Posted by: oikosasa | January 18, 2013

Friday!

It’s always fun to read all submitted manuscripts. Especially when explanations are like this:

bakerypostdocI’m very happy that it doesn’t happen too often!

This one was actually copied from  #overlyhonestmethods

Have a great weekend everyone!

Posted by: oikosasa | January 17, 2013

Understanding wood decomposition

How do wood decomposition relate to other traits in the tree? Answered by Benjamin G. Jackson and co-workers in the Early View paper “Are functional traits and litter decomposability coordinated across leaves, twigs, and wood? A test using temperate rainforest tree species”. Here’s Benjamin’s short summary and his pedagogic figure showing the results:

Dead wood represents an important pool of carbon and nutrients entering the decomposer subsystem in forested ecosystems. However, our understanding the factors regulating wood decomposition remain poorly characterized. In our study we ask two main questions:

  1. Do tree species with leaves that decompose rapidly also have wood that decomposes rapidly?
  2. Do the same functional traits that control leaf litter decomposition control the decomposition of wood?

We addressed these questions by comparing how traits and litter decomposition vary across 27 co-occurring tree species from temperate rain forests in New Zealand. For each tree species, we quantified the functional traits of their green leaves and leaf, twig and wood litter and then decomposed the three litter types under controlled conditions. Below we show how the main findings of our study fit into the broader picture emerging from recent research into plant functional traits and litter decomposition.

Fig1. Oikos Blog entry for Jackson et al 2012

Posted by: oikosasa | January 15, 2013

Oikos in 2013: advancing synthesis in Ecology

Oikos’ Editor in Chief, Prof. Dries Bonte, presents some interesting news and wishes you all a wonderful 2013:

DriesA survey among readers revealed that Oikos is considered as a solid, high quality journal publishing broad ecological topics, often controversial papers and synthesising papers.  Synthesis in Ecology is already for long time our branding, but it is not always clear for readers and authors what is actually meant by that. For us, bringing synthesis is the only way to make serious advance in ecology. This can be achieved by merging different methodological, disciplinary, taxonomical or geographical aspects of ecology to create novel insights that move beyond providing the n-th case study on a certain ecological topic. While this rather confirmative research is intrinsically highly valuable, and inevitable to eventually create synthesis, Oikos will continue to prioritise the publication of the most novel, synthesising contributions. In a world flooded by scientific journals, such initiatives are essential to remain updated with the newest advances and insights in the field.

One new direction Oikos is heading for is the publication of meta-analyses as a separate section. Chris Lortie, our senior expert editor will be in charge of these incoming papers, evaluate proposals and invite original contributions. Dustin Marshall remains responsible for handling incoming Forum papers.

Authors publishing manuscripts that create synthesis –either meta-analyses, forum or regular papers- in Oikos will receive from 2013 onwards a real incentive, by providing fast publication, highlights of their work in the issue and social media, and open access. These papers will be highlighted as editor’s choice, and a box on the synthesis will be provided on each of these papers. In the near future, we will ask all authors to provide such a synthesis box at submission. When feasible, virtual issues centred on these synthesising contributions will be published.  In the near future, you can expect for instance such a guest-edited issue on Surf and Turf papers, and some more other exciting proposals have been received. More news on these will follow on our Facebook-page and on the Oikos-blog of course. On the other hand, Oikos will refrain from publishing rebuttal papers, but instead welcome balanced commentary papers that progress the field as a forum.

Oikos will further invest in the blog to show what Oikos is, communicate with readers, to serve authors with promotion of their papers. The base will be posts about papers in Early View that are provided by the authors. It could be photos, a background story to the study, a popular summary.  Essentially we seek for the blog answers on the following questions:  how did you get the idea, how long have you spent working on the project, any mistakes, why that species/system/field site etc.

As you can read, we do continue our investments to bring Oikos at the front in publishing the most exciting work in the field of ecology. We received about 1000 manuscripts in 2012 (of which we can print approximately 220 to keep the backlog rather limited). The editorial work is consequently only possible by having an extremely dynamics and motivated team, starting with the senior editors and 50+ handling editors that take fast and well-considered decisions on the incoming manuscripts, technical and managing editors processing all incoming and accepted papers, and of course, all our readers and authors that are engaged in the publication process by providing peer review of the highest quality. I truly thank you all for your work to support Oikos as a leading journal in ecology. My best wishes for 2013!!

Isn’t it just amazing how well adapted the tiny parasitic wasps are? Parasitoids want to lay their eggs in good, yummy caterpillars. Yummy caterpillars are those feeding on high quality plants. Quality of plants is partly determined by if their roots have been eaten by below ground herbivores. Plants smell differently above ground, depending on if their roots have been eaten or not. These odour variations are learned by the parasitic wasps when identifying the high quality hosts.

These results are presented in the new Early View paper “Effect of belowground herbivory on parasitoid associative learning of plant odours” by Marjolein Kruidhof and her co-workers. Here’s Marjolein’s own summary:

Only experienced parasitic wasps adapt their preference for plant odours in the presence of root feeders

Parasitic wasp laying eggs into a caterpillar

Although hidden in the soil, insects that feed on plant roots often do not go unnoticed by insects living aboveground. Upon root feeding, the odour the plant emits into the air changes. Tiny parasitic wasps, which lay their eggs inside the body of host caterpillars that feed on the plant leaves, use these plant odours to locate their hosts. Researchers from the Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW) in the Netherlands tested whether two closely-related parasitic wasp species, Cotesia glomerata and C. rubecula, expressed a preference for plants with or without Delia radicum root feeders. As inexperienced wasps of both species did not respond to the presence of root feeders, they continued to investigate whether the parasitic wasps could develop a preference after gaining experience when parasitizing caterpillars on root-infested or root-uninfested plants. Indeed, both wasp species adapted their preference for plant odours to the presence of root feeders, but did so in an opposite direction.  While C. glomerata learned to prefer the odour of plants with intact roots, C. rubecula learned to prefer the odour of root-infested plants. These findings stress the importance of not only assessing the influence of root herbivores on the responses of inexperienced parasitic wasps, but of also taking learned responses into account. In a publication that will soon appear in Oikos the authors discuss the possible reasons why these two parasitic wasp species respond so differently towards the presence of root feeders.

142142c

What are the chances that the reefs recover? And how likely is it that they just turn into seeweed-dominated ecosystems instead?  Important issues that Peter Mumby and his colleagues have studied and modelled in the new Early View paper “Evidence for and against the existence of alternate attractors on coral reefs”.

Here’s Peter’s summary of the study:

Coral reefs have been heavily stressed by local anthropogenic disturbances, like fishing and pollution, as well as global events such as ENSO which can cause coral bleaching and wreak devastation on living coral. Ideally, corals would recover after some kind of disturbance but a number of studies have documented a lack of recovery and even continued decline of corals rather than return to a coral-rich ‘attractor’. This raises the question, ‘do coral reefs exhibit multiple attractors?’. If they do, then it is possible for negative feedbacks to emerge that not only prevent reef recovery but reinforce themselves and trap reefs within an undesirable state, often dominated by seaweed. If reefs do become trapped in an undesirable state it might prove extemely difficult for management to reverse the decline and facilitate the return of a healthy ecosystem. 
 
Ecological models of coral reefs have studied the effects of various disturbances including the fishing of herbivores such as parrotfishes. Theory predicts that Caribbean coral reefs do indeed exhibit alternate attractors particularly in their somewhat degraded states today. However, empirical studies have claimed to find no evidence to support this theory. There is, therefore, a controversy over whether reefs can become trapped in seaweed-dominated systems. In this paper we argue first that the empirical studies were incapable of testing for multiple attractors. We then provide new comparisons between theoretical predictions and field observations, both of which are consistent with multiple attractors. However, it is also possible to fit a simpler model to empirical data that does not exhibit multiple attractors. When we take a careful look at this model we find that it makes several troubling ecological assumptions, which lead us to doubt its veracity.
OIK_262_f6
 
Proving the existence of multiple attractors is extremely challenging and there is, as yet, no definitive proof either way. However, the weight of theory and field observation appears to support the notion for Caribbean coral reefs. Given this, and it’s important conservation implications, we feel that management should proceed on the conservative – and more likely – assumption that reefs can become stuck in seaweed states if stringent steps are not taken to increase their resilience.
Posted by: oikosasa | December 18, 2012

Playing dead – when not needed to

The Ecology of Playing Dead – when not needed to…something that Xinqiang Xi, John N. Griffin and Shucun Sun have diged deeper into in their new Early View paper “Grasshoppers amensalistically suppress caterpillar performance and enhance plant biomass in an alpine meadow”.

Read Shucun Sun’s story about Playing dead behaviour in grasshoppers:

00126

As a child, I would often wake in the middle of the night thinking I could hear a burglar in the kitchen downstairs (in reality, my family cat coming through the cat flap). I would lay there, alert in bed, not daring to move in case I would be heard. By mistaking sounds of the cat for those of a burglar, I had inappropriately employed a danger avoidance strategy, costing myself much-needed sleep. We know that, in nature, prey are often highly-tuned to the signals of their predators and take action to avoid predation, like growing defensive body armor, shifting habitats, or even playing dead. Prey take these energetically demanding measures because being eaten tends to be rather more costly to one’s fitness! However, just like my childhood anecdote, prey species can get it wrong and misidentify a friend for a foe, reacting to cues from animals within their trophic level (competitors) that pose no predation threat. This sort of interaction could be common in nature and may not only incur a cost for the ‘victim’ but also have knock-on effects to other species that interact with them.

In our paper, we describe and explore the direct and indirect consequences of interactions between two common grazing insects in alpine meadows of the Tibetan Plateau in northwestern China. We ran a season-long field experiment in which we manipulated the presence and absence of the caterpillar, Gynaephora alpherakii, and grasshopper, Chorthippus fallax, in enclosures, and measured responses of both grazer species and their plant resources. After two months we discovered a strong negative one-way interaction between these species – the seldom considered form of interaction known as amensalism. While caterpillars showed reduced growth, survival, egg production, and delayed metamorphosis in the presence of grasshoppers, there was no reciprocal negative affect of caterpillars on grasshoppers. Because caterpillars are voracious grazers, changes in their activity and survival caused by the presence and absence of grasshoppers propagated to influence the composition and biomass of plants.

We put the amensalistic interaction down to a case of mistaken identity. We observed that by whacking into – and landing heavily upon – grass stems as they move about the meadows, grasshoppers trigger a death-feigning response in caterpillars whereby caterpillars, upon perceiving risk, drop to the ground from the grass stems and leaves where they forage, cease movement, and curl up for about 20 minutes before resuming foraging. Repeated disturbances from the seasonally abundant grasshoppers could have significant effects on feeding time and energy uptake. Indeed, caterpillars in the same enclosures as grasshoppers were observed actively foraging significantly less frequently than when they were alone – evidence of the cost of mistakenly playing dead and helping to explain grasshopper effects on caterpillar growth, timing of metamorphosis, and grazing impact on plants.

Our study provides a rare example of amensalism in a natural ecosystem and shows that it can result from a previously unappreciated mechanism – mistaken identity. Furthermore, this work highlights that such interactions can have significant consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, as revealed by marked shifts in the relative abundances of plant functional groups and overall biomass. Strong amensalistic interactions, if common, could have consequences for our understanding of key issues, such as the evolution of risk-reducing behaviors and traits and the link between consumer biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

Posted by: oikosasa | December 14, 2012

The Arctic tundra as a natural laboratory

In the new Early View paper “Predator-mediated interactions between preferred, alternative and incidental prey in the arctic tundra”, Laura McKinnon and her colleagues used the Arctic Tundra in Canada as a natural laboratory to study predator-prey interactions.

20708cHere is Laura’s short version of the paper:

Predators can have direct impacts on prey populations by decreasing survival and fecundity, and in turn, prey populations can also drive predator densities.  These interactions between predator and prey can often lead to coupled cycles in population abundance, many studies of which have become classic textbook examples in ecology.  More recently, these models have been expanded to incorporate multiple prey species and even multiple trophic levels in order to have a better understanding of the causes and consequences of predator prey interactions in more complex realistic environments.  However, testing these models in complex ecosystems can become rather cumbersome due the sheer number of interactions between species.  Luckily, there are some terrestrial ecosystems, such as the Arctic tundra which provide less complex natural laboratories in which to study trophic interactions between predators and multiple prey items.   In our recent study, we took advantage of this natural laboratory to study indirect interactions between preferred, alternative and incidental prey.

MINOLTA DIGITAL CAMERA20708a

In the arctic tundra, numerical and functional responses of predators to preferred prey (lemmings) affect the predation pressure on alternative prey (goose eggs) and predators aggregate in areas of high alternative prey density.  Therefore, we hypothesized that predation risk on incidental prey (shorebird eggs) would increase in patches of high goose nest density when lemmings were scarce.  By measuring predation risk on artificial shorebird nests in quadrats varying in goose nest density on Bylot Island (Nunavut, Canada) across 3 summers with variable lemming abundance, and monitoring quadrats for predator activity, we provide evidence that the abundance of preferred prey influences the indirect relationship between alternative and incidental prey.  Predation risk on artificial shorebird nests increased in the presence of increasing goose nest densities, especially at low lemming abundance, as predicted.  In addition to supporting our incidental prey hypothesis which suggests that when preferred prey decrease in abundance, short-term apparent competition via aggregative response can occur between alternative and incidental prey, these results also provoke interesting applied questions regarding the potential effects of increasing goose densities on incidental prey such as shorebirds.

20708e20708d

Posted by: oikosasa | December 13, 2012

Opossums’ seed dispersing job

Seed diseprsal by animals is an important ecological service. How selective or general the animals are in their choice of fruits to eat might have a huge effect on dispersal of the plants. Read more in the new Early View paper “Individual variation in resource use by opossums leading to nested fruit consumption” by Mauricio Cantor et al.

Here is the authors’ own summary of the paper:

opossum1_Setz

Seed dispersal by fruit-eating vertebrates is an important ecological service that has consequences for the plant community and regeneration process. Despite recent findings on the ecological relevance of within population diet variation far less attention has been devoted to the role diet variation for ecological services, such as seed dispersal. In this paper we unravel fruit consumption patterns by the white-eared opossum (Didelphis albiventris), a South American didelphid, which is regarded as an important seed disperser commonly found in disturbed environments, where vegetal regeneration is especially required.

opossum4_SetzWe detected fruit consumption patterns suggesting these opossums may differ in their degree of fruit selectivity what may result in heterogeneity in seed dispersal efficiency within the population. In this sense, the actual result of the seed dispersal provided by these animals probably differs from what one would expect from the average behavior of the population. The result of such heterogeneity would probably be dependent on the proportion of opportunistic and selective individuals in the population. This frequency-dependent seed dispersal may have implications to both plant individuals and species, affecting plant performance and the local plant community composition.

opossum2_Setzopossum3_Setz

Posted by: oikosasa | December 12, 2012

Will your photo be on Oikos cover 2013?

249518_413427882044243_950633876_nOikos is changing it’s cover style in 2013. Replacing the quote, there will now be a photo. We therefore, as an annual competition, call for photos illustrating the Oikos’ goal of Synthesising Ecology. We seek a photo also demonstrating ecology in action (e.g. processes or interactions), not only a single organism or a landscape.

Please send your photos together with the oikos-photo-competition-form2 to oikos@oikosoffice.lu.se, with Photo competetion as subject, before January 31st 2013. The winner will be awarded a book price from Amazon for a value of 100 Euro. The winning photo will be at the cover of all issues of Oikos from April 2013-December 2013. A selection of contributions will be exhibited at the Oikos meeting in Linköping, Sweden Feb 4-6.

Competition Rules:

Entries must be digital images, submitted electronically, in jpg or tiff-format. Images must be available in 300 ppi.

Digital enhancements must be kept to a minimum and must be declared. Both the original and the enhanced image must be submitted.

File names must include appplicant’s surname.

Photos must be accompanied by an entry form that describes illustrated species and scene. Download the oikos-photo-competition-form2

A prize committee consisting of Managing Editor, Editor in Chief, deputy editors, Technical Editor of Oikos and the Director of the Oikos Editorial Office, will judge which photo that best suits our requests. The decision by the committee is final.

All submissions will be entered under a Creative Commons License and will be displayed on Oikos webpage and social media and may be used  for commercial purposes. Download Creative Commons License here.

Oikos takes no responsibility for submitted images being lost, damaged or dealyed.

Posted by: oikosasa | December 10, 2012

Winners in a changing world

Invasive species may actually increase resistance to climate changes. Celia Olabarria and co-workers studies this interaction in marine macroalgal assemblages.  Now on early View: Response of macroalgal assemblages from rockpools to climate change: effects of persistent increase in temperature and CO2

Here is a short summary by the authors:

Climate change is one of the greatest threat  that marine systems are facing. Changes in ocean temperature, biogeochemistry, sea level, UV radiation, and circulation patterns have been identified over the last few decades. Specifically, warmer and more acidic oceanic water (due to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans) are of great concern to marine biologists. Non-indigenous species are also impacting marine communities around the world at an unprecedented rate. These species are often ecosystem engineers (e.g. brown canopy algae) that can replace native species and their functional role in the ecosystem, or modify habitat characteristics and food sources for consumers. We do not have information about how invaded communities will respond to climate change compared to non-invaded communities.

Marine macroalgae that dominate the rocky intertidal in most oceans, and in temperate and Polar regions cover rock surfaces in the shallow subtidal, make a substantial contribution to marine primary production (10%) and describe important ecological functions. They may be also actively involved in lowering global warming and climate change. Research about effects of different climate change scenarios on macroalgae has found quite variable and species-specific responses. Until now, most research has focused on the effects of climate change on single macroalgae species, rather than on whole communities. While this approach is useful for understanding species-specific mechanisms behind the effects of environmental changes, it ignores species interactions which may buffer or amplify individual responses thereby altering predicted assemblage-level responses.

20825b

Macroalgal assemblages from rock pools are interesting model systems to study climate-driven changes because they are composed of different morpho-functional groups of varying diversity and identity of species. Despite coping with daily and seasonal variations in pH and temperature, their response to more persistent changes are unknown. We were able to manipulate temperature and CO2 concentration in mesocosms to evaluate how these to climate-change factors affected several ecosystem functioning variables at both individual and assemblage level. For that, we used synthetic macroalgal assemblages of varying diversity and identity of species resembling those characteristic of rock pools.

20825a

Results revealed that the increase in temperature and CO2 concentration may interact and affect the functioning of coastal macroalgal assemblages, with effects largely dependent on species composition of assemblages. Although the effects of assemblage richness were mostly negligible, significant differences were found between the response of native and invaded assemblages. Data suggested that  invaded assemblages might be more resistant in the predicted future scenario of climate change. This paper emphasises the importance of using multiple stressors-study approaches at community level to get better predictions of climate change impacts on ecosystem functioning.

Photo: F. Arenas and M. Matias

Posted by: oikosasa | December 7, 2012

High-fat food makes females unattractive

Protein or fat in food – which is best? Well, if you’re a female preying mantid, you should definitely go for the high-protein diet! Females on high-lipid diet attract much fewer males than females on high-protein diet. These results are presented in the new Early View paper “Macronutrient intake affects reproduction of a predatory insect” by Katherine L. Barry and Shawn M. Wilder.

164a

Here is a short summary by Katherine:

164bWe tested how diet affected the reproductive success of female praying mantids by feeding them live locusts that were injected with solutions of lipid or protein.  Not too surprisingly, females fed high-lipid locusts gained more fat and produced about half as many eggs as females fed high-protein locusts. 

We also tested female attractiveness by placing females in small mesh cages (that excluded visual cues) within large enclosures, and allowing males to choose between females from the different feeding treatments.  Usually females with more eggs are more attractive than females with less eggs and, in our study, the high-protein females attracted more males (56 males) than the high-lipid females (1 male).  However, the effect was much more extreme than we predicted.  In previous studies, females were fed a standard diet of crickets, and individuals with as few as one egg were able to attract up to three males.  But in our study, females on the high-lipid diet had over 20 eggs on average but only one female attracted one male.  Hence, diet quality seems to have a large effect on the quantity or quality of pheromone produced by females.  It would be interesting to test how diet mediates pheromone production in praying mantids and if similar effects occur in other species of arthropods.

164d164c

Posted by: oikosasa | December 6, 2012

Are you a helper?

Do you have any “helper” around you? Maybe are you one yourself? “Helpers” are those researchers who regularly provide valuable feedback to their colleagues’ manuscripts and to scientific discussions.  Who regard this feedback as part of the research, and a part of their working tasks. However, their input is awarded as best with their names in the acknowledgement of the publication, and not that often in the author field.

Alexander Oettl, a professor in Immunology at Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA, studied the effect of “helpers” by comparing their colleagues’ impact of papers (IF of journals, n publications and citations) before and after the “helpers” involvement.  What he found was a clear positive effect of the involvement of the “helpers” for their colleague’s publications.

The question is – how are these helpers awarded? In evaluations of applications for academic positions and research grants, factors as large numbers of highly cited papers get higher rates than increasing over all scientific quality in the group or at the department. Perhaps it’s time for a new metric to take into account – average acknowledgements per year?

Read Oettl’s paper in Nature here  (Figures from Oettl’s paper)

Posted by: oikosasa | December 4, 2012

Top of the pops

You can now find a list of the most cited Oikos papers 2011, that were published in 2009 and 2010, on our webpage.

On top of the list,  is “A consumer’s guide to nestedness analysis” by Werner Ulrich, Mário Almeida-Neto and Nicholas J. Gotelli.

Here is a short description by Werner Ulrich, on what it’s all about:

wernerEcologists look for patterns in nature. The nested pattern – in which the composition of small assemblages is a nested subset of larger ones - is one that received a lot of attention, both because it is so simple and because it is so common. In biogeography, if sites are ordered by area or along an environmental gradient, a nested pattern can be interpreted as an orderly loss of species along the gradient. This is the most common interpretation of nestedness. It was popularized in the 1980s by Bruce Patterson and the late Wirt Atmar, who introduced a nestedness temperature calculator, compiled a large set of ecological presence-absence matrices from the published literature, and detected nestedness in most of them. Since then, much research has been devoted to articulating alternative mechanisms for nestedness, and developing appropriate metrics and null models for testing the pattern. Nestedness has also been used in food web or species interaction analysis, population genetics, and even molecular biology. However, the nestedness tale is also a story of failure and a warning on the challenges of statistical pattern analysis in ecology. Many studies have unfortunately used ad hoc measures of the degree of nestedness, inappropriate statistical benchmarks, and questionable ecological arguments. That was the point where we (Nick, Mario, and I) stepped in. The origin of our “consumer’s guide” paper was from an idea of Mario’s, who noticed that the quantification of a nested pattern went into a wrong direction. He asked me to take part in the development of a new metric, and the resulting Oikos paper was a success. We then tried to give guidelines for proper pattern identification and testing. During the writing, we noticed how many snags even a simple pattern like the nested one provides for researchers. Apparently, many other scientists shared our views. Our impression is that the quality of nestedness research has improved during the last few years, and we hope that our review has contributed to that trend.

During the work on nestedness, we started developing new metrics to quantify observed patterns and expanded the framework for proper statistical testing. Two new Oikos papers by Nick and me on statistical challenges and on pattern detection in ecology are the fruits of these efforts. We can only hope they will become as popular as the “consumer’s guide” to nestedness.’

Posted by: oikosasa | November 30, 2012

Are women too busy householding to write Nature papers?

Do you remember the Correspondence in Nature about contributions by women to Nature News and Views, that I wrote about here earlier this autmun? Obviously, the paper made the editor’s of Nature to analyze their situation and to come up with a solution to the problem. The recipe is to ask all editors to make an extra “concious loop” to identify five women to ask when commissioning articles and similar tasks. Most interesting though, is the statement that ” But it is certanly the case that women typically spend more time than men as housemakers and looking after children, further reducing the time available for journal contributions”. I wonder – how many times have Nature editors got that reply from an invited woman? -Sorry I don’t have time to write an invited paper to Nature, have to look after the kids you know? I’m pretty sure that there is no single female scientist out there who makes a choice between householding and writing Nature papers.

Here is Nature’s reply

But I’m curious – are the authors of the original paper happy with the response they have got? From Nature and from others? I asked one of them, Johanna Stadmark some questions:

Johanna_Stadmark_foto1. How much have you and Daniel been involved in the response article? Got the chance to read it before publication?

Nothing, we did not know it was coming, and were happily surprised last Thursday.

2. How easy was it to get Nature publish a paper critisizing their work?

They immediately showed an interest in our study, but with revisions and comments back and forth it took some time. A correspondence should view our opinion, so we did not want to accept all suggested revisions. Nature edited our piece, but we had the possibility to make changes. I think it is of utmost importance for the journals to also accept criticism on their work, it shows that they are serious in their work.

3. What do you think of their reply? And about their suggestion to solve the problem?

I am happy that the idea to think outside of your own network was one thing that they suggested. If you reflect on how you are doing things you also have the possibility to make changes where necessary.

4. Do you think things will change now?

I do. The aim of our piece was to point at an unconscious bias that is occurring, not only in the leading science journals, but also at conferences, workshops etc. Over the last days we have received emails from people telling us where the Nature Editorial has been distributed and if some of these people change the way of selecting people for different tasks we have succeeded.

5. What advice can you give Oikos’ editors to avoid gender biases? (We have just started to invite authors to write forum papers, for example).

Have a protocol, to avoid using the “standard network”. Go and find the best authors irrespective of gender or ethnicity or other irrelevant conditions!

6. And finally, How big do you think, the problem of women spending more time than men householding and caring for children, is for invited papers in Nature?

I do not think that is important. Approximately half of the invited authors are full professors and if you have come that far in your career you have been able to deal with the so-called double tasks. And if you are invited to write a piece like a News & Views- or Perspectives article you do not want to miss the opportunity and you would give it a high priority.

I think the householding and caring for children in some cases can play a role in the advancement of the career and what kind of work you choose (teaching, research, administration). However, there are countries where public day care has been available since the 70’s and where caring of children should not be a task designated to women only. (I know it takes a long time to change society, and we are still not there, but to use “caring for children” as an explanatory parameter is not a good way to go in the discussions of the future, since it could be a fulfilling of an unwanted condition.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 29, 2012

Do we publish too much?

H-index, Impact Factor, citations, number of publications per year – metrics all around the scientist. The currency of science. Has it gone that far that the metrics is about to kill scientific quality?

This “quantity mantra” – the obsession with measuring scientific quantity – and not quality- was recently criticized by Joern Fischer, Euan G. Ritchie and Jan Hanspach in TREE. They argue that metrics has lead to an increased number of publications, larger research consortia and more administration. More papers published means more time spent on reading papers, reviewing papers and editing papers. With a general limit of 24 hours per day, that inevitably means less time for other activities. And it’s particularly reflection time and time spent to stimulate creativity that is suffering most, according to Fischer et al. This in turn, leads to decreased quality of science. Is this the way we want to go? The paper finishes with “Starting with our own university departments (but not stopping there), it is time to take stock of what we are doing. We must recreate spaces for reflection, personal relationships, and depth. More does not equal better.”  The question is, How?

Good place for reflection…

As a reply to Fisher et al.’s paper, Panu Halme, Atte Komonen and Otso Huitu transfer the problem from individual researchers and departments to science politics and funding strategies. They argue, that the main problem lies in the absence of scientific thinking among senior scientists. “Senior scientists rarely enjoy the luxury of having time to read about and contemplate the theory of their field, let alone participate in the gathering of primary data in the field or laboratory. Halme et al.’s solution to this problem, and suggested mean to leave room for slower science and increased quality, is to limit the numbers of students associated with each professor, and funding forms enabling seniors to focus exclusively on science.

In a reply, Fischer et al. actually comes up with a number of hands-on solutions, both for individual scientists, department leaders, science politicians and decision makers and for funding agencies.

Is it the increased quantity of publication that actually causes the increased stress for scientists? And how should the problem best be solved? Bottom up or top down? How do you release time to think deep, scientific thoughts and to reflect over your research?

Fischer et al.’s “Academia’s obsession with quantity

Halme’ et al.’s Solutions to replace quantity with quality in science

Fischer et al.’s “An academia beyond quantity…”

Posted by: oikosasa | November 28, 2012

New Editor: Matty P. Berg

Let me introduce you to our new Subject Editor, Dr. Matty P. Berg, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

- What gets me out of bed every morning is the question what determines the diversity and composition of soil fauna communities, Matty says.

 What’s you main research focus at the moment?

My research focuses on the role of trait diversity in community and ecosystem ecology and can be divided in two major research areas.The first focal point is on the role of traits, both inter- and intra-specific, for the regulation of community structure. I measure functional traits of soil fauna, especially terrestrial isopods and springtails and use field experiments and trait analysis to study temporal and spatial changes in soil invertebrate community composition, at a hierarchy of spatial scales. The second focal point is on the role of traits in ecosystem ecology.This focal point comprises work on the role of trait diversity, both on a  species and community level, for the regulation of ecosystem processes. I measure traits and conduct experiments to understand how environmental variation influences ecosystem processes, trough alteration of species composition and interactions, using a response-to-effect trait framework. More recently I start to get interested in the importance of trait variability and plasticity in these research areas.

Can you describe you research career? Where, what, when?

I have studied Biology at the University of Amsterdam, with a major in Ecology, Biogeography and Taxonomy (1988-1992). During my internship I have studied the effect of changes in springtail abundance on the fat storage in carabid beetles and their reproductive output in coniferous forests. I did my PhD at the VU University, Amsterdam on the effects of enhanced atmospheric nitrogen deposition on soil food web structure and how changes in food web composition affect C and N dynamics in soils (1992-97). After that I did a Post-Doc at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (Uppsala, Sweden) where I studied how competition between two functional groups of Basidiomycete fungi effected wood decomposition (1997-98). About 1.5 years later I returned to the VU university were I was appointed for five years as a Royal Dutch Science Academy-fellow. During this period I studied the effects of species richness and composition on the resilience of springtail communities to extreme events and the role of species composition of macro-detritivores for litter decomposition  (1999-2004). Since then I have an appointment as an Assistant professor (till 2011) and currently as an Associated professor in Soil Community Ecology. My main focus is currently on spatial ecology and on functional diversity.

How come that you became a scientist in ecology?

I am a true field ecologist. Already when I was young my main interest were found outdoors. My grandfather took me out to the Dutch polders on Wednesdays and introduced me to hares, wetlands birds and aquatic life. I guess like most scientists I started with birds and plants and was wondering why species occur where they do. The reason why I took up Biology was that I wanted to know how the natural world around me works. How are natural communities maintained? How do all these species interact? What is determining their composition? This question still lays behind most of the projects I am currently working on or are involved in. I have a second interest in the taxonomy and systematics of soil fauna, but during my BsC it became clear that career wise this was not the avenue to take. This is something I keep for my spare time.

What do you do when you’re not working?

To be honest the line between work and hobby is very thin. Natural history is my passion and in my spare time I can be found outdoors looking down for soil animals (or up for birds). I am a member of the European Invertebrate Survey, a society that aims to increase the knowledge on the distribution, ecology and protection of invertebrates. The society is based at the Naturalis Biodiversity Centre, Leiden where I am an associated researcher. As co-ordinator of the isopods, centipedes, millipedes, and collembolans survey groups  I make regular field surveys all over the country, study museum collections, describe new species for the Dutch fauna, make identification keys and try to make others interested in the wonderful world of soil critters. But I can also appreciate good music, nice food, and I am a sucker for a good glass of single malt whiskey to be consumed  in company of friends or colleagues.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 27, 2012

Seed size have demographic consequences

So those small small seeds produced by plants have actually big effects on plant demography. Read more in the Early View paper “Non-native conditions favor non-native populations of invasive plant: demographic consequences of seed size variation?” by José L. Hierro et al. 

Or be quicly updated by Josés own short summary:

We conducted a reciprocal common garden in part of the native (southwestern Turkey) and introduced (central Argentina) range of a globally distributed plant invader, Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle, Asteraceae) to explore the idea that the demographic success of the species in Argentina relates to differences between native and introduced populations.   Unusual among common gardens, our experimental design included seed additions to explicitly evaluate population level responses.  We found that seed mass was two times larger for Argentinean than Turkish populations.  Similarly, plant establishment at the end of the experiment was greater for Argentinean than Turkish populations, but only in the common garden in Argentina.  In Turkey, we detected no differences in plant establishment between population origins.  Our results suggest that increased seed size in Argentinean populations may have demographic consequences under central Argentina conditions that can contribute to the invasive success of C. solstitialis.  Our study offers the most complete evaluation to date to the idea that variation in seed size can contribute to differences in plant density between native and non-native distributions of invasive plant species.

Field site in Turkey (native)

Field site in Argentina (introduced)

 

Posted by: oikosasa | November 23, 2012

Heavy work in community ecology

When I did an undergraduate project at Silwood Park, my supervisor, Hefin Jones used to say that ecological research is about 10 % inspiration and 90% transpiration. And this is exactly what Winfried Voigt report about in his story about his and his colleagues Early View paper “Bottom–up and top–down forces structuring consumer communities in an experimental grassland” (Rzanny et al.). He story also shows what might be the outcome of large collaborative projects.

Gathering up sufficient and useful data for answering questions concerning entire communities is always a strenuous and costly job. It is actually only feasible when working in cooperation with a large team. We were lucky to be involved in an appropriately large team, the Jena Experiment, a controlled biodiversity experiment [http://www.ecology.uni-jena.de/en/Jena_Experiment_Inst_of_Ecology.html]. The dimensions (10 ha, 80 plots each 20×20 m with a set plant species diversity of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16 and 60 as well as 1,2,3 or 4 functional plant groups, and numerous smaller plots) are unique and  turned out to be the right platform for asking “bigger” questions about structure and function in grassland communities. A lot of periodic work, in particular weeding, was done by a capable maintenance staff (5 professional gardeners and numerous student assistants) so that the only thing left to do was to collect our own data. Nevertheless, for our closer small team (with some support  of a few student assistants) even that was quite a strenuous job but all the effort and suffering (not to say blood, sweat and tears) are not  always obvious if one looks at the end result on just a few hundred Kbyte of data we hold in an excel file. We collected arthropods 5 times, from May to October in 2005, on 5 quadrats randomly placed within the core area of 50 big plots (16 monocultures, 16 four-species, 14 sixteen-species and four 60-species mixtures) using suction samplers combined with biocenometers (see photograph) as well as using pitfall traps. All in all, we successfuly accrued 322 arthropod species/taxa with 81658 individuals that we could exploit in the end.

Identifying the key factors for structuring ecological communities is at the heart of ecological research. Most studies dealing with this question on community level rely on lumped, aggregated variables such as summed species abundance, biomass or diversity measures or they confine to a small part of species usually one or a few taxa.

We already developed a different approach 10 years ago by assigning all species to functional groups representing approximately the entire community. Because we hold all functional groups as matrices containing abundances of their members (species), we acquire a sufficient simplification, while retaining full species information. As we see ecological communities as a system of interdependent functional groups, we performed an exploratory multivariate analysis, explicitly addressing species composition of functional groups. We used species resolved plant biomass and arthropod abundance data from the Jena Experiment to estimate the dependencies among plant – and consumer functional groups, thereby accounting for spatial effects and differences in soil conditions.

Using a set of five groups of biotic and abiotic predictor variables (Plants, Herbivores/Detritivores, Carnivores, Soil, and Spatial patterns), we aimed to determine the independent and shared fractions of variation explained by these variables in the composition of all consumer functional groups. Depending on the trophic level of the predictor variables, we quantified the relative roles of top-down and bottom-up effects.

It turned out that legume composition explaines the highest fraction of variation in virtually all consumer functional groups, indicating that legumes play a key role in controlling multiple ecosystem processes. Both plant species richness and plant functional richness show significant effects on (nearly) all functional groups, however, the fraction of variation explained is always exceeded by the fraction explained by plant community biomass. Carnivore composition explain significant fractions of variation in many functional groups, the same applies for the soil and space variables. Consequently, we conclude that bottom-up effects seem to play the most important role in structuring the consumer communities in our experimental system, but at the same time top-down effects are still important for the majority of arthropod functional groups.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 22, 2012

With inspiration from the past

Sometimes it’s worth bringing good old science back into the light. Hideyuki Doi and Terutaka Mori were inspired by two papers from 1932 and 1953 about species abundance distirbution and brought them into modern days’ science. Read the paper “The discovery of species–abundance distribution in an ecological community” on Early View. Here’s the author’s own background story:

Species–abundance distribution (SAD), representing relative species abundance, is one of the most basic descriptions of an ecological community. The description can represent more detailed attributes of the community than species richness. Universal observations that few species in a community are dominant, but that many more species are rare, can be neatly encapsulated in a SAD, but not represented by species richness.

Prof. Isao Motomura (1904–1981, photo) first found a SAD pattern for some animal communities and then published a notable paper in 1932. Motomura (1932) described SAD in the following way: ‘In a community, there are generally many more species with relatively low abundances. When the species found within a quadrat are ranked according to abundance (i.e. the order of dominance in the community), a definite graphic pattern is observed between the rank and abundance of species’. He found that a straight line is produced when logarithm of abundance is plotted against rank, and then fitted observed SAD to “geometric series”. Motomura’s study is the first discovery of a SAD pattern, but has often been overlooked or incorrectly cited, probably due to being published in Japanese.

In this article, we in-deep introduce the works of Motomura and the subsequent research history of SAD. Specifically, we also introduce the work of Numata et al., another Japanese paper, which provided the biological explanation for Motomura’s model of SAD. Numata et al. (1953) showed that Motomura’s model (i.e. geometric series) is explained by supposing that species occupy the available area according to the rank of a set of ability for individual and species survival (i.e. reproduction, competition, etc.). Therefore, they provided biological explanations with a deductive approach for Motomura’s model in which an inductive statistical approach was employed. We believe that the field of SAD is increasing in importance and activity, because SAD has proven to be one of the most important fundamental tools in community ecology and management. Motomura (1932) paper also includes an important suggestion for ecologists: ‘In a natural ecosystem, it is very unusual to find such geometric series for the abundances of species coexisting in a habitat’. The finding of such a surprising pattern in ecological communities therefore represents a frontier of ecological research. Our motivation for finding a new general rule in ecology is highly recommended.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 21, 2012

Sex in plants depends on their neighbours

Root competition appears to effect sex allocation in plants. Åsa Lankinen and her colleagues have studied this in the Early View paper “Allocation to pollen competitive ability versus seed production in Viola tricolor as an effect of plant size, soil nutrients and presence of a root competitor”. Here is a short summary by Åsa:

Even though plants lack brains, there is clear evidence that they can perceive and respond to their neighbours. For example, in some species plants can sense airborne chemicals transmitted from the leaves of another plant attacked by herbivorous insects, acting as a cue to start the induced defence system. Another example of plant communication is the possibility to detect the presence of self vs. non-self roots in the soil. Presence of unrelated root neighbours can even cause plants to allocate relatively more resources to their roots than to their shoots, thereby allowing more effective root-uptake when competitors are present. But can plants also use these kinds of cues to optimize their mating success, such as altering relative allocation to male versus female function in hermaphroditic plants depending on the presence or absence of competitors? In hermaphrodite animals, the social context (e.g. group size) can clearly influence male-female allocation.

In this study on violets, a hermaphrodite annual, our results indicate that sex allocation may not only be size dependent and influenced by soil nutrients, but also affected by presence of a root competitor. Taking the additional aspect of social environment into account also in studies on sex allocation in plants has the potential to increase our understanding of sex allocation across taxa.  This knowledge might help us answer difficult questions such as how evolutionary transitions can occur between breeding systems.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 16, 2012

Effects of monoculture on plant litter decomposition

In the new early view paper “Do physical plant litter traits explain non-additivity in litter mixtures? A test of the improved microenvironmental conditions theory”, Marika Makkonen and co-workers, present a new theory on decomposition rates. Here’s their own summary of the paper:

Terrestrial plant litter decomposition is a key component in carbon flux models. The models and thus the predictions they produce could be improved by ensuring the comprehensiveness of the variables included in the model and the close resemblances between nature and the input data. Usually the input data is derived from litter monoculture studies and this creates a crucial source of error, as monocultures do not present well the majority of land cover. Importantly decomposition rates usually differ between litter monocultures and mixtures. The causes for this non-additive effect are still debated and unclear. One plausible theory suggests that the non-additivity of litter mixtures derives partly from improved microclimatic conditions given by physically more diverse plant species in mixtures compared to monocultures. The physical characteristics of litter determine e.g. water acquisition and retention and thus alter the microenvironmental conditions determining the habitat and resource availability for decomposers.

We tested this theory in a dry subarctic birch forest in the Swedish Lapland in two contrasting moisture conditions. By testing some water holding capacity (WHC) traits, we found clear support for this theory and thus our results strongly encourage the inclusion of plant litter physical traits as the predictors of the decomposition rates. Yet the modeling will face more challenges as we found the direction of non-additivity (positive or negative deviation compared to monocultures) in litter mixtures to vary between climatic (moisture) conditions. Namely we found that the higher dissimilarity in WHC traits between the component litter species in a mixture increased synergistic effects in litter mixtures under limiting moisture conditions whereas, increased antagonistic effects were observed under improved moisture conditions. We also observed differences in non-additivity, its relation to WHC traits and their modifications by different climatic conditions between litter mixtures of varying decomposability further obscuring the process. Although the non-additivity of litter mixture remains complex, some major advances were made by this study.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 15, 2012

How good isn’t a reject?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote here about the close connection between failure and success. And associated it with improvement of a manuscript due to a reject. Now, I also found some scientific support for this. Vincent Calgno and his co-workers have tracked the history of more than 80 000 scientific papers, published between 2006 and 2008 within the bioscience area. They found that papers that had been rejected in one journal and submitted and accepted in another one, gathered significantly more citations than papers accepted on the first try. Even if they were published in the same journals. Despite that 75% of the papers were published in the jornal it was first submitted to, the proportion of papers that had been submitted elsewhere, was actually higher for high impact journals such as Nature and Science, than it was for low-imapct, specialized ones.

So no more tears over rejects! Things will only be better!

So how good will not this one be?:

http://researchinprogress.tumblr.com/post/33698577212/reject-resubmit

Posted by: oikosasa | November 13, 2012

Why red leaves?

At least here in southern Sweden, the autumn colours have been fantastic this year! As an evolutionary ecologist one starts wonder: why does trees differ in level of coloration? Is it only a benefit to the tree? Or are there costs associated with it as well? And why are some leaves red early in spring? In the new Early View paper, “Red young leaves have less mechanical defence than green young leaves”, Ying-Zhuo Chen and Shuang-Quan Huang have found answers to some of these questions. Here is a short version by Shuang-Quan Huang:

People in North Temperate Zone often enjoy seeing colorful leaves in autumn, an obvious phenomenon in deciduous forests. Evolutionary biologists Hamilton and Brown (2001) considered that autumn leaf coloration is expensive because it involves the costs of pigment synthesis, resource loss and loss of primary production (photosynthesis). A functional hypothesis proposed by Hamilton & Brown (2001) and Archetti (2000) suggest that leaf redness could be an adaptive strategy as a warning signal reducing insect attack (anti-herbivory hypothesis), but is still largely controversial.

Many species have red young leaves in spring. For example, an investigation of tropical plants in a Nature Reserve, Singapore showed that 60% species with young leaves were red (see Dominy et al. 2002). The anti-herbivory hypothesis has also been adopted to explain color change during leaf development. We are interested in why so many species produce constant green leaves in its life cycle if leaf-color change involves an obvious benefit (less herbivory). A similar question was asked by David Lee (2002) who argued that if anthocyanins in leaves confer some physiological/selective advantage, how do the species lacking anthocyanins compensate?

To test whether green leaves reduce herbivory by physical defense as an alternative to the supposed warning signal of red leaves, we conducted comparative analyses of leaf color and protective tissues of 76 woody species around our campus Wuhan University, a subtropical area in central China. We found that the species with green young leaves showed a significantly higher incidence of enhanced cuticle, multiple epidermis, and trichomes compared to species with red young leaves. This analysis suggests that green leaves may compensate for the lack of anthocyanins by adopting enhanced physical defense. Our finding of relatively poor mechanical protection in red young leaves may provide new evidence for the adaptive explanation of leaf color change.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 12, 2012

New Oikos SE

It’s really nice to be able to present yet another new Oikos Subject Editor:

Shawn Wilder, University of Sidney, Australia.

1. What’s you main research focus at the moment?

My main research focus now is examining the nutritional requirements of spiders and comparing these requirements to the distribution of nutrients in prey to better understand how diet regulation behavior by predators affects the structure and function of ecological communities.  Recent work has shown that the nutrient content of prey can have large effects on the growth and reproduction of predators and that some predators will tightly regulate their diet.  I’ve been using the geometric framework of nutrition to quantify the nutrient requirements of a spider (redback spider, Latrodectus hasselti) and have measured the nutrient content of over 500 species of arthropods.  Future experiments and modeling work will combine this information to predict which prey or combinations of prey may be preferred by predators and how these prey preferences may affect prey populations and community dynamics.

 2. Can you describe you research career? Where, what, when?

My career began by helping with fieldwork on charismatic megafauna.  During undergrad, I was a field assistant on large-scale studies that captured, radio-collared, and tracked black sea turtles in the Gulf of California and, the next summer, black bears in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina.  The fieldwork experiences were amazing and motivated me to go to graduate school to become an ecologist.

For my M.S. at Miami University, Ohio I move to a smaller and more manageable study species, white-footed mice, and examined how fragmentation of their forest habitat due to agriculture affected their population dynamics.  However, in the lab next door, friends of mine were studying the behavioral ecology of wolf spiders, including chemical communication, predator-prey interactions and mating behavior.  I soon became very interested in spiders and began my Ph.D. studying the ecology and evolution of sexual cannibalism.  I was interested in understanding why cannibalism was frequent in some species but rare in others.  Female hunger had an obvious and large role in predicting cannibalism but my work also suggested that nutrition may be important.

I then moved to Texas A&M University for a postdoc to study the role of food-for-protection mutualisms in facilitating the invasive success of red imported fire ants, Solenopsis invicta, in the Southern USA.  Due to differences in competitor communities, fire ants have greater access to mutualisms in their introduced range in the USA than their native range in Argentina.  As a consequence, fire ants in the USA consume more carbohydrates than fire ants in Argentina and these carbohydrates significantly increase fire ant colony growth even when insect prey are available ad libitum.

I continued with my interest in nutrition by moving to the University of Sydney to study the nutritional ecology of carnivores with Steve Simpson.  I’ve since been promoted to Lecturer and received an ARC Discovery Early Career Researcher Award.  Australia has an exciting diversity of insects and spiders and I’m looking forward to exploring and studying them further.

 3. How come that you became a scientist in ecology?

My interest in ecology and nature developed at a young age.  I grew up in the Northeastern USA and my family spent a lot of time camping, hiking, and fishing when I was young.  I also spent a lot of time flipping over rocks and searching in tide pools for insects, spiders, salamanders and crabs.  I would even occasionally feed the spiders that lived in the backyard.  Fortunately, my parents were very encouraging.

4. What do you do when you’re not working?

I enjoy camping, hiking, kayaking, and fishing.  Sydney has been a great place both for work and fun.  Although it’s a big city, it is surrounded by National Parks that are easily accessible and have a lot of beautiful trails through rainforests, mountains, and cliffs overlooking the ocean.

I also enjoy traveling both for research and fun.  Some of my recent highlights for research trips include traveling around northern Argentina studying ants and traveling to the Northern Territory of Australia to study araneophagic jumping spiders.  I’ve also recently traveled to Thailand and South Korea, both of which were a lot of fun.

Own website:  https://sites.google.com/site/shawnmwilder/

Posted by: oikosasa | November 8, 2012

How the aphids got their spots…

…is explained in Miroslav Kummel et al.’s new online paper “How the aphids got their spots: predation drives self-organization of aphid colonies in a patchy habitat”.

A short summary is given here by Miroslav:

Spatial self-organization is the ability of a system to develop a spatially heterogeneous distribution of population sizes across otherwise identical locations This self-organization can result in static areas of high and low population density across otherwise homogeneous underlying conditions. Alternatively it can result in traveling population waves, or in spatial deterministic chaos. Self-organization has emerged as a key concept in population ecology, because it can fundamentally alter the outcome and stability of interspecific interactions. It has been studied extensively theoretically, but there are very few empirical studies that establish the presence and causality of spatial self-organization in the field.

 In addition, the majority of current studies in spatial ecology (both empirical and theoretical) examine self-organization in laterally connected systems. These are systems where spatial effects are strongly determined by distance (e.g. the probability of colonization decreases with distance) and adjacency. However, space can be conceptualized in ways that are different. For example, space can be conceptualized as a network of connected patches, where the connections between patches are determined by other variables than pure distance. Human examples of such networks include a network of airports connected flights, natural examples include a collection of food patches connected by ant trails. The “network” conceptualization of space is very new to ecology and allows us to address previously intractable issues. Recent developments in network theory show that self-organization is possible in other network topologies such as random or scale-free networks.

In the field system that we study, foraging flights of coccinellid (ladybug) predators connect spatially discrete colonies of aphids into a network that has topology more complex than a laterally connected lattice. We show that predation by coccinellids induced self-organization in sessile aphid populations into small and large colony sizes on otherwise identical racemes of Yucca glauca that grew in close proximity to each other.

The self-organization was supported by a bi-modal frequency distribution of aphid colony sizes, and by the structure of density dependence that showed multiple attractors. The position of the attractors matched the position of the two modes in the bimodal distribution.

 We demonstrated that predation was the key driver of self-organization both empirically, and through a simple field-parameterized mathematical model. In the empirical study we showed that the multiple-attractor nature of density dependence disappeared when coccinellids were experimentally excluded from the system. The simple field-parameterized mathematical model showed that the multiple attractor structure was likely a consequence of the distribution of coccinellids among the aphid colonies: coccinellid number increased as a power (less than one) of aphid colony size. Thus the self-organization likely originated from spatial foraging decisions of the coccinellids.

The nature of self-organization in our system resembles that which was found in mathematical models of more complex networks. Thus our study provides the first link between these recent theoretical developments and field ecology.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 7, 2012

New pollination network model

In the new paper “Adaptive foraging allows the maintenance of biodiversity of pollination networks” Fernanda S. Valdovinos and her colleagues present a new population-dynamics model for plant-pollinator interactions:

 Here’s Fernanda’s summary of the model: One of the main novelties of our work is the new model of mutualistic networks that we proposed. Our model includes the trophic dimension of mutualistic interactions, by incorporating a separated equation for the dynamics of the resources that plant species offer to their animal visitants. In this way we could incorporate to the analysis of mutualistic networks the next biologically important process: 1) the production and animal consumption rates of plant rewards, 2) the competition and/or facilitation among plants via shared pollen/seed animal vectors, 3) the competition among animals for plant rewards, and 4) the animals’ allocation of foraging efforts. These processes were neglected by the traditionally used models on mutualistic networks, which simply represent mutualistic relationships as phenomenological positive effects among species. I think that these four processes may affect the interplay of network structure and dynamics that some studies have documented during the last years, like are the effects of nestedness, connectance and richness on the species persistence of those networks.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 6, 2012

Per Brink award winner 2013

We are very happy to congratulate Dr. Sharon Strauss, University of California, to being the winner of the Per Brink award 2013. Sharon will be awarded the Per Brink prize at the Oikos meeting in Linköping, Sweden in February 2013.

Here is a presentation of Sharon:

My research focuses on how organisms are influenced both ecologically and evolutionarily by the complex communities in which they are embedded, and by the inextricable interrelationship between ecology and evolution. The ecology of organisms reflects their long-term evolutionary history, with all its contingencies. The extent to which related species share and diverge in ecologically important traits, and how this shared ancestry affects community assembly is a growing area within ecology.  In addition, ecological dynamics and community assembly are influenced by microevolutionary change.  Ecological communities and abiotic environments exert selection on organisms; evolution in response to such selection, under the constraints of long-term evolutionary history, often results in populations that differ in traits from the parental generation. These different trait values, in turn, can feed back to affect the ecology of a system.

We can often predict how systems will respond under simplified conditions or when one ecological force is clearly dominant. For example, application of pesticides has consistently resulted in the evolution of resistance in insect pests (more than 300 spp.). When interactions are variable in space or time,  interactive in their effects on fitness, and when the selective effects of different agents are somewhat comparable in strength– as they are in complex communities– then our ability to predict how or whether traits will evolve, and how populations and communities respond through time, becomes much more of a challenge. As counterexamples, the ecology of introduced species, and the selective effects of  human actions that overwhelm other agents of selection on natural populations both represent useful, more simplified, contexts in which to explore the implications of natural community complexity.

The Per Brinck Oikos Award recognizes extraordinary and important contributions to the science of ecology. Particular emphasis is given to scientific work aimed at synthesis that has lead to novel and original research in unexplorered or neglected fields, or to bridging gaps between ecological disciplines. Such achievements typically require theoretical innovation and development as well as imaginative observational or experimental work, all of which will be valid grounds for recognition.

The /Per Brinck Oikos Award/ is delivered in honor of the Swedish ecologist Professor Per Brinck who has played an instrumental role for
the development and recognition of the science of ecology in the Nordic countries, especially as serving as the Editor-in-Chief for Oikos for many years.

The award is delivered annually and the laureate receives a modest prize sum (currently €1500), a diploma and a Swedish artisan glassware.
The prize ceremony is hosted by the Swedish Oikos Society. The award is sponsored by the Per Brinck Foundation at the editorial office of the journal Oikos and Wiley/Blackwell Publishing.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 5, 2012

Jessica Abbott – new SE

We are very happy to welcome Dr. Jessica Abbott as new Subject Editor for Oikos. And of course, we want to know more about Jessica so:

Jessica, what is your research about?

At the moment my main research focus is on how sexual antagonism influences an organism’s genetic architecture.  Sexual antagonism is when the same trait has opposite fitness consequences in males and females.  Sexually antagonistic genes and traits are interesting because they may hold the key to one of the long-standing paradoxes in evolutionary biology: the maintenance of standing genetic variation.  When selection is strong and traits are heritable, it is expected that standing genetic variance for fitness should be rapidly depleted.  Yet this is not what we see when we look at natural populations.  Sexual antagonism may provide an answer since it means that the fitness of any given allele is context-dependent, preventing rapid depletion of genetic variance.  I’m currently working on testing the hypothesis that sexual antagonism on the sex chromosomes maintains standing genetic variation across the genome, using two model systems: the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster and the hermaphroditic flatworm Macrostomum lignano.

Can you shortly describe your career?

I am originally from Canada, and started my undergraduate degree at the University of Guelph.  During my third undergraduate year I came to Lund University as part of an international exchange program.  I liked it so much that I wanted to stay longer, and ended up living there for 8 years while completing a Master’s and and a PhD on female-limited colour polymorphism in the damselfly Ischnura elegans, under the supervision of Erik Svensson.  One of the female morphs is a male mimic, which benefits from reduced male mating harassment. This led me to become interested in sexual conflict in general, and in constraints on the evolution of sexual dimorphism and intralocus sexual conflict and sexual antagonism in particular.  In 2007 I therefore moved back to Canada on a Swedish Research Council-funded postdoc with Adam Chippindale at Queen’s University in Kingston.  It was there that I started working on sexual antagonism in fruit flies, using an established set of populations that had experienced male-limited experimental evolution for many generations.  In November 2009 I moved back to Sweden to join Ted Morrow’s lab at Uppsala University.  While there I carried out an investigation of my own set of experimental evolution populations, this time lines that had experienced male-limited X-chromosome evolution.  In 2011 I started a collaboration with Klaus Reinhardt from the University of Tübingen, on genotype-by-environment effects on sperm traits.  I started working in Lund again in February 2012, after receiving a Junior Researcher Project Grant from the Swedish Research Council, which has enabled me to set up my own independent lab.

How do you feel about becoming a subject editor at Oikos?

I’m excited about becoming a subject editor at Oikos.  I’ve been very active so far as a reviewer, both for established journals and within the new initiative Peerage of Science, but I’ve never worked as an editor before.  I’m looking forward to seeing the peer review process from the other side.

What do you do when not working?

I have two young daughters, so when I’m not working I mostly spend time with my family.  I love to read, so that’s what I do when I can find time just for myself.  Even though I’m busy I usually manage to finish a book once every couple of weeks.
Even more curious on Jessica? Visit her websites:

Institutional website: http://www4.lu.se/experimental-evolution-ecology-behaviour/people/principal-investigators/jessica-abbott
Own website: http://jessicakabbott.com/

Posted by: oikosasa | November 2, 2012

Exotic invaders are modified by natives

Alien, invasive species are an increasing threat to biodiversity. In their paper “Competitive outcomes between two exotic invaders are modified by direct and indirect effects of a native conifer”, Kerry Metlen and co-workers has studied what two invasive species – a grass and a herb – and how they are affected by a native pine. Here, Kerry gives a short background to their study:

This research was inspired by a very striking pattern observable at undisturbed sites in the intermountain grasslands of western Montana, USA; Centaurea stoebe is supremely dominant in open prairie but virtually absent under the canopies of large ponderosa pines growing in the grassland.  At disturbed sites, any component of the native vegetation has been removed, C. stoebe appears to then move in aggressively, suggesting that some complex interaction among species drives this very simple pattern. 

 Extensive field observations confirmed the pattern that had seemed so obvious, as at this site just east of Hamilton, Montana, USA.  Germination experiments and extensive litter manipulation – in the field and in the greenhouse gradually allowed us to tease apart these complex interactions.  This fantastic adventure, lead us to discover that direct effects between species were insufficient to explain patterns of invasion of C. stoebe and Bromus tectorum and that shifting interactions among species gave a more complete picture of this dynamic plant community.

Posted by: oikosasa | November 1, 2012

Don’t forget to laugh…

Humour is an important creativity booster. And science can be oh so serious sometimes.

Check out this site when you need to laugh…

And don’t ever believe that we editors, at various stages, are lacking empathy or an understanding of the consequences of our decisions and messages:

This is the result, we know:

http://researchinprogress.tumblr.com/post/33946389387/we-regret-to-inform-you-that-your-paper-has-not-been

Or this:

http://researchinprogress.tumblr.com/post/33884075941/we-are-pleased-to-inform-you-that-your-paper-has-been

Posted by: oikosasa | October 30, 2012

Battlefield study: Grasshoppers vs. wolf spiders

That predator-prey interactions can be temperature-dependent is something that Angela Laws and Anthony Joern shows in the new Early View paper in Oikos “Predator–prey interactions in a grassland food chain vary with temperature and food quality”

Read their background story here:

“Grasshoppers are important components of most grassland ecosystems.  These abundant herbivores can influence many ecosystem processes such as nutrient cycling and primary productivity.  But the effects of grasshoppers on ecosystem processes often depend on the outcome of their interactions with other species, including predators.  For example, spiders are common predators of grasshoppers that alter grasshopper behavior and can limit grasshopper population size. But the outcome of species interactions can be sensitive to changes in many biotic and abiotic environmental factors.

We were interested in learning how temperature can influence predator-prey interactions between grasshoppers and wolf spiders.  Ectothermic organisms like grasshoppers and spiders are likely to be especially impacted by shifting temperatures, because temperature affects many physiological processes including feeding, activity, and digestion.  But temperature may also alter species interactions with effects on food web functioning.  In our system, grasshoppers prefer warm temperatures and are active during the day while wolf spiders prefer cooler temperatures and are crepuscular.  Therefore, we predicted that shifting temperatures can alter predator effects on grasshoppers by expanding (through cooling) or contracting (through warming) the total amount of time each day that both grasshoppers and wolf spiders are active.

We conducted a three-year field experiment to test these predictions using common species of grasshopper (Orphulella speciosa) and wolf spider (Rabidosa rabida). We set up field cages and stocked them with grasshoppers only or grasshoppers and spiders.  To alter temperature, we surrounded some of the cages with temperature chambers constructed of steel frames covered with shade cloth (decreased temperatures) or with plastic sheeting (increased temperatures).  Other cages were left uncovered as a control.  The roofs of these temperature chambers were mounted on garage door tracks and could be opened and closed.  The roofs only covered the cages during the morning and were left open for most of the day.

We found that spiders had strongest effects on grasshopper survival in the cooled treatments, and weakest effects on grasshopper survival in the warmed treatments, as predicted.  In some years, this led to the appearance of a trophic cascade (an indirect effect of predators, where predator presence leads to an increase in plant biomass) in cooled treatments, but not warmed treatments.   Our results show that the outcome of predator-prey interactions between grasshoppers and wolf spiders, and their effects on plant production, can shift with temperature.  Our data also suggest that wolf spiders may be less effective at limiting the size of some grasshopper populations under warmer conditions.”

Posted by: oikosasa | October 29, 2012

How Google affects biodiversity

Is there really a connection between biodiversity and conservation and Internet? Oh, yes, read Michal Zmihorski and his colleagues new Early View paper in Oikos, Ecological correlates of the popularity of birds and butterflies in Internet information resources”.

Below, Michal tells us what made him and his co-workers to do this analyses:

“The idea concerning wildlife in the Internet resulted from a simple observation. Namely, we noted that different species are popular in the Internet whereas others are relatively rare. For each query Google provides the number of web pages containing the searched word(s) (here the name of a bird or butterfly). Consequently, we searched for possible mechanisms explaining the differences. More specifically, we expected that the patterns of popularity and rarity in the web were not random and should be somehow linked to the phenotype of particular species. Therefore we selected some basic characteristics of species, such as body size or migratory behaviour, and checked their importance in explaining the popularity on the internet. We excluded species whose names had more than one meaning. Initially we worked on Polish names of Polish birds but, following editors’ advice, we extended this to English names of British butterflies.

           

Several characteristics related to ecology and morphology of species were associated with their popularity in society. This in turn may have some obvious consequences for selection of species for conservation actions (e.g. as flagship species). We suggest that conservationists may use some phenotypic features of species in a more systematic manner to select for flagship species. However, to be honest, this is not of primary interest to us. The most exciting aspects of the association between phenotype and popularity is related to possible feedback, i.e. profits that popularity brings to a given species. First of all, we showed that there is some filtering of “colonization” of the internet by birds and butterflies (some features make species more effective in this “colonization” process). Secondly, the assumption that popularity in society is profitable for species seems to be true and may be related to the fact that organisms which are commonly known and well recognized by peoples may benefit from e.g. artificial feeding, nest-boxes, nest protection from predation and devastation, conservation actions, effective fund raising and so on (it is not easy to find references confirming this assumption, fortunately, we do not have to provide any in text for an Oikos blog!). If this is so the following mechanism can be proposed: the phenotypic features that makes a species popular in the Internet may also affect its fitness (because species that are popular in society may benefit from their popularity). Of course, the proposed mechanism has several weak points and needs to be confirmed, but in our opinion may be a catalyst for further studies. What is important is that if the mechanism works this means that natural selection may partially go through the virtual world of the internet, and such an idea is something new.

            All your comments and suggestions (including proposals for cooperation) concerning the topic of our study are highly welcomed. You have full text access to this content

Posted by: oikosasa | October 26, 2012

Relatedness and colonisation

How close to a relative should one settle? David Aguirre et al have shown that relatedness has an effect on colonization and settlement in some species, at least.

Here’s David’s summary of the paper that is now on Early View in Oikos:

“In organisms with sessile adults (e.g. many plants and marine invertebrates) variation in the density of colonisers is known to have a profound influence on the structure of populations and communities. Recent studies also indicate that the relatedness among interacting adults can be an important driver of differences in ecological performance among populations. Thus, it is surprising that few studies have examined the effects of relatedness on the non-adult life-history stages, and thereby the effects of relatedness on colonisation processes. In our study we bridged the gap between these two lines of ecological enquiry, and found that the effects of relatedness on colonisation differed in direction and magnitude in four sessile marine invertebrates.”

Posted by: oikosasa | October 25, 2012

On architecture and moose populations

In the new Oikos paper (now on Early View), “Simulated responses of moose populations to browsing-induced changes in plant architecture and forage production”, John Pastor and Nathan R. de Jager present a model examining how tree crown architecture affects moose populations. Here, they give a background to the study:

In the recently published paper, “Simulated responses of moose populations to browsing-induced changes in plant architecture and forage production”, we report the results from a model we developed nearly a decade ago as part of Nate’s Master’s thesis at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. The model examines the feedback effects of moose browsing-induced changes in plant architecture on moose population dynamics. We were able to construct the model because of a very well thought out and executed experiment in northern coastal Sweden (Persson et al. 2005 a, b). Inga-Lill Persson and her colleagues  annually removed plant tissue from study plots in proportion to different moose population densities and also added corresponding amounts of urine and fecal material. By measuring the architectural responses of different tree species to simulated moose densities (De Jager and Pastor 2008, 2010) we were able to ask a very simple question: Can the forage produced by trees that have been previously browsed in proportion to known moose densities support the same moose population densities over the long-term? Our main finding of the field study was that some properties of the crown architecture of deciduous trees, such as fractal dimension and twig density, responded quadratically to increased moose population density. At intermediate moose densities, these properties more than compensate for reductions in twig size, leading to small increases in forage production.

Our approach to constructing the model was extremely simple, assembling these equations for the architectural responses of plants to known moose population densities and the winter food requirements of moose, but ignoring other known factors that influence moose population dynamics (e.g. animal feeding rates, population demographics) and other known effects of moose on ecosystems (e.g. changes in soil fertility). The point was to see if these architectural responses in isolation could in principle determine moose population densities and dynamics. In fact, it was the simplicity of the model that kept us from submitting it as a manuscript for several years. John developed a renewed interest in the model after receiving positive comments from colleagues in Sweden following a presentation in  2010. Indeed, the editorial reviewers at Oikos liked the model and our paper because of its simplicity, not in spite of it.

It turns out that the architectural responses of plants that we measured can produce realistic moose population densities for northern Sweden  (an average of ~10-15 moose/1000 ha). But these population densities were only sustainable at the sites with the highest productivity and with species compositions heavily weighted toward deciduous trees, which can overcompensate for lost tissue due to moose browsing.  One of the new things we found was the quadratic responses of plant architecture to moose population density, especially those of birch, produced oscillations in moose populations on highly productive sites. The lessons we learned from this model were, first, that architectural responses of plant crowns to browsing may play a more important role in regulating moose population density than previously suspected and, second, that these architectural responses might cause complex population dynamics such as population cycles.”

Link to Persson et al. 2005 a

Link to Persson et al. 2005 b

Link to De Jager and Pastor 2008

Link to De Jager and Pastor 2010

Posted by: oikosasa | October 24, 2012

Secrets of Nobel Prize winner

Recently, the Noble prize laureates for 2012 were presented. But what is it that turns these researchers into Nobel prize winners? What are the key factors that makes the difference between a winner and the average researcher?

My interest for thistopic, stems from my concern that many university departments are not very good at providing the creative environment that I believe is required to house a coming Nobel prize winner. Constant stress, strong hierarchy, too heavy workload and a culture of criticism toward new ideas and suggestions rather than an open mind, are factors actively inhibiting creativity. But providing a creative environment is important for any department  and any research group that strives, maybe not for a Nobel prize, but to perform at the top international level and conduct novel research that might for example lead to a paradigm shift in their field. Innovative, novel research is key for Oikos as well, and it certainly requires a high dose of creativity.

Therefore, I was really curious when I found an article by Serge Haroche, co-winner of this years’ Noble prize in physics, The secrets of my prizewinning research, where he tries to explain what made him a Nobel Prize winner. He gives a lot of credit to the “unique intellectual and material environment of the Kastler Brossel Laboratory at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris”. At this lab, he got the opportunity “to gather a permanent research group of exceptional quality, transmitting expertise and knowledge accumulated over time to successive generations of bright students.

Other important factors he mentions are reliable financial support and European mobility programmes, “bringing expertise and scientific culture to complement our own” by opening up for visiting students and researchers. Specifically important, he argues, was “the freedom to choose our path without having to justify it with the promise of possible applications”.

Haroche also expresses an anxiety over the scarcity of resources and “the requirement to find scientific solutions to practical problems of health, energy and the environment”, that meet young scientists today. “I can only hope that they will be granted similar opportunities to those that we had: being free to choose research goals and to manage his own efforts over the long term, and able to afford the pursuit of hazardous paths before seeing the light.

What about you, do you work in an environment stimulating Noble prize research or at least innovative, novel research that will fit in Oikos?

Posted by: oikosasa | October 22, 2012

Well informed animal movement

In the paper “From random walks to informed movement”, Emanuel Fronhofer and colleagues present a model showing that with “memorized” spatial information, an animal will boost it’s foraging success, as compared to random walk. Now on Early View.

Read Emanuel’s story about the model:

When animals move they frequently search for resources. This may, for example, be a female butterfly searching for proper host plants, a gnu exploiting grassland, or a male dragonfly searching for mating partners. Being an efficient searcher is thus an ability of great fitness implications. Indeed, movement is so fundamental to life that research on animal movement is highly relevant for many basic and applied issues.

Up to now movement is mostly modeled as a random process (random walk) and it is fascinating that such models, like the “Lévy walk”, are so capable in grasping the statistical attributes of animal movement. Yet, if we want to predict the influence of man made modifications of landscape structure on foraging success or the implications of global climatic change on animal dispersal we need a thorough understanding of the mechanisms governing movement decisions. Evidently, movement is controlled by an animal’s perception, memory, and its ability to infer the likely position of resource based on general knowledge about landscape attributes and the specific information at its hand. Further, animals should also be able to think more than one step ahead (anticipation), i.e. foresee future consequences of its moves.

Here we propose a model that accounts for all these elements (perception, memory, inference and anticipation). Our analysis shows that even a very basic implementation of these processes allows an enormous increase in foraging efficiency and results in movement patterns typical for systematic search within resource patches (e.g. of flowers of food plants; fig.1), straight movement between such patches (fig. 1) and even the emergence of foray loops (fig. 2) that have been observed in e.g. butterflies.

Our model is easily applied to insects like butterflies, wasps, or flies, searching for food or suitable plants to lay their eggs. The analysis of this model highlights the strength of mechanistic approaches to movement modeling and sets the stage for the development of more sophisticated models of perception and memory use invoked in movement decisions and dispersal. 

 

Posted by: oikosasa | October 19, 2012

What shapes the personality?

Oh, yes, fish have personalities as well! Matthew Edenbrow and his colleague has digged deeper into this to unravel the basis behind it. Now on early View: “Environmental and genetic effects shape the development of personality traits in the mangrove killifish Kryptolebias marmoratus”

Here’s Matthew’s own story:

Personality is defined as individual consistency in behaviour over time or situations. In humans it is obvious that we all differ in our personalities with some individuals being risk takers or bolder than others. While personality is clearly part of what it means to be human, there is considerable evidence suggesting that these traits are also exhibited throughout the animal kingdom. In particular, personality has been documented in several animal groups including primates, reptiles, fish and even insects, suggesting that personality is not only important but that it evolved early. At present, however, we have little insight into what factors determine individual differences in personality. Research suggests that experiences of different environments during development may underpin personality variation. In addition, growth as well as age at sexual maturity may also be important; with fast growth/early maturity suggested to generate bolder personalities. In this study we used the naturally “clonal” mangrove killifish (Kryptolebias marmoratus) as our study organism. This species is exciting because it permits us to investigate how genetically identical individuals adjust behaviour, growth and reproductive development depending upon the environment experienced. In this study we reared several genetically identical individuals in three rearing environments: 1) the presence of siblings, 2) reduced food and 3) simulated predation risk. We then investigated growth and three personality traits: exploration, boldness, and aggression, at three stages of development. Our results indicate that only individuals exposed to simulated predation risk exhibited behaviour consistency, suggesting that risk perception during early life stages is likely to be important in personality development. In addition, each of our rearing environments resulted in different growth rates and age at sexual maturity yet these differences were not key drivers of the resulting behavioural differences we observed

Posted by: oikosasa | October 17, 2012

Fruit-frugivore interactions not that simple after all…

Now online: Perea et al. “Context-dependent fruit-frugivore interactions: partner identities and spatio-temporal variations”

Here Ramon Perea summarizes the study:

Plants are able to use animals as vectors for the dispersal of their seeds. Many fleshy fruits constitute a food attractive for different vertebrate species, that usually ingest jointly the edible pulp and the seeds, which are later defecated or brought up in suitable conditions for germination. Studies on this kind of plant-animal mutualism, called endozoochory, are numerous, but usually refer to only one pair of mutualists, or are made during one fruiting season or at only one place.

Does seed dispersal by mammals depend on the spatio-temporal context in which the interaction takes place? For instance, species abundances, specific seed crops, availability of alternative foods or vegetation structure usually change from year to year or from one habitat to another at the same locality. Many of these changing factors might affect important attributes of the plant-animal interaction. In our particular case of seed dispersal, the environmental context might modify, for example, the quantity of seeds dispersed (interaction strength) or the quality of dispersal (seed treatment, deposition on suitable sites for germination and survival, etc.), which could eventually alter the so-called sign of the interaction (from a highly successful dispersal –mutualism- to a highly unsuccessful dispersal –antagonism).

Our field work was performed in the Doñana National Park (SW Spain), under Mediterranean conditions, where we collected about 1600 faeces of a whole assemblage of fruit-eating mammals (frugivores: red fox, badger, red deer, wildboar and rabbit).  About 300,000 seeds of fruit-bearing plants were recovered of these faeces, measuring frequency of seed occurrence, plant species and seed damage for three different habitats.

For each particular fruit-frugivore pair, the interaction strength largely varied with the spatio-temporal context (year and habitat) at our local scale, leading to a low specificity across the seed-frugivore network. Frugivory and potential endozoochory should not be simply considered a mutualism leading to successful seed dispersal, but a rather variable relationship along the mutualism-antagonism continuum, depending on the ecological context.

Posted by: oikosasa | October 16, 2012

Evolution in cave amphipods

First author Cene Fiser gives a short version of their paper Coevolution of life history traits and morphology in female subterranean amphipods“. 

Fine-tuning evolution often requires compromises. Maximizing female’s fitness by optimization egg number and egg size to the environmental demands is a classic trade-off in evolutionary biology. But, can co-evolving morphological changes affect or even avoid this trade-off? We compared Niphargus species found in springs and in deep caves and showed that cave species are larger, stouter, have larger eggs, yet the number of eggs is not lower compared to spring species. These changes seem to be a result of decreased fluctuations of abiotic factors and of decrease in food availability in deep caves compared to springs. The environmental gradient most likely presents major source of selection that affected all herein studied morphological and life history traits. However, we have shown that the co-evolution of biological traits can modify the otherwise expected outcome of selection. We suggest that increased body size, that also enables storage of more energy, enables allocation of additional nutrients in egg size, yet the number of eggs can remain the same. Additionally, as larger eggs require better supply with water for aeration, bigger species have also modified body shape.

 

Posted by: oikosasa | October 15, 2012

Double trouble in paradise

In the study “Density- and trait-mediated top–down effects modify bottom–up control of a highly endemic tropical aquatic food web” Christopher Dalton and co-workers have looked at bottom-up and top-down effects in anchialine ponds on Hawaii. Here’s Chrsitopher’s own story about the study:

For centuries, early Hawaiian residents divided land on the island into expansive parcels known as ahupuaʻa, with each ahupuaʻa containing all of the resources the residents would need to survive (water, food, shelter). Ahupuaʻa typically ran in radial lines extending from the top of the nearest volcano (Mauka; near the mountains) to the shore of the ocean (Makai; near the ocean). The expression Mauka to Makai lives on as an important model for island conservation today, emphasizing that the spectacular and unique biodiversity of these islands cannot be preserved without understanding the links between ecosystems.

Perhaps no single Hawaiian ecosystem better reflects the necessity of landscape-scale conservation as the anchialine ponds of coastal Hawaiʻi, connected through porous lava substrate to both tidal seawater and fresh groundwater. One of the most striking organism in the ponds is the endemic atyid shrimp, Halocaridina rubra (locally known as ōpaeʻula, or red shrimp).  This locally abundant invertebrate shows diel migration between daytime refuges in subterranean environments and nighttime foraging in productive surface habitats. In anchialine pools, the grazing of ōpaeʻula is often attributed a keystone function for maintaining a diverse and tuft-like epilithic crust of algae, cyanobacteria and heterotrophic bacteria.

We assess the roles of nutrients and invertebrate consumers in anchialine pond food webs by taking advantage of long-term, whole-ecosystem anthropogenic modification of bottom-up (nutrient enrichment) and top-down (grazing) controls. This study provides insight at the ecosystem scale for the interactions between top-down and bottom-up control in a system of dire need of information to direct management practices against threats from development and invasive species.

We collected quantitative samples of the epilithon quantity and composition, the abundance (day and night) of ōpaeʻula, the presence of fish and the dissolved nutrient concentrations. Sometimes this meant getting wet in the deepest pools, and sometimes it meant wading through algal and detrital mats up to half a meter deep. In the end, we captured a snapshot of the relatively simple food web structure and nutrient availability of twenty pools.

This study provides whole-ecosystem scale insight into the relative influence of bottom-up and both trait and density mediated top-down effects in pool food webs, and it also provides evidence to help guide management decisions. Our research suggests the ecological benefits of mitigating nutrient pollution are comparable to those of removing predatory, invasive fish, and monitoring these two factors can prevent the dramatic ecological change we observed in high nutrient ponds with fish.

Ultimately, preservation of Hawaiian anchialine ponds requires a perspective beyond the edges of these ecosystems. The nutrient enrichment that we observed in anchialine ponds was associated with land use (resorts, hotels and golf courses) immediately surrounding those ponds.

To truly understand and protect these hotbeds of endemism into the future, however, research must look from Mauka to Makai and assess the role of landscape context in driving change in these unique ecosystems.

Posted by: oikosasa | October 12, 2012

Mistletoe network

Isn’t it often so that the most brilliant ideas come to us when our brains are “on holiday”, thinking of something completely different. That was the case for Ray Blick. The idea of studying networks among mistletoes and their hosts, that came during along train journey across Australia, has now resulted in a paper in Oikos, that is now online: Dominant network interactions are not correlated with resource availability: a case study using mistletoe host interactions” by Blick et al. Ray describes what happened:

All field scientists have their peculiarities. Botanists are typically found near their transportation, unable to get past nearby plants. Ornithologist can be found walking with their eyes closed and their ear to the wind (somehow avoiding all objects in their path). And Ecologists have a spectacular ability to chop-and-change direction like a drunken person driving a car at night. I fall into the last category, where slight ‘abnormalities’ in tree shape or colour will draw my attention – Mistletoe?

 

The idea for this research originated during a ‘forced’ 1100 km train-line transect on a 16 hour journey from Sydney to Broken Hill, New South Wales, Australia. During this time the train followed a precipitation gradient traversing urban/city parks, temperate and subtropical rainforests, a wheat belt, closed Eucalypt woodlands and finally open, inconsistent sclerophyllous vegetation. All of which contained a range of mistletoe species.

 

Unable to ‘chop-and-change’ from my N = 1, ocular sampling, holiday fixed-distance, train-line transect, with an expected sleep-deprived error bias, I became interested in testing the idea that the structure of an ecological community did not have to depend on commonness. The current manuscript addresses whether host-availability, or dominance, is an important factor structuring an ecological network between a parasite and its host.    

Posted by: oikosasa | October 11, 2012

Understanding fox demography

One of the new papers online in Oikos is about the importance of full understanding of demography of wild populations for management programs. One of the authors, Eleanor Devenish-Nelson gives us here the background to the study Demography of a carnivore, the red fox, Vulpes vulpes: what have we learnt from 70 years of published studies?”:

The successful management of wildlife depends on the ability to predict the consequences of management actions. That, in turn, often requires a good knowledge of a species’ demography and dynamics. We can use that knowledge, of issues such as birth and death rates, to produce predictive models with which we can simulate different management strategies. In situations in which we don’t know enough about a population of interest, it is common to use ‘surrogate data’ (demographic parameters from other populations of the same, or closely related, species) in order to construct predictive models.

    One species of considerable management concern is the red fox. Red foxes are widely hunted and are important hosts for several diseases. The management of red foxes is often contentious, invoking strong feelings in many people. We wanted to produce what we thought would be a straightforward model of red fox dynamics, as the foundation for answering several applied questions. At first glance, foxes appear to be well studied: a quick search brings up over 1000 papers on aspects of their demography. However, an initial assessment of that literature revealed that the demography of this widespread species was surprisingly poorly known, with limited data for most populations and, even for several better-studied populations, missing information on birth or death rates. Some of the demographic rates that we collated were highly variable between populations – but was this a result of genuine differences, or of poorly defined or presented data?

            Although the available data on red fox populations are often uncertain and frequently based on relatively short-term studies, we were able to analyse the demography of eight different populations. Those analyses revealed considerable variation in demography among the populations. Differences were sufficient to be of consequence for management. More importantly, by substituting demographic parameters between fox populations, we showed that using surrogate data could often be very misleading for managers. Data substitution is often a necessity but our analyses suggest that it can guide how managers prioritise measuring demographic parameters for their focal populations. In general, for example, a model using surrogate data on the probability with which females breed will be more misleading than if surrogate data on litter size is used. Hence, managers should prioritise accurate estimates of the former.

            Overall, what started out as a simple study revealed the significant gaps in our understanding of fox demography, especially in relation to the selection pressures this species faces, such as hunting, disease and a highly variable climate across its range. Owing to variability between populations and the dangers of using surrogate data, the need for more widespread, long-term monitoring is clear. Emerging technologies should be harnessed to make routine the widespread collection of demographic data on wildlife populations. This paper emphasises why a better understanding of the demography of fox populations is of relevance for management. 

Photo  © Paul Cecil

Posted by: oikosasa | October 10, 2012

Hello – are you out there? On detectability and abundance

In the new Early View paper  The influence of abundance on detectability” McCarthy and co-workers explore the relationship between actually being detected and being there.

Here is Michael McCarthy’s own story on the study, the paper and the results:

How hard do we need to look to be sure a species is absent when it is not detected? This question is fundamental in ecology. It is relevant when determining the appropriate level of survey effort, when compiling lists of species, when determining the extinction of species, and when developing surveillance strategies for invasive species.

Without sufficient survey effort, species are not detected perfectly. Imperfect detection arises because species may be temporarily absent, hidden from view, or simply require extra effort to find. The detectability of species can be defined by the rate at which individuals of a species (or groups of those individuals) are encountered.

Detectability of species will increase with abundance, all else being equal. But what is the nature of that relationship? We present a model of this relationship, with the rate of detection being a power function of abundance (Fig. 1). The exponent for this function (b) will equal 1 if individuals are encountered independently of one another. When clustering of individuals increases with abundance, we expect this exponent to be less than 1, but greater than 0.

As values for the scaling exponent approach 0, the detection rate becomes less sensitive to abundance (Fig. 1). Knowing how detection rate scales with abundance can assist when determining detection rates of rare species. This is important because detecting rare species is often important, yet estimates of detection rate are often most uncertain for these species. A scaling relationship would allow extrapolation of detection rates to cases when species are rare.

The field trials were conducted in a remnant of eucalypt woodland in Royal Park near The University of Melbourne searching for plants and coins, in an exotic grassland in Royal Park searching for planted Australian native species, and in eastern Australian forests searching for frogs.

Posted by: oikosasa | October 9, 2012

On the beauty of beta diversity

Recently published in Oikos online is the paper by Carvalho et al. “Measuring fractions of beta diversity and their relationships to nestedness: a theoretical and empirical comparison of novel approaches”. Here, José Carvalho gives us the background and a summary of the paper:
Paul Jaccard proposed the well known Jaccard index of similarity in 1901. Since then the index has been used, in its (dis)similarity forms, widely by ecologists, notably in beta diversity studies. Beta diversity is one of the most broadest concepts in ecology, leading to multiple interpretations, meanings and discussions. This is probably the reason why ecologists took over more than 100 years to discover that the Jaccard index can be decomposed into two sound components of dissimilarity, replacement (turnover) and richness differences. Interestingly, after such a long time, two teams arrived independently to the same conclusions. This work represents the unification of the efforts made by the authors of both teams to elucidate others about the advantages of this approach in understanding the processes that originate beta diversity. However, the proposed decomposition is, indeed, much more general than a simple partitioning of a beta diversity measure, and applications in other fields may be expected. The generality of this approach comes from the fact that it may be viewed as the natural decomposition of a contingency table into two asymmetric components, representing the substitution of units (replacement) and differences in the number of units (richness differences).
Therefore, there is an intrinsic beauty in this approach, which comes from its generality, deep significance and remarkable simplicity.
Posted by: oikosasa | October 5, 2012

Future h-index?

Too much h-index around? Number of citations, h-index and journal’s impact factors are easily used statistics in evaluations of applications for academic jobs and fundings. Easy – yes. But appropriate – not really. One of our editors, Stefano Allesina (University of Chicago), has –together with two colleagues– suggested an alternative metric to use in evaluations: Future h-index, based on scientific activities, diversity of journals where papers are published, network etc. Their method was recently published in Nature.
Stefano, is this the future for academic evaluation committees?
-When I am sitting on hiring committees, I often think: “is it even possible to determine which candidates are going to be good scientists by just looking at their CVs?” To answer the question, we analyzed the career of hundreds of neuroscientists. It turns out that yes, you can pretty much forecast their future impact (i.e., predict their future h-index) using exclusively information that is contained in their CVs. What I think it’s good news is that the variables with the strongest exploratory power are basically those you would have thought they should be: current h-index, number of publications, number of publications in top journals. However, we find that the diversity of journals (and hence the size of the “audience”) is also very important. Thus, I think hiring committees should also evaluate the potential candidates for their ability to reach scientists outside their disciplines and main field of interest.
What response have you met on your method?
-There is definitely some interest, as this work adds to the heated debate on how to measure productivity in academia. However, I see the contribution as a way to skew the debate from past accomplishments toward future achievements. If anything, concentrating on the past tends to promote very conservative science, while what we need is innovation.
Isn’t this just what evaluators actually are considering, but in a non-statistical way?
-Definitely. In a way, you can read the results by saying that “science works”: what we’re telling our students to focus on — good publications — is really what matters. However, I think the emphasis on the diversity of audiences is something that is not normally fully considered by committees and funding agencies.
Can the method be used to calculate future Impact factor for journals as well?
-We found the method to be quite context-dependent. It works well on neuroscientists, when we model neuroscientists. However, the predictive power diminishes when we’re trying out-of-fit predictions in other fields. That said, I think that it could be possible to adapt the technique and extend it to journals.
Posted by: oikosasa | October 4, 2012

Allee effect – a matter of friendship

Suppose you don’t have enough friends around you to do well. Then a foe shows up and takes the place of a friend. What would happen? In our paper “Competition, facilitation and the Allee effect”,  we study the dynamics of two populations with Allee effect (you need a number of friends to do well). The two populations compete (are foes) but can functionally replace members of the other population for some aspects (take the place of a friend). For example, some plants experience an Allee effect because they cannot attract enough pollinators when rare. But a competing plant species can help. So what does happen? Can you imagine that you might be completely dependent on your foe – and they on you?

Frihjof Luscher (on picture)

Lutscher’s and Iljon’s paper is now on Early View in Oikos, read more here

 

 

Posted by: chrislortie | October 2, 2012

DataUp now live

No excuses now, you can archive your data directly from excel files. A real snap! Here’s the link, check it out. I will try it this week too. At this point, it does not seem to provide DOIs but maybe they will.

http://dataup.cdlib.org

Perhaps we should encourage authors to archive Oikos datasets, once ms accepted, using this tool?

Apparently, they take babies too (pic from their site).

Posted by: oikosasa | October 2, 2012

Oikos now on facebook

Yihaa! Finally we’re on facebook as well! Like us and get updated on new hot Oikos papers online!

http://www.facebook.com/oikosjournal

 

Posted by: oikosasa | September 28, 2012

It’s raining again…

Nothing can spoil a vacation as efficiently as a rainfall. And nothing affects a farmer’s mood as rain- it’s presence or it’s abscence. Too much or too litte. Always an issue worth of debating.

In one of the latest Early View papers in Oikos, “Seasonal, not annual precipitation drives community productivity across ecosystems”, Todd M. P. Robinson, and co-workers study the effects of precipitation on plant production in various ecosystems.

Below, the authors give a short background to the study:

While any farmer will tell you how important it is to receive rainfall at certain times of the year, many ecological plant studies focus on how total annual rainfall affects plant production. After a meeting for the US Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER), a group of us decided to test just how helpful it would be to focus on shorter time scales by examining whether rainfall during either the beginning, middle, or end of the growing season correlated with total aboveground production during the same season. We found that focusing on the amount of rain across one or two short time periods usually gave as much or more information on plant production as annual rainfall amounts. This was generally true across a wide array of communities from desserts to forests, despite the large difference in vegetation types and total available water.

As a graduate student working group with members from multiple institutions, we supplemented our initial LTER funded workshop by using Skype and email to coordinate our analyses and writing. As young scientists, we are excited that our cross-site analysis can contribute to the development of a more nuanced approach to plant-rainfall interactions. We expect that the combination of our work with other advances in plant-water dynamics will improve our understanding of how current and future variation in precipitation will affect plant communities.

 

Posted by: oikosasa | September 20, 2012

Failure leads to success!

Last week I attended the conference ”Innovation in Mind” here in Lund. It’s not about technical innovations per se, but more about the creative process that might lead to technical innovations. Or groundbreaking research results. Or the brilliant idea that allows you to both help people and become rich yourself. Or solve the big life problem…or other things gaining from allowing creativity to flow.

One take-home message from the meeting was a reminder about the classic importance of failures. Professor Henri Petroski, at Duke University pointed out that failures lead to success just as success often leads to failures in a kind of cyclic manner. Without failures, no progress and development.

So remember, next time your manuscript is rejected you’re one step closer to a successful accept!

And, as Petroski also pointed out – success is a bad teacher, but a good motivator. Failure on the other hand might not be a very good motivator (easy to give up…) but a very good teacher!

Older Posts »

Categories

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 802 other followers