Bringing It Home....

YO!! So for my final required post I'll be bringing the issue back home. What's happening with pollinators in New Zealand?
Well as you know, not all pollinators are bees, although it still holds true that some in New Zealand are. And the good news is that our native bee species are competing quite well with the intruders (or exotic species). Other than a wee overlap with nesting sites, they seem to pretty much do their own thing.
The problem in New Zealand comes with other pollinators, it has recently been shown that birds have been severely underestimated as important native pollinators.
In 2003 Anderson published an experiment which manipulated the natural environment on offshore islands to include or exclude birds and recorded the results of pollination of five flowering species by comparing fruit sets. The plants which had been exposed to these honey eating native birds had significantly larger fruit sets.
In addition a total of eight plant species (Sophora microphylla, Vitex lucens, Pittosporum crassifolium, Pittosporum umbellatum, Pseudopanax arboreus, Dysoxylum spectabile, Metrosideros excelsa and Geniostoma ligustrifolium) were observed to determine the main pollinating species. The first five species mentioned showed that the endemic honey eaters were most likely to meet the requirement of successful pollination, for the final two species  the study said the results were 'equivalent', equivalent to what I am not sure....
These results need to be considered when undertaking ecosystem conservation efforts, in New Zealand putting a beehive into areas for pollination will not be sufficient. Our nectar feeding birds and other insects have evolved to do the job the exotic species cannot.

What Pollination Crisis?? IDIOTS!!

We’ve all heard about the decline of pollinating insects and the problems that this could cause for biodiversity, not to mention food production. I mean, jeez they even made a children’s movie about it where the bee sues people for exploiting the hive for its honey. Consequently when the bees are out of “work” it causes dire consequences for nature and all the plants start to wilt and die. Ok, so “Bee Movie” isn’t exactly a scientific documentary, nor is it factually correct, but you get the point. Bees not working (or populations declining) = less pollination, less food and less plants.

But there’s no convincing some people. There are still scientists arguing that there is no pollination crisis, one of the main arguments is that it is actually an increase of pollinator reliant crops, not a decrease in pollinator populations, which is creating the apparent “shortage” (Aizen, Garibaldi, Cunningham & Klein, 2008). This paper goes on to suggest that pollinator reliant crops are now being grown in areas which previously supported other (non-reliant) crops and therefore there is no habitat in the vicinity to support natural pollinator populations and thus the “appearance” of pollinator decline.

This may be all well and good. I don’t dispute that habitat fragmentation limits natural populations, but has anybody told these people that you can hire bee-hives to pollinate your crops? Well you can. The problem being that domestic bees are also in decline suffering from diseases as well as bombardment from the notorious varroa mite, aptly named Varoa destructor, which is unfortunately becoming resistant to common acaricides.  This has made honey bee colonies much harder to produce resulting in huge price increases, especially in America.

Let’s be honest if humans can’t increase bee populations giving them a hand up in every possible situation then what chance do the poor things have in the wild? Domestic bees get houses, habitat, food sources handed to them on a silver platter and at least some attempt to help control viruses and mites. Wild pollinators on the other hand have to deal with habitat fragmentation, urbanisation, industrialisation, pesticides, herbicides, pollution, invasive plants & animals, fly spray, fly swats, protective mothers, rolled up newspapers and steel cap boots. It’s not exactly easy street to the sweet life. IDIOTS!!

The second “myth busting” argument I have found is that perceptions of the so-called “crisis” have been swayed by declining populations in Europe and America and it is in fact not actually a “global” problem and pollinators in other-parts of the world have shown a “mixed reaction” (Ghazoul, 2005). Well we know that native big bodied bees are decline in the tropics as a result of Africanised honey-bees, we also know insects are declining in South America due to deforestation and increased agricultural production. Now if you ask me THATS A PRETTY BIG CHUNK OF THE WORLD!! IDIOT!!

Captain retardo here also goes on to say that only few staple food crops depend on pollinators and the ones that do are grown in small scale in agro-ecosystems which can support the populations. Sooooo.... define “staple food crops”?? Because I’m a pretty big fan of tomatoes, apples, plums, nectarines etc and I’m not really willing to give them up just because the problem hasn’t spread wide enough yet!! How long should we wait to sort it out?? IDIOTS!!

I’m angry now. I think I’ll go and eat a pear and smell some flowers WHILE I STILL CAN!!! 

Evaluating the impact of pollution on plant–Lepidoptera relationships

Evaluating the impact of pollution on 

plant–Lepidoptera relationships

Christian Mulder, Tom Aldenberg, Dick de Zwart,

Harm J. van Wijnen and Anton M. Breure.

ENVIRONMETRICS

Environmetrics 2005; 16: 357–373

This study examined the effects of pollution on the relationship between adult Lepidoptera (Moths and Butterflies) and their host plants. Adult moths and butterflies are nectar feeders, which means they eat the pollen and nectar from various flowers, in doing so these insects carry pollen particles between plants, making them not just pretty faces, but important pollinators for many species.

The study was conducted in a Dutch nature reserve over six years (1994-1999), butterfly numbers were recorded every week, concentrations of pollutants (Nitrate, ammonium, zinc, copper, sulphate & cadmium) were also recorded in the air, leaves, litter, stem flow and through fall. A lot of pollinating insects are on the decline due to one cause or another, a major factor is thought to be deforestation and loss of habitat. Although studies for butterflies show that this may not be the case as they tend to forage over large areas and usually take advantage of many different food sources, there are few butterflies that are dependent on just one species of plant.

Pollution could be the cause for the decline or extinction of many butterfly species, either directly or as a result of declining food sources. Pollen is considered to be much more susceptible to toxicity than other vegetative parts of a plant, in lab tests pollen mother cells are shown to be very sensitive toward heavy metal ions decreasing pollen vitality. For example with humans, if a man is exposed to pollution or radiation for a prolonged period of time this will reduce the amount of sperm he will produce, making things much harder when he wants to have babies. This is the same situation that the wee flower is going through, pretty much the impotency of the plant world, and subsequently a butterfly famine.

The results of the study showed a steady decline in the biodiversity of the reserve over the six years, even though it was a protected area that had no direct applications of pesticides, fertilizers, nitrates or phosphates. Butterfly populations fluctuated with the seasons, but did not appear to respond directly to air temperature alone, therefore it is unlikely that global warming is directly responsible for the decline. Albeit if acceleration of annual flora occurrences continues (e.g plants flowering earlier in the year than they use to) this could also contribute to the decline of butterfly species.

The nectar plants that butterflies feed on are shown to have a much lower reliance to pollution than other species. Whereas the host plants of moths were proven to be the most tolerant, withstanding almost twice the level of toxic pressures than that of butterfly-related plants. These secondary effects of pollution explain the steady decrease in butterfly numbers over the six years; this is not the decline of numbers of plants themselves but more a decline in their vitality and pollen production.  This means that although the plants may appear to be in great abundance, the food sources within them cannot support a large number of insects. This may lead first to the decline of the insects and secondarily to the decline of the plants themselves if there are not enough butterflies to successfully pollinate the species.

I don’t know about you, but I’m a pretty big fan of butterflies (and flowers), so if we could all stop dumping heavy metals into the ecosystems that would be ideal. J
 
Aglais urticae   



Boloria aquilonaris


   
Callophrys rubi 


 
 Cynthia cardui


    
Heodes tityrus  


  
   Lycaena phlaeas


  
Ochlodes venata 



Pieris napi


            
Pyronia tithonus       
 
Thymelicus sylvestris


     
Vacciniina optilete  


 
Vanessa atalanta