Journals of Irreproducible Research – downgrading reproducibility and fact checking

As far as I am concerned, good science is about communication and reproducibility, or, as Stephen Heard argues, at least being able to believe that it is reproducible.  I would argue a bit more strongly than Stephen, in that I think you should, at the very least, be able to be confident that you could reproduce the experiment without having to contact the author(s) and that you can also easily check the cited literature.   In this context, there are two things that really annoy me about some of the so-called ’high impact’ established print journals and their on-line would be rivals.  First, the way in which the methods and materials section is relegated to the end of the paper, often in smaller font, and in some cases to the supplementary material section  In other journals e.g. Nature, the methods section is also very minimal and I defy anyone to repeat those experiments!  My second bugbear is the habit that some journals have, possibly to reduce space, in making you use numbers to denote references, placing them either in parentheses or superscript in the main text.

Perhaps I am alone in this, but I do like to know whose work is being cited without having to constantly refer to the references section.  What  particularly annoys me, are those journals that not only insist on numbered references but then list them in number order and not in alphabetical order!  I once wrote a review paper for Annual Review of Entomology, which has the numbering system, but subverted it by listing my references alphabetically – the editor never noticed ;-)

You may say that what all these journals are doing is merely structuring the paper in the order that people tend to read them which is, I admit, a valid point. To me however, they are saying to the scientific community, perhaps not overtly, but certainly subliminally, that methods and materials are something you don’t really need to bother about, somewhat akin to those things that you store in an attic or basement, just in case you might want them at some time in the future, but probably not often, if at all.

Hidden methods

This sends a strong and erroneous message to authors that despite the methodology being the most important part of how we do our science, as long as they report the general gist of how they did things it is fine.  To referees the subversion of the methods section sends an equally strong signal; you don’t really need to spend a lot of time reading about the methodology as long as the rationale for the work is justified and that the results are significant and well presented.

As someone who works on insect-plant interactions I constantly come across inadequate methods and materials sections both as a referee and as a reader of published work.  The thing that perhaps causes me the most annoyance are descriptions of plant phenology.   Herbivorous insects have a very intimate relationship with their host plants and the growth stage of their host plant or the age of the plant tissue that they are feeding on can have very marked effects on their development, survival and fecundity (Awmack & Leather, 2002).  I so often came across methods descriptions along the lines of “10 day-old cabbage seedling” “ 3 week old pepper plant”,  “2 week-old wheat plant”, that in desperation I wrote an editorial (Leather, 2010) explaining how important it was to use a measure that didn’t depend on the temperature,  photoperiod, nutrient or water status that the plants were grown at i.e. the BCCH scale.  I also compiled a virtual issue of Annals of Applied Biology, with relevant examples drawn from the journal which has a long and distinguished history in publishing such articles.  If you can’t find your host plant in past issues of the Annals you will find that most plants have a published version somewhere, even if only on Wikipedia.  Despite my efforts however, I still often have to remind authors to describe the phenological stage of their host plants accurately and precisely.

Methods and materials, please come back, we need you!

 

References

Awmack, C. S. & Leather, S. R. (2002). Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology 47, 817-844.

Leather, S. R. (2010). Precise knowledge of plant growth stages enhances applied and pure research. Annals of Applied Biology 157, 159-161.

 

6 Comments

Filed under Bugbears, Science writing, Uncategorized

Ten Papers that Shook My World – Owen & Weigert (1976) – The things that eat you are good for you

Journal clubs have been around a long time, but as a new PhD student in 1977 it was a new experience for me.  I was thus somewhat uncertain about what was expected from me when my supervisor presented me with a copy of Owen, D.F. & Wiegert, R.G. (1976) Do consumers maximise plant fitness? Oikos, 27, 488-492, and informed me that I was going to present my views on the paper the following month.  In those days organised PhD training programmes in the UK did not exist. Nowadays, PhD students in the UK follow a programme of lectures and workshops ranging from statistics, presentation skills, paper writing, ethics, use of social media, how to run tutorials, IPR, critical appraisal,  etc. etc. Given my lack of experience,  I was a little apprehensive to say the least.  Luckily I had the chance to see how the older members of our research group dealt with their papers in the preceding weeks and was somewhat moe confident about what was expected of me.  I duly read the paper and highlighted the areas that I wanted to critique.

O&W1O&W2O&W3

Parts of the Owen & Weigert (1976) paper showing the bits that I highlighted for my critique.

Owen & Weigert’s hypothesis was, that contrary to accepted doctrine, consumers, especially those feeding on trees, were beneficial to their host plants and not harmful.  Coming fresh from an agriculture department where I had been taught that anything that ate a plant was a pest, this was a startling and heretical concept for me to digest!  I remember at the time that I was not particularly convinced by the arguments and that within the group the general consensus was that Denis Owen was a bit of an eccentric.  In fact, the senior members of the group entered into a printed debate in the popular scientific press (McLean et al., 1977; Owen, 1977) which resulted in what I still consider to be the best ever front cover of New Scientist ;-)

New Scientist cover

Arguably the best ever front cover of New Scientist

 We were not the only ones who expressed scepticism about Owen’s hypothesis, although experimental rebuttals of Owen’s claim that aphids and trees were in a mutualistic relationship via honeydew production did not appear until some years later (Petelle, 1980; Choudhury, 1984, 1985).  These papers resulted in a series of spirited responses from Owen (Owen & Wiegert, 1982a, b, 1985, 1987).  Some years later, however, Joy Belsky provided further evidence against Owen’s hypothesis (Belsky, 1986,1987; Belsky et al., 1993) and I too entered the fray (Leather, 1988,2000).

Thus by the end of the last century it appeared that all the evidence indicated that if you were a plant, being eaten was not good for you.  On the other hand, if Owen had posed his hypothesis at a population or group level, he might have been able to make a better case for herbivores increasing plant fitness. In an earlier post, in which I wrote about the plant immune response and how plants communicate with each other when attacked and warn their neighbours of potential attack, one could definitely make a stronger case for plants benefitting from being eaten.  Induced resistance can even work at an individual level, some recent work (McArt et al., 2013) has shown that evening primroses (Oenothera biennis) attacked early in the season by the Japanese beetle, Popillia japnonica, become more resistant to attack from seed predators than those that escape early season defoliation. As a result the beetle attacked plants produce more seed than those that escaped attack.  Given that a general measure of fitness is reproductive success (i.e. how many seeds are produced) then in this case, consumers do maximise plant fitness and Denis Owen can have the last word.

References

Belsky, A.J. (1986) Does herbivory benefit plants? A review of the evidence. American Naturalist 127, 870-892

Belsky, A.J. (1987) The effects of grazing: confounding of ecosystem, community and organism scales. American Naturalist, 129, 777-783.

Belsky, A.J., Carson, W.P., Jensen, C.L. & Fox, G.A, (1993) Overcompensation by plants – herbivore optimization or red herring. Evolutionary Ecology, 7, 109-121.

Choudhury, D. (1984) Aphids and plant fitness – a test of Owen and Wiegert’s hypothesis. Oikos, 43, 401-402.

Choudhury, D. (1985) Aphid honeydew – a re-appraisal of Owen and Wiegert’s hypothesis. Oikos, 45, 287-289.

Leather, S.R. (1988) Consumers and plant fitness: coevolution or competition ? Oikos, 53, 285-288.

Leather, S.R. (2000) Herbivory, phenology, morphology and the expression of sex in trees: who is in the driver’s seat? Oikos, 90, 194-196.

McArt, S.H., Halitschke, R., Salminen, J.P. & Thaler, J.S. (2013)  Leaf herbivory increases plant fitness via induced resistance to seed predators.  Ecology, 94, 966-975.

McLean, I., Carter, N., & Watt, A. (1977) Pests out of Control. New Scientist, 76, 74-75.

Owen, D.F. (1977) Are aphids really plant pests? New Scientist, 76, 76-77.

Owen, D. F. (1980). How plants may benefit from the animals that eat them. Oikos 35: 230-235.

Owen, D.F. & Wiegert, R.G. (1976) Do consumers maximise plant fitness? Oikos, 27, 488-492

Owen, D.F. & Wiegert, R.G. (1982) Beating the walnut tree: more on grass/grazer mutualism. Oikos, 39, 115-116.

Owen, D.F. & Wiegert, R.G. (1982) Grasses and grazers: is there a mutualism ? Oikos, 38, 258-259.

Owen, D.F. & Wiegert, R.G. (1984) Aphids and plant fitness. Oikos, 43, 403.

Owen, D.F. & Wiegert, R.G. (1987). Leaf eating as mutualism. In Insect Outbreaks (ed. by P. Barbosa & J.C. Schultz), pp. 81-95. Academic Press, New York.

Petelle, M. (1980) Aphids and melezitose: a test of Owen’s 1978 hypothesis. Oikos, 35, 127-128.

 

Post script

Denis Owen died at a relatively young age and for those interested in his career and life, his obituary can be found here.

 

 

4 Comments

Filed under Aphids, Ten Papers That Shook My World

Re-examining external examining and the evolution of humans

External examining 2

Last year I wrote about my first year of being external examiner for the BSc Zoology degree at University College Dublin and some of the reasons why I enjoy the process.  This year I again visited Dublin to undertake my annual review of the zoology degree and was reminded of another reason why I find being an external examiner so rewarding.

Normally I go through all the exam scripts looking at how well they are annotated by the first marker, if they are signposted to help the second marker, e.g. marked as outside reading (OR) and check if they have been moderated and if the mark given has been justified in accordance with the marking criteria.  I also check if the marking across and between modules is consistent and fair.  For many of the modules this is really all I can do as I may not know a great deal about the subject, e.g. epithelial transport.  On the other hand there are some modules that I know a lot about, such as insect-plant interactions or biodiversity, where the questions asked are often very similar to the ones that I set for my own students. In these cases I read each answer and mark them before looking at what the actual mark given was and if they are similar this gives me confidence that all is well.

I often find myself learning new things when I read through the research projects of the students that I am going to viva; this year ranging from molecular biology, to phylogenetics, to elucidating the genes associated with inflammation of the brain of Irish greyhounds, to vertebrate behaviour to marine invertebrates and of course not forgetting entomology.  In respect to the projects this year the experience was no different.  What was different this year was that I had enough time to become engrossed with the scripts of the Evolution of Humans module.  One of the questions asked students to review the evidence that supports or refutes the theory that bipedalism in humans arose from adopting wading behaviour in a humid woodland environment. As a teenager, heretical as it may seem to my fellow entomologists, I was very interested in human evolution, reading and being influenced by Robert Ardrey, especially his book African Genesis and of course by the work of the Leakeys.  On reaching university and afterwards however, I became much more focused on invertebrates and my reading on human evolution became somewhat limited, although I do remember being unconvinced, rightly it seems, by the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis and sticking with the African savannah origin hypothesis.

I was thus fascinated to read about The Amphibian Generalist Theory (Niemitz, 2002) in which Carsten Niemitz put forward the idea that our hominid ancestors lived in trees in forested habitats as had been suggested earlier (Clarke & Tobias, 1995) but moved from there to forage along the nearby coasts and river banks from which they waded into the water in pursuit of the rich food sources available. The buoyancy given by the water and the need to keep their heads above water helped develop bipedalism.

Wading monkeys

Modern wading quadruped primates adopting bipedal locomotion whilst wading.  ‘Borrowed’ from Niemitz (2010).

Gorilla wading

Looks more like what happens when you get into water that is colder than you expect than foraging for food!

At the same time as the forests were fragmenting, the savannahs were forming and these were also able to be exploited by these early hominids. I found the student essays fascinating and they stimulated me to download lots of the papers that they referred to in their exam answers.  So as a direct result of external examining I have updated my knowledge of human evolution, and rekindled my interest in the subject.

This is, I think, a salutary message to us all, that by becoming too engrossed in our own subjects we run the risk of losing an all-round appreciation of the world in general.  Talking and listening to people from other disciplines is very important and can lead to very productive and exciting collaborations.  As an example, our entomology group at Harper Adams have  begun to develop some collaborative work with a psychologist, Claudia Uller, from Kingston University which will hopefully generate some very exciting projects.

And my final take-home message; if you are offered the chance to become an external examiner, jump at the opportunity and and not just auditing the process, take the time to read the essays and projects that are not directly in your area of expertise.  You will be pleasantly surprised.

References

Clarke, R.J., and Tobias, P.V. (1995) Sterkfontein member 2 footbones of the oldest South African hominid. Science 269:521–524

Niemitz, C. (2002) A theory on the habitual orthograde human bipedalism—the “Amphibische Generalistentheorie”. Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 60:3–66

Niemitz, C. (2010) The evolution of the upright posture and gaita review and a new synthesis.  Naturwissenschaften, 97:241–263

Leave a comment

Filed under Teaching matters

Mellow Yellow – Not all aphids live on green leaves

I have written before about aphids and how their quest for the ideal food plant may explain the evolution of host alternation; we find that most aphid species tend to be associated with rapidly growing meristems, or newly flushing leaves (Dixon, 2005). Some aphids are so keen on young plant tissue that they ‘engineer’ youth in their host plants, injecting salivary compounds and forming leaf–rolls, pseudo-galls and galls, all of which act as nutrient sinks and lengthen the time that the modified leaves stay green and nutrient-rich

leaf roll Rhopalosiphum

 Leaf-roll caused by Rhopalosiphum padi on bird cherry, Prunus padus.

Leaf roll Myzus cerasi

Pronounced leaf roll pseudo-gall caused by Myzus cerasi on Prunus avium.

Non host-alternating (autoecious) aphids, such as the sycamore aphid Drepanosiphum platanoidis, the maple aphid, Periphyllus testudinaceus, or the birch aphid, Euceraphis punctipennis, have no such escape route; they are confined to their tree host for the year, albeit, they can, if they ‘wish’, fly to another tree of the same species, but essentially they are held hostage by the their host plant. As the season progresses, leaf nutritional and physical properties change; going from young tender green leaves, with high nitrogen and water contents, to mature, tough leaves, low in nitrogen and water to yellow senescing leaves with again, higher nitrogen levels (Awmack & Leather, 2002) and finally of course, dead brown leaves of no nutritional value.

Seasonal changes

Sycamore and maple aphids, enter a state of suspended animation ‘summer aestivation’ (Essig, 1952; Dixon, 1963), whilst birch and poplar aphids, whose hosts plants often produce new growth during the year, ‘track’ these new leaves (Wratten, 1974; Gould et al., 2007). As far as these aphids are concerned young tissue is their best food source, with senescent tissue being second best and mature leaves being least favoured. During the summer they will, however, take advantage of mature leaves that are prematurely senescing, such as those attacked by leaf diseases such as tar spot. I have often found sycamore aphids feeding and reproducing on these infected leaves whilst those aphids on neighbouring mature leaves remain in aestivation.

Tar spot 2

Effects of tar spot on sycamore leaves

Host-alternating (heteroecious) aphids on the other hand are somewhat different. As their life cycle includes a programmed migration back to their primary tree host in autumn, those autumn morphs (oviparae) are adapted to senescent tissue (Leather & Dixon, 1982, Kundu & Dixon, 1993, 1994). Similarly, the spring morphs (fundatrices and fundatrigeniae) are adapted to young leaves and find it difficult or impossible, to make a living on senescent leaves.
Morphs and host age

There are yet other aphids, such as the green spruce aphid Elatobium abietinum, the pine aphid, Eulachnus agilis and the black pecan aphid, Melanocallis caryaefoliae, that are senescence specialists. In contrast to the flush specialists, these aphids engineer senescence, also using salivary compounds,  and are unable to survive on young foliage (Bliss, 1973; Fisher, 1987; Cottrell et al., 2009).

Elatobium in action

Elatobium abietinum ‘engineering’ senescence on spruce needles and avoiding young flushing tissue.

It is interesting to speculate that perhaps these tree-dwelling non host-alternating aphids are secondarily derived from the autumn part of the life-cycle of host-alternating aphids. After all, if non host-alternating aphids on herbaceous host plants are off-shoots of the summer part of the host-alternating life-cycle why not the other way round. There is just so much more to learn about aphids. Yet another reason why I love aphids so much ;-)

References

Awmack, C.S. & Leather, S.R. (2002) Host plant quality and fecundity in herbivorous insects. Annual Review of Entomology, 47, 817-844.

Bliss, M., Yendol, W.G., & Kearby, W.H. (1973) Probing behaviour of Eulachnus agilis and injury to Scotch pine. Journal of Economic Entomology, 66, 651-655.

Cottrell, T.E., Wood, B.W. & Ni, X. (2009) Chlorotic feeding injury by the Black Pecan Aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) to pecan foliage promotes aphid settling and nymphal development. Environmental Entomology, 38, 411-416.

Dixon, A.F.G. (1963) Reproductive activity of the sycamore aphid, Drepanosiphum platanoides (Schr) (Hemiptera, Aphididae). Journal of Animal Ecology, 32, 33-48.

Dixon, A.F.G. (2005) Insect Herbivore-Host Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Fisher, M. (1987) The effect of previously infested spruce needles on the growth of the green spruce aphid, Elatobium abietinum. Annals of Applied Biology, 111, 33-41.

Gould, G.G., Jones, C.G., Rifleman, P., Perez, A., & Coelman, J.S. (2007) Variation in Eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides Bartr.) phloem sap content caused by leaf development may affect feeding site selection behaviour of the aphid, Chaitophorous populicola Thomas (Homoptera: Aphididae). Environmental Entomology, 36, 1212-1225.

Kundu, R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1993) Do host alternating aphids know which plant they are on? Ecological Entomology, 18, 61-66.

Kundu, R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1994) Feeding on their primary host by return migrants of the host alternating aphid, Cavariella aegopodii. Ecological Entomology, 19, 83-86.

Leather, S.R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1981) Growth, survival and reproduction of the bird-cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi, on it’s primary host. Annals of applied Biology, 99, 115-118.

Wratten, S.D. (1974) Aggregation in the birch aphid, Euceraphis punctipennis (Zett.) in relation to food quality. Journal of Animal Ecology, 43, 191-198.

 

Post script

A lot of what I describe comes from a talk I gave in 2009 at a workshop in Oxford on autumn colours (the output of which was Archetti, M., Döring, T.F., Hagen, S.B., Hughes, N.M., Leather, S.R., Lee, D.W., Lev-Yadun, S., Manetas, Y., Ougham, H.J., Schaberg, P.G., & Thomas, H. (2009) Unravelling the evolution of autumn colours: an interdisciplinary approach. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 166-173. I always meant to write the talk up as an Opinion piece but procrastination set in badly. I was somewhat annoyed with myself when earlier this year this excellent piece by the legendary ecologist and entomologist, Tom White, appeared; I have only myself to blame, six years is a very long bit of procrastination ;-)

White, T.C.R. (2015) Senescence-feeders: a new trophic sub-guild of insect herbivores Journal of Applied Entomology, 139, 11-22.

 

Post post script

This post is dedicated to my eldest son, Sam, who died quietly in his sleep, at a tragically young age, December 23rd 2010.   It would have been his birthday on the 21st May.  Despite being a molecular biologist, (he worked at the Sanger Institute), he was as green as you can get, a great naturalist and conservationist, with an incredibly gentle soul. He strongly believed in conserving the World’s natural resources and amused colleagues by sticking up signs in the toilets at the Sanger, which read “If its yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it down”.

Sampsa

 

He is sorely missed by us all. He also had more Nature papers than me ;-)

Parkhill, J., Achtman, M., James, K.D. et al., (2000) Complete DNA sequence of a serogroup A strain of Neisseria meningitides. Nature, 404, 502-506

Parkhill, J., Dougan, G. , James, K.D. (2001) Complete genome sequence of a multiple drug resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi CT18. Nature, 413, 848-852.

Parkhill, J., Wren, B.W., Thomson, N.R. et al., (2001) Genome sequence of Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague. Nature, 413, 523-527.

Parkhill, J., Sebaihia, M., Preston, A. et al., (2003) Comparative analysis of the genome sequences of Bordetella pertussis,   Bordetella parapertussis and Bordetella bronchiseptica. Nature Genetics, 35, 32-40

Wood, V., Gwilliam, R. Rajandream, M.A. et al., (2002) The genome sequence of Schizosaccharomyces pombe . Nature, 415, 871-880

 

 

6 Comments

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids

Distant Elephants and Low-Hanging Fruit – confessions of a procrastinator

elephant vsmall

verb; procrastinate – delay or postpone action; put off doing something

I hate writing full-blown grant applications. The thought of sitting down with a blank page in front of me, and justifying why I want to do the research, saying how well it fits the remit of the research council, demonstrating how great I am (track record of applicant), articulating my hypotheses, outlining the work packages, writing an impact statement, getting costings to draw up a budget, justifying the resources requested, and so on and so on, and all with the knowledge that there is an about 1 in 5 chance of getting funded, does not fill me with any great enthusiasm. It also takes up a huge amount of my time and to do it properly you really do need to sit down and exclude all other activities.

I also find it difficult to start writing a paper from scratch, or get to work on a new presentation;  I should, for example, be getting my plenary lecture for ENTO15 ready, but as it only May 11th and I am not speaking until September 2nd I am finding it difficult to get started on that. This is despite the fact that it was only by a superhuman effort before Christmas I got the written version submitted to Ecological Entomology on the required day (now available on Early View if you are interested).  Of course I am steadfastly ignoring the fact that I will be on holiday from July 24th until August 17th and that on my return I will be marking several MSc project reports!

elephant small

I have several delaying (apparently according to Microsoft Word, procrastinatory doesn’t exist) tactics, or low-hanging fruits, that I can pick

Low-hanging fruit

when faced with things I don’t really like doing; I can tidy my desk,

Desk

I can go to check my aphid cultures (a very useful 800 m walk to the glasshouses), I can walk to the Postgraduate Office to check applications (450 m from my office), do a sweep round the PhD offices (also 450 m away from my office) to see how my students are doing, check my email (again and again), accept a request to review a paper, although this then necessitates writing a report ;-) , and as an Editor, I have the very useful excuse that I need to log on to the journal site to check what is happening; the list is long and can certainly fill my day.

elephant medium

In our defence, procrastinators are actually very useful for the academic community; we are the people who agree to review papers, agree to be external examiners, sit on internal and external committees, do a lot of teaching and generally act as good citizens, although perhaps not as altruistically as our colleagues might think, after all we do have an ulterior motive.

Is there a cure?

There are things that we can do; a colleague of mine, does not open her emails on a Monday, I don’t have the will power to do this, I find it difficult enough to ignore my email for two-hour periods, which is my attempt at giving myself a chance to get really into doing some writing. Some people (those who are sociable and find it hard not to go to coffee or chat with colleagues) work from home; again this does not work for me as I then find household chores to distract me. I once went on a time management course in which the use of a daily To Do List was suggested. I dutifully began one of these but found that because of reactive tasks my proactive list just carried on to the next day and never seemed to get completed so that didn’t work for me either, but perhaps I should have said no to the reactive tasks or been less ambitions with the number of things on my To Do List? If anyone has further suggestions please let me know.

So how is that I complete anything substantial? For external tasks this is easy, I promise to deliver, and because I take my solemn promises to other people very seriously indeed, the task gets done, no matter how much I would rather not do it. Unfortunately, promises to myself I find much easier to break, so things that I regard as non-life or career-threatening, do tend to fall by the wayside.

elephant big

 

All in all, I’m very lucky as my procrastinatory (it does exist Microsoft – see here) habits are relatively mild and surmountable, and I have managed to get this far in life without any serious failures.

There are, however, some people who procrastinate because of fear of failure, they set themselves the impossible goal of perfection (unless of course you are a gymnast or diver). This can lead to some very serious failures; for example, students who don’t answer any questions in an exam because they are afraid that their answers will be wrong and hand in a blank answer book, despite having it pointed out to them that if they don’t write anything they will definitely fail. I have also known students who find it almost impossible to hand in written work because they are afraid that it won’t be good enough, despite being told that unless I can see something I can’t help them improve it. To a non-sufferer the solution seems incredibly simple, just get out there and do something, how difficult can it be? It is, however, not simple at all, it can actually be a serious psychological problem that needs very sympathetic and supportive handling, ranging from sharing the task with a friend, colleague or even a suitably sympathetic supervisor, to professional counselling. It is not something to be dismissed lightly as an exasperating foible. Please, please remember this the next time you come across a colleague or student who persistently fails to complete tasks on time. They are not doing it on purpose.  Talk to them about the problem and address the issues sympathetically and with compassion and recommend them to seek psychological help if you feel it is necessary.
Post script

Apropos my latest attempt at writing a major grant proposal, the closing date is 17th May and given that I am writing this on the 11th May and I have, so far only written the opening paragraph of a ten page proposal, I fear that the elephant is about to arrive and trample me ;-)

elephant large

Post post script

It amazes me how many times you hear or see, people using the word prevaricate when they mean procrastinate; they are very different in meaning and not something you would want to own up to in public. Prevaricate means to act or speak in an evasive way (for great examples listen to a politician being interviewed), which to me at least, implies dishonesty.

elephant large

 

12 Comments

Filed under Bugbears, The Bloggy Blog, Uncategorized

The UK needs more forest health specialists

Last week (April 22nd and 23rd 2015) I had the pleasure of attending the Institute of Chartered Foresters’  National Conference in Cardiff.  The theme of the conference was Tree health, resilience and sustainability.

ICF conference

 The PowerPoint versions of the presentations are available here.

It was very well attended with over 150 delegates and divided into six sessions; Setting the Scene, Overseas Experience, Perspectives on Risk, Searching for Resilience and Sustainability, Practical Responses in the Field and finally Messages for Government and the Profession.  The speakers came from a range of backgrounds; universities, research institutes, the forest industry and others.  Dr John Gibbs, a former colleague of mine from Forest Research opened the formal talks with a masterly review of how forest health problems were tackled in the last century, using Dutch Elm Disease as his focal organism. He was followed by Professor James Brown from the John Innes Institute discussing how lessons from agriculture could be used to develop strategies to combat tree diseases.  Both these speakers pointed out that there was a grave shortage of forest pathologists and entomologists in the UK, particularly in the university sector.   James Brown commented that he had been shocked to discover he had only been able to count seven people in the sector working on tree diseases and added that this did not make them forest pathologists.  We had talks from overseas speakers such as Professor Mike Wingfield from South Africa on global forest health threats, Jim Zwack from the USA speaking on the Emerald Ash Borer as an urban pest problem and Catherine St-Marie highlighting the fact that climate change was aiding and abetting the spread of the Mountain Pine Beetle in Canada.

There was a surprisingly interesting talk on the problems of insuring forests against pests and disease form Phil Cottle of Pardus Underwriting Limited and an enlightening presentation from Professor David Ball from Middlesex University talking about uncertainty and decision-making.  Again both these speakers highlighted the need for further information about pests and diseases.

Day 2 had us searching for resilience and sustainability within the UK forestry sector with a very entertaining talk from Jo O’Hara, Head of Forestry Commission Scotland.  Her talk really drove home to me how much UK forestry has changed over the last 30 years; when I joined the Forestry Commission in 1982 they had only just appointed their first woman District Officer, and now a woman runs FC Scotland – a very welcome sign of change.  Tariq Butt from Swansea University spoke about the use of entomopahogenic fungi as biological control agents in forestry, something increasingly moving higher on the agenda as we face the loss of even more conventional pesticides in the next few years and Martin Ward, the Director-General of EPPO asked us to consider how global plant health arrangements could be improved to protect trees more effectively.  Again the message was that we need more forest health specialist, and not just in the UK.   After the morning coffee break, Joan Webber, the Principal Pathologist for Forest Research UK, spoke about detection and precautionary measures to combat biosecurity threats and yet again highlighted the need for further research and eyes on the ground; in other words more specialist staff are required.  Neil Strong from Network Rail drew our attention to the problems caused by trees to our railway system and then Bill Mason extolled the virtues of increasing species and structural diversity when planting new forests and managing older ones, to improve resilience.

The afternoon session kicked off with Clive Potter from Imperial College talking about understanding what the public’s concerns about tree health are and how certain events can amplify risk perception among the public.  The public outcry about Chalara and Ash Dieback being a particularly good example of the phenomenon.  I followed with a talk about the needs for professional education which gave me the opportunity to point out what subject areas should be covered in an aspiring forester’s education.

Essential skills

I was also able to remind my audience that the number of UK universities providing specific forestry training at undergraduate level had dwindled to less than a handful and that despite offering modules purporting to cover forest health problems, only two employ specialist staff in those areas.  At postgraduate level there is only one course that deals specifically with forest health issues in the UK, the MSc in Conservation & Forest Protection that I run at Harper Adams University.

My take-home messages to a very receptive audience was that students need more emphasis on identification skills and much more practical experience, that current forestry professionals need to keep their eyes open and practice looking for pests and diseases as well as taking any opportunity to refresh their training and that UK universities offering forestry related courses need to employ more forest entomologists and forest pathologists.  Even more importantly, the UK government need to make sure that there are financial incentives to encourage universities to employ more forest entomologists and forest pathologists by increasing targeted research funding in those areas and once increased, maintain those levels of funding.  There also needs to be a clear signposting of career opportunities for the next generation of forest health scientists and if we as a country are serious about safeguarding our native woodlands and forest estate, then more jobs need to be created.

As I have written elsewhere, we cannot afford to sit back and hope that things will get better on their own.  Versions of this slide appeared on the screen several times during the course of the conference.  We are under attack and we need more suitably qualified people to help repel and contain the invaders.

Forest pests

 

Additional reading

Leather, S.R. (2014) Current and future threats to UK forestry. Outlooks on Pest Management, 25, 22-24.

Leather, S.R. (2014) How prepared is the UK to combat future and current threats to forests? Commonwealth Forestry Association Newsletter, 64, 10-11.

 

Post script

I am very grateful indeed to the Institute of Chartered Foresters for giving me the opportunity to speak at the conference and for providing generous hospitality.  It was one of the most engaging and interesting conferences that I have been to for a very long time.  Well done ICF.

 

Post post script

It was also good to see Twitter being used very successfully with the #Treehealth hashtag.  We even had participants from the Canadian Forestry Service!

ICF tweets

2 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized

Not all aphids take the same risks

In 1970 an entomologist working on the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae, at Rothamsted Experimental Station (as it then was),  noted that he could categorise the winged individuals as either migrants, flyers or non-flyers; the former flying before they reproduced, the second flying after they reproduced and the final category, never flying (Shaw, 1970).  To describe this phenomenon he used the phrase “migratory urge” a term previously only used in the ornithological literature.

A few years later a group of PhD students in Tony Dixon’s lab at the University of East Anglia started dissecting aphids and counting their ovarioles, finding that unlike most other insects, ovariole number was variable within a species and not related to adult weight (Dixon & Dharma, 1980; Wellings et al., 1980; Leather, 1983).  Generally speaking, in insects, including aphids, the heavier they are, the more fecund they are, although in some instances this is not always true (Leather, 1988).

Ovarioles Fig 1

Figure 1 taken from http://www.aphidsonworldsplants.info/Cloning_Experts_3.htm

Ovarioles Fig 2

Figure 2 What aphid ovarioles really look like Dombrovsky  et al. BMC Research Notes 2009 2:185   doi:10.1186/1756-0500-2-185

What we found then (Wellings et al., 1980), and later (Leather et al., 1988), was that aphids with wings (alatae) even those from the same clone, had much more variability in the number of ovarioles contained within them than those without wings (apterae) (Leather et al., 1988), and that the more ovarioles an aphid contained the more fecund it was, although as mentioned earlier the number of ovarioles appeared to be independent of weight (Leather & Wellings, 1981).

So what does this have to do with migratory urge in Aphis fabae? In the early 1980s Keith Walters was working on migration in cereal aphids (Sitobion avenae and Rhopalosiphum padi) and discovered, that as with Aphis fabae these two species also produced alatae with different flight attributes (Walters & Dixon, 1983).  Building on what we in our group had discovered about ovarioles, Keith was able to show that the degree of migratory urge in aphids was determined by the number of ovarioles they contained. The greater the number of ovarioles the more reluctant they were to take flight (Figure 3ab).

Ovarioles Fig 3a

Figure 3a Relationship between number of ovarioles and time to take-off (minutes) in Sitobion avenae  (Drawn from data in Walters & Dixon, 1983).

Ovarioles Fig 3b

Figure 3b Relationship between number of ovarioles and time to take-off (minutes) in Rhopaloisphum padi  (Drawn from data in Walters & Dixon, 1983).

 He also found that the fewer the number of ovarioles, the steeper the angle of take-off was (Figure 4) i.e. aphids with few ovarioles climbed faster and more steeply and were thus more likely to end  up higher in the air, and thus more likely to travel further than those

Ovarioles Fig 4

Figure 4 Relationship between number of ovarioles and angle of take-off (degrees) in Rhopalosiphum padi (drawn from data in Walters & Dixon, 1983).

taking off at a shallower angle.  He also showed that resistance to starvation was greater in those aphids with fewer ovarioles and that they could also fly for longer periods of time.  Given that alatae of Aphis fabae also have a variable number of ovarioles, 6-12 (Leather et al., 1988), we can see that this fits in very well with Shaw’s classification of migrants, flyers and non-flyers.

This is yet another great example of the flexibility (plasticity) of the aphid clone.  By producing offspring that have different flight capabilities and propensities, the clone is able to hedge its bets in times of adversity; alate aphids in many aphid species are produced in response to crowding and/or poor nutritional quality (Dixon, 1973).  This deterioration in living conditions could be very local i.e. restricted to the plant on which the aphid is feeding or its immediate neighbours, slightly more widespread, i.e. at a field scale or at a much more widespread landscape scale.  Given that long distance aphid migration is very costly (only a tiny proportion survive, Ward et al, 1998) the best option is to spread the risk between the members of your clone.  Those individuals with more ovarioles and greater potential fecundity make the low risk short-distance hops (trivial flights), but take the chance that the next door plant might be just as bad as the one left behind and also within easy reach of natural enemies, but with a higher chance of arriving and reproducing.

Ovarioles Fig 5

A risk taking aphid!

 

At the other end of the scale, those clone members with fewer ovarioles and reduced potential fecundity make the long distance migratory flights, with the risk of not finding a suitable host plant in time, but with the chance that if they do, it will be highly nutritious and natural enemy-free.  A really good example of not putting all your eggs in one basket and yet again a demonstration of what fantastic insects aphids are ;-)

 

References

Dixon, A.F.G. (1973) Biology of Aphids Edward Arnold, London.

Dixon, A.F.G. & Dharma, T.R. (1980) Number of ovarioles and fecundity in the black bean aphid, Aphis fabae. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 28, 1-14.

Leather, S.R. (1983) Evidence of ovulation after adult moult in the bird cherry-oat aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 33, 348-349.

Leather, S. R. (1988). Size, reproductive potential and fecundity in insects: Things aren’t as simple as they seem. Oikos 51: 386-389.

Leather, S.R. & Welllings, P.W. (1981) Ovariole number and fecundity in aphids. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 30, 128-133.

Leather, S.R., Wellings, P.W., & Walters, K.F.A. (1988) Variation in ovariole number within the Aphidoidea. Journal of Natural History, 22, 381-393.

Shaw, M.J.P. (1970) Effects of population density on the alienicolae of Aphis fabae Scop.II The effects of crowding on the expression of migratory urge among alatae in the laboratory. Annals of Applied Biology, 65, 197-203.

Walters, K.F.A. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1983) Migratory urge and reproductive investment in aphids: variation within clones. Oecologia, 58, 70-75.

Ward, S.A., Leather, S.R., Pickup, J., & Harrington, R. (1998) Mortality during dispersal and the cost of host-specificity in parasites: how many aphids find hosts? Journal of Animal Ecology, 67, 763-773.

Wellings, P.W., Leather , S.R., & Dixon, A.F.G. (1980) Seasonal variation in reproductive potential: a programmed feature of aphid life cycles. Journal of Animal Ecology, 49, 975-985.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Aphidology, Aphids

Entomological classics – the pitfall trap

Pitfall arghh I would be amazed if there are any entomologists who have not deployed a pitfall trap or two at some stage in their career. I would also hazard a guess that quite a few non-entomological ecologists have come across the joys of pitfall trap setting and catch sorting as part of their undergraduate training; most field courses seem to include a pitfall trap day, and rightly so.  Pitfall trapping is after all, probably the simplest and most efficient way of collecting data, and not always insects ;-) Pitfall - tapir

Tapir pitfall trap

More seriously though, pitfall traps are a remarkably simple and incredibly versatile way of sampling insects, particularly those that are active on the soil surface (epigeal) e.g carabid beetles. Pitfall forest They can be used in most habitats where you are able to dig into the soil,

Pitfall traps cheap

are very cheap as they can be made from easily obtainable household materials Pitfall traps and can be modified easily depending on your objectives and sampling conditions.  It is very important however, that the lip of the trap is either flush with or below the soil surface.  Not very many beetles or other invertebrates,  are willing to climb up the steep sides  to allow you to capture them. Pitfall - spatial patterns They are also amenable to being deployed in a variety of statistically meaningful ways. (Figure ‘borrowed’ from Woodcock (2005)). Pitfall traps - catch a lot They are of course not perfect.   Some of my students complain that they catch too much!

There has been, and continues to be, much debate about what the catch actually represents.  Are they a measure of activity or of density, i.e. do the trap catches represent the most active and careless beetles, rather than the most abundant?  Southwood (1966) in the first edition of Ecological Methods is fairly dismissive of their use except as a way of studying the activity, seasonal incidence and dispersion of single species and considered them to be of no use whatsoever in comparing communities.  Other authors argue however, that if the trapping is carried out over a long period of time then the data collected can be representative of actual abundance (e.g. Gist & Crossley, 1973; Baars, 1979) and despite Southwood’s comments, they are probably most often used to compare communities (e.g. Rich et al., 2013; Zmihorski et al., 2013;  Wang et al., 2014) For a very thorough account of the use and abuse of pitfall traps see Ben Woodcock’s excellent 2005 article (and I am not just saying that because he is one of my former students). You might expect, given the fact that pitfalls were used by our remote ancestors to trap their vertebrate prey, that entomologists would have adopted this method of trapping very early on, especially given the fact that nature got there first, e.g. as used by larvae of the antlion. Antlion trap

Antlion ‘pitfall traps’.

I was therefore surprised when I started researching this article to find that the earliest reference I could find in the scientific literature was Barber (1931).  I found this very hard to believe so resorted to Twitter.  Richard Jones suggested that a sentence in Pitfall silver sand reference

Notes on Collecting and Preserving Natural History Objects

referring to silver sand pits might be a reference to an early form of pitfall trap.  On further research however, it turned out that sand pits were the results of sand mining operations and were used opportunistically by entomologists.  They worked in a very similar way to Pitfall - St Austell

St Austell Ruddle Moor Sand Pit http://www.cornwall-opc.org/Par_new/a_d/austell_st.php

intercept traps (the subject of a future post).   Interestingly, in some parts of the world, sand pits are now being restored in some places as conservation tools for digger wasp sand bees. Pitfall Bohemia

Sand pit restoration – Bohemia.  http://www.outdoorconservation.eu/project-detail.cfm?projectid=17

  But, I digress.  My next port of call was The Insect Hunter’s Companion (Greene, 1880) which I felt certain would mention pitfall traps.  To my surprise, in the 1880s, entomologists intent on capturing beetles, either pursued them with nets, turned over stones and logs, removed bark from trees, used beating trays or even dug holes in the ground, but never used pitfall traps!  So all very active and energetic methods – no sit and wait in those days ;-) So it seems that Barber’s 1931 description of a pitfall trap does indeed commemorate the first scientific use of a pitfall trap. Barber trap

The Barber trap (Barber, 1931).

Despite their late addition to the entomological armoury and despite the many criticisms levelled at their use, they continue to be perhaps the most widely used method of insect sampling ever; for example if you enter Beetle* AND pitfall* AND trap*  into the Web of Science you will return 1168 hits since 2000, which is more than one a week.  If you further refine your search to exclude beetle but add insect* you can add another 320 hits. If by some chance you have never used a pitfall trap, then I heartily recommend that you set one or two up in a convenient flower bed or even your lawn, and then sit back and wait and see what exciting beasties are roaming your garden.

Post script

Since this post was published I have discovered an earlier reference to the use of pitfall traps (Hertz, 1927).  Many thanks to Jari Niemelä  of Helsinki University for sending me a copy of the reference and many thanks to my eldest daughter for translating the relevant bit, which follows –  “The traps were made of meticulously cleaned tin cans (the rectangle ones used for e.g.  sardines) dug into the ground so deep that the top of the tin was absolutely level with the ground…… it is an ideal way to catch the beetles; with their careless way of running around, they easily fell into the deathtraps, and had no time to use their wings (if they have any)”.  The phrase deathtraps is particularly fine.  The majority of the paper is about the species he caught in different locations and he highlights the fact that he caught seven very rare species using this method.

So this is now the oldest known reference to the use of pitfall traps in the literature, although he does mention that he was using this method to catch beetles in 1914.  But if anyone comes across an earlier reference do let me know.

 

References

Baars, M.A. (1979) Catches in pitfall traps in relation to mean densities of carabid beetles. Oecologia, 41, 25-46.

Barber, H.S. (1931) Traps for cave inhabiting insects.  Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society, 46, 259-266.

Gist, C.S. & Crossley, J.D.A. (1973) A method for quantifying pitfall trapsEnvironmental Entomology, 2, 951-952.

Greene, J. (1880) The Insect Hunter’s Companion: Being Instructions for Collecting and Describing Butterflies, Moths, Beetles, Bees, Flies, Etc.  

Hertz, M. (1927) Huomioita petokuoriaisten olinpaikoista.  Luonnon Ystävä, 31, 218-222

Rich, M.C., Gough, L., & Boelman, N.T. (2013) Arctic arthropod assemblages in habitats of differing shrub dominance. Ecography, 36, 994-1003.

Southwood, T.R.E. (1966) Ecological Methods, Chapman & Hall, London.

Wang, X.P., Müller, J., An, L., Ji, L., Liu, Y., Wang, X., & Hao, Z. (2014) Intra-annual variations in abundance and speceis composition of carabid beetles in a temperate forest in Northeast China. Journal of Insect Conservation, 18, 85-98.

Woodcock, B.A. (2005) Pitfall trapping in ecological studies.  Pp 37-57 [In] Insect Sampling in Forest Ecosystems, ed S.R. Leather, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Zmihorski, M., Sienkiewicz, P., & Tryjanowski, P. (2013) Neverending story: a lesson in using sampling efficieny methods with ground beetles. Journal of Insect Conservation, 17, 333-337.

 

Post post script

Pitfall traps are even more versatile than you might think. Mark Telfer has developed a nifty subterranean version http://markgtelfer.co.uk/beetles/techniques-for-studying-beetles/subterranean-pitfall-traps-for-beetles/  and at the opposite end of the spectrum, pitfall traps have also been used in trees to sample spiders (Pinzon & Spence, 2008).

Reference Pinzon, J. & Spence, J. (2008) Performance of two arboreal pitfall trap designs in sampling cursorial spiders from tree trunks.  Journal of Arachnology, 36, 280-286

 

Post post script And for those of you who have had to suffer sitting through the Pokémon movie as I did many years ago, there is also a Pokémon version of the antlion! Pitfall Pokemon

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Trapinch_(Pok%C3%A9mon)

 and don’t forget Winnie the Pooh and his heffalump trap ;-)  Hopefully you will use them more carefully than he did. Pitfall trap - Heffalump

4 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes

Celebrating being 60 by walking the Yorkshire Coast – a pictorial record

Those who follow my blog will remember that I turned 60 on March 13th and was pleasantly surprised at lunch time by colleagues, students and friends.

Simon 60 cake

There was however, also another treat in store for me.  My best friend from school (John Pearson) and I used to go walking and camping together in our school and university holidays.

Simon & John T - 21st birthday SRL

Me and John – 21st Birthday Party

 

Family and jobs put an end to this tradition although we and our wives used to (and still do) get together for short walks and visits.  For our 50th birthday however, we diced that it was time to get our walking boots back on in earnest and as good Yorkshiremen we decided that we would walk the Yorkshire Coast (or at least part of it).  In the end we enjoyed a very enjoyable walk from Redcar down to Robin Hood’s Bay, as traditional Yorkshiremen, Redcar, despite boundary changes is still Yorkshire territory as far as we are concerned ;-)

Yorskhire coast 1

 

We stayed in pubs and B&Bs along the way, our camping days being long over.  As a point of honour we walked to the end of every pier (and back) on the way down.

For our 60th birthday, John’s wife Christine paid for three nights in a hotel in Scarborough on the Esplanade for us, The Weston, and we set off to do Robin Hood’s Bay to Bridlington in three days.

Yorkshire coast 2

The weather forecast was truly awful so we were a bit worried, and certainly driving to Scarboroug on Saturday morning, the weather was not promising.  By lunchtime however, the rain had stopped and apart from a short shower we had remarkably good weather for the end of March.  The last two days were, however extremely windy. Each day, we left a car at our finishing point and drove the other car to our start point; that way we were able to stay in comfort in one location and enjoy a well-earned beer at the end of each day and a bottle of very reasonably priced wine at dinner.  Bliss.

 

Day 1 Robin Hood’s Bay to Cloughton

A gentle start as we only had half a day and wanted to break our feet in gently.  Daffodil and Primula garden escapes were very much in evidence on the cliff sides – actually they were present all the way along the coast.

 

Day 1 beer

Staring with a beer – Theakstons Black Bull Bitter

Day 1 Yorkshire best

Yorkshire at its best

Day 1 steep bit

A steep bit (one of many)

Day 1 evening

View from hotel bedroom – evening

Day 2 – Cloughton to Filey

There were some more very steep bits, but despite the gloomy start, it was mainly nice and sunny.  Insects were not much in evidence, but skylarks were very noticeable, and of course there were lots of sea birds.

Day 2 Gloomy morning

First morning – gloomy view from hotel window, but luckily the weather improved as the day progressed.

Day 2 steep bit

There were indeed some steep bits,

Day 2 steep bit Simon

and some very steep bits as well.

Day 2 Slippy bits

Not forgetting the slippy bits!

Day 2 distant objective

Distant objective.

Day 2 dramatic cliffs

Dramatic cliffs.

Day 2 clearing skies

Clearing skies – great views.

Day 3 Filey to Bridlington

An extremely windy day, most of the time we felt like we were walking uphill despite a lot of it being on the flat, on the plus side it was quite sunny.

Day 3 Dawn

Sunrise – a beautiful start to the day

Day 3 - windswept tree

Not just us that was windswept!

Day 3 Bempton

Bempton – lots of Gannets and Guillemots

Day 3 The only puffin

This was the only puffin we saw!

 

Day 3 The sea

The sea, the sea!

Day 3 Footsore

The beach was a bit of a struggle.

Day 2 Flambro

Flamborough Head – we came here for our 3rd form Geography field trip in 1969 – it was joined to the coast then and was a blowhole!

Day 2 Flambro lighthouse

You can’t have a coastal walk without a lighthouse!

Day 4 – Spurn Point

Drove here from Scarborough just to see it as we didn’t feel like slogging along the beach at Bridlington and this is our proposed finishing point for our 65th birthday walk.  We decided that waiting until we were 70 might not be wise ;-)

Spurn Point

Clear(ish) skies but gale force winds.

Spurn Point John

Just like walking in a desert sand storm – we had to turn back after a mile.

Day 3 Spurn Point Brown sea

The sea was brown not blue! Hopefully when we reach this point in 2020 the wind will have abated!

And just to finish a great piece of seaside sculpture.

Freddie Gilroy

Freddie Gilroy on the front at Scarborough.

3 Comments

Filed under The Bloggy Blog, Uncategorized

Amateur, professional and academic interactions: A day with the British Entomological and Natural History Society

Towards the end of last year I was asked by Claudia Watts, the President of the British Entomological and Natural History Society http://www.benhs.org.uk/site/?q=node/1 if I would like to be nominated to become a member of their Council. I thought about it for a while and then said yes – my resolution to learn to say NO has sadly not been very successful ;-)

There was one snag though, I was not a member of the BENHS; that was, however, easily remedied by completing an application form and being duly approved by the membership secretary and then paying my annual subscription of £19. This process made me think, why wasn’t I already a member of the BENHS? The aims of the Society “are the promotion and advancement of research in entomology with an increasing emphasis now being placed on the conservation of the fauna and flora of the United Kingdom and the protection of wildlife throughout the world”, which is something I have been interested and involved with for almost forty years.

Until I graduated from Leeds the only societies I had belonged to were university ones. On starting my PhD I joined the Association of Applied Biologists, the British Ecological Society, the then Institute of Biology (my father was a founder member) and the Royal Entomological Society. All these had one thing in common, they were, for want of a better description, professional graduate societies, although the Royal Entomological Society did, and does have non-academic and non-professional Members and Fellows. So I guess there was a bit of snobbery involved – the British Entomological and Natural History Society despite its distinguished past, founded 1872, and publishing a quarterly journal and a variety of important identification guides, was in my world view at the time, akin to the Amateur Entomological Society, founded in 1935. A reading of the aims of the AES would however, have told me otherwise, “Our objective is to promote the study of entomology, especially amongst amateurs and the younger generation.”

The objectives of the BENHS, originally the South London Entomological and Natural History Society are remarkably similar to those of the Royal Entomological Society (originally of London), the main differences now, being their financial resources and scale of activities. So having entered an academic career and eventually ending up in one of the UK’s top research intensive universities I had no incentive or inclination to join a society or organisation that did not instantly suggest a professional affiliation, and in the case of the Institute of Biology (now Society of Biology) and the Royal Entomological Society giving me additional letters after my name!

That said, a significant proportion of the UK academic entomological community have published and continue to  publish in the less ‘high impact’ end of the journal spectrum (e.g. Southwood & Johnson, 1957; Dixon, 1958) and indeed me too (Leather & Brotherton, 1987; Leather, 1989). This has been more fully documented elsewhere (Hopkins & Freckleton, 2002). The need for such journals is perhaps not fully appreciated. One of my former students, a Hemipterist of some note, who has published extensively in this journal stratum used to leave these off his job applications until he was asked at a post-doc interview if he had published in these journals as they considered it an important requisite of the job in question as it involved a lot of field work and insect identification. Without journals such as these published here and elsewhere, much of the basic knowledge needed for academic entomologists, ecologists, zoologists etc. to conduct their research would be greatly hampered.

So how does it work in practice? I duly turned up for my first BENHS AGM on Saturday 21st March at the very apposite venue, the Oxford University Museum of Natural History, in time

OUMNH

for the pre-meeting mingle with coffee and biscuits and met some of my former MSc students, now doing PhDs, old friends, current MSc students,  undergraduates, one of whom I had interviewed the day before for a place on the MSc in Entomology that I run, and even a scattering of much younger entomologists.  So a real mixture of amateurs, professionals (those making a living from entomology but not employed by a research institute or university) and current and retired academics.

The programme included a mixture of entomologists, ranging from Matt Shardlow, CEO and founder of Buglife, entomological consultant and saproxylic beetle guru, Keith Alexander, PhD student Tom Wood from Sussex University talking about his pollinator research which has just made the news, author and professional entomologist Richard Jones plugging his latest book and school boy Louis Guillot talking about his research into ant colony development; many of which he stores beneath his bed. We also had an entertaining Presidential Address by Claudia Watts about insects and art through the ages.

Having the AGM in the museum was also of course a very positive plus as in the breaks I was able to have a quick look at some of the exhibits – this one particularly caught my eye, although my camera and photographic skills do not do it justice.

Flea dressed

 

My take home message is that a) I was very foolish not to have got involved with the BENH many years ago and b) given the problems we have in getting the media and general public to understand the importance of entomology and insects to the well-being of the world, that many more of us pre-retirement academic entomologists should be willing to get involved with this and other similar societies.

Insects are important

References

Dixon, A.F.G. (1958) The protective function of the siphunculi of the nettle aphid, Microlophium evansi (Theob.). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 94, 8.

Hopkins, G.W. & Freckleton, R.P. (2002) Declines in the numbers of amateur and professional taxonomists: implications for conservation. Animal Conservation, 5, 245-249.

Leather, S.R. (1989) Phytodecta pallida (L.) (Col.,Chrysomelidae) – a new insect record for bird cherry (Prunus padus). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 125, 17-18.

Leather, S.R. & Brotherton, C.M. (1987) Defensive responses of the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea (D&S) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Entomologist’s Gazette, 38, 19-24.

Southwood, T.R.E. & Johnson, C.G. (1957) Some records of insect flight activity in May, 1954, with particular reference to the massed flights of Coleoptera and Heteroptera from concealed habitats. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 93, 121–126

Leave a comment

Filed under EntoNotes, The Bloggy Blog