Pick & Mix 38 – a very mixed bag

The problem with ‘Sugar Daddy’ science, why state funding is better

Simon Leadbeater on rewilding a planation woodland

Did you know that Scotland has rain forests?

Some advice on writing papers from novelist Cormac McCarthy

Making cities greener – what we can do and what benefits result

If you like the Moomins you will appreciate this

Clothing accessories that pay homage to the insect world; some other animals too 😊

Freedom of press and environmental protection – did you know that they are linked? Jeff Ollerton and colleagues explore this interesting topic

Working from home might not be as stress-free as you think – go to work instead

Did you know that there are more male specimens of birds and mammals in museum collections than females? Press release here, actual paper here


Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

A lost opportunity – why you should back up your data, even if it is on paper

In my twenty years at the Silwood Park campus of Imperial College, I supervised something in the order of 120 MSc research projects and at least 150 undergraduate final year projects.  Before my stint at Silwood Park I had spent ten years working for the Entomology Branch of the then UK Forest Research Division working on the population dynamics of forest pests.  My first ever PhD student, Paddy Walsh, (sadly he died a few years ago), worked on the predators associated with the pine beauty moth, Panolis flammea, with a particular interest in carabid beetles (Walsh et al., 1993ab). I was thus well aware of how useful pitfall traps were as a research tool; relatively easy to deploy and maintain and very good, perhaps too good, at collecting data 😊

Too much data? Pitfall traps – and contents waiting for identification (courtesy of former PhD student Lizzie Jones)

An early star of the pitfall trapping world was Penny Greenslade, who addressed the critical issue of what pitfall trap catches were actually measuring and concluded that they were only useful in a very limited set of conditions (Greenslade, 1964ab). Coincidentally, Penny Greenslade did her PhD at Silwood Park (Greenslade, 1961) and having found her very battered thesis in the Silwood Park Library it occurred to me that a re-sampling of her sites would make an ideal BSc or MSc research project and so it proved. In 1995, Andy Salisbury, an extremely keen undergraduate entomologist, now Principal Entomologist at RHS Wisley, was the first student to repeat her 1959 survey.  Over the years a succession of students resurveyed her original sites (they were clearly identifiable from her thesis, although the vegetation associated with the sites was, in some cases different from when she conducted her trapping. By the time I left Silwood Park for pastures new in 2012, there were eight BSc project dissertations reporting the results of re-sampling Penny Greenslade’s original sites sitting on the shelves of my lab.

I still had PhD students based at Silwood Park when I left, so for two years I was retained as a Visiting Professor, which, given how much stuff I had (you have all seen what my office looks like and my office at Silwood Park was no different 😊) meant that I moved stuff gradually and piecemeal.  I moved my collection of PhD theses (44 at the time) early on, but delayed moving the almost 300 undergraduate and MSc theses as I wanted to triage them at leisure and only transfer those that I felt might be of use.

Now we come to the tragic bit, the Director of Silwood Park decided that he wanted to refurbish the building that my former office and laboratory were in, and without telling me, had my laboratory cleared and the contents skipped. To say that I was annoyed is somewhat of an understatement. Unfortunately, I had none of these theses in electronic form so the data and the story that might have been told, are lost forever 😦

That said, not all the data are lost, I have a partial record of the 2007 BSc thesis by Sarah Stow which to a certain extent, rubs salt in the wound, as it shows that there were indeed changes in the carabid community composition since 1959.

 Three of Sarah’s figures showing changes in carabid communities and abundance

Although it might have been courteous if my former Head of Department had contacted me before disposing of the the project reports, or had them moved into storage to give me a chance of retrieving them, I can in all honesty, only blame myself for their loss.  I should have been less tardy in emptying my lab, I should have clearly indicated that I still had an interest in the contents of my lab, and of course, I should have backed up my data!

Not only data I am never going to publish but data I can’t ever publish ☹


Greenslade, P. J. M. (1961). Studies in the ecology of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Ph.D. thesis, University of London

Greenslade, P.J.M. (1964a) Pitfall trapping as a method for studying populations of Carabidae (Col). Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 301-310.

Greenslade, P.J.M. (1964b) The distribution, dispersal and size of a population of Nebria brevicollis (F) with comparative studies on three other Carabidae. Journal of Animal Ecology, 33, 311-333.

Walsh, P.J., Day, K.R., Leather, S.R. & Smith, A.J. (1993a) The influence of soil type and pine species on the carabid community of a plantation forest with a history of pine beauty moth infestation. Forestry, 66, 135-146.

Walsh, P.J., Leather, S.R. & Day, K.R. (1993b) The effects of aerial application of fenitrothion on the carabid community of defoliated and undefoliated lodgepole pine, Pinus contorta. Journal of Applied Entomology, 115, 134-138.



Filed under EntoNotes

Ten more papers that shook my world – When it comes to plant-insect interactions its growth stage, not age that counts Watt (1979)

This is not just about a paper, but also about mentoring!  At the beginning of October 1977, I hesitantly knocked on the door of Professor Tony Dixon’s outer office in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia, Norwich.  Tony was to become my PhD supervisor for the next three years and my friend and colleague for the next forty plus years, but until that day I had never met him, as my interview had been conducted entirely by telephone and in those pre-internet days, unless you had met someone at a conference you really only knew them by their papers and reputation.  I knew Tony because of his great little book, The Biology of Aphids which I had bought as an undergraduate in 1975, when I realised that aphids were really cool 😊 I told his secretary who I was and she directed me through to his office.  Tony looked up, said hello and asking me to follow him, took me down to the lab where I was to spend the next three years and introduced me to a tall, moustachioed Scotsman, Allan Watt, whom I was later to discover had a wicked sense of humour, and was to become not just a colleague and collaborator, but also a great friend, a friendship that continues to this day.  Tony’s introduction was roughly along the lines of “This is Allan, he’ll tell you what to do” and he did. Allan was just starting the final year of his PhD which was, like a number of us in Tony’s lab, on cereal aphids, in Allan’s case Sitobion avenae and Metopolphium dirhodum, the two major pests of cereals in the UK at the time.  My PhD was on a less abundant (in cereal crops), but equally problematic aphid, due to its ability to transmit Barley Yellow Dwarf Virus, the bird cherry-oat aphid Rhopalosiphum padi.  Having got my aphid cultures set up and done a couple of practice mini-experiments, I asked Allan what he was doing with his aphids.  He told me that he was looking at the effect of cereal growth stage on the survival and reproduction of his two aphid species and that the age of the plant had a significant effect on the aphids and that this varied between the two species, which he published a couple of years later (Watt, 1979).  Having been immersed in the cereal aphid literature for a couple of months, I knew that no one had done this for my aphid, and even then, being a great believer in “standing on the shoulders of giants” I figured that I could do the same for my aphid, but, in that never ending treadmill of adding novelty, also look at the effect of feeding position*. Allan’s advice and help stood me in good stead, and in due course I successfully published the results of my experiment (Leather & Dixon, 1981).

So, leaving aside me getting a publication as a result of Allan’s paper, how did this shake my World?  Well, first of all, it really drove home to me that plant phenological stage was incredibly important for insect-plant interactions and that unless you know the precise growth stage at which an interaction is happening it is difficult to compare other peoples’ results to yours and each other’s. As a result, it has led me as a reviewer and reader of papers, to be very scathing of phrases such as “ten-day old wheat plant”, “week old cabbage seedlings”, “young pea plant” (Leather, 2010).  It is deeply unhelpful for anyone wanting to repeat or compare similar work.  Just a few degrees difference in temperature over a week can move a plant from one phenological stage to another. There is no excuse for this type of sloppiness.

Two seven-day old wheat plants, same cultivar, same germination date, one reared at 20⁰C the other at 10⁰C. Growth stage 12 versus Growth stage 10 (Growth stages as described by Tottman & Makepeace, 1979).

The same two plants now fourteen day sold, GS 13 versus GS 12

It is not hard to find a solution.  The World has been blessed by the invention of the BBCH** system for coding plant phenological stages (Meier et al., 2009).  This system, which now exists for most major crop plants, including trees, means that there is no excuse for anyone to ever use the phrase “ten-day old plant” or similar wording. If by some chance, your plant does not yet have a BBCH description, either describe the growth stage that your plants are at in very precise terms or take the time to codify it yourself and submit it to a journal such as Annals of Applied Biology which has a long history of publishing such articles.

To be fair, before the BBCH system came into being, people had published descriptions of plant growth stages for some of the major crops, e.g. cereals (Feekes, 1941; Large, 1954), but they were not standardised, and in some cases, too broad-brush.  The stimulus for a standardised, decimal system of coding plant phenological stages was the publication of the Zadoks scale for cereals (Zadoks et al., 1974) and the illustrated follow-up a few years later (Tottman & Makepeace, 1979), the latter being the blueprint on which phenological growth stage papers are now based.

I look forward to the day when authors understand that a precise knowledge of plant growth stage is essential to understanding insect-plant interactions and I do NOT have to chide authors for not using the BBCH codification when I review their papers.



Feekes, W. (1941) De Tarwe en haar milieu. Vers. XVII Tech. Tarwe Comm. Groningen, 560-561.

Large, E.C. (1954) Growth stages in cereals. Plant Pathology, 3, 128-129.

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

Leather, S.R. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1981) The effect of cereal growth stage and feeding site on the reproductive activity of the bird cherry aphid Rhopalosiphum padi. Annals of Applied  Biology, 97, 135-141.

Meier, U., Bleiholder, H., Buhr, L., Feller, C., Hack, H., Hess, M., Lancashire, P.D., Schnock, U., Strauss, R., Vanden Boom, T., Weber, E. & Zwerger, P. (2009) The BBCH system to coding the phenological growth stages of plants – history and publications. Journal fur Kulturpflanzen, 61, S.41-52.

Tottman, D.R. & Makepeace, R.J. (1979) An explanation of the decimal code for the growth stage of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology, 93, 221-234.

Watt, A.D. (1979) The effect of cereal growth stages on the reproductive activity of Sitobion avenae and Metopolphium dirhodum. Annals of Applied Biology, 91, 147-157.

Watt, A.D. & Dixon, A.F.G. (1981) The effect of cereal growth stages and crowding of aphids on the induction of alatae in Sitobion avenae. Ecological Entomology, 6, 441-447.

Watt, A.D. & Wratten, S.D. (1984) The effects of growth stage in wheat on yield reductions caused by the rose grain aphid, Metopolophium dirhodum. Annals of Applied Biology, 104, 393-397.

Zadoks, J.C., Chang, T.T. & Konzak, C.F. (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research, 14, 415-421.





*Rhopaloisphum padi, in contrast to Sitobion avenae, is usually found on the lower stem and leaves of cereals.


The abbreviation BBCH derives from the names of the originally participating stakeholders: “Biologische Bundesanstalt, Bundessortenamt und CHemische Industrie”. Allegedly, the abbreviation is said to unofficially represent the four companies that initially sponsored its development; Bayer, BASF, Ciba-Geigy, and Hoechst.



Leave a comment

Filed under Ten Papers That Shook My World

Pick & Mix 37 – gleanings from the virtual bookshelf not the one in my office

Depressing news for taxonomists – too specific a title limits your citation rate

Hilarious – A periodic table…of scientists!

Interesting research that suggests trees might improve academic performance in schools in deprived areas

Plastic, plastic everywhere – biobeads litter our beaches

Talk about precision application – using bees to apply fungicide to crops

What maps get wrong – how the projection maps use distorts our picture of the World

A road can be moved a, ecologically important raised bog cannot – planners need to think harder

Who publishes in predatory journals and why they do it – surprisingly quite a few authors report a positive experience

This comment by ecologist Thomas Crowther caused a huge Twitterstorm from ecologists – I must admit I found it rather offensive too “ “The point is, I don’t believe it’s science until you’ve put it in that context: I can say ‘that bird is flying weirdly’ — that’s not science; that’s what most of ecology is at the moment. It’s natural history.” The full story is here.

And see this excellent post by Manu Saunders on science communication and how not to do it



1 Comment

Filed under Pick and mix

We can’t all be groundbreakers – we need bricklayers too

Groundbreaker – someone who changes the way things are done, especially by making new discoveries

Groundbreaking – new and original, not like anything seen before from the Cambridge Dictionary

All of us who aspire to publishing our hard-won data will recognise the phrases below, taken from the overview pages of highly reputable ecological and entomological journals. Everyone wants to push back the frontiers of

Anonymised quotes from journal overview pages – I am sure that you will recognise some of them

knowledge, but I feel that the focus by journals and funding bodies on ‘novelty’ is bad for science and bad for researchers.  I am certainly not the first one to say it, but it bears repeating, there is a tyranny of novelty pervading the research community and this has also infected the way that science is reported. This focus on ‘novelty’ and its link to promotion, grant application success and job tenure, can mean that careers are damaged, research areas ignored (Leather & Quicke, 2009), an imbalance of disciplines within university departments leading to piece-meal degrees and the dilemma of where to publish. The dilemma being do you publish where it does the most good for science and wide access or for your career, which are often mutually incompatible.

Looking at the selection of journal guidelines above, for me, this particular phrase is the most disturbing, “Confirming or extending the established literature, by for example showing results that are novel for a new taxon, or purely applied research, is given low priority.”   In terms of science, at the very least, this stance leads to nobody checking to see if a study is truly valid or just a statistical artefact or, as is very likely, a special case. A recent paper suggests that in ecology, less than 0.03% of published papers are true replicates of previously published studies (Kelly, 2019), while in behavioural ecology, the figure is a round zero, although about 25% of studies are partial replicates (Kelly, 2006).

Although I am not a great believer in the Open Access author pays dogma (after all, in the world of novelists and poets, only those who can’t find publishers pay and we term that ‘vanity publishing’), the publishing ethos of  PLOS ONEWe evaluate submitted manuscripts on the basis of methodological rigor and high ethical standards, regardless of perceived novelty”, is very welcome. It is a shame that more journals, particularly those where publication is free of charge, have not adopted the same principle.  The preoccupation with ‘novelty’ also has the consequence that academics, particularly those at the start of their careers or those working in institutions where ‘novelty’ is seen as the only way to gain advancement or retain one’s position,  feel under pressure to only publish in certain journals and to emphasise ‘novelty’.  This can, and I am sure it is inadvertent in the majority of cases, result in authors limiting their search for previous work to the immediate horizon rather than diving deeper into the ocean of past literature, and often ‘reinventing’ the wheel’ (Lawton, 1991; Leather, 2004), which does past academics and science a great disservice.

An alternative title to this post might have included the phrase “standing on the shoulders of giants”, often attributed to Isaac Newton but according to Wikipedia almost certainly older than that.  As some of you may know, one of the categories on my blog is “Ten papers that shook my world” (now supplemented by Ten more papers that shook my world), in which I discuss papers that have had a major influence on my scientific development and publication list.  According to the Web of Science I have written 210 papers*, of which, in my opinion, only one is truly ‘novel’**. I hypothesised from field evidence (Leather, 1988), and later demonstrated experimentally (Leather, 1993), that insects sharing the same host plant could, by altering plant architecture, compete, despite being separated temporally and spatially.  Actually, now that I reflect upon it, even this idea could be said to be based on the ‘apparent competition’ hypothesis put forward by Bob Holt (Holt, 1977).  I should add that neither of those ‘novel’ papers of mine have made the big time, both have been cited a mere eleven times, in contrast to those papers where I was inspired by the work of others.

To end on yet another building metaphor or two; I have, in my forty-two years as a research scientist, never felt that I have wasted my time. I have been content with adding bricks to the scientific edifice, grouting in between entomological and ecological tiles and adding pieces to the vast jigsaw of life. Yes, there is a problem in that some institutions are reluctant or unwilling to recognise the contributions made by those of us who reinforce the various academic structures, but my message to you is Illegitimi non carborundum, don’t give up and be proud of what you have achieved.  There may be times when you feel unappreciated, or indeed, as I have at times, rather angry, but remember, they need us, for without us, the whole structure will fall into ruins.

People say, what is the sense of our small effort? They cannot see that we must lay one brick at a time, take one step at a time. A pebble cast into a pond causes ripples that spread in all directions. Each one of our thoughts, words and deeds is like that. No one has a right to sit down and feel hopeless. There is too much work to do.” Dorothy Day


Gish, M. & Inbar, M. (2018) Standing on the shoulders of giants: young aphids piggyback on adults when searching for a host plant.  Frontiers in Zoology, 15, 49.

Holt, R.D. (1977) Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities.   Theoretical Population Biology, 12, 197-229.

Kelly, C.D. (2006) Replicating empirical research in behavioural ecology: how and why it should be done but rarely is. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 81, 221-236.

Kelly, C.D. (2019) Rate and success of study replication in ecology and evolution. PeerJ:e7654

Lawton, J. H. (1991). Warbling in different ways. Oikos, 60, 273–274.

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

Leather, S.R. (1993) Early season defoliation of bird cherry influences autumn colonization by the bird cherry aphid, Rhopalosiphum padi. Oikos, 66, 43-47.

Leather, S.R. (2004) Reinventing the wheel: on the dangers of taxon parochialism and shallow reference trawling!  Basic & Applied Ecology, 5, 309-311.

Leather, S.R. & Quicke, D.L.J. (2009) Where would Darwin have been without taxonomy? Journal of Biological Education, 43, 51-52.

Murphy, S.M., Vidal, M.C., Hallagan, C.J., Broder, E.D., Barnes, E.E., Hornalowell, E.S. & Wilson, J.D. (2019) Does this title bug (Hemiptera) you? How to write a title that increases your citations. Ecological Entomology, 44, 593-600.

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.



my own publication list has me at 298, but that includes books, conference papers, research notes and popular articles; Google Scholar has me at 235.


I have not included a paper that I am a co-author on (Ward et al., 1998), as although ‘novel’, it was not my idea.  I supplied the data and the whisky and acted as a sounding board during one very long evening of mathematical inspiration by Seamus Ward 😊 The following day I made a blood donation and fainted shortly afterwards, resulting in a nasty head wound and a visit to the local hospital!


Filed under Science writing

Green Islands – mining cytokinins

A little while ago I wrote about the phenomenon of  “green islands” caused by ants keeping insect herbivores away from trees.   If, however, you work on leaf miners, the term green islands means something else entirely.  Instead of referring to a feature of the landscape, it refers to a feature of the leaf, which unless you are Toby*, is definitely not a landscape-level phenomenon 😊

While some insects, aphids for example, induce senescence to improve the quality of their host plant and some plants induce senescence and early leaf-fall in those leaves that have been colonised by gall aphids in order to reduce their infestation load (Williams & Whitham, 1986), there are other insects that try desperately to prevent senescence so as to prolong their feeding life on what would otherwise be a dead leaf.

Green island leaf mine of the moth, Stigmella atricapatella – Many thanks to Mike Shurmer for the photographs.

The phenomenon of the green islands in autumn leaves associated with leaf mining Lepidoptera has been known about for some time (Hering, 1951), but although the adaptive value of this was easy to see, the causal mechanism remained unknown for some time. Similarly, plant pathologists had also noticed that one of the symptoms of powdery mildew infections is the appearance of a green ring around the necrotic spot caused by the fungus (von Tubeuf, 1897); if not a green island, a green atoll 😊

Green island or green atoll? Powdery mildew on wheat https://slideplayer.com/slide/9073461/27/images/14/Green+island+on+wheat+infected+with+wheat+powdery+mildew.jpg

That fungi produced secretions containing plant growth substances such as the auxin (plant hormones) indole acetic acid has been known since the 1930s (Thimann, 1935) and it was later hypothesised that the levels present in the surrounding leaf tissue were associated with the resistance or lack thereof, to the fungal agent (e.g. Shaw & Hawkins, 1958). A further class of plant growth substances, initially termed kinins because of their similarity to kinetin (a cell growth promoting plant hormone, but later renamed cytokinins** (Skoog et al., 1965)) were discovered by Folke Skoog and co-workers (Miller et al., 1956) and linked to the production of green islands by plant pathogens (reviewed by Skoog & Armstrong, 1970).

“What about the leaf miners?” I hear you ask. You will be pleased to know that entomologists were not too far behind. Lisabeth Engelbrecht working on Nepticulid leaf miners on birch (Betula pendula) and Aspen (Populus tremula) set up a study (Engelbrecht, 1968) to test her hypothesises that the green islands were caused as a result of insect saliva or by the larvae physically cutting the leaf veins that would otherwise have delivered the chemical signal responsible for beginning leaf senescence. She discovered that the green islands contained large concentrations of cytokinin  (Engelbrecht, 1968) and working with other colleagues discovered that the labial glands of leaf mining larvae also contained cytokinin, but was unsure as to whether the cytokinin originated from the larvae or were formed in the leaf in response to chemicals in the saliva or frass of the larvae (Engelbrech et al., 1969), although if you read the paper it is quite clear that she is convinced that the source of the cytokinin is from the larvae and not the plant.

After all this excitement about insect produced cytokinin and green islands things seemed to go a bit dead.  I found a couple of passing references to the possibility that leaf mining Lepidopteran larvae use cytokinin to produce a green island to extend larval life after leaf abscission (Miller, 1973; Faeth, 1985) and an opinion piece discussing the possible adaptive role of using green islands to prolong larval life after leaf fall (Kahn & Cornell, 1983), but, surprisingly, nothing experimental to test this hypothesis. Oddly, I did find a paper testing the idea that early leaf abscission was an induced defence against leaf miners, where green islands were mentioned in the introduction but not mentioned again (Stiling & Simberloff, 1989).

Don’t get me wrong, plant pathologists and entomologists working on insect galls were still writing about the role of cytokinin (e.g. Murphy et al., 1997: Mapes & Davies, 2001), but leaf miner green island research seemed to have died.  Suddenly, however, in the mid-2000s the French ‘discovered’ leaf miners and David Giron and colleagues, showed how the leaf miner Phyllonorycer blancardella manipulates the nutritional quality of their host leaves by increasing the levels of cytokinin in the surrounding leaf tissue (Giron et al., 2007).

‘Green island’ formed by Phyllonorycter blancardella (From Giron et al., 2007).


As we know from aphids, where insects play, bacterial symbionts are never far away, and sure enough it wasn’t long before it was shown that Wolbachia ‘infections’ were helping the leaf miners produce their ‘green islands’. Wilfried Kaiser and colleagues treated leaf miner larvae with antibiotics to remove the symbiont and found that the ‘cured’ larvae, although still able to feed and form leaf mines, were unable to produce ‘green islands’ and the levels of cytokinin were much lower than that found in the ‘green islands’ formed by untreated leaf miners (Kaiser et al., 2010).

Influence of Wolbachia on green island formation. To the left, infected leaf miners (Phyllonorycter blancardella) happily surrounded by nutritious plant tissue; to the right, ‘cured’ by antibiotics, the leaf miner soon runs out of food (Kaiser et al., 2010)

The same group have also documented the mechanism by which the leaf miners and their symbionts work together (Body et al., 2013) and also, using molecular phylogenies and ecological trait data, shown that the existence of the ‘green island’ phenotype and Wolbachia infections are associated with the evolutionary diversification of the Gracillarid leaf miners (Gutzwiller et al., 2015).

You might expect that these findings would have stimulated renewed interest in the ‘green island’ phenomenon, but you would be wrong.  Despite the fact that at the time of writing this article (September 10th 2019) Kaiser et al. (2010) had, according to the Web of Science, been cited 105 times, only three papers dealing with this phenomenon have been published, the most recent appearing in early 2018 (Zhang et al., 2018) and, incidentally, by the same group that published the Kasier et al. (2010) study. It would appear that as with ‘green islands’, the study of the phenomenon is also very localised.


Allen, P.J. (1942) Changes in the metabolism of wheat leaves induced by infection with powdery mildew. American Journal of Botany, 42, 425-435.

Body, M., Kaiser, W., Dubreuil, G., Casas, J. & Giron, D. (2013) Leaf-miners co-opt microorganisms to enhance their nutritional environment. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39, 969-977.

Engelbrecht, L. (1968) Cytokinin in den ,,grunen Inseln” des Herbstlauibes. Flora oder Allgemeine botanische Zeitung. Abt. , Physiologie und Biochemie, 159, S, 208-214.

Englebrecht , L., Orban, U. & Heese, W. (1969) Leaf-miner caterpillars and cytokinins in the “green islands” of autumn leaves. Nature, 223, 319-321.

Faeth, S.H. (1985) Host leaf selection by leaf miners: interactions among three trophic levels. Ecology, 66, 870-875.

Gutzwillner, F., Dedeine, F., Kaiser, W., Giron, D., & Lopez-Vaamonde, C. (2015) Correlation between the green-island phenotype and Wolbachia infections during the evolutionary diversification of Gracillariidae leaf-mining moths. Ecology & Evolution, 5, 4049-4062.

Hering, E.M. (1951) Biology of the Leaf Miners, Dr W Junk, The Hague, Netherlands

Herrick, G.W. (1922) The Maple Case-Bearer Paraclemensia Acerifoliella Fitch. Journal of Economic Entomology, 15, 282-288.

Kahn, D.M. & Cornell, H.V. (1983) Early leaf abscission and folivores: comments and considerations. American Naturalist, 122, 428-432.

Kaiser, W., Huguet, E., Casas, J., Commin, C. & Giron, D. (2010)  Plant green-island phenotype induced by leaf-miners is mediated by bacterial symbionts. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 277, 2311-2319.

Mapes, C.C. & Davies, P.J. (2001) Cytokinins in the ball gall of Solidago altissima and in the gall forming larvae of Eurosta solidaginis. New Phytologist, 151, 203-212.

Miller, C. O., Skoog, F., Okumura, F. S., Von Saltza, M. H., & Strong, F. M. (1956). Isolation, structure and synthesis of Kinetin, a substance promoting cell division. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 78, 1375–1380.

Miller, P.F. (1973) The biology of some Phyllonorycter species (Lepidoptera: Gracillariidae) mining leaves of oak and beech. Journal of Natural History, 7, 391-409.

Murphy, A.M., Pryce-Jones, E., Johnstone, K. & Ashby, A.M. (1997) Comparison of cytokinin production in vitro by Pyrenopeziza brassicae with other plant pathogens. Physiological & Molecular Plant Pathology, 50, 53-65.

Shaw, M. & Hawkins, A.R. (1958) the physiology of host-parasite relations V. A preliminary examination of the level of free endogenous Indoleacetic acid in rusted and mildewed cereal leaves and their ability to decarboxylate exogenously supplied radioactive indoleacetic acid. Canadian Journal of Botany, 34, 389-405.

Skoog, F. & Armstrong, D.J. (1970) Cytokinins. Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 21, 359-384.

Skoog, F., Strong, F.M. & Miller, C.O. (1965) Cytokinins. Science, 148, 532-533.

Stiling, P.D. & Simberloff, D. (1989) Leaf abscission – induced defense against pests or response to damage ? Oikos, 55, 43-49.

Thimann, K.V. (1935) On the plant growth hormone produced by Rhizopus suinus. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 109, 279-291.

Von Tubeuf, K.F. (1897) Diseases of Plants, Longmans, Green & Co, London.

Walters, D.R., McRoberts, N. & Fitt, B.D.L. (2008) Are green islands red herrings? Significance of green islands in plant interactions with pathogens and pests. Biological Reviews, 83, 79-102.

Williams, A.G. & Whitham, T.G. (1986) Premature leaf abscission: an induced plant defense against aphids. Ecology, 67, 1619-1627.

Zhang,  H., Dubreuil, G., Faivre, N., Dobrev, P., Kaiser, W., Huguet, E., Vankova, R. & Giron, D.  (2018) Modulation of plant cytokinin levels in the Wolbachia‐free leaf‐mining species Phyllonorycter mespilella. Entomologia experimentalis et applicata, 166, 428-438.


*Toby Alone (La Vie Suspendue) by Timothée de Fombelle, is a fantastic novel, which I only fairly recently discovered, but can heartily recommend.

** Cytokinins are a class of plant growth substances that promote cell division, or cytokinesis, in plant roots and shoots. They are involved primarily in cell growth and differentiation, but also affect apical dominance, axillary bud growth, and leaf senescence. Wikipedia




Filed under EntoNotes

Pick & Mix 36 – something for everyone?

May Berenbaum has written an excellent editorial on the many failings of journal impact factors

Wow, a caterpillar that ‘shouts’ at would be predators

Ray Cannon writes about the wonders of dragonfly wings

More on insect declines, their causes and ways to minimise them

A pair of researchers found evidence that the insect population in a Puerto Rican rainforest was in free fall. But another team wasn’t so sure.

Failing exams doesn’t stop you becoming a professor

Why you should get out more – Visitors to urban greenspace have higher sentiment and lower negativity on Twitter

The Understory – excerpted from Robert MacFarlane’s recent book, Underland: A Deep Time Journey, “The Understory” is an examination of the life beneath the forest floor.

A fun visual time-line highlighting 100 years of UK forestry

Lovely obituary of a forest entomology legend – C.S. (Buzz) Holling

Leave a comment

Filed under Pick and mix

Should a paper title tell you what the paper is about? Yes, but not the way Simon/Steve thinks

Image: You know what you’re walking into. © Gary J. Wood via flicrk.com, CC BY-SA 2.0

This is a joint post (argument and rejoinder) from Steve Heard and Simon Leather.  You can find it on either of their blogs.

Should a paper title tell you what the paper is about?  Yes, but not the way Simon thinks.

Steve opens with – A few weeks ago, Simon Leather blogged about one of his writing pet peeves: “titles of papers that give you no clue as to what the paper is about”.   I read this with great interest, for a couple of reasons – first, Simon is consistently thoughtful; and second, I’m terrible at titles and need to learn as much about good ones as I can!  Much to my surprise, I found myself disagreeing strongly, and Simon was kind enough to engage with me in this joint post.

I don’t mean that I disagree that a paper’s title should tell you what it’s about.  That’s exactly what a good title does!  My disagreement is, I think, more interesting.  Simon offered some examples of titles he scored as failing his tell-you-what-it’s-about criterion, and some he scored as passing.  I found myself scoring those examples exactly the opposite way: the ones that failed for him, succeeded for me; and vice versa.

What gives?  Well, most likely, I’m just wrong.  Simon has a couple of years more experience than me in science, has published many more papers than I have, and has significantly more editorial experience.  But “oh, I guess I’m just wrong” doesn’t make a very interesting blog post; so I’m going to work through my thinking here.

Here are two titles from Simon’s disliked list:*

Towards a unified framework for connectivity that disentangles movement and mortality in space and time

Seasonal host life-history processes fuel disease dynamics at different spatial scales

And here’s one from Simon’s liked list:

Ecology and conservation of the British Swallowtail Butterfly, Papilio machaon britannicus: old questions, new challenges, and potential opportunities

They’re on exactly opposite lists for me.  Simon dislikes the first one because “it takes until line 9 of the Abstract before you find out it’s about an insect herbivore, [and] until the Introduction to find out which species” (he dislikes the second for the same reason).  Simon likes the third because “you know exactly what this paper is all about”.  I think this is all wrong (sorry, Simon).   Since I’ve been writing about scientific writing as storytelling lately, let me put it this way.  Simon would like to know that the paper is “about” an insect herbivore, or “about” the British Swallowtail Butterfly.  But to me, that isn’t what it means to say a paper is “about” something – the study species is character, not plot.  Would you say that The Old Man and the Sea is “about” Santiago, or that Slaughterhouse-Five is “about” Billy Pilgrim?  Well, maybe in casual conversation, but not in a book review you were getting graded on.

I want a paper’s title to tell me about its plot.  By “plot”, I mean the questions the authors ask, and the way the experiments (or observations, or models) answer them.  That’s what a paper is “about” – the way The Old Man and the Sea is about a man’s struggle with his catch, his failing career, and his mortality (but I should stop before I venture further into literary criticism for which I am poorly qualified).  The “unified framework” and “seasonal life-history” titles tell me what questions the papers ask and answer.  It’s true that they don’t tell me which characters (species) they answer them with, but that’s not what I’m looking for in my first pass at a title.  And the swallowtail title?  It tells me nothing other than that the paper has to do with conservation of the swallowtail.  It mentions “questions”, but doesn’t say what they are; and it mentions “challenges” and “opportunities”, but these remain similarly shrouded.

A title that announces what species a paper is about doesn’t grab me, unless I already work on the species (or a similar one).  Who would pick up the swallowtail paper, except someone already interested in swallowtails or similar butterflies?  Is that the only audience the authors want?  What if the paper asks questions with implications for the conservation of mammals, or birds, or orchids?  Those audiences won’t be engaged.  With a title that announces what question a paper is about (and if possible, what the answer is), authors can recruit a broader audience.**  And readers can find out what species the question is asked with (and ponder whether the answer applies more broadly) at their leisure.


Should a paper title tell you what the paper is about?  Yes, but not the way Steve thinks.

Simon replies – I totally see where Steve is coming from with his point about plots and storylines and his references to Slaughterhouse-Five and the The Old Man and the Sea (although I could of course, somewhat tongue in cheek, riposte with a whole slew of titles such as Nicholas Nickleby, Martin Chuzzlewit, Oliver Twist and David Copperfield to name just a few.***) I think that I come at paper titles from two aspects of my academic profile.  First as an applied entomologist, I really do want to know if the paper is about the particular species or related group of species that I am working on – so referring back to Steve’s footnote about Tables of Contents (or even Current Contents)****, both of which I remember – yes, the title needs to be highly specific. Second, this is a debate I have had with conservation biologists working with vertebrate animals.

I am, as my Twitter handle indicates, an entomologist, and at the risk of being seen as narrowly partisan and parochial, means that I, and all other invertebrate zoologists, work on, until evidence is presented otherwise, the animals most relevant to ecology in general 🙂 . A paper on the movement ecology of zebras, for example, is unlikely to give me any insight into the migratory behaviour of aphids (of which there are more species than there are mammals), whereas an insect migration paper might give a mammal ecologist something to think about (incidentally I just realised that this helps Steve’s argument, in that an unwitting mammalogist might read an opaquely titled paper about insects). As a PhD student, when I first got interested in life history traits, I noticed that many vertebrate zoologists were publishing papers addressing concepts that were already well known to entomologists (e.g. Tinkle, 1969*****),  but not referring to those studies; so much so that I made rather a point of referring to vertebrate papers in my thesis whenever possible 🙂

And in the spirit of Monty Python’s Spanish Inquisition sketch, third, (yes I know I said two things initially) is the point I made in my blog post about ‘scientific fashion’ and what we now call ‘click bait headlines’ (my example of one of my own titles in that post underlines this very neatly).  On the other hand, as Steve and other commentators have pointed out, there is a cost to both download and citation rates when titles of papers are very specific and lengthy (Letchford et al., 2015), which is surely why high impact and more general journals encourage the titles I abhor, and Steve favours. A new pet hate of mine, and something favoured by high impact general ecology journals, are titles with question marks: it is obvious that the answer is always going to be yes!

A thought (oops, now a fourth point – the Spanish Inquisition strikes again) that occurred to me as I was writing this and beginning to feel that I was succumbing to Steve’s cogent and compelling arguments, has to do with science communication.  We are being encouraged (some would say forced) to become ever more open access so that in theory  the whole world can read our outpourings (although I suspect that most proponents of Open Access are more concerned with their ability to instantly access data, than for the general public to access the ever increasing number of academic papers).  If this is the case, then surely, rather than use titles that are said to increase scientific citation rates, we should perhaps be using very explicit titles that will enable the general public to know what to expect?

To wrap up: Steve admits to being terrible at titles, and to Simon being a more experienced author and editor than he is.  And yet Simon admits that Steve’s arguments had him (ever so briefly) questioning his own.  So we’d like to turn this over to you.  Where do you stand on titles, character, and plot?  Please tell us in the Replies.

© Stephen Heard and Simon Leather August 27, 2019

*^I decided that I wouldn’t actually read any of the papers.  I wanted to react to titles as I would if I encountered them in a Table of Contents (anybody remember those?) or in a Google Scholar alert.

**^The obvious compromise is a title that reveals both of those things.  I like that sort of title, although the cost is they can get long, and there’s empirical data suggesting that they reduce citation rates.

***^Steve can’t help himself, and footnotes Simon’s half of the post (chutzpah!) to point out that saying that David Copperfield is a novel about David Copperfield is true, but not particular enlightening.  He doubles down on his argument, therefore, while wondering what the Dickens was up with that particular novelist’s penchant for character-based titles.

****^I felt that as this is a joint effort with Steve, parenthetical interjections were essential 🙂

*****^Incidentally, the title of that paper fits Steve’s point under his second – that the ideal paper title reveals both character and plot, although this one does it even better: “Grazing as a conservation management approach leads to a reduction in spider species richness and abundance in acidophilous steppic grasslands on andesite bedrock”.

Letchford, A., Moat, H.S. & Preis, T. (2015) The advantage of short paper titles. Royal Society Open Science, 2, 150266.

Tinkle, D.W. (1969) The concept of reproductive effort and its relation to the evolution of life histories of lizards. American Naturalist, 103, 501-516.


Filed under Science writing, Uncategorized

Talking the talk – my top tips for giving a good talk

I’m writing this a week before I’m due to give a talk at ENTO’19, the Royal Entomological Society’s annual meeting (I’m also on holiday in France, so don’t tell my wife that I’m working). I’ve been struggling a bit getting my talk prepared, probably because being on holiday makes it hard to concentrate on work, so to try and get in the right frame of mind I dug out the talk that I give to our PhD students about how to prepare for and give a presentation 😊 What I say in my talk, which is actually a demonstration, is that the pointers I give are transferable to all types of talk, be it a lecture to university students, a departmental seminar, a talk to a local natural history society, a garden club, a youth group or whatever. The general principles remain the same.  As this post is a result of me getting ready for a conference, I will, however, aim this at those of you giving conference talks for the first time, although I hope that some of you with more experience, will read this and add your thoughts in the comments section.

The first thing to remember, is that, as with writing a paper, you are telling a story.  You need a clear idea of where you are going, and in most cases, your audience also likes to know where you are planning on taking them.  It might seem trite and boring but a slide like this spelling out exactly what you are going to do in your talk, does no harm at all and also helps you get off to a good start, by allowing you to get your thoughts in order.

Tell them what you are going to tell them


So, what is your story?  How much time have you been allocated? Who are you talking to?  What do they know?  The more au fait your audience is with your subject area, the less time you will need to spend on your introduction and the more time you will need to spend on your results and what they mean.  On the other hand, if you are speaking to a more general audience you will need to have a relatively long introductory section in which you spell out why what you are talking about is important and worth listening to.

Keep your story straightforward, simple and linear.

You will note that I have put a bullet point called know your stuff.  By this I mean make sure you know something about the areas that your subject might impinge on.  You never know what someone might ask you, especially when you are talking to a general audience.  For example, whenever I am talking to natural history societies, garden clubs or Rotary Clubs, I always check what might be a problem in people’s gardens at that time of year, regardless of what subject my talk is about.  Entomologists are always being asked how to kill things. For a conference talk, you won’t have to be quite as broad as all that but do think about what sort of question someone not working in your discipline might come out with.  Going back to your timing and structuring, do remember to keep your conclusions (not discussion as you are not writing a paper), as simple and as short as you can.  Preferably one or two succinct bullet points, and whatever you do don’t start on to another slide.  My heart always sinks when I see a slide come up with the heading “Conclusions (1)”, because as sure as eggs is eggs, there will be another slide with the heading “Conclusions (2)”.  At a conference you are competing with a lot of other talks, you want to leave you audience with something that they can grasp easily and which when they leave the lecture theatre is firmly embedded in their minds. The more conclusion points you make the more confusion you sow, you want them to be talking about your work in the bar afterwards, not the number of slides that you had 😊

Avoid big blocks of text, even in lectures; anything that gets in the way of your story and makes it harder for your audience to understand what you are saying is not a good thing.

Not what your audience wants to see

In the same vein, and also something you should avoid, even in a conventional lecture setting, but definitely in a conference talk, are tables, no matter how simple you think they are.  Anything that needs the speaker to go through line by line, unless it is in a classroom situation where you are explaining the workings of a calculation, has no place in a talk.   Avoid tables, even simple ones, use figures instead.  People can absorb figures much more easily than they can text.  Keep thigs simple for your audience, don’t get in the way of your story by making things too complex.

Face your audience, speak up and make eye contact. I don’t mean find someone in the audience and stare lovingly into their eyes; scan the whole audience so they feel that you are speaking to them personally. Keep looking at the audience, don’t look at the ground.  Don’t use pointers* – they encourage you to turn your back on your audience, they reveal how nervous you are and if your slides are well designed you shouldn’t need them.

Use PowerPoint (or whatever you use for presentations) to point it out for you. Absolutely no need for a pointer, laser or otherwise.

You need to feel comfortable to give a good talk, and this can be affected by what you are wearing.  The degree of formality expected, will, to a certain extent, depend on your audience and your seniority.  I have written about this before, so will not repeat myself here, but my take-home message is to feel comfortable in yourself and if that means dressing smartly then so be it.

You may be wondering about how to remember what you are going to talk about, do you need notes? Fortuitously, this brings me on to aide memoires and hands and feet.  A good talk is a performance.  I am, like many scientists, (or is it just entomologists?), an introvert.  To give a good talk means engaging with people and projecting your personality.

A good talk is a performance.  Use those hands!

A good talk is a performance. This means that you may have to exaggerate parts of your personality, you need to be outgoing, voluble and perhaps even funny 🙂  I wrote about the dangers of unscripted humour last year; unscripted is the key word here.  To give a good talk, you need to feel at ease; as well as dressing comfortability and being confident about your story, you need to be able to tell your story without using notes.  Notes steal your spontaneity by encouraging you to read from them, they aid and abet introverts by giving you an excuse to look at them instead of the audience. Notes should be avoided. This is where rehearsal and acting comes to the fore.  I have been giving professional talks since my first disastrous PhD Departmental upgrading seminar in 1979.  I was nervous, ill-prepared, unrehearsed and, as result of a lunchtime drinking session to calm my nerves, slightly drunk.  Since that fateful day I have run through my talks at least five times.  When I say run through I mean I give my talk, albeit to an empty room, exactly as I am going to give it to a real audience, I use arm movements, I stride around the ‘stage’, I speak as loudly as I will on the day.  Treat your practice talk as a rehearsal but not as a ‘by rote’ script, otherwise you run the chance of losing the spontaneity factor. Your choreography and rehearsal should be the only aide memoires you need, although I do find it useful to have a little hint on a slide to tell me, for example, that the next slide is a picture, in this case a red bullet point.  Doing a proper, out loud performance also makes sure that you will keep to your time limit.

Two of the slides from my, because I have been on holiday, very under-rehearsed ENTO19 talk 🙂

Use your hands to emphasise points, there is nothing wrong with a bit of arm waving – I do it all the time as you can see from the title pictures 🙂 I also think, unless you arc anchored by a fixed microphone, to walk around a bit.  Movement adds life to your presentation.  If you just stand behind the lectern in the dark and fixed to the spot, your audience might as well listen to a recorded voice over.  Add personality to your talk by being an active participant although too much running around the stage and excessive arm waving might make your audience think that you are attempting take flight and prove distracting 🙂

Something to bear in mind if you are feeling apprehensive, is that the people in your audience have chosen to come to your talk because they are interested in what you are going to say. They have not, well I hope not, come to hurl abuse at you or laugh at your performance.  They are a self-selected set of fans, they have come to be informed and entertained, and, if you are confident, have a good story to tell and are well rehearsed, your talk should be fun for you and them.

And my final bit of advice. We all know when we have been at a good talk.  What was it that made Dr X’s talk so good, what did she do that you can ‘steal’ to make your talk even better.  Conversely, we have all been to bad talks, what made that talk by Professor Y so awful, what did he do that sent you to sleep or made you cringe?  Do you have any of those bad habits?  If so, brutally excise them from your next performance.


Post script

Don’t worry if you feel nervous before giving a talk, I still do after 40 years of standing up and talking at conferences and other venues.  A bit of adrenaline helps give your talk that ‘real’ feel.


*I’m not the only one who hates pointers, see this post by Steve Heard


Filed under Science writing, Teaching matters

Pick & Mix 35 – a real mixture from art to science

When tree planting actually damages ecosystems – interesting article from Kate Parr and Caroline Lehmann

What natural smaller changes in climate have done to human civilisations should really make us worry about what lies ahead

Studying the history of science is more than the interpretation of ‘landmark’ texts but must involve following ideas in circulation- studying both the people speaking on behalf of the dead scientists and the consumers of that information. Mendel as an example in this blog from the John Innes Centre.

Urbanisation of water courses has detrimental effects on damselflies

Mating damselflies from Ray Cannon’s excellent site

This recent paper suggests that plant sucking bugs feeding on plants (in this case citrus trees) where the levels of neonicitinoid insecticides are too low to kill the pests, can instead kill beneficial insects that feed on the honeydew produced by the pests

Do we realize the full impact of pollinator loss on other ecosystem services and the challenges for any restoration in terrestrial areas? Interesting article from Stefanie Christmann

Collaborating with artists to improve science communication

On a similar line, Peter Pany and colleagues at the University of Vienna, have come up with an idea to cure plant blindness or as they put it “to encourage plant vision

This artist’s oil paintings of women are considered the most realistic in the World



Filed under Pick and mix