a wider web.” Daniel interviews plant experts, professionals, and enthusiasts from various parts of the globe, and while much of the focus is on horticulture topics, specifically related to gardening in Australia, there are several episodes that focus solely on the plants themselves and their place in the natural world.

Completely Arbortrary – Relatively new to the scene but an instant classic. Completely Arbortrary is hosted by Casey Clapp, a tree expert, and Alex Crowson, a tree agnostic. In each episode, Casey introduces Alex to a new tree species. After learning all about the tree, they each give it a rating (from zero to ten Golden Cones of Honor!). Sometimes the ratings will surprise you (Alex gave Bradford pear 9.1 Golden Cones of Honor). As the show has gone on, additional segments have been introduced, like Trick or Tree and listener questions. This is easily one of the best plant podcasts around, not just because you’ll learn something about trees (and who doesn’t love trees?), but because you will have a delightful time doing so with a couple of the friendliest and goofiest podcast hosts around.

Naturistic – In the same vein as Completely Arbortrary, Naturistic features host, Nash Turley, telling his co-host friend, Hamilton Boyce, about a natural history topic. At the time of this posting, there are only a handful of episodes available, and not all are plant-focused (most are about animals), but I assume more plant ones are in the works. Either way, each episode is well worth a listen. The topics are well-researched and presented in an amiable and approachable manner. There are also some nicely done videos that accompany some of the episodes.

Flora and Friends – A plant podcast based in Sweden and hosted by Judith, who is also a member of The Plant Book Club. Generally, Judith spends a few episodes with several guests diving deep into a single plant, group of plants, or plant-related topic. So far, there are series of episodes about nasturtiums, Pelargonium, Fritillaria, and forests. Sometimes the episodes are in Swedish, and when that’s the case, Judith refers listeners to a summary in English on the podcast’s website. Each episode is a casual and pleasant chat – or in other words a “botanical tea break” – about the topic at hand, which explains why Judith refers to the podcast as “your botanical cup of tea.”

Field, Lab, Earth – “A podcast all about past and present advances in the fields of agronomy, crop, soil, and environmental sciences.” Produced by a group of three professional societies – American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America – and hosted by Abby Morrison. In each episode, Abby talks with a guest or guests about a research topic, often having to do with agriculture, but sometimes having to do with other aspects of plant and soil science. Listeners get behind the scenes information about how the research was conducted, as well as in depth discussions on the findings. You don’t necessarily need a background in plant and soil science to listen, as many of the basic concepts are well-explained along the way. Also, if you’re a Certified Crop Adviser or Certified Professional Soil Scientist, you can earn Continuing Education Credits by listening to each episode and taking a quiz. Major Bonus!

Backyard Ecology – An urban ecology podcast hosted by Shannon Trimboli. Nature isn’t just some far off place, it’s right outside our doors as well. With a little effort, we can make our yards and other urban spaces more biodiverse and create quality habitat for all sorts of wildlife. Plants are the foundation of our urban habitats, as is the case practically anywhere else, so even when episodes of this podcast are focused on animals, you can be sure that plants are at the heart of the conversation. Join Shannon as she, through conversations with other experts and nature enthusiasts, “ignites our curiosity and natural wonder, explores our yards and communities, and improves our local pollinator and wildlife habitat”

Talking Biotech – This is a long-running podcast hosted by Dr. Kevin Folta that aims to help people better understand the science behind genetic engineering. Folta’s university research supports plant breeding efforts, and many of the episodes of his podcast focus on plant breeding using both traditional methods and genetic engineering. A variety of other aspects and uses of biotechnology are also explored on the podcast. Folta has a passion for science communication and is adamant about debunking misinformation and sharing with the world the promise that new technologies offer us in our efforts to feed the world, improve human health, and address environmental threats. Even if you’re not generally interested in plant breeding, the discussions about the plants and the research is always very interesting and thought-provoking.

War Against Weeds – There is so much more to plants than meets the eye, and what group of plants demonstrates this better than weeds? They are our constant companions, and they are continually outwitting us. Their “craftiness” is one of the reasons I find them so intriguing. Controlling weeds is a constant battle, and few know that battle better than those who work in agriculture. After all, their livelihoods depend on it. War Against Weeds is hosted by three weed scientists whose job it is to help farmers successfully manage weeds. Each episode is a peek into what it takes to do the job. The war may never be won, and the strategies must be diverse – hence the podcast’s tagline, “silver bullets are for werewolves” – and so the conversation will continue. Luckily, we get to listen in.

Arthro-Pod – Just as the name implies, this is an entomology podcast. Insects and plants share an intimate relationship, so I consider this enough of a plant-related podcast to be included here. Plus I really like it. It came to me highly recommended by Idaho Plant Doctor, who is also really into plants and bugs. Hosted by three professional entomologists that all work in extension, Arthro-Pod is a bit like War Against Weeds, but is geared more towards the layperson than the professional. The hosts are humorous and clearly love what they do, which is why, apart from the fascinating discussions about insects, this is such a delight to listen to.

Chances are there will be a part four to this series. If you’re aware of a plant podcast that I haven’t covered yet, please let me know in the comment section below or by sending me a message via the Contact page.

by

Ground Beetles as Weed Seed Predators

As diurnal animals, we are generally unaware of the slew of animal activity that occurs during the night. Even if we were to venture out in the dark, we still wouldn’t be able to detect much. Our eyes don’t see well in the dark, and shining a bright light to see what’s going on results in chasing away those creatures that prefer darkness. We just have to trust that their out there, and in the case of ground beetles, if they’re present in our gardens we should consider ourselves lucky.

Ground beetles are in the family Carabidae and are one of the largest groups of beetles in the world with species numbering in the tens of thousands. They are largely nocturnal, so even though they are diverse and relatively abundant, we rarely get to see them. Look under a rock or log during the day, and you might see a few scurry away. Or, if you have outdoor container plants, there may be a few of them hiding out under your pots with the pillbugs. At night, they leave the comfort of their hiding places and go out on the hunt, chasing down grasshoppers, caterpillars, beetle grubs, and other arthropods, as well as slugs and snails. Much of their prey consists of common garden pests, making them an excellent form of biological control. And, as if that weren’t enough, some ground beetles also eat the seeds of common weeds.

Harpalus affinis via wikimedia commons

Depending on the species, a single ground beetle can consume around a dozen seeds per night. In general, they prefer the seeds of grasses, lambsquarters (Chenopodium album), pigweeds (Amaranthus spp.), and various plants in the mustard family (Brassicaceae). The seeds of these species are small with seed coats that are easily crushed by a beetle’s mandibles. Providing suitable habitat, avoiding insecticides, and minimizing soil disturbance (i.e. reducing or eliminating tillage) are ways that healthy ground beetle populations can be encouraged and maintained. Ground beetles prefer dense vegetation where they can hide during the daytime. Strips of bunchgrasses and herbaceous perennials planted on slightly raised bed (referred to as beetle banks) are ideal because they provide good cover and keep water from puddling up in the beetles’ hiding spots.

The freshness of weed seeds and the time of year they are available may be determining factors in whether or not ground beetles will help control weed populations. A study published in Weed Science (2014), looked at the seed preferences of Harpalus pensylvanicus, a common species of ground beetle that occurs across North America. When given the choice between year old seeds and freshly fallen seeds of giant foxtail (Setaria faberi), the beetles preferred the fresh ones. The study also found that when giant foxtail was shedding the majority of its seeds, the density of beetles was on the decline, meaning that, at least in this particular study, most of the seeds would go uneaten since fewer beetles were around when the majority of the seeds were made available. Creating habitat that extends the ground beetles’ stay is important if the goal is to maximize the number of weed seeds consumed.

Harpalus pensylvanica via wikimedia commons

Of course, the seeds of all weed species are not considered equal when it comes to ground beetle predation. Several studies have sought to determine which species ground beetles prefer, offering seeds of a variety of weeds in both laboratory and field settings and seeing what the beetles go for. Pinning this down is difficult though because there are numerous species of ground beetles, all varying in size and activity. Their abundances vary from year to year and throughout the year, as do their food sources. Since most of them are generalists, they will feed on what is available at the time. A study published in European Journal of Entomology (2003) found a correlation between seed size and body mass – small beetles were consuming small seeds and large beetles were consuming large seeds, relatively speaking.

Another study published in European Journal of Entomology (2014) compared the preferences of ground beetles in the laboratory to those in the field and found that, in both instances, the seeds of field pansy (Viola arvensis) and shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) were the preferred choice. The authors note that both species have lipid-rich seeds (or high “energy content”). Might that be a reason for their preference? Or maybe it’s simply a matter of availability and “the history of individual predators and [their] previous encounters with weed seed.” After all, V. arvensis was “the most abundant seed available on the soil surface” in this particular study.

Pterostichus melanarius via wikimedia commons

A study published in PLOS One (2017), looked at the role that scent might play in seed selection by ground beetles. Three species of beetles were offered the seeds of three different weed species in the mustard family. The seeds of Brassica napus were preferred over the other two by all three beetle species. The beetles were also offered both imbibed and non-imbibed seeds of all three plants. Imbibed simply means that the seeds have taken in water, which “can result in the release of volatile compounds such as ethanol and acetaldehyde.” The researchers wondered if the odors emitted from the imbibed seeds would “affect seed discovery and ultimately, seed consumption.” This seemed to be the case as all three beetle species exhibited a preference for the imbibed seeds.

Clearly, ground beetles are fascinating study subjects, and there is still so much to learn about them and their eating habits. If indeed their presence is limiting the spread of weeds and reducing weed populations, they should be happily invited into our farms and gardens and efforts should be made to provide them with quality habitat. For a bit more about ground beetles, check out this episode of Boise Biophilia.

Further Reading:

by

Dischidia and Its Self-contained Watering System

This is a guest post by Jeremiah Sandler.

———————

I was doing some sunday reading in a plant biology textbook, a section about leaves. It was highlighting leaf-specific adaptations and other cool leaf specializations. I came across a paragraph about a “flower-pot” leaf, and my mind was so blown after reading it I had to literally stand up.

It reads:

Some leaves of the Dischidia [genus], an epiphyte from Australasia, develop into urnlike pouches that become the home of ant colonies. The ants carry in soil and add nitrogeneous wastes, while moisture collects in the leaves through condensation of the water vapor coming from the mesophyll through stomata. This creates a good growing medium for roots, which develop adventitiously from the same node as the leaf and grow down into the soil contained in the urnlike pouch. In other words, this extraordinary plant not only reproduces itself by conventional means but also, with the aid of ants, provides its own fertilized growing medium and flower pots and then produces special roots, which “exploit” the situation.

Naturally I had to look up images of this plant because that’s amazing.

Illustration of Dischidia major (image credit: wikimedia commons)

Dischidia major – cross section of “flower-pot” leaf (photo credit: eol.org)

Dischidia vidalii– cross section of “flower-pot” leaf (photo credit: eol.org)

In shorter words, the plant grows modified leaves that form a little cavity, within which ants live. The ants incidentally carry soil into the cavity, while fertilizing that soil with their waste. The stomata are located on the insides of these cavities, which expel water from the leaves, where it then waters the soil that is located inside the leaves. Not to mention, the outside of those cavities are photosynthesizing all the while.

So, with the help of ants, an epiphytic Dischidia has evolved leaves to bring the soil to itself up in the trees, where it fertilizes and waters itself? SAY WHAT?! That is so damn cool.


Resources:

by

What Bugs Can Tell Us About the Value of Vacant Urban Land

Back in October 2017, we discussed some potential benefits of spontaneous urban vegetation (commonly referred to as weeds) and the abandoned or undeveloped urban spaces they inhabit. There is much to learn about the role these plant communities play in the ecology of cities and their contribution to vital ecosystem services. In a review published in the December 2013 issue of Environmental Entomology, researchers from Ohio State University discuss how studying arthropod communities on vacant lands can help “advance our ecological understanding of the functional role” these habitats may have in our cities.

Arthropods were selected as the subject of study because their “populations respond quickly to changes in the urban environment, making them key indicators of how land use change influences biodiversity.” Urban-dwelling arthropods “are diverse and occupy multiple trophic levels” and are “easy to sample.” Additionally, many of the services that vacant, unmanaged land offers are “arthropod-mediated,” including “pollination, decomposition, nutrient cycling, and biological pest control.”

photo credit: wikimedia commons

Vacant land was selected as the study site because “understanding [its] ecological value is important to the advancement of urban ecology and ecosystem management,” and even though such areas are often overlooked in conservation planning, studies have shown that they “have the potential to be valuable reservoirs of biodiversity.” In order to determine just how valuable vacant land might be, more research is needed comparing these spaces to other parts of the city. In addition, vacant lots are generally ephemeral and in due time may be developed. Whether this means that a building or parking lot takes their place or that they are converted into a park, garden, or urban farm, it is important to understand what these land use changes mean for urban biodiversity and ecological functions.

Urbanization is often measured by comparing the amount of built area to the remaining green space. Where there is a high degree of urbanization, there is a low degree of green space comparatively. As urbanization increases, so does habitat fragmentation, pollution, and the urban heat island. In the meantime, biodiversity suffers. The authors cite a number of studies demonstrating that increased urbanization negatively impacted beneficial insect populations. For example, a study in the United Kingdom found that bumblebee diversity in gardens “decreased with increasing urbanization of the surrounding landscapes.” Similar results were found in a study we wrote about.

photo credit: wikimedia commons

Together with remnant natural areas, parks, private and public gardens, greenways, and commercial landscapes, vacant lots are part of a mosaic of urban green space. Each of these areas “experience different levels of disturbance and harbor varying plant species,” which, in turn, “influence arthropods and the services they can supply within and between patches.” Because vacant lots can remain undisturbed and virtually unmanaged for long periods of time, they help provide a contrast to the homogeneous, highly managed green spaces that are common in cities. By their very nature, they “have the potential to aid conservation and enhance green space quality and connectivity within city centers.”

It’s one thing to recognize the value of vacant lots; it’s another thing to change the negative perception of them. Aesthetics are important, and to many people vacant lots are an eyesore and a sign of neglect. Some management may be necessary in order to retain their important ecological value and assuage the feelings of the public. The authors present a number of ways that vacant lots can be and have been managed in order to achieve this goal. They also consider how certain management strategies (mowing, removing and/or introducing plant species) can impact arthropod populations for better or worse. Yet, where vacant lots are left alone and allowed to advance in the stages of ecological succession, changes in arthropod diversity and ecosystem function also occur. For this reason, “the regional species pool of a city requires a mosaic of all successional stages of vacant land patches.”

photo credit: wikimedia commons

Finally, the authors discuss the conversion of vacant land to urban agriculture. Even this land use change can have dramatic effects on the arthropod community. For example, undisturbed or unmanaged areas are a habitat requirement for cavity and soil nesting bees, and regular disturbance associated with farming may interfere with this. Also where pesticides are used or plant diversity is minimized, the arthropod community will be affected.

Thus, “the study of vacant land ecology necessitates a transdisciplinary approach” in order to determine how changes in vacant, urban land “will affect diverse ecosystem functions and services.” A variety of management strategies are required, and land managers must “determine the most appropriate strategies for improving the sustainability of cities from a connected landscape perspective.” It is clear that vacant lots have a role to play. The extent of their role and our approaches to managing them requires careful investigation.

One thing is certain – for biodiversity’s sake – don’t pave over vacant lots to put up parking lots.

by

When Urban Pollinator Gardens Meet Native Plant Communities

Public concern about the state of bees and other pollinating insects has led to increased interest in pollinator gardens. Planting a pollinator garden is often promoted as an excellent way for the average person to help protect pollinators. And it is! However, as with anything in life, there can be downsides.

In many urban areas, populations of native plants remain on undeveloped or abandoned land, in parks or reserves, or simply as part of the developed landscape. Urban areas may also share borders with natural areas, the edges of which are particularly prone to invasions by non-native plants. Due to human activity and habitat fragmentation, many native plant populations are now threatened. Urban areas are home to the last remaining populations of some of these plants.

Concern for native plant populations in and around urban areas prompted researchers at University of Pittsburgh to review some of the impacts that urban pollinator gardens may have and to develop a “roadmap for research” going forward. Their report was published earlier this year in New Phytologist.

Planting a wildflower seed mix is a simple way to establish a pollinator garden, and such mixes are sold commercially for this purpose. Governmental and non-governmental organizations also issue recommendations for wildflower, pollinator, or meadow seed mixes. With this in mind, the researchers selected 30 seed mixes “targeted for urban settings in the northeastern or mid-Atlantic USA” to determine what species are being recommended for or commonly planted in pollinator gardens in this region. They also developed a “species impact index” to assess “the likelihood a species would impact remnant wild urban plant populations.”

A total of 230 species were represented in the 30 seed mixes. The researchers selected the 45 most common species for evaluation. Most of these species (75%) have generalized pollination systems, suggesting that there is potential for sharing pollinators with remnant native plants. Two-thirds of the species had native ranges that overlapped with the targeted region; however, the remaining one-third originated from Europe or western North America. The native species all had “generalized pollination systems, strong dispersal and colonization ability, and broad environmental tolerances,” all traits that could have “high impacts” either directly or indirectly on remnant native plants. Other species were found to have either high dispersal ability but low chance of survival or low dispersal ability but high chance of survival.

This led the researchers to conclude that “the majority of planted wildflower species have a high potential to interact with native species via pollinators but also have the ability to disperse and survive outside of the garden.” Sharing pollinators is especially likely due to super-generalists like the honeybee, which “utilizes flowers from many habitat types.” Considering this, the researchers outlined “four pollinator-mediated interactions that can affect remnant native plants and their communities,” including how these interactions can be exacerbated when wildflower species escape gardens and invade remnant plant communities.

photo credit: wikimedia commons

The first interaction involves the quantity of pollinator visits. The concern is that native plants may be “outcompeted for pollinators” due to the “dense, high-resource displays” of pollinator gardens. Whether pollinator visits will increase or decrease depends on many things, including the location of the gardens and their proximity to native plant communities. Pollinator sharing between the two has been observed; however, “the consequences of this for effective pollination of natives are not yet understood.”

The second interaction involves the quality of pollinator visits. Because pollinators are shared between native plant communities and pollinator gardens, there is a risk that the pollen from one species will be transferred to another species. High quantities of this “heterospecific pollen” can result in reduced seed production. “Low-quality pollination in terms of heterospecific pollen from wildflower plantings may be especially detrimental for wild remnant species.”

The third interaction involves gene flow between pollinator gardens and native plant communities. Pollen that is transferred from closely related species (or even individuals of the same species but from a different location) can have undesired consequences. In some cases, it can increase genetic variation and help address problems associated with inbreeding depression. In other cases, it can introduce traits that are detrimental to native plant populations, particularly traits that disrupt adaptations that are beneficial to surviving in urban environments, like seed dispersal and flowering time. Whether gene flow between the two groups will be positive or negative is difficult to predict, and “the likelihood of genetic extinction versus genetic rescue will depend on remnant population size, genetic diversity, and degree of urban adaptation relative to the planted wildflowers.”

The fourth interaction involves pathogen transmission via shared pollinators. “Both bacterial and viral pathogens can be transmitted via pollen, and bacterial pathogens can be passed from one pollinator to another.” In this way, pollinators can act as “hubs for pathogen exchange,” which is especially concerning when the diseases being transmitted are ones for which the native plants have not adapted defenses.

photo credit: wikimedia commons

All of these interactions become more direct once wildflowers escape gardens and establish themselves among the native plants. And because the species in wildflower seed mixes are selected for their tolerance of urban conditions, “they may be particularly strong competitors with wild remnant populations,” outcompeting them for space and resources. On the other hand, the authors note that, depending on the species, they may also “provide biotic resistance to more noxious invaders.”

All of these interactions require further investigation. In their conclusion, the authors affirm, “While there is a clear potential for positive effects of urban wildflower plantings on remnant plant biodiversity, there is also a strong likelihood for unintended consequences.” They then suggest future research topics that will help us answer many of these questions. In the meantime, pollinator gardens should not be discouraged, but the plants (and their origins) should be carefully considered. One place to start is with wildflower seed mixes, which can be ‘fine-tuned’ so that they benefit our urban pollinators as well as our remnant native plants. Read more about plant selection for pollinators here.

by

Bumblebees and Urbanization

Urban areas bear little resemblance to the natural areas that once stood in their place. Concrete and asphalt stretch out for miles, buildings of all types tower above trees and shrubs, and turfgrass appears to dominate whatever open space there is. Understandably, it may be hard to imagine places like this being havens for biodiversity. In many ways they are not, but for certain forms of life they can be.

An essay published earlier this year in Conservation Biology highlights the ways in which cities “can become a refuge for insect pollinators.” In fact, urban areas may be more inviting than their rural surroundings, which are often dominated by industrial agriculture where pesticides are regularly used, the ground is routinely disturbed, and monocultures reign supreme. Even though suitable habitat can be patchy and unpredictable in the built environment, cities may have more to offer than we once thought.

Yet, studies about bee abundance and diversity in urban areas show mixed results, largely because all bee species are not created equal (they have varying habitat requirements and life histories) and because urban areas differ wildly in the quality and quantity of habitat they provide both spatially and temporally. For this reason, it is important for studies to focus on groups of bees with similar traits and to observe them across various states of urbanization. This is precisely what researchers at University of Michigan set out to do when they sampled bumblebee populations in various cities in southeastern Michigan. Their results were published earlier this year by Royal Society Open Science.

common eastern bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) – photo credit: wikimedia commons

The researchers selected 30 sites located in Dexter, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti, Dearborn, and Detroit. Most of the sites were gardens or farms in urban centers. They collected bumblebees from May to September using pan traps and nets. The species and sex of each individual bumblebee was identified and recorded for each site. The percentage of impervious surface that surrounded each site was used as a measurement of urban development. Other measurements included the abundance of flowers and average daily temperatures for each location.

Bumblebees were selected as a study organism because the genus, Bombus, “represents a distinct, well-studied set of traits that make it feasible to incorporate natural history into analysis.” Bumblebees live in colonies – eusocial structures that include “a single reproductive queen, variable numbers of non-reproductive female workers, and male reproductive drones.” They are generalist foragers, visiting a wide variety of flowering species for pollen and nectar, and they nest in holes in the ground, inside tree stumps, or at the bases of large clumps of grass. The authors believe that their nesting behavior makes them “a good candidate for testing the effects of urban land development,” and the fact that members of the colony have “distinct roles, [behaviors], and movement patterns” allows researchers to make inferences regarding “the effects of urbanization on specific components of bumblebee dynamics.”

Across all locations, 520 individual bumblebees were collected. Nearly three quarters of them were common eastern bumblebees (Bombus impatiens). Among the remaining nine species collected, brown-belted bumblebees (Bombus griseocollis) and two-spotted bumblebees (Bombus bimaculatus) were the most abundant.

brown-belted bumblebee (Bombus griseocollis) – photo credit: wikimedia commons

Because bumblebees are strong fliers with an extensive foraging range, impervious surface calculations for each site had to cover an area large enough to reflect this. Results indicated that as the percentage of impervious surfaces increased, bumblebee abundance and diversity declined. When male and female bumblebee data was analyzed separately, the decline was only seen in females; males were unaffected.

Female workers do most of their foraging close to home, whereas males venture further out. The researchers found it “reasonable to hypothesize that worker abundance is proportional to bumblebee colony density.” Thus, the decline in female bumblebees observed in this study suggests that as urban development increases (i.e. percent coverage of impervious surface), available nesting sites decline and the number of viable bumblebee colonies shrinks. Because male bumblebees responded differently to this trend, future studies should consider the responses of both sexes in order to get a more complete picture of the effects that urbanization has on this genus.

Interestingly, results obtained from the study locations in Detroit did not conform to the results found elsewhere. Bumblebee abundance and diversity was not decreasing with urbanization. Unlike other cities in the study, “Detroit has experienced decades of economic hardship and declining human populations.” It has a high proportion of impervious surfaces, but it also has an abundance of vacant lots and abandoned yards. These areas are left unmaintained and are less likely to be mowed regularly or treated with pesticides. Reducing disturbance can create more suitable habitat for bumblebees, resulting in healthy populations regardless of the level of urbanization. Thus, future studies should examine the state of insect pollinators in all types of cities – shrinking and non-shrinking – and should consider not just the amount of available habitat but also its suitability.

two-spotted bumblebee (Bombus bimaculatus) – photo credit: wikimedia commons

by

Grasshoppers – More Friend Than Foe?

Major outbreaks of grasshoppers can be devastating. A plague of locusts of biblical proportions can decimate crop fields and rangelands in short order. Clouds of grasshoppers moving in and devouring every plant in sight makes it easy to see why these insects are often seen as pests. Even small groups of them can do significant damage to a garden or farm. Yet, grasshoppers and their relatives have great ecological value and are important parts of healthy ecosystems. Love them or hate them, they are an essential piece of a bigger picture.

Grasshoppers are in the order Orthoptera, an order that includes katydids, crickets, wetas, and a few other familiar and not so familiar insects. Worldwide, there are more than 27,000 species of orthopterans. These insects mostly feed on plants; many are omnivorous while others are exclusively herbivorous. They are most commonly found in open, sunny, dry habitats like pastures, meadows, disturbed sites, open woods, prairies, and crop fields. Most insects in this order are fairly large, making them easy to identify; yet they don’t seem to receive the same level of human attention that charismatic insects like bees and butterflies do. In Field Guide to Grasshoppers, Katydids, and Crickets of the United States, the authors defend this diverse group of arthropods: “Grasshoppers often are thought of as modest-looking brown or green insects, but many species in this family are brightly colored, and some of the most dull-colored species rival butterflies in beauty when they spread their wings in flight.”

photo credit: wikimedia commons

photo credit: wikimedia commons

The voracious appetite of grasshoppers and their preference for plants can influence ecosystems in many ways. Certain plants may be favored over others, which affects the diversity and distribution of plant communities. Grasses are a particular favorite, despite being high in hard to digest compounds like lignin, cellulose, and silica. As grasshoppers consume vegetation – up to their body weight per day – digested materials return to the soil where soil dwelling organisms continue to break them down. In this way, grasshoppers and their relatives are major contributors to nutrient cycling. Returning nutrients to the soil results in increased nutrient availability for future plant growth. In fact, one grassland study found that despite short-term losses via grasshopper herbivory, plant growth was enhanced in the long-term due in part to accelerated nutrient cycling.

Because grasshoppers are such prolific consumers, their robust bodies are loaded with nutritious proteins and fats, making them a preferred food source for higher animals. Reptiles, raccoons, skunks, foxes, mice, and numerous species of birds regularly consume grasshoppers and related species. While many adult birds feed mostly on seeds and fruits, they seek out insects and worms to feed their young. Nutrient-packed grasshoppers are an excellent food source for developing birds. Humans in many parts of the world also find grasshoppers and crickets to be a tasty part of their diet.

Grasshoppers provide food for other invertebrates as well. The aforementioned field guide refers to the fate of grasshoppers and certain species of blister beetles as being “intimately linked,” because the larvae of these blister beetles feed exclusively on grasshopper eggs. Several species of flies and other insects, as well as spiders, also feed on grasshoppers and other orthopterans.

grasshopper on blade of grass

In short, grasshoppers play prominent roles in plant community composition, soil nutrient cycling, and the food chain. When grasshopper populations reach plague proportions, their impact is felt in other ways. From a human perspective, the damage is largely economic. However, their ability to thoroughly remove vegetation across large areas can be environmentally devastating as well, particularly when it comes to soil erosion and storm water runoff. The USDA’s Agricultural Research Service considers grasshoppers “among the most economically important pests” and cites research estimating that they are responsible for destroying as much as 23% of available range forage in the western United States annually. A paper published in the journal, Psyche, references a period between 2003-2005 in Africa where locusts were responsible for farmers losing as much as 80 to 100% of their crops.

This level of devastation is relatively rare. In Garden Insects of North America, Whitney Cranshaw states that of the more than 550 species of grasshoppers that occur in North America, “only a small number regularly damage gardens…almost all of these are in the genus Melanoplus.” Like most large, diverse groups of organisms, many grasshopper species are abundant and thriving while others are rare and threatened. Human activity has benefited certain species of grasshoppers while jeopardizing others. In general, grasshopper populations vary wildly from year to year depending on a slew of environmental factors.

Differential grasshopper (Melanoplus differentialis) - one of the four grasshoppers that Whitney Cranshaw lists as "particularly injurious" in his book Garden Insects of North America. (photo credit: www.eol.org)

Differential grasshopper (Melanoplus differentialis) – one of the four grasshoppers that Whitney Cranshaw lists as “particularly injurious” in his book Garden Insects of North America. (photo credit: www.eol.org)

A plague or outbreak of grasshoppers is a poorly understood phenomenon. It seems there are too many factors at play to pin such an occasion on any one thing. Warm, sunny, dry weather seems to favor grasshopper growth and reproduction, so drought conditions over a period of years can result in a dramatic increase in grasshopper populations. But drought can also limit plant growth, reducing the grasshoppers’ food supply. Natural enemies – which grasshoppers have many – also come into play. It seems that just the right conditions have to be met for an outbreak to occur – a seemingly unlikely scenario, but one that occurs frequently enough to cause concern.

Grasshoppers and fellow orthopterans are fascinating insects, and their place in the world is worth further consideration. For an example of just how compelling such insects can be, here is a story about crickets from Doug Tallamy’s book, Bringing Nature Home:

“Male tree crickets in the genus Oecanthus attempt to lure females to them by making chirping songs with their wings. The loudest male attracts the most females, so males often cheat a bit by positioning themselves within a cup-shaped leaf that amplifies the song beyond what the male can make without acoustical help. Each male chews a hole in the center of his cupped leaf that is just large enough to accommodate his raised wings during chirping. This ensures that the sound projects directly from the center of the parabolic leaf for maximum amplification.

Related Awkward Botany Posts:

by

The Making of a Kill Jar

I often hear stories from plant lovers about their initial nonchalance concerning plants. The common refrain seems to be that they were fascinated by wildlife and largely ignored plant life until they came to the realization that plants were integral in the lives of animals and play a major role in shaping the environments that support all life. Such an epiphany spawns an insatiable obsession with botany, at least for some people.

I seem to be on the opposite trajectory. It’s not like I have ever really been disinterested in animals; I’ve just been significantly more interested in plants and haven’t bothered to learn much about the animal kingdom (with the exception of entomology). My growing fascination with pollination biology (see last year’s Year of Pollination series) isn’t much of a stretch because insects have always appealed to me, and their intimate interactions with plants are hard to ignore. Ultimately, it is my interest in urban ecology and wildlife friendly gardening that is driving me to learn more about animals.

I started this year off by finally reading Doug Tallamy’s popular book, Bringing Nature Home. Tallamy wrote a lot about birds in his book, which got me thinking more about them. I then discovered Welcome to Subirdia, a book by John Marzluff that explores the diversity of birds that live among us in our urban environments. I then found myself paying more attention to birds. Many bird species rely on insects for food at some point in their lives. Plants regularly interact with insects both in defending themselves against herbivory and in attracting insects to assist in pollination. It’s all connected, and it seems I wouldn’t be much of a botanist then if I didn’t also learn about all of the players involved in these complex interactions.

So, now I’m a birdwatcher and an insect collector. Or at least I’m learning to be. Insects are hard to learn much about without capturing them. They often move quickly, making them hard to identify, or they go completely unnoticed because they are tiny and so well hidden or camouflaged. With the help of a net and a kill jar, you can get a closer look. This not only allows you to determine the species of insects that surround you, but it can also help give you an idea of their relative abundances, their life cycles, where they live and what they feed on, etc.

insect net 2_bw

As the name implies, if you’re using a kill jar, your actions will result in the death of insects. Some people will be more pleased about this than others. If killing insects bothers you, don’t worry, insect populations are typically abundant enough that a few individuals sacrificed for science will not hurt the population in a serious way.

Kill jars can be purchased or they can be made very simply with a few easy to find materials. Start with a glass jar with a metal lid. Mix up a small amount of plaster of paris. Pour the wet plaster in the jar, filling it to about one inch. Allow the plaster to dry completely. This process can be sped up by placing the jar in an oven set on warm. When the plaster is dry, “charge” the jar by soaking the plaster with either ethyl acetate, nail polish remover, or rubbing alcohol. I use nail polish remover because it is cheap and easily accessible. It doesn’t work as quickly as pure ethyl acetate, but it is less toxic. Place a paper towel or something soft and dry in the jar. This keeps the insects from getting beaten up too much as they thrash about. Once the insect is dead, it can be easily observed with a hand lens or a dissecting microscope. It can also be pinned, labeled, and added to a collection.

There are several resources online that describe the process of collecting and preserving insects, including instructions for making an inexpensive kill jar, which is why I am keeping this brief and will instead refer you to a couple of such sites. Like this one from Purdue University’s extension program. It’s directed toward youth, but it includes great information for beginners of any age. This post by Dragonfly Woman is a great tutorial for making a kill jar, and there are several other posts on her blog that are very informative for insect collectors of all experience levels.

I guess you could consider this part of my journey of becoming a naturalist. Perhaps you are on a similar journey. If so, share your thoughts and experiences in the comment section below.

by

Harvester Ants – Seed Predators and Seed Dispersers

“The abundance of ants is legendary. A worker is less than one-millionth the size of a human being, yet ants taken collectively rival people as dominant organisms on the land. …  When combined, all ants in the world taken together weigh about as much as all human beings.” – Journey to the Ants by Bert Hölldobler and Edward O. Wilson

Considering how abundant and widely distributed ants are, it is easy to imagine the profound role they might play in the ecosystems of which they are a part. In fact, in the epilogue to Hölldobler and Wilson’s popular book about ants (quoted above), they conclude that in a world without ants, “species extinction would increase even more over the present rate, and the land ecosystems would shrivel more rapidly as the considerable services provided by these insects were pulled away.” It is no doubt then that ants, through their myriad interactions with their surroundings, are key players in terrestrial ecosystems.

photo credit: www.eol.org

photo credit: www.eol.org

Harvester ants offer a prime example of the important roles that ants can play. In the process of collecting seeds for consumption, harvester ants can help shape the abundance and distribution of the plants in their immediate environment. They do this by selecting the types and amounts of seeds they collect, by abandoning seeds along their collection routes, and by leaving viable seeds to germinate in and around their nests. Hölldobler and Wilson have this to say about harvester ants:

[The] numerical success [of ants] has allowed them to alter not just their nest environments, but the entire habitats in which they live. Harvesting ants, species that regularly include seeds in their diet, have an especially high impact. They consume a large percentage of the seeds produced by plants of many kinds in nearly all terrestrial habitats, from dense tropical forests to deserts. Their influence is not wholly negative. The mistakes they make by losing seeds along the way also disperse plants and compensate at least in part for the damage caused by their predation.

There are more than 150 species of harvester ants, spanning at least 18 genera. They are found throughout the world (except extreme cold locales) and are particularly common in arid to semi-arid environments. Pogonomyrmex is one the largest genera of harvester ants with nearly 70 species occurring throughout North, Central, and South America. Messor is another large genus of harvester ant species that mainly occurs in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Both genera build large nests and move massive amounts of soil in the process.

Seed dispersal by harvester ants (also known as diszoochory) is a type of secondary (or Phase II) seed dispersal. It is a case of serendipity, as the dispersal occurs largely by accident. Some plants, on the other hand, have developed a mutualistic relationship with ants, enlisting them to disperse their seeds by way of an elaiosome – a fleshy, nutritious structure attached to seeds that attracts ants. Seeds with such structures are picked up by ants and brought to their nests where the elaiosome is consumed and the seed is left to germinate. This form of ant-mediated dispersal is called myrmecochory and is typically not carried out by harvester ants.

photo credit: wikimedia commons

photo credit: wikimedia commons

Harvester ant colonies have both direct and indirect influences on their surrounding environments; however, there is a dearth of research elucidating the exact details of such influences. A paper published in the Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics in 2000 by MacMahon et. al. reviewed available studies concerning harvester ants and explored our current understanding of the influences that harvester ants (particularly those in the genus Pogonomyrmex) can potentially have on community structure and ecosystem functions. Following are some of the direct influences the authors listed:

  • Removal and consumption of seeds and other materials – The relative abundance of plant species can be affected by the selective removal of seeds. Harvester ants also collect leaves, twigs, pollen, flowers, vertebrate feces, and arthropod body parts.
  • Storage and rejection of seeds – Collected seeds can be dropped during transport, rejected after arriving at the nest, or abandoned in nest granaries. All result in the transport of seeds away from the parent plant and dispersal beyond the plant’s primary dispersal mechanisms.
  • Construction and maintenance of nests – All vegetation and debris is removed from the area immediately surrounding the nest including mature and emerging plants. This area is kept clear for the duration of the life of the colony and, in some cases, can be quite extensive.

Harvester ants can also influence soil properties and soil food webs within and in the vicinity of their nests. They bring large amounts of organic matter down into the soil and redistribute vast amounts of soil particles. Their actions also influence the amount of moisture in the soil surrounding their nests.

This is a mere distillation of the influences that harvester ants might have; see the paper by MacMahon et al. to learn more.

In an effort to better understand how the seed predation and seed dispersal behaviors of harvester ants might influence plant population dynamics, a research team in Spain used data obtained from field research to build a computer model that would predict changes over time. The study site was described as “open and heterogeneous shrubland” and the vegetation was stated to be in “a very early stage in the secondary succession” after being subject to “recurring fires.” The harvester ant colonies involved in the study consisted of three species in the genus Messor. The plant species selected for the study were three native shrubs whose seeds were known to be collected by the harvester ants. Each plant species differed slightly in the amount and size of seeds it produced and in its primary seed dispersal mechanism, which is important because the researchers hypothesized that “the effect of seed predation and seed dispersal may depend on plant attributes.”

Messor bouvieri (photo credit: www.eol.org)

Messor bouvieri (photo credit: www.eol.org)

Data obtained from simulated scenarios and field observations appeared to support this hypothesis; each shrub species interacted differently with the harvester ants. Coronilla minima benefited from “accidental” seed dispersal. Comparatively, it produces a high amount of large seeds, which are primarily dispersed by gravity. Despite predation, ant-mediated dispersal was an advantage. Dorycnium pentaphyllum produced the highest amount of seeds among the three shrub species; however, seed predation was found to have negative effects on its population dynamics. Its primary seed dispersal mechanism involves ballistics (the mechanical ejection of its seeds), so ant-mediated dispersal may not offer an advantage. Finally, Fumana ericoides, despite its limited primary seed dispersal and its comparatively low production of seeds was not affected by the actions of the harvester ants. The authors concluded that “some unknown factor is driving the population dynamics of this species, more than the action of ants.”

Studies such as this, while leaving many unanswered questions, help us understand the important role that harvester ants play in our world. Harvester ants, and ants in general, are truly among Earth’s most enthralling and influential creatures. Learn more about their complex behaviors and countless interactions with flora and fauna by checking out these three documentaries recommended by ANTfinity.