Tag Archives: pollinators

Arthropod orchids – who’s fooling who?

A few weeks ago I read the first volume of Jocelyn Brooke’s Orchid trilogy, The Military Orchid. I have never been a great fan of orchids, my main experience of them being as ornamental house plants in which context I have always found them ugly, ungainly and obtrusive.

My colleague Lucy’s orchid ‘brightening up’ our communal office kitchen area

‘Artistically displayed’ for sale by an on-line florist – still just as ugly

Jocelyn Brooke’s account of his search for the Military Orchid was however a bit of a revelation.  His obsession with the eponymous orchid reminded me of how I quite liked seeing the first emerging spikes of the common spotted orchid, Dactylorhiza fuchsii appearing in Heronsbrook Meadow at Silwood Park as I returned from my lunchtime run.  A little bit later Jeff Ollerton posted an interesting article about orchid pollination myths and this got me thinking about the common names of our native UK orchids, especially those named after arthropods.

It turns out that there are fewer than I thought; Bee, some varieties of which seem to be called the wasp orchid, the Fly, Lesser butterfly, Greater butterfly, Early spider and Late spider orchid being the lot.  My self-imposed mission was to first find a suitable photograph of each species to see if it did look like its namesake and secondly to identify the main pollinators.  Or to put it another way, exactly what are they mimicking and what or who are they really fooling?  Orchids generally speaking are honest brokers, providing nectar as a resource for pollination services (Nilsson, 1992).  About a quarter of orchid species are however frauds or cheats (Nilsson, 1992), either pretending to be a food source or a receptive female insect, nutritive deceptive or sexually (reproductive) deceptive as the jargon has it (Dafni, 1984).  Ophrys orchids are sexually deceptive (Nilsson 1992).

The Bee Orchid, Ophrys apifera, is pollinated by a solitary mining bee, Eucera longicornis  (Kullenberg, 1950) belonging to a group commonly known as long horned bees, which in the UK is rather uncommon meaning that the Bee Orchid is generally self-pollinated.

The Bee Orchid, Ophrys apiferahttps://thmcf.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bee-orchid-imc-3702.jpg with pollinator Eucera longicornis http://www.bwars.com/bee/apidae/eucera-longicornis

If you look at the female bee, which is what we suppose the flower is mimicking, you can just about convince yourself that there is a slight resemblance between the two.  Insects of course do not see things the same way humans do (Döring et al., 2012) so what we think is almost certainly irrelevant.  That said, it doesn’t actually have to be a particularly good visual mimic for the insects either, as it is the smell that really matters and as long as the flower is the right shape to enable the deceived male to copulate in such a way that the flower is fertilized that is all that matters.   To quote Dafni (1984) “The olfactory specificity allows a high degree of morphological variability because the selective pressures leading to uniformity-as a means for better recognition-are relaxed. When odors become the main means of attraction, they efficiently serve as isolating agents among closely related species

The fly orchid, Ophrys insectiflora, is also sexually deceptive, but despite its common name is pollinated by digger wasps and bees (Kullenberg, 1950; Wolff 1950).

Ophrys insectifera   Fly orchid  By Jörg Hempel, CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=32968796  with pollinator Argogorytes mystaceus (formerly Gorytes) http://www.bwars.com/category/taxonomic-hierarchy/wasp/crabronidae/nyssoninae/gorytes

Oddly, despite being sexually deceptive it does, at least in my opinion, resemble its pollinators fairly well.

Next up (alphabetically), we have the Lesser Butterfly Orchid, Planthera bifolia, which despite its name is pollinated by night-flying hawk moths,

 

The Lesser Butterfly Orchid, Planthera bifolia.  By © Hans Hillewaert, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=4112191 and the two leading pollinators Hyloicus pinastri and Deilephila elpenor.

most commonly by the Pine Hawk Moth, Hyloicus pinastri and the Elephant Hawk Moth, Deilephila elpenor  (Nilsson (1983). These orchids provide a nectar reward, and attract their pollinators by producing a strong scent (Nilsson, 1978) easily detected by humans even at a distance (Tollsten & Bergström, 1989).  As an added extra, the flowers are very light-green and also highly light-reflecting, giving the moths a visual as well as an olfactory signal (Nilsson, 1978).  In terms of shape the flower more closely resembles H. pinastri.

The closely related Greater Butterfly Orchid, Planthera chlorantha is also pollinated by night-flying moths, the two Elephant hawk moths  Deiliphila porcellus and D.elpenor, 

Platanthera chlorantha,  The Greater Butterfly  Orchid https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7795/17960863138_721033c527_b.jpg with hawk moth and Noctuid pollinators.

but mainly by Noctuid moths, most commonly, Apame furva (The Confused) and  A. monoglypha (the Dark Arches) Nilsson (1983).  Although recent video evidence has shown that the Pine Hawk moth also pollinates it (Steen, 2012).  Like the Lesser Butterfly Orchid, the flower only vaguely resembles its pollinators.  The chemicals responsible for the characteristic and intense fragrances of these two closely related orchids differ between the species and is probable that they are linked to the preferences of the different pollinator species (Nilsson, 1978).

Despite its name and suggested resemblance to its namesake, the Early Spider Orchid, Ophrys sphegodes is pollinated by a solitary bee,

Ophrys sphegodes, The Early Spider Orchid

https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ophrys_sphegodes_subsp._sphegodes#/media/File:Ophrys_sphegodes_Taubergie%C3%9Fen_22.jpg

Andrena nigroaenea (Schiestl et al. 2000).  The scent of the nectarless flower, closely resembles the female sex pheromone of the bee and fools the male into ‘mating’ with it (Schiestl et al., 2000).  If you allow your imagination to run riot you could possibly just about see the flower as a giant female bee which might act as an extra stimulus for an excited male bee (Gaskett, 2011).

The final arthropod orchid is the Late Spider, Ophrys fuciflora; do be careful how you pronounce it, a soft c might be advisable 🙂

Ophrys fuciflora, the Late Spider orchid and two of its documented pollinators, Eucera longicornis (originally tuberculata) and Phyllopertha horticola.  Orchid Photo by © Pieter C. Brouwer and his Photo Website

As with all Ophrys orchids, they are sexually deceptive and attract male insects to their nectar-free, but highly scented flowers, with the promise of a good time Vereecken et al., 2011).  Most pollination is by solitary bees (Kullenberg, 1950) although the Garden Chafer, Phyllopertha horticola has been recorded as pollinating it in northern France (Tyteca et al., 2006).  Again both pollinators could be said to resemble the flowers to some extent

That concludes my tour of UK arthropod orchids.  Having learnt a lot about other orchids in the last couple of weeks while researching this article it seemed a shame to waste it.  So, as an added bonus, I’m going to finish with a few imaginatively named orchids, the names of which do not refer to their pollinators but rather to the imagination of their human namers.

Orchis anthropophora, The Man Orchid.  Photo by Erwin Meier

This not usually pollinated by sexually-deceived humans but by two beetles, Cantharis rustica (soldier beetle) and Cidnopus pilosus (click beetle) and also by two species of sawfly Tenthredopsis sp. and Arge thoracia (Schatz, 2006).

Orchis simia, The Monkey Orchid. Photo Dimìtar Nàydenov

Again, as with the Man Orchid, the Monkey Orchid, is not pollinated by cruelly deceived anthropoids.  There are, as far as I can discover, only a few confirmed pollinators of O. simia.  They include the beetle C. pillosus, the moth Hemaris fuciformis and some hymenopterans such as honeybees (Schatz, 2006).  According to PlantLife, hybrids of the Man Orchid and Monkey Orchid are called the Missing Link Orchid.

My fellow blogger Jeff Ollerton and his colleagues (Waser et al., 1996), point out that pollination systems are not as specialist as many might think, and even in sexually-deceptive orchids that use pheromone mimics, many of their pollinators can get ‘confused’ and pollinate closely related orchid species.  Hence the existence of what are termed ‘natural hybrids’ such as the Missing Link Orchid and the interesting hybrid between the Fly Orchid and the Woodcock Orchid pictured below.

The hybrid, Fly x Woodcock  Orchid.  Photo Karen Woolley‏ @Wildwingsand

It looks like a belligerent penguin to me, but is of course pollinated by insects.

Often regarded as one of the most bizarrely flowered orchids is the Flying Duck Orchid, Caleana major from Australia.

Flying duck orchid Caleana major (from Australia) sawfly pollinated (Adams & Lawson, 1993).

I was intrigued to notice what appears to be a Cantharid beetle, species of which are known to pollinate other orchids (Schatz, 2006), lurking in the background. There are a number of Cantharids noted as being pollinators in Australia, some of which have been recorded pollinating orchids, although not specifically on Calaena (Armstrong, 1979) so this may be an overlooked pollinator, just waiting to be confirmed by a dedicated pollinator biologist or orchidologist.  There is also, if you wondered, a Small Duck Orchid, Paracaleana minor.

Who would have thought that reading a biography would have started me off on such an interesting paper hunt?  Perhaps the most interesting new bit of information I discovered was that male orchid bees although they attract females with scents, do not produce their own pheromones but collect flower volatiles which they mix with volatiles from other sources like fungi, plant sap and resins (Arriaga-Osnaya et al., 2017).  They use these ‘perfumes’ as part of their competitive courtship behaviour to attract females; the best perfumier wins the lady J

And then you have Dracula vampira….

Dracula vampira (Vampire orchid) – only found in Ecuador (Photo: Eric Hunt, licensed under CC by 3.0).© Eric Hunt.  I hasten to add this is not pollinated by vampires, bats or otherwise.

 

But to finish, here is the one that started it all…

The one that started it all, The Military Orchid, Orchis militaris  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Orchis_militaris_110503a.jpg

 

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Manu Saunders over at Ecology is Not a Dirty Word for sending me a key reference and also to her and Jeff Ollerton for casting critical ‘pre-publication’ eyes over this post.

References

Armstrong, J.A. (1979) Biotic pollination mechanisms in the Australian flora — a review.  New Zealand Journal of Botany, 17, 467-508.

Adams, P.B. & Lawson, S.D. (1993) Pollination in Australian orchids: A critical assessment of the literature 1882-1992.  Australian Journal of Botany, 41, 553-575.

Arriaga-Osnaya, B.J., Contreras-Garduño, J., Espinosa-García, F.J. García-Rodríguez, Y.M.,  Moreno-García, M., Lanz-Mendoza, H., Godínez-Álvarez, H., & Cueva del Castillo, R. (2016) Are body size and volatile blends honest signals in orchid bees? Ecology & Evolution, 7, 3037–3045.

Dafni, A. (1984) Mimicry and deception in pollination.  Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, 15, 259-278.

Döring, T.F., Skellern, M., Watts, N., & Cook, S.M. (2012) Colour choice behaviour in the pollen beetle Meligethes aeneus (Coleoptera: Nitulidae). Physiological Entomology, 37, 360-368.

Gaskett, A.C. (2011) Orchid pollination by sexual deception: pollinator perspectives. Biological Reviews, 86, 33-75.

Kullenberg, B. (1950) Investigations on the pollination of Ophrys species. Oikos, 2, 1-19.

Nilsson, L.A. (1978) Pollination ecology and adaptation in Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae).  Botaniska Notiser, 131, 35-51.

Nilsson, L.A. (1983) Processes of isolation and introgressive interplay between Platanthera bifolia (L.) Rich and P. chlorantha (Custer) Reichb. (Orchidaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 87, 325-350.

Schatz, B. (2006)  Fine scale distribution of pollinator explains the occurrence of the natural orchid hybrid xOrchis bergoniiEcoscience, 13, 111-118.

Schiestl, F.P., Ayasse, M., Pauklus, H.F., Löfstedt, C., Hansson, B.S., Ibarra, F. & Francke, W. (2000) Sex pheromone mimicry in the eraly spider orchid (Ophrys sphegodes): patterns of hydrocarbons as the key mechanism for pollination by sexual deception.  Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 186, 567-574.

Steen, R. (2012) Pollination of Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae): new video registration of a hawkmoth (Sphingidae). Nordic Journal of Botany, 30, 623-626.

Tollsten, L. & Bergström, J. (1989) variation and post-pollination changes in floral odours released by Platanthera chlorantha (Orchidaceae). Nordic Journal of Botany, 9, 359-362.

Tyteca, D., Rois, A.S. & Vereecken, N.J. (2006) Observations on the pollination of Oprys fuciflora by pseudo-copulation males of Phyllopertha horticola in northern France. Journal Europäischer Orchideen, 38, 203-214.

Vereecken, N.J., Streinzer, M., Ayasse, M., Spaethe, J., Paulus, H.F., Stökl, J., Cortis, P. & Schiestl, F.P. (2011) Integrating past and present studies on Ophrys pollination – a comment on Bradshaw et al. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 165, 329-335.

Waser , N.M., Chittka, L., Price, M.V., Williams, N.M. & Ollerton, J. (1996) Generalization in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology, 77, 1043-1060.

Wolf, T. (1950) Pollination and fertilization of the Fly Ophrys, Ophrys Insectifera L. in Allindelille Fredskov, Denmark. Oikos, 2, 20-59.

 

Advertisements

9 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Science writing

Pick and mix – eclectic links to stuff that caught my interest last week

Hopefully some of these links may be of interest to some of you.

 

Scientists, admittedly probably not all, can appreciate and enjoy poetry, as Stephen Heard points out here

On the Death’s Head Hawkmoth as a honey thief

For those of you who like France, bees and might be considering becoming beekeepers

On the value of native trees and shrubs for wildlife

On a similar vein, here is a paper about the value of native trees for insectivorous birds

More evidence of the importance of biodiversity for ecosystem functioning

The Journal of Biogeography celebrates the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Theory of Island biogeography by posing fifty fundamental questions that might take the discipline further forward

Another one from one of my favourite French sites, this time on the beauties of mosses and lichens

A French farmer asks for help from politicians using an ingenious message board

Over on Dynamic Ecology Jeremy Fox asks if you can think of any successful ecological models based on loose physical analogies?

And finally, announcing the launch of Pantheon, the tool to help you analyse your invertebrate species samples

 

2 Comments

Filed under Pick and mix

Serious Fun with Google Trends

No doubt I am behind the curve, but I have only recently discovered Google Trends; a result of attending a Departmental seminar given by a colleague talking about Biochar!

To quote WikipediaGoogle Trends is a public web facility of Google Inc., based on Google Search, that shows how often a particular search-term is entered relative to the total search-volume across various regions of the world, and in various languages. The horizontal axis of the main graph represents time (starting from 2004), and the vertical is how often a term is searched for relative to the total number of searches, globally.”  I was greatly taken by my colleague’s slide showing the birth and development of a new concept

Trends1

and wondered if this would be a useful tool to look at some entomological topics.  Immediately after the seminar I rushed back to my office, and as you may have guessed, entered the word “aphid” into the search bar and was, after a bit of computer chuntering, rewarded with my first Google Trend output  🙂

Trends2

Trends3

I was immediately struck by how closely this resembled real aphid population

Trends4

data, albeit a more regular and smoother than these examples of real  data.  I found that if you ran the cursor along the data lines the month was displayed, and as I expected, the peak in aphid interest was generally June and May, reflecting their peak abundance in the field.   I next entered

Trends5

“Ladybird” to see if it coincided with aphid peaks and interestingly found that it had two peaks within each year, May, when they start to become active and October when they start to look for hibernation sites, so as with aphids, the frequency of the search term usage reflects biological activity.  “Butterfly” and “Ant” as search terms revealed that interest in ants and butterflies has remained

Trends6

fairly constant over the last decade or so, although somewhat to my surprise, ants have had proportionately more searches than butterflies.  Given my worries about the declining interest in plant sciences and the funding problems facing

Trends7

entomology, I thought it might be educational to compare botany and entomology.

Not an encouraging picture, although at least the decline has plateaued out.  Then, just in case, as in many universities, Botany departments have been replaced with Plant Science departments, and is now taught under that title,

Trends8

I substituted “Plant Science” for “Botany” and was surprised to see that “Entomology” was searched for about twice as many times as “Plant Science”.

Comparing “Botany” with “Plant Science” reveals that “Botany” was searched for considerably far more than “Plant Science”, despite most universities no longer having Botany Departments. Perhaps they should reconsider their decision to do away with the title?

Trends9

Keeping with the subject theme and having written in the past about how molecular biology has gained funding and kudos at the expense of whole organism biology (Leather & Quicke, 2010) I compared “Entomology” with

Trends10

“Botany” and “Molecular Biology” to find, that although overall “Molecular Biology” beats both subjects, interest in the subject has also declined over the last decade. One of my bugbears is the amount of interest and funding that the so called “charismatic mega-fauna” gain at the expense of, in my opinion, the much more deserving invertebrates.

Trends11

I therefore compared “Giant Panda”, with “Insect” and “Entomology” and was pleasantly surprised to see that “Insect” wasn’t quite overshadowed by “Giant Panda” although somewhat saddened to see that the whole discipline of “Entomology” was not overly popular.

I confess that felt a little frisson of delight when I found that in recent years “Asian giant hornet” has been giving the “Giant panda” a bit of competition 🙂

 

Trends12

Recently there has been huge debate over the use of neonicotinoids and their possible/probably part they may have in the decline of bees of all sorts (Jeff Ollerton’s blog is a good place to follow the latest news about the debate), so I used “Bee” “Bumblebee” and “Neonicitinoid” as search terms and was

Trends13

surprised to find that “Neonicitinoid” in this context has not really had an impact, although if you search for “Neonicitinoid” by itself you

Trends14

 

can see that there is an increasing interest in the topic.  A corollary to the banning of pesticides or a call for a reduction in their usage as outlined by the EU Sustainable Use Directive, should be an increased interest in the use of alternative pest control methods, such as

Trends15

This does not, however, appear to be the case, with interest in biological control and IPM being at their highest in 2004-2006 and despite the ‘neonictinoid debate’ no signs of interest increasing, which is something to puzzle about.

It appears that there is definitely something to be learnt from using Google Trends, although it would be more useful if some indication of the actual number of searches could be made available.  A word of caution, make sure that your search term is well defined, for

Trends16

example a general search using “butterfly” will give you results for the swimming stroke as well as for the insects.

Although you can compare different geographical regions, and also see the figures for related searches,  what does seem to be lacking,

Trends17

or perhaps I have been unable to find it, is a way to compare different locations at the same time on the same graph.

I would be very interested to hear from any of you who have used this already and also from any of you who are inspired to use this by my post.  Please do feel free to comment.  Have fun!

References

Estay, S.A., Lima, M., Labra, F.A., & Harrington, R. (2012) Increased outbreak frequency associated with changes in the dynamic behavour of populations of two aphid species. Oikos, 121, 614-622.

Leather, S. R. & Quicke, D. L. J. (2010). Do shifting baselines in natural history knowledge threaten the environment? Environmentalist 30, 1-2.

6 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized

By the side of the River Liffey – ENTO’15 Dublin

This year, the Royal Entomological Society’s biennial symposium was held at Trinity College, Dublin (September 2nd-4th). This was the first time that the Society has held its symposium meeting outside the UK. The symposium theme this year was Insect Ecosystem Services, whilst the Annual Meeting which ran alongside the symposium meeting this year, was divided into nine themes, Biocontrol, Conservation, Decomposition, Insect Diversity and Services, Multiple Ecosystem Services, Outreach, Plant-Insect Interactions, Pollination and just in case anyone was feeling left out, Open.

1

The meeting convenors, Archie Murchie, Jane Stout, Olaf Schmidt, Stephen Jess, Brian Nelson, and Catherine Bertrand, came from both sides of the border so that the whole of Ireland was represented.

As a number of us were going from Harper Adams University we decided to use the Sail-rail option (any mainline station in the UK to Dublin for £78 return). We were thus able to feel smug on two levels, economically and ecologically 🙂 We set out on the morning of Tuesday 1st September from Stafford Railway Station, changing at Crewe for the longer journey to Holyhead.

2

Andy Cherrill, Tom Pope, Joe Roberts, Charlotte Rowley and Fran Sconce look after the luggage.

Just over two hours later we arrived at Holyhead to join the queue for the ferry to Dublin.

3

In the queue at Holyhead.

Two of my former students were supposed to join us on the ferry but due to a broken down train, only one of them made it in time, Mark Ramsden being the last passenger to board whilst Mike Garratt had to wait for the next ferry.

4

Tom Pope and Mark Ramsden relaxing on board the ferry.

We arrived at Trinity College in the pouring rain, but still got a feel for some of the impressive architecture on campus.

5

                            6

7

I never quite worked out what this piece of art was about, although the added extra made me smile.

9

The bedrooms were very self-contained – the bed was rather neatly built into the storage although it did make me feel like I was sleeping on a shelf.

Lincolns

After settling in we found a pleasant pub and sampled some of the local beverages.

10

Despite the beverage intake, I was up bright and early on Wednesday morning, in fact so early, that I was not only first at the Registration Desk, but beat the Royal Entomological Society Staff there.

11

After setting up our stand we were able to enjoy the programme of excellent plenary talks and those in the National Meeting themes. There was a great deal of live tweeting taking place so I thought I would give you a flavour of those rather than describing the talks in detail.  For the full conference experience use Twitter #ento15

Dave Goulson from Sussex University,  was the first of the plenary speakers and lead off with a thought-provoking talk about the global threats to insect pollination services.

12

I was a bit disappointed that John Pickett, who was chairing the session cut short a possibly lively debate between Lin Field and Dave Goulson about pesticide usage.

The next plenary speaker was Akexandra-Maria Klein from Freiburg speaking about biodiversity and pollination services.

13

The third plenary speaker was Lynn Dicks from Cambridge asking how much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators?

14

I was the fourth plenary speaker, talking about how entomology and entomologist have influenced the world. I deliberately avoided crop protection and pollination services.

15

I was very pleased that my talk was on the first day as this allowed me to enjoy the rest of the meeting, including the social events to the full.

The following day, Jan Bengtsson from SLU in Sweden spoke about biological ontrol in a landscape context and the pros and cons of valuing ecosystem services.

16

Jan was followed by Sarina Macfadyne from CSIRO, Australia, who spoke about temporal patterns in plant growth and pest populations across agricultural landscapes and astounded us with the list of pesticides that are still able to be used by farmers in Australia.

17

The next plenary speaker, Charles Midega – icipe spoke about the use of companion cropping for sustainable pest management in Africa and extolled the virtues of ‘push-pull’ agriculture.

18

The last plenary of Day Two was Jerry Cross of East Malling Research who enlightened us about the arthropod ecosystem services in apple orchards and their economic benefits. He also highlighted the problems faced by organic growers trying to produce ‘perfect’ fruit for the supermarkets.

19

The third day of the conference plenaries was kicked off by Michael Ulyshen from the USDA Forest Service – who reviewed the role of insects in wood decomposition and nutrient cycling. My take-home image form his talk was the picture of how a box of woodchips was converted to soil by a stage beetle larvae completing its life cycle.

20

The last plenary of the morning was Craig Macadam from BugLife who explained to us that aquatic insects are much than just fish food and play cultural role as well as an ecological one.

21

The afternoon session of the last day was Sarah Beynon, the Queen of Dung Beetles who enthralled us with her stories of research and outreach . It was a testament to the interest people had in what Sarah had to say, that the audience was till well over a hundred, despite it being the last afternoon.

22

The final plenary lecture, and last lecture of the conference, was given by Tom Bolger from the other university in Dublin, UCD. Hi subject was soil organisms and their role in agricultural productivity.

23

I know that I have only given you a minimal survey of the plenary lectures, but you can access the written text of all the talks in the special issue of Ecological Entomology for free.

I did of course attend a number of the other talks, and had to miss many that I wanted to see but which clashed with the ones that I did see.

Eugenie Regan gave a great talk on her dream of setting up a Global Butterfly Index.

24

One of my PhD students, Joe Roberts, gave an excellent talk on his first year of research into developing an artificial diet for predatory mites.

25

Katie Murray, a fomer MREs student of mine, now doing a PhD at the University of Stirling, gave a lively talk on Harlequin ladybirds and the problems they may be having with STDs.

26

Rudi Verspoor, yet another former MRes student gave us an overview of a project that he and Laura Riggi, have developed on entomophagy in Benin.

27

Peter Smithers from Plymouth University gave an amusing and revelatory talk the ways in which Insects are perceived and portrayed. Some excellent material for my planned book on influential entomology 😉

28

Chris Jeffs, yet another former MRes student gave an excellent presentation about climate warming and host-parasitoid interactions.

29

My colleague (and former MSc student) Tom Pope bravely volunteered to step into a gap in the programme and gave an excellent talk about how understanding vine weevil behaviour can help improve biological control programmes.

30

Jasmine Parkinson from the University of Sussex, and incidentally a student of a former student of mine, gave an excellent and well-timed talk about mealybugs and their symbionts.

31

Charlotte Rowley from Harper Adams gave an excellent talk about saddle-gall midge pheromones.

32

Another former student, Mike Garratt, now at Reading University, gave an overview of his work on hedgerows and their dual roles as habitats for pollinators and natural enemies.

33

There were also excellent talks by Jessica Scrivens on niche partitioning in cryptic bumblebees, Relena Ribbons on ants and their roles as ecological indicators, Rosalind Shaw on biodiversity and multiple services in farmland from David George on how to convince farmers and growers that field margins are a worthwhile investment. My apologies to all those whose talks I missed, I wanted to see them but parallel sessions got in the way.

34

Richard Comont, whose talk I missed, very recognisable from the back 😉

 

I leave you with a selection of photographs from the social parts of the programme including our last morning in Dublin before catching the ferry home on Saturday morning.

 

35

The Conference Dinner – former and current students gathering.

36

Tom Pope signs the Obligations Book – his signature now joins those of Darwin and Wallace.

37

Archie Murchie with RES Librarian Val McAtear.

38

The youngest delegate and his father; I hope to see him at Harper Adams learning entomology in the near future.

39

Entomologists learning how to dance a ceilidh.

40

Moving much too fast for my camera to capture them.

41

Academic toilets – note the shelf on which books can be placed whilst hands are otherwise occupied.

42

On site history.

43

Impressive doorway in the Museum café.

44

The Natural History Museum was very vertebrate biased.

aphid

They certainly didn’t way know the best way to mount aphids.

46

I was, however, pleased to see a historical Pooter.

 Leaving

On our final day the sun actually made an appearance so our farewell to Ireland was stunning.

And finally, many thanks to the conference organizers and the Royal Entomological Society for giving us such a good experience.  A lot to live up to for ENTO’16 which will be at Harper Adams University.  We hope to see you there.

Postscript

As a result of being tourists on Saturday morning we were exposed to a lot of gift shops and in one I impulsively bought a souvenir 😉

49

2 Comments

Filed under EntoNotes, Uncategorized