Draft topics for the 1st Working Meeting of the Special Committee on Pollinator Insects

传粉昆虫专业委员会第一次工作会议议题（征求意见稿）

中国昆虫学会传粉昆虫专业委员会经过同行和工作小组征求意见，初步计划第一次工作会议于2016年6月在中国科学院北京动物研究所召开。先就目前征集到的下列议题，广泛征求相关领域专家意见。

After previous discussions with committee members and colleagues, we plan to organize the 1st working meeting in June, 2016 in the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. We welcome comments and suggestions from wider audience.

所征集的建议和意见，将经过专业委员会工作小组讨论、筛选，提交委员会工作会议研讨后，最终以工作会议报告和纪要的形式提交给中国昆虫学会。

All comments and suggestions will be discussed and sorted into different types by working group members, raised to the working meeting and submitted to the China Entomological Society as reports.

联系人：朱朝东（zhucd@ioz.ac.cn）

牛泽清（niuzq@ioz.ac.cn）

罗阿蓉（luoar@ioz.ac.cn）

2016/3/18

附：会议议题

（Potential Topics for the 1^st working meeting）

一、委员会组织议题(Organization and management)

1、    专业委员会宗旨和组织形式

Purpose and organization of the Special Committee

2、    专业委员会研讨会届会模式

Models to run seminars and workshhops

3、    传粉昆虫研讨会（培训班）（2年1届？第一届2016年6月25－26日？）

Schedule of the first Seminar onPollinator Insects, once every 2 years? First one is tentatively proposed to beon June 25-26, 2016?

4、    传粉昆虫专业委员会网页及数据库管理

Homepage of Special Committee of Pollinator Insects and Databases Management

二、科学议题(Scientific topics)

5、    传粉昆虫的起源与演化

Origin and evolution of pollinatorinsects

6、    传粉昆虫与虫媒植物协同演化

Co-evolution between pollinator insects and host plants

7、    传粉昆虫的功能形态学

Functional morphology on pollinator insects

8、    传粉昆虫物种多样性研究

Species diversity on pollinatorinsects

9、    重要传粉昆虫生活史、巢穴生物学

Life history, nesting biology of economically important pollinator insects

10、  传粉昆虫基因组学研究

Genome biology of pollinator insects

11、  传粉昆虫化学生态学研究

Chemical ecology of pollinator insects

12、  传粉昆虫行为生态学

Behavioral ecology of pollinator insects

13、  传粉昆虫与其它非昆虫生物互作与网络关系研究

Interaction and networks between pollinator insects and non-insect organisms

14、  传粉昆虫与拟寄生物共存关系

Co-existence between pollinator insects and parasitoids

15、  传粉昆虫变化与驱动因子研究

Change and driving factors of pollinator insects

三、传粉价值评估与应用(Value assessment and application of pollinator insects)

16、  传粉昆虫传粉模式与效力评价研究

Pollination models and efficiency assessment

17、  传粉昆虫经济价值研究

Economic values of pollinator insects

18、  重要经济作物传粉生态学研究

Pollination ecology of economically important plants

19、  濒危植物传粉生物学研究

Pollination biology of endangered plants

20、  农业传粉规程研究与实践

Pollinating protocols and practicesin agriculture

四、能力建设(Capacity building)

21、  传粉昆虫科普

Public education on pollinator insects

22、  传粉昆虫分类鉴定队伍建设

Capacity building on taxonomy of pollinator insects

23、  传粉昆虫监测能力建设

Capacity building on monitoring pollinator insects

24、  传粉昆虫基因库建设

Building up Pollinator Insects Genes Bank

25、  传粉昆虫标本库建设

Building up Pollinator Insect Collection

26、  传粉昆虫数据库建设

Building up Pollinator InsectDatabases

本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-536560-963541.html  此文来自科学网朱朝东博客，转载请注明出处。

论文学习与分享：物种多样性、灭绝速率、分布和保护

原文：The biodiversity of species and their rates of extinction, distribution, and protection

原文网址：http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6187/1246752.full

学习与翻译：功能昆虫群研究组

综述概要

背景：政府间生物多样性和生态功能科学与政策平台（IPBES）的主要功能之一是“对生物多样性知识进行定期和即时评估”。2013年12月，IPBES的第二次全会批准了一个项目，在2015年启动全球评估工作。生物多样性公约（CBD）和其它五个和生物多样性相关的公约都将IPBES作为科学与政策的接口。因此，在生物多样性公约Aichi战略规划2011-2020目标的评估过程中，这些IPBES的评估将非常重要。作为该评估的工作之一，我们对真核生物物种的多样性、灭绝速率、分布和保护进行了综述。我们记录了我们已知的信息，这些信息可能和我们不了解的信息不同之处，以及这些不同如何影响生物多样性统计。有趣的是，几个目标明确提到“已知物种”，毫不含蓄地申明了一些未知的知识。我们开始问这样的问题：有多少已知物种，同时有多少尚未描记。然后，我们考虑多少行动人为提高了灭绝速率。因为不同的生物群落包含了不同数目、不同易感程度的物种，物种的分布的影响因素较大。灭绝速率如何变化取决于威胁在哪些地方、如何扩散，以及保护措施是否有应对。

进展：最近的研究已经阐明最脆弱的物种在哪里栖息、人类活动在哪里并如何改变地球、这些如何导致物种灭绝。这些数据越来越容易查阅，从而科学和政府之间的透明度越来越高。植物、陆生脊椎动物、淡水鱼类和部分海洋类群的分类名录已经足以用于评估它们的状态和我们知识的缺陷。我们最了解的物种有巨大的分布区域，也是这些区域中最普遍分布的物种。大多数已知物种只有较小的分布区域，一般它们都是较新发现的物种。即使是在很熟知的类群中，非常小分布区域的物种数目急剧增加。它们分布非常局限，也非常不成比例地受到威胁，甚至已经灭绝。现在的灭绝速率是历史背景的1000倍，高于以前的估计。这样的估计可能可能仍然是低估了实际的情况。将来的灭绝速率将取决于很多因子，增长将常态化。综上：尽管保护区得到很快发展，但是这些努力可能没有生态上的代表性，也没有最优地保护生物多样性。

展望：持续推动最近建立的许多在线数据库，把它们和土地利用、海洋利用及物种分布不断涌现的数据进行整合，生物多样性评估才可能有所进展。哥伦比亚和巴西整合数据后开展保护实践的例子可参见www.savingspecies.org和www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3zjeJW2NVk

综述全文

摘要：最近的研究阐明了濒危物种在何地生存、人类如何并在哪改变地球，及如何导致物种灭绝等问题。我们评估了物种、分布和状态等统计参数。大部分物种尚未被描记。那些人类了解较多的物种分布广泛。但大部分已知物种分布范围比较局限。它们通常聚集在某一地理范围内，因而容易受到威胁或已经灭绝。现今的物种灭绝速率约为历史参考水平的1000倍。将来该速率的变化取决于诸多因素，且呈上升趋势。虽然物种保护区近些年来取得迅速发展，但是它们在生态角度并不具代表性，且不能最优化的保护物种多样性。

IPBES (IntergovernmentalScience-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) 四大功能之一即是对生物多样性方面进行及时和常规的评估。2013年12月，其第二次全体大会通过了于2015年启动全球和地区生物多样性评估的决议。CBD（Convention on Biological Diversity）和其它四个生物多样性相关的大会均采用IPBES作为科学与政策的对接平台。因此这些评估将对衡量CBD 相关2011-2020生物多样性目标策略等产生重要影响。它们将会采用CBD对生物多样性的定义，提出定义涵盖了基因、物种、生态系统等多个生态层次（Norse等）。作为贡献之一，我们将对真核生物物种多样性、灭绝速率、分布和保护等方面进行综述。

有趣的是，许多研究明确称“已知物种”——如果不含蓄的话，则非常明确地包含了不完整的相关知识。因此，究竟存在多少真核生物？对于陆地植物而言，现有298900个被认可的物种名，477601个同物异名，263925个种名尚待确定。由于已确定的种名占38%，因此有理由预测尚待确定种名的比例与此相同。由此推测，还另有100000种有待最终确认，从而总计约会有400000被定名物种。模型预测还有15%尚待发现。因此，陆地植物物种总数应会超过450000种，比传统估计的数目要多。

对于动物来说，近期的各种回顾已经证实了此问题更为棘手。大约一百九十万的物种被描记，然而其中绝大多数物种仍然被忽略。Costello等人估计大约会有5± 3 百万物种；Mora等人则估计约有8.7 ± 1.3 百万物种；Chapman估计一千一百万；Raven和Yeates等人估计五百万到六百万的昆虫物种；Scheffers等人则声称由于和昆虫和真菌物种的不确定性会导致无法预估一个合理范围。对于海洋生物物种的估计则包含2.2 ± 0.18 百万，Appeltens等人则估计约有70万到100万的物种，其中22万6千个物种已经被描记，还有剩余70000个物种留待描记。

对于物种多样性的关注源自于太高的物种灭绝速率。我们将现有物种灭绝速率同没有人类行为之前的进行比较，发现人类的行为加剧了物种灭绝。那些濒危物种局限于特定的地理位置，所以我们进一步考虑是否它们的生物地理学。考虑到现有的分类系统还不是很完善，我们也将考虑到未被描记的物种和已被描记的物种在地理新分布和灭绝风险系数的种种差异。为了便于更好的理解物种灭绝速率是增加还是降低，我们也考虑了这些导致灭绝的威胁的成因和具体发生地，并且考虑了高效有力的保护措施是否会降低这些风险。我们的结论建立在现有知识体系中一些重要空白领域的理解基础之上。

 物种灭绝的背景速率

考虑到物种数量的不确定性和仅有一小部分物种被纳入到物种灭绝研究的范畴里面，我们的表示方式将会是基于时间序列的灭绝速率，也就是每百万物种年的基础之上的统计数据(E/MSY)，而不是物种本身的绝对数量。对于一些近期的物种灭绝，我们参考他们最早被成群科学报道的时间。这样，某些像渡渡鸟之类的物种由于灭绝之前没有报道，我们将会把此类物种排除在研究范围之外。举个例子，1990年以后分类学家描记了1230种鸟类，其中13种鸟类后来或者灭绝或者可能灭绝。这样，这个类群聚集了98334 MSY，也就是说平均物种被认知年限为80年，那么灭绝速率就是（13/98334）× 10⁶ = 132 E/MSY。

但是更难的问题是如何将这样的灭绝速率估计值和有人为影响的灭绝速率估计值进行比较。也就是说，背景灭绝速率的设定是什么。三种迹象表明之前每百万物种数量和每年的基础之上的灭绝统计数据 (E/MSY) 的表述太高了。

首先，化石记录提供了一种直接的评估灭绝速率的证据，但是预测的时间，地点和分类精度太低，主要用来评估类和属，无法触及到种。很多的物种是单种属，然而这类物种却一样容易发生物种自身的灭绝。所以导致物种的灭绝速率和属的灭绝速率应该大致相同。Alroy发现新生代哺乳动物属级水平的灭绝速率约为0.165 E/MSY。Harnik等人计算了即将灭绝的物种在不同时段所占的比例。他们将这样数据转化成相应的灭绝速率，进而得出过去数百万年时间属级阶元灭绝速率为鲸目动物0.06 E/MSY，海洋食肉动物为0.04E/MSY，对于多样化的海洋无脊椎动物则为0.001（腕足动物）到0.01E/MSY（海胆动物）。

其次，基于分子的系统发生学涵盖了很多物种和环境，相比于凤毛麟角的化石提供了丰富的研究材料和对象。举一个简单的模型为例，在一定的系统发生进化枝中物种数量的增加量St对时间t的关系是St = S0 exp[(λ-μ)×t]，其中λ和μ分别是物种形成和灭绝速率。实际上，λ和μ随着一系列复杂关系而变化。估计的平均分化速率λ-μ仅需要一些基本的数据支撑，但是是否能将物种分化时间和物种灭绝时间通过物种数量区分开来，还存在一定争议。对于那些热点研究领域，数据选择要求比较高以避免可能的偏见。在这种简单的模型中，世袭物种数量（LTT）的对数值将会和时间成正比关系，斜率将是λ-μ。现有时空条件的局限性，大多数物种的物种还没有足够的时间灭绝。LTT线条将会成为凹形，斜率也将逼近λ。这样就可以对物种灭绝速率和物种形成速率分别加以估计。

可惜的是，在McPeek编纂的众多研究中，u＝0，则80%的LLT为凸形曲线。如果目前认定的亚种被认定为种，则较多比例的LLT曲线将呈凹状，使得u>0。由此提示我们分类学观点在此扮演了容易混淆的角色，而不管用什么统计模型。一个比较重要的问题：究竟多大物种灭绝速率采用这些方法不能得以判断。通常，如果凹形曲线比较大，则其将占据主导地位，但相关的量化证据较少。

第三，物种多样化净速率广泛存在。植物的多样化速率中位值为0.06个新物种每百万年每物种，鸟类为0.15，脊索动物0.2，节肢动物0.17，哺乳动物0.07。对单独支系而言，有些比较特殊，多样化速率大于1。Valente等对高速率进行了详细研究，发现Dianthus，Lupinus，Zosterops和非洲东部湖泊中的cichilids鱼等都大于1。

目前尚无证据表明在大多类群中存在广泛的、最近的、前人类的物种多样性衰减，因此物种灭绝速率肯定低于物种多样化速率。这与相关系统发育研究结论一致，即相比物种形成速率较高的物种灭绝速率并未检测到。这同样与来自化石数据的证据保持一致。因此，0.1 E/MSY可以作为一个可供参考的物种灭绝速率。

 目前的物种灭绝速率

IUCN（International Union for Conservation of Nature）在濒危物种的红色名单中评估物种灭绝风险为最小风险、接近濒危、濒危物种的三个逐步提高的级别（容易受影响的、危险的、濒危的）、灭绝。截止2014年3月，IUCN已经评估了71576中陆地和淡水物种：860种已灭绝；21286种濒临危险，其中包括4286种濒危物种。陆地濒危物种的比例范围可从13%（鸟类）到41%（两栖动物和裸子植物）。对淡水生物而言，比例范围可从23%（哺乳类和鱼类）到39％（爬行类）。

相关工作已经从2%的海洋生物被评估和3.6%的已知物种向外延伸。Peters等评估了Conus属，Carpenter等评估了珊瑚类，Dulvy等评估了1041种鲨鱼和ray。整体上，6041种海洋生物有充足的数据对其进行评估：16%濒临危险，9%接近危险。大多由于过度开发、栖息地丧失和气候变化。

评估物种灭绝速率的直接方法随着时间也在变化。IUCN红色名单种的分类情况变化源自相关知识的更新，因此红色名单指标计算衡量了一个给定类群灭绝风险的合计值，去除了不真实的变化。Hoffmann等研究表明：平均水平上，哺乳类、鸟类、两栖类的22000物种中有52种每年推动一个红色名单类群接近灭绝。如果两个连接类群之间的转化可能性相同，则灭绝速率为450 E/MSY。从濒危到灭绝的转化可能性较低，但是也有可能濒危物种没有收到合适的保护举措。

断代分析（cohortanalyses）推测平均灭绝速率是100 E/MSY（表1）。地区速率远高于此数值：305 E/MSY（北美湖泊中鱼类）、954 E/MSY（该区域的gastropods）、>1000E/MSY（非洲Victoria湖中的cichlid鱼）。

现代灭绝速率的研究均没考虑属的灭绝速率，但却可能与化石资料进行了比较。对哺乳动物而言，此速率是每1百万年100个属灭绝，对于鸟类则为60个属。

不完整的分类知识如何影响这些估算？考虑到许多物种还没有被描记及许多分布狭窄的物种最近才被发现，这些数字显然被低估了。许多物种在被描记前就已经灭绝。1900年后描记物种的灭绝速率远高于之前所描记的物种，反映了较大的稀有度。还有，新近描记物种中很大一部分濒临灭绝。因此，灭绝速率和濒危物种所占比例随着相关知识的增多而上升。这警示我们基于了解甚少的类群（如昆虫）最近所估计的灭绝速率远远低于真实情况，因为很多物种还没有被描记。

总之，现有灭绝速率（～100E/MSY）和对已知物种可能的低估及对未知物种显然低估，提示我们灭绝速率很可能为 0.1 E/MSY的1000倍。

全球物种灭绝的生物地理学

人类的活动导致了在陆地顶级捕食者以及其他大型生物的灭绝，以及海洋中大量掠食性鱼类资源的减少。例如，非洲大草原生态系统曾经的面积大约为1.35×107km²，现在只有约100万km²的区域还生活着狮子，其中可繁殖的种群只占少数部分。认识到这种区域（局域）物种消亡的重要性，我们着重于考虑不可逆的全球物种消亡以及哪些地域会发生这些情况。

一般模式-“laws”-描记物种的地理分布。首先，分布在小型地理范围的占主要部分。尽管许多生物类群实际的分布区域小远小于偏态分布，Gaston建议用对数正态分布（图.1）。在图1中，对大多数的生物类群，其中有25%的物种的地理分布区域小于105 km²，而两栖动物的则小于103 km²。

即使如此，物种的分布区的大小还是被高估了。如图1假设那样，只要植物出现在WorldChecklist of Selected Plant Families（WCSPF）所列举的369个区域中的一个，就意味着这个物种在整个区域都有分布。同样，如图1，假定Conus（芋螺属）物种分布在其地理限定的整个区域。这些估计区域的外部边界太大。当然，物种会被进一步分布于特定的栖息地内。

第二条规律是相对于广泛分布的物种来说，小范围分布的物种通常数量稀少。结合这两条规律会发现：首先，相比较于小范围分布的以及本地多度很低的物种，分类学家通常会优先描记记载广布的以及本地多度很高的物种。在巴西，即使是那些常见的脊柱动物，在1975年以后，超过一半被描记的物种的分布在不到20000km²的区域中。

其次，由于大多数的物种还未被描记，其中的一个预期就是，在对此前未调查的区域采样会包含大量的未被描记记载的物种。我们应该对未被描记的物种的部分提供一个总物种数的估计。在实践过程中，分散地点的小样本包含了广布种、常见种以及一些稀有种。例如，在亚马逊低地的大约6000000 km²的范围内采样中发现，在227种植物占据了一半以上的植株数，亚马逊地区应该是同质性的植物区系。然而，样本中包括4962个已知种，此外还有很多物种并不能被识别鉴定。亚马逊区域应该含有多达16000个物种。只有在量化采样工作中不断积累物种名单才能对地理多样化以及总物种多样性提供令人信服的估计。

相比于了解到底有多少种物种，物种分布的不确定性研究受到更多的限制。IUCN已图注43000个物种。其中近一半为两栖类、鸟类以及哺乳动物。最常见——但也是对生物保护信息量最少的地图就是物种的丰度。其中大部分的信息都是有关于广布的物种，而占绝大多数的小范围分布的物种几乎是看不见的（图. S1）。地图中关于小范围分布的物种补充是十分必要的，例如小于中型地理分布范围的物种的丰度，或者一些简单划分的具有地方特色的区域。图2-5提供了哺乳类和两栖类、开花植物、淡水鱼类以及芋螺属的海洋蜗牛物种的案例。详细情况参见补充材料。还有与之相似的地图，包含了造礁珊瑚、沿海鱼类、大量海洋捕食者和无脊椎动物在内的共845种生物。

含有大量物种的区域，既有那些大范围分布的物种，也有小范围分布的物种。令人惊讶的是，拥有小范围分布的物种在地理上是十分集中的。亚马逊低地生活着全世界数量最多的鸟类物种，而小范围分布的物种则主要集中的安第斯山脉（Andes）（图. S1）。即使在一个较大尺度上，淡水鱼类也会在途经森林的大河中达到它们物种多样性的最高值。一个令人意外的案例发生在东非大裂谷的湖泊中，鱼类的多样性非常高（图. 4）。菲律宾拥有数量最多的芋螺属物种，小范围分布中的集中地则在其他地方（图. 5）。其他的一些海洋物种也与之类似。

过去的物种灭绝主要发生在岛屿上，但现生的灭绝模式则会威胁到更广的区域。稀有种——广布但稀少（如顶级捕食者以及大型动物）或者小范围分布并经常本地稀少——主导了物种名录。小范围分布的物种相比大范围分布的物种更容易受到威胁。有趣的是，对于一个给定分布的范围大小，生活着小岛上的物种比大陆上的物种更易受到威胁，可能是因为岛屿物种多度更高。

相比于总物种数量，物种的濒危程度与小范围分布的物种紧密相关。因此应该有更多的信息关于现有濒危物种的生活范围以及那些地区的物种将来会受到威胁。

Myers et al.提出了一个至关重要的独立的观点，对于那些高度集中的小范围分布物种来说，栖息地的破坏是最为严峻的因子。如同，小范围分布物种，生而容易受到伤害，还得承受着强加于它们的威胁。Myers et al.热点的定义综合考虑了最小数量的小范围分布植物物种和足够高的生境丧失威胁。WCSPF上的定量数据已经表明了这些区域。

未来物种灭绝的速率

造成物种灭绝的首要的驱动力来自于人类种群数量的增长以及日益增长的人均消费。这些趋势还会持续多长时间——在哪里以怎样的速率——将主导物种灭绝的场景并挑战着为保护生物多样性所作出的努力。

在上个10年以前，大多数的关于物种灭绝的应用主要以简单的土地使用变化作为生物多样性丧失的主要驱动力，并采用了物种-区域相互关系的概念。例如，Pimm and Raven预测：从现今到2100年，由于热带森林热点的砍伐，有18%的物种会灭绝。如果森林只剩下已划定的自然栖息地保护区的话，将会有40%的物种会灭绝。

直到最近，这些情景才被实证模型所验证。这些证据集中于全球性的或局域的脊椎动物：美国东部、南美大西洋森林以及孤立的东南亚。预计会灭绝的物种和已经灭绝的数目惊人的对应着近期的森林砍伐，以及上述的各种威胁。现在已有关于这些估计的理论依据的讨论。尽管如此，当仅依据森林砍伐去统计物种灭绝的估计都是十分保守的。理论预测了更多的物种灭绝可能是由于严重的生境破碎化导致的，并获得野外调查的确认。

Pereira et al.整理并比较了多种未来物种灭绝预计的模型。令人震惊的，6套机制预测相差百倍的灭绝率。它们着重于不同的驱动力（土地使用变化、气候变化或者二者兼顾）、模型方法、分类学覆盖度、地理尺度。基于这个范围，迫切需要对现今已记录的物种灭绝速率预测进行验证。但只有少数研究去尝试验证。在此，我们认为未来利用新的有效的数据进行的预测可以减少不确定性。

气候干扰会导致物种灭绝，但是估计出的范围很大。Thomas et al. 利用了中度气候变暖模型预测：到2050年将会有15-37%的物种将会灭绝。关于鸟类详细的研究预测了在8750种陆地鸟类中将会有超过400物种，在2050年以前将会经历一个大规模消亡的过程，有超过50%物种会灭绝。对于西半球的陆地鸟类，基于3349种鸟类现有分布区域的气候变化的预测物种的灭绝速率在1.3%（升高1.1℃）——30%（上升6.4℃）。全球性评估认为气候变暖会导致184-327种山地鸟类（总共1009种）将会失去50%以上的生活范围，它们的生活的范围将小于20000 km²。

Cheung et al.使用全球气候模型来预测：由于海洋变暖，到2050年，1066种海洋鱼类和无脊椎动物物种的生存范围转移、灭绝以及入侵强度。它们预测向极范围（poleward range）的移动将会导致4%的热带和7%副极地维度物种的灭绝。物种灭绝的速率也在4%-7%之间。他们将这种比陆地更低的灭绝率归功于海洋中有更大的自由移动空间。封闭的海洋。如地中海，由于有不可逾越的障碍，可能形成特有种。他们既没有考虑其他的潜在的灭绝驱动力，如海洋酸化、过度捕捞或者无运动能力的固着生物如珊瑚。

在陆地上，由于几方面原因，气候干扰的影响仍然不清楚。一个关键的不确定性在气候干扰或者生境破坏一起对物种进行伤害或者是在不同地域单独的作用着，亦或者它们协同作用。气候干扰似乎是一个额外的威胁。一些研究结合使用物种——区域机制和气候变化作为物种减少的驱动力，并通过模型改变全球植被，认为12%的物种将会灭绝。其他的一些研究认为7-24%的植物物种将会灭绝。气候干扰的影响是复杂的。通过对188个预测的和130个实际观测气候变化进行META分析比较，认为10-14%的物种将会消失。此外，与环境的相互作用与内在的生物特性（如地理分布范围、体型以及繁殖率）也暗示了生物对于人类种群密度上升的应答（反应）将会越来越不确定。

另外的一个不确定性是Pereira et al.没有提及种群生存力和生境适宜性的模型。他们采用了间接手段，例如在文献中提及的现生范围的生境碎片。结合生存能力的手段提供了坚实的实证基础来预测灭绝风险。一些局域性的研究已经使用了这种方法，包括南非山龙眼科Proteaceae的研究。

最重要的是，只有少数实证检验。上述的方法是假定物种是极向运动的，去更高的海拔，或者更深的地方，使自身处于适宜的气候中。应用数十年来多次重复调查的数据，不同的研究发现植物、昆虫以及鸟类在上坡运动中存在明显的滞后现象。这些质疑了物种的命运，现在它们生活在以前气候条件范围的外部。此外，很少有研究考虑预测的地理范围从过去到现在的变化，然后对当前范围的校准并不总是找到令人信服的匹配。

对于水生物种来说，直接和间接生境改变，如污染以及已经非常广泛并不断持续的生境破碎化和河流的调控，是物种灭绝的主要驱动力。尤其对那些扩散能力较差的物种。现今的水生系统的改变已经破坏物种的生存能力，并且在一定程度上也没有防止其灭绝的有效措施。

外来物种，包含所携带的疾病是物种灭绝的重要因素，也是近期鸟类灭绝的主要元凶。当这些岛屿足够小时，10%的植物物种是岛屿特有的物种，并受到外来食草动物的威胁。据我们所知：现在还没有由于外来物种驱动的物种灭绝的速率的估计。这些灭绝会发展非常迅速并不可预计，正如外来蛇类对关岛特有鸟类的破坏以及尼罗河鲈鱼对维多利亚湖200种丽鱼科（haplochromine）鱼类的破坏和灭绝。

总而言之，只有少数关于未来物种灭绝实证检验的预测。典型的方案考虑了那些可以被预测——由于森林砍伐或气候干扰导致的灭绝——但不是潜在的重要过程——疾病、外来物种、或者水文变化——没有一个能够被简单的模拟。

如何通过保护延缓物种灭绝速率？

未来的物种灭绝速率受到很多不确定因素的影响，尤为重要的影响就是保护措施可能会减缓物种灭绝的速率。例如，如果没有过去四十年内的保护，哺乳动物，鸟类以及两栖动物的灭绝率比没有受到保护影响的高20%。

自然栖息地的破坏对物种来说是个最主要的威胁。因此，保护区的保护水平和目的显著不同对减少物种灭绝启着至关重要的作用。Aichi 目标 11，要求保护>17%具有生态代表性的陆地和淡水生态系统以及>10%的沿海和海洋生态系统，然而CBD全球植物保护战略（GSPC）目标4，要求每个生态区域或者植被类型>15%。

到2009年，共有12.9%陆地区域受到一定程度的法律保护。然而在1985年，保护面积不到4%。被保护的区域大多分布于人类活动较少的区域。14个主要的陆地生物群系的覆盖率在4%-25%之间。全世界821个陆地生态区，有一半的保护区域不到10%。

如今和将来一段时间内，如何很好地将物种保护在保护区域内对预测未来的物种灭绝速率有着重要的影响。Rodrigues等分析了世界保护区中受到威胁的哺乳动物、鸟类、两栖动物和海龟的数据库。总的来说，27%受威胁的两栖动物，20%受威胁的鸟类，14%受威胁的哺乳动物以及10%受威胁的海龟是生存在保护区域之外的。进一步的研究将设定研究分布范围成反比的尺度中的代表。例如，100%的代表性物种范围小于1000km²，10%的范围大于250000km²，在物种之间存在一个线性插值。

这些全局的差异分析存在一些替代性错误。诸如物种看上去出现过，但是它们并没有。这样就导致覆盖着较粗分辨率的物种地图和高分辨率的保护区边界。这会产生一种虚假的安全感：被认为很安全的物种可能面临着灭绝的危险。替代方法可以允许更高的替代性错误。虽然效率降低了，但是问题少了。因此，对于鸟类来说，保护区仅覆盖49%的地点来保护至少一个高威胁物种的全部种群数量，51%的重要地点来保护鸟类。

那么保护工作有效果吗？当然，有一些完全失败了。即使是非洲西部大型的国家公园中，狮子以及它们的猎物也在渐渐消失。对于淡水种群来说，有准备的保护并不是有保障的保护，总有来自外部的威胁，像是流向的改变，或是缺乏明确的管理条例。森林环境的保护通常是保持森林的覆盖率，比未受保护地区少的多的人为火灾，以及不超过预期的人口数量的增长。许多研究并不是直接评估动植物的种群数量，而是动植物生存的栖息地太小或者遭到过度的开发不能维持所有的物种生存。物种跟踪记录表明保护区的建立在防止物种灭绝中起到了实质的作用。全球物种有50%以上重点保护的位点在走向灭绝，只有一半的速度和剩下的不到50%的保护区域一样。

海洋生态系统的保护落后于陆地生态系统。一份2013年的评价报告表明大约有10000海洋保护区域（MPAs）存在，覆盖了2.3%的海洋。Aichi 目标 11 允许“另一些有效的区域范围内的保护方法”。因此这个措施包括大型的渔业管理区停用一定的渔业齿轮，包括新英格兰、弗罗里达和新西兰地区。这并不是建立一个生物多样性保护体系。以新西兰为例，她提出了发展深海渔业，避免在一些重要区域的捕鱼。一个更为保守的评价估计仅覆盖了1.8%的海洋。

和陆地一样，海洋的保护区域覆盖也是参差不齐的。研究多集中于物种多样性威胁比较高的地区，如渔业区域，石油天然气泄漏区域。由于200海里以外国家管理的局限性，仅有0.17%开放海域受到保护，相当于8%的大陆架。沿海的珊瑚礁保护程度最好，2006年时18.7%已受到保护。然而，仅有2%被MPAs认为是具有足够的大小、一定的管理水平，以及一定程度的保护和沟通性。想要建立一个更大的，具有远程位点，如英国印度洋所属海域，在物种保护方面起到更大的作用，需要将Aichi目标定为10%覆盖率。海洋保护区域是个禁捕，强制的，古老的，庞大的体系。要维持海洋生物的物种多样性，深海的海水和沙石是功不可没的。

Aichi 目标 11 寻求17%的陆地生物的保护覆盖率，然而GSPC寻求保护60%的植物物种。它们最终目的是否一致？小范围的物种保护需要有效的土地保护，才能维持植物的多样性。17% 选定的物种将包含81%植物物种的部分分布区和67%物种的所有分布区。如何预测15%没有描记的植物物种会怎样改变物种选择策略？Joppa等用物种描记的比例校正分类学的影响。结果表明未描记的物种在已经物种中处于一个很小的范围，当前的选择优先级不变。

植物优先匹配陆生脊椎动物。89%的鸟类、80%的两栖类、74%的哺乳动物生活在这些植物的优先保护区域。物种的百分比范围比中位数小，分别是88%、82%和73%。依据这些更新的数据，Myers等的观察结果表明，如果作者选择的保护区域包括已认知的物种，那么在有限的领域内会保护其中的大部分物种。某些多样性高的淡水鱼类可以和多样性高的陆地相匹配。但是这样的一致性不能假定为：这一异常包括高多样性的恒河和湄公河淡水生态系统（图. 4）。而且，淡水物种的保护需要景观管理以及用水要超出储备警戒线，以获得更大的储水量。

已知、未知，如何补救

我们充分了解并看到，对物种数量、分布和状态的忽视严重影响生物多样性的统计。有两个表明这样后果的例子：第一，植物中，大约20%已知物种被认为收到威胁。预计有15%还么有被描记的物种，几乎全部稀有，分布在栖息地普遍缺失的地方。这表明：植物物种30%受到威胁。气候阻断还会威胁到更多的物种。

第二，632个芋螺属物种中，只有6.5%受到威胁。另外14%数据缺乏，信息不足以评估它们的状况，通常这些物种稀少并分布在有限的地理范围内。只有获得更好判读它们受到威胁的知识，这些物种的分布图才能够有本质的变化。把研究范围的目标扩大到覆盖对IUCN红色目录160000种物种的评价是我们应该优先考虑的事情。

怎么才能获得更好地数据和知识？又怎么才能对学科的发展前景有较大的提高？怎么做？AiChi的目标是呼吁人们应该将19个数据广泛共享。最近，online对这一目标进行了努力，他们收集了包括GBIF的42亿条记录和1450万个物种以及亚种的名字，还有海洋生物地理信息系统的3.8亿条记录和11.5万个物种。Species 2000寻求创建一个经过验证过的所有物种的名录，以及他们的生命之树以及时间树以提供他们之间的系统进化关系。

现在，分类学工作者正在研究费时但重要的同物异名问题，并他们所得出的分类列表以及所做的分类定论公布。这个大型数据库包括世界已知的海洋生物物种，该数据库已经审核了22.1万95%的海洋生物物种，包括鱼类数据库有3.2万种鱼类。WCSPF到目前为止已经评估了大约110000种植物物种。

新技术也有助推力。基因条形码使快速鉴别一个生物物种成为了可能。它利用生物具有微小性和唯一性的DNA序列。这样的鉴别手段每个标本成本仅需1美元。基因条形码技术相对于植物的运用而言显得更为困难。在动物分类中有数量庞大的未知物种，而分类学家却少之又少。基因条形码技术毫无疑问将会成为发现新物种的主要办法。这引发了一个这样的争议，那就是可能大量的物种不通过或罕有通过传统的描记被认知，而是基本通过基因条形码的技术被获知。这种具有发现新物种和解开集群的物种的潜力已经被人们所广泛认知。现在通过一批物种来做更高效益的基因条形码从而减少成本已经成为了可能。强大的新的统计学方法能评估某地区物种发生的数量，有多少物种与其他增加抽样的物种存在重叠。结合批量的基因条形码技术，在采样力度较差的地区，对那些未知的物种多样性可以获得一个可靠的评估结果，最直接的办法就是那里该物种的数量。

即使已经完成物种分布图，但是大量的未知物种仍然存在。在脊椎动物最多的南美洲，这几乎是一个研究中心，有数目众多的GBIF的动物记录。公共物种的地理分布图最重要的一个挑战就是人们去确认和修订它。

虽然GBIF是存放其它生物多样性来源数据的数据库，但是这些来源有待更多的注释。有些比如Tropicos很专业，拥有420万号标本。物种分布知识中增长最快的资料库来源于大量的爱好者提供数据。观鸟者是数量最多的，eBird成为了一个国际储蓄库。在2010年已经有超过10万观鸟者和超过1亿的观测记录。这就允许做精密的动物分布图和以月份为单位的动物分布的动态变化。如此丰富的数据扭曲了更加全面的生物多样性的统计和评估，但也推动着其它非明星类群的研究。

要想做到有效，观测需要鉴定，而鉴定需要训练和技能的掌握。最近在图片共享技术和社交网络提供新的机遇和进展。就拿iNaturelist来说，应用程序让业余的观测者和专业工作者之间进行分工。前者通过智能手机熟练地分辨并上传图片，后者鉴定并编目，形成观测结果。在业余观察者和专家的合作中，现在在不同的分类单元中有了高质量的产物。iNaturalist 已经记录了超过了50万条记录，而且也成为了较受欢迎的应用程序。不管在墨西哥还是在其他任何地方，众多小的数据将合并到国际生物多样性调查的大的数据库中。珊瑚礁的调查也是海洋生物多样性调查中产生的一个类似的进步。

大量不同来源数据，特别抽样数据，提供了大量的机会去监控大范围物种在时空上的变化。确切地说，这就是我们需要用来评估未来物种灭绝的情形。

近年来，数量和物种众多的在线生物数据库的增长速度飞快。这种趋势应该还会继续下去。2009年从美国开始，全球评估对陆地的监控采用多样的遥感技术。地球资源卫星的调查以及随后的地球资源丰富区的收集和校正工作的成果就是描绘了20世纪70年代的地球生物资源分布情况。

更有前途的做法是整合不同的数据来源。现在的研究已经可以通过有价值的地理分布和遥感技术对海拔和剩余栖息地的评估，同时整合种群的生境破碎化等数据来详细记述物种状态。图6 就提供了一个例子。一个物种的生境的丧失和破碎化与森林砍伐的关系以及其发生的时间。它也显示森林在保护区以外的分布区域，在保护区内是如何丧失的，还有多来源数据用于监控的物种分布的潜在价值。

这些来源的数据可以对生物多样性进行持续评估，而且能够为这些数据提供一个模板以预测物种分布格局的改变。全球生物多样性监控现在可以转移到增加监测的范围和定期时段确定性的不同数据库的整合方面。这种进步将会使得科学家和那些制定政策的人去理解地球生物多样性的状态、趋势，以及受到的威胁，从而采取实际有效的行动来保护。

Trapping strategy for ground nesting bees?

In 2007, I was contacted for the pollination problems of the tree oil, Camellia oleifera Abel. This tree has been planted alone Yangtze River in very large area. It helps to prevent the water loss and keep soil in mountainous area. The oil quality has been studied and evaluated to be very high than those made from Brassicaceae. However, the fruit-sets have been quite low even after so many years cultivation. As this species blossoms in late autumn till early spring, there are quite low number of insect species in local fauna. Some scientists, including Prof. Yan-Ru WU thought about the pollination inefficiency. Previously, she found around 15 pollinator bees including Apis spp., with most species have their nests in soil.

So, I was encouraged to study nesting biology of some pollinator bees in Jiangxi and Hunan. Mr. Liang DING and Dr. Dunyuan HUANG stayed in the Yichun to observe the local pollinators. They did a very good job to experiment on many aspects of some bees by digging deep in soil. Basing on nesting biological studies, Dunyuan kept working on building artificial nests after he found a job in Ganzhou. He finally set up these nests as traps in soil and moved them to different places to increase the populations for farmers or for experimental purposes.

Currently, I prefer to use Malaise Traps, Nest Traps and Yellow Pan Traps to sample wild bees. However, many other solitary bees, especially those nesting in soil were probably neglected. Recently, I had a few chats with Dr. Raphael Didham, Dr. Douglas Chesters and Dr. Jeff Ollerton about this issue. It should be fantastic to experiment on artificial soil traps for wild bees.

So, I raise and divide the questions into two as below –

1. What most cost-effective trapping methods do you recommend for sampling wild bees?

2. What trapping strategy do you recommend for sampling ground nesting bees?

Thanks for your kind comments and suggestions.

Best,

cd

Trapping strategy for ground nesting bees? – ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Trapping_strategy_for_ground_nesting_bees?_tpcectx=qa_overview_asked&_trid=KbAd0QWqFstwct1gx0EDie0c_ [accessed Mar 13, 2016].

Jeff visits IOZ on Monday

Professor Jeff Ollerton visited the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences on Monday this week. He gave a brilliant talk on wild pollinator bee diversity and ecosystem services. His talk includes several parts impressed the audience. He did great job to associate the significant diversity dynamics with the 4 major events including World War II and agriculture policy changes. Besides, he brought a fine art book, British field guid to wild bees. The book includes 270 species and many colorful pictures taken in the field. We expect we can compile another one in China to be helpful for other researchers.

Jeff Ollerton教授周一到访动物研究所，就野生蜜蜂多样性和生态功能做了一场精彩的学术报告。他的报告令我印象最深的是对英国中部野生蜜蜂20年来物种多样性变化和近代历史上4次重大事件或农业政策变化之间关联性的研究。另外，Jeff给我带了一件精美的礼物：英国野生蜜蜂野外手册。该手册涉及英国270种物种，并配以彩色生态照片。期待不远的将来，我们也能够编撰这样一部志书，方便各个学科的学者使用。

关注IPBES传粉昆虫多样性评估报告

​关注IPBES报告。

中国传粉功能研究严重滞后的原因：1、缺乏面向传粉者的分类队伍，本底不清；2、对传粉者多样性价值认识不够，缺乏监测数据；3、对重要作物主要传粉者缺乏长期规范的基础生物学研究；4、传粉昆虫迫切需要包括分类学、进化生物学和农学、林学方面多学科交叉合作。

抛砖引玉，欢迎指正。

Global biodiversity report warns pollinators are under threat

First assessment from intergovernmental body set up to track world’s ecosystems suggests curbing pesticide use to save bees.

• Natasha Gilbert

26 February 2016

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

Frank Bienewald/LightRocket/Getty Images

Honeybees (pictured) are among pollinators whose population is in decline.

An international science body tasked with tracking the ecological health of the planet has announced the findings of its first report. The review warns that the ongoing decline in the number of pollinating insects and animals threatens global crop production.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012, and is roughly modelled on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The reponse to the pollinator report, announced on 26 February at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, may be an early sign of whether the body’s influence will one day match the IPCC’s political and scientific clout.

Robert Watson, an environmental scientist at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, who is vice-chairman of the IPBES, says that he is confident that the assessment will have an impact. The IPBES has 124 member governments, and its pollinator assessment went through two rounds of external peer review. And just as with the IPCC’s climate reports, the assessment was debated word for word, Watson says. “The fact that all governments requested this document really bodes well that they will use the results,” he says.

Related stories

• Entomology: The bee-all and end-all
• Bee studies stir up pesticide debate
• Major biodiversity initiative needs support

More related stories

But Dave Goulson, a bee researcher at the University of Sussex in Brighton, UK, says: “I would question whether any practical on-the-ground action to help pollinators will happen as a result of this document. We are in the midst of the sixth global mass-extinction event, and we sit around spending thousands of hours writing documents about biodiversity, but we do not take action to address the fundamental issues that are causing this ecological catastrophe.”

Pollinator warning

The report offers a sober assessment of the decline in populations of pollinating insects and animals, affected by factors including climate change, disease and pesticide use. The global production of crops that depend on pollinators is an industry worth up to US$577 billion annually, the report says.

“If we get further declines in wild and managed pollinators, it would be a serious risk to foods that rely on those pollinators, especially food of high nutritional quality such as seeds and fruits,” says Watson.

It is “becoming very clear” that pesticides have “definite harmful effects” on wild bees, says Simon Potts, a biodiversity scientist at the University of Reading, UK, and co-chair of the report. “There needs to be less application and smart application” of such chemicals, he adds.

Studies have yielded mixed results on the link between pesticides and declining bee health, the IPBES assessment notes. Critics have questioned some studies for using doses that are much higher than those typically found in pesticide residues on farmers’ fields, and also ask whether sub-lethal effects seen in individual insects are relevant to whole populations.

The review acknowledges these limitations, but it says that some lab studies do use realistic doses. The harmful effects seen on individual bees in one recent field-based study¹ are “so huge and so strong”, adds Potts, that it indicates that effects on populations and colonies will likely be negative. The next step is to get direct evidence of long-term population effects, he says.

“Exposure of pollinators to pesticides can be decreased by reducing the use of pesticides,” the report says, and by using other forms of pest control. It also suggests that farmers could adopt ecologically friendly farming techniques, such as planting strips of flowers to boost pollinating insect numbers.

In 2013, the European Commission imposed a temporary ban on the use of three controversial ‘neonicotinoid’ insecticides — clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in Parma, Italy, is reviewing their safety and expects to complete its analysis by January 2017.

IPBES controversy

The IPBES assessment attracted controversy before its release: some scientists complained of a lack of transparency in the appointment of two agrochemical scientists among 40 lead authors involved in the review. Axel Hochkirch, a biodiversity scientist at the University of Trier, Germany, says that he is still concerned about how the scientists from industry were selected, even though the IPBES requires all lead authors to complete conflict-of-interest statements.

Watson told Nature that the IPBES conflict-of-interest committee “looked carefully” at the industry scientists’ CVs and “concluded there is no conflict”. In addition, Watson says that the IPBES has “checks and balances” in place — such as planned independent reviews of its procedures in 2017 and 2018 — to ensure that everything is above board.

“The independent review will be critical,” says Thomas Brooks, head of science at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in Gland, Switzerland. The IPBES has proposed to hand over the leadership of the review to the International Council for Science, a non-governmental organization representing scientific bodies and unions, but Brooks says that the IPBES should select a consultancy company through a competitive and open process.

Anne Larigauderie, executive secretary of the IPBES, says that the body will decide how to conduct the reviews at the end of its Kuala Lumpur meeting, on 28 February. The meeting will also set the IPBES budget for the next two years and decide whether it should conduct a global assessment of sustainable biodiversity use, as well as a separate review on invasive species.

The IPBES is currently working on four regional biodiversity assessments including in Africa and the Americas, and a separate assessment of land degradation, all of which it hopes to complete by 2018.

Nature

 

doi:10.1038/nature.2016.19456

References

1. Rundlöf, M. et al. Nature 521, 77–80 (2015).
   Show context

Related stories and links

From nature.com

• Entomology: The bee-all and end-all

  20 May 2015

• Bee studies stir up pesticide debate

  22 April 2015

• Major biodiversity initiative needs support

  03 February 2015

• Pollinator assessment: IPBES responds on conflicts of interest

  14 January 2015

• ‘Life on Earth’ project gets under way

  25 June 2014

• IPBES: Biodiversity panel should play by rules

  12 February 2014

• World governments establish biodiversity panel

  23 April 2012

   

Dr. Bob came to talk about AXIOS

 

Robert Murphy（Bob）博士、教授，是加拿大皇家安大略省博物馆馆员，多伦多大学教授，世界著名的两爬系统学家。2003年2月，我有幸得到国家留学基金委的资助，到他的实验室访学。从此开启了昆虫分子系统学研究的窗口。十多年来，Bob几乎每次在北京转机，都来动物研究所和包括我在内的老朋友交流科研进展和心得，并开展合作研究工作。

此次来京，Bob和我们分享了他长期投稿过程中经历的一些问题和对AXIOS系统的想法。AXIOS系统是Molecular Ecology和其它一些生态和进化生物学领域的编辑们，为提高作者投稿效率，提出的一套新思路：在作者投稿到专业期刊之前，评估最合适的候选刊物。这个思路，可以避免作者被拒稿后，不断修改论文格式，并占据编辑和审稿人宝贵的科研时间。在投稿量较低的情况下，这样的情况不算太严重；但在很大的投稿量情况下，每年投稿人、编辑、审稿人在质量不高、反复拒稿或修改稿件格式的过程中浪费了海量而宝贵的科研时间。

What’s is AXIOS?

Axios Review is an independent peer review service for evolutionary biology and ecology. We aim to eliminate rejections on the basis of novelty or scope.

http://axiosreview.org/about-axios/

下面引用了2001年，Bob在科学杂志上的一段评述（www.sciencemag.org/careers/2001/06/curator-new-millenium）。在这段评述中，Bob和大家分享了他的职业生涯中一些重要的阶段、经验和对传统博物馆分类学馆员的见解。

For as long as I can recall, I have wanted to be a museum curator. Blessed or cursed, I have the “collecting gene.” After I completed my B.A., I interviewed with a potential graduate adviser, Alan Leviton, a renowned herpetology curator at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. He asked when I expected to graduate with a planned Ph.D. “About 1980, sir,” I replied. Next, he asked me to name every major North American natural history museum. This was easy. He seemed to be impressed. Then he asked the names and approximate ages of all herpetology curators. The names were easy, but the ages presented some problems. He then noted, “So you see, young man, you don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a job in a museum, because no one will retire when you graduate!” To this I responded, “But wasn’t the same true for you?” I became his student and 10 years later a curator at the Royal Ontario Museum.

Museum curatorial positions are very rare. In North America, there are only about 20 herpetological curator positions in what can be termed major museums, and yet there are far more than 600 herpetologists in academic positions. When a new position is offered, it’s news that everyone watches. Competition tends to be fierce. After all, what other academic position requires fieldwork and usually provides some or all of the funding to accomplish the task? Major museums with herpetological curatorial positions linked to faculty slots at leading universities are even more rare: the University of California, Berkeley; Harvard University; University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; University of Kansas, Lawrence; McGill University in Montreal, Canada; and the Royal Ontario Museum with the University of Toronto, Canada. In contrast, the other major natural history museums do not have direct faculty ties: the Field Museum in Chicago, California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco, the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., American Museum of Natural History in New York City, Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, and Los Angeles County Museum, although many curators have adjunct faculty appointments. For a curator, both direct academic ties and graduate student supervision are critical. As Al Leviton once aptly commented, “You won’t stay current if you don’t have students to teach you new tricks.”

Getting a curatorial job is tough. It takes a combination of self-marketing, academic training, interview skills, politics, and a whole lot of pure luck. Applicants must market themselves by publishing in the appropriate, leading journals and in traditional museum publications. Publications need to have a systematics and evolution orientation and be novel or environmentally relevant or both. Visibility is almost as important as academic pedigree; the chosen topic must have intrinsic appeal and should have demonstrable innovation. Students with a background in museum-based research and collection management have a distinct advantage over those who do not, but essential experience also can be gained through part-time employment or volunteering. Interview skills are no less important. Regarding pure luck, usually someone must retire just as you graduate, and your research organisms may need to be from a particular geographic region. Collections tend to have geographic orientations, and many positions are tied to the strengths in the museum’s holdings, whether in Canada, Latin America, Asia, Africa, or the Caribbean.

Perhaps politics is most important of all, and from this no one ever escapes-ever. It can range from committee meetings, confidential telephone calls, and e-mails to pure, unadulterated, uncensored gossip and spiteful power struggles. The curators of the major museums know each other well, and they rely on each other for research, exchanges, loans, assistance, and information, even about one another. Politics can make you, break you, promote or fail you, fund you, or leave you selling used cars, regardless of your qualifications or the tenure of the incumbent. It’s just like poker if you’ve got the ante to play: You are rarely dealt a royal flush, but you don’t need one to win. Winning, and the amount you win, depends as much on the cards you hold as on how well you play them.

Academically successful curators spend the most time on research-related endeavors, including acquiring research funding. The mere description of new species is no longer viewed as indicating original research. Today’s life science curators are expected to reconstruct the phylogenetic relationships of organisms and interpret the evolution of particular features based on their history, apply their phylogenies to conservation issues, and be involved in bioinformatics. The description of new species is secondary. Research is quickly shifting toward applied conservation issues–not only the documentation of species diversity, but also fine-grained DNA analyses of geographic variation for species management and status assessment. Research has become very molecular and, unfortunately, traditional anatomical studies have become rather passé. The most productive research programs invariably involve graduate student training, and for me, work with visiting colleagues from developing countries, such as Mexico and China. The traditional requirements of fieldwork and collection acquisition continue today, consuming 2 or more months per year. To this add a proverbial mountain of manuscripts and grant proposals to review. There is considerable variation among individual curators in terms of research, exhibits, and administration, and no two are alike. Some curators do not have academic appointments, and thus have neither a cohort of graduate students, external research funding, nor active research programs.

The future of museums is uncertain, certainly far more so than equivalent university professorial positions. For example, the Smithsonian Institution just announced plans to reduce its research staff by 350 positions. We are in a biodiversity crisis, and highly qualified systematists and museums are desperately needed to study and evaluate environmental trends and to help document priorities for conservation. Yet, there has been no significant expansion of museum positions. Many museums are suffering from frozen or reduced budgets and vacant or terminated curatorial and support positions. The number of curatorial positions has dwindled recently in many countries, including in Canada and the United Kingdom, and yet globally the human population, potential resources, and environmental needs have all grown at an alarming rate. There is a paradox between granting agencies putting large amounts of additional financial resources into biodiversity and conservation research, and the trend for stagnation or cutbacks at museums. For the optimist, this presents a great challenge to excel in research relevant to all of society. Although I sometimes wonder about the future of museums, the positive aspects of being a museum curator far outweigh such concerns.

Dr. Robert Murphy is a senior curator of herpetology at the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum, and a professor of zoology at the University of Toronto.

A Workshop to Explore Enhancing Collaboration between US and Chinese Researchers in Systematic Biology, Guangzhou, Feb. 23-28

中美生命之树研讨班

已有 231 次阅读 2016-3-1 09:34 |系统分类:科研笔记|关键词:研讨会；生物系统学；生物多样性；生命之树     推荐到群组

2月23-26日，我有幸受邀参加了中美生命之树研讨班，并作两个讨论小组发言。此次会议由基金委主办，华南植物园协办的会议。会议目的是促进中美在生物系统学领域的合作。

个人最大的感受：1）会议形式非常灵活；2）会议考虑到合作研究中普遍受到关注的问题（见加下划线部分）；3）会议代表来自病毒学、微生物学、动物学、植物学等多个学科领域；4）美方Pat、Karl等是会议讨论的灵魂人物，牢牢把握了研讨会的方向。

中国每个学科领域都有专业学会、专业委员会及其例会，但是缺乏跨类群关注系统学或进化生物学的专业组织。相信此次会议会启发部分代表，并酝酿启动中国系统学与进化生物学学术组织（Association of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, China）。

A Workshop to Explore Enhancing Collaboration between US and Chinese Researchers in Systematic Biology

Workshop Agenda

Tuesday 23 February 2016.

8:30am-11:00pm. Registration, Yanling Hotel Lobby
12:30am. Lunch, Chinese Restaurant, Yanling Hotel (the first floor)
4:00pm-6:00pm. Informal mixer. Western Restaurant, Yanling Hotel (the first floor), Informal gathering for those who will arrive by late afternoon

6:30pm-7:30pm. Welcome Banquet. Western Restaurant, Yanling Hotel (the first floor)

Wednesday 24 February 2016. The First Meeting Room, South China Botanical Garden

8:15-8:45. Bus from hotel to botanic garden

8:45-10:00. Welcome, introductions, goals
Why are we here? What is a “workshop”? What do we want to accomplish?Introductions of participants from China and US
Introductions of program officers from NSFC and US NSF

Each participant should briefly explain: name, position, institution, taxonomic group or habitat ofinterest, methods used in research, geographic area of focus, what would do you hope to get out ofthe workshop.

10:00-10:30. Break and group photo

10:30-11:30. Short presentations on active US-China collaborations. Focus of the presentationsshould be on who is involved, how did the collaboration begin, how is the research supported,what are most positive outcomes, what problems had to be solved? What were the importantlessons learned. (6 presentations @ 10 minutes each; 3 from US, 3 from China)

o Anthony Cognato, Michigan State University.
o Ying Huang, Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Scienceso Karl Kjer, University of California Davis
o Xi-jun Ni, Department of Paleomammalogy, Beijing
o Greg Mueller, Chicago Botanic Garden
o Jian-quan Liu, Sichuan University

11:30-12:00. Discussion

12:00-1:00. Lunch. Informal discussions.

1:00-2:00. Small group discussions (form four groups): Benefits and challenges of international collaboration. Each group should discuss benefits and challenges. Think about communication, funding, sharing data, training, permissions

Four meeting room: The Second Meeting Room, The Third Meeting Room, The 427 Meeting Room,The 527 Meeting Room

2:00-3:00. Small discussion groups report to full workshop group (15 minutes each), The First MeetingRoom

3:00-3:30. Break

3:30-5:00. Small group discussions (form four groups): What are the most exciting questions andrapidly developing fields in systematics that would benefit from collaboration? Possible topicscould include:

•   Environmental genomics, integration of environmental data in systematics and taxonomy
•   Phylogenomics
•   Single cell genomics, phylogenetic taxonomy,

•   Collections-based bioinformatics (collaboration between iDigBio, and Chinese counterparts)
•   Monography in the bioinformatics era
•   The “microbial black box” – how do we get from metagenomics to cultivated species and back?
•   Combining molecular and morphological data (and extant and fossil)
•   Macroevolutionary analysis of traits. How to capture and analyze diverse data in sensible ways to address evolutionary questions
•   Expanding the role and relevance of ecological and historical biogeography in understanding climate change

  Four meeting room: The Second Meeting Room; The Third Meeting Room; The 427 Meeting Room;The 527 Meeting Room

  5:00-6:00. Small discussion groups report to full workshop group. General discussion.Preview for Thursday (panel discussions). The First Meeting Room

  6:00. End of discussions for today, bus from SCBG to Yanling Hotel6:30-7:30. Dinner. Western Restaurant, Yanling Hotel (the first floor)

  Thursday, 25 February 2016. The First Meeting Room, South China Botanical Garden

  8:15-8:45. Bus from hotel to botanic garden

  8:45-9:30. Panel discussion on data and collections, including methods and toolsfor data sharing.Collaborative projects depend on the ability to share data and collections among members ofthe team. This is more challenging for long distance collaborations. How have you solved these challenges in collaborative research?(not necessary to be US-China collaborationexample)

o Rüdiger Bieler, Field Museum
o Paul Marek, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
o Fabiany Herrera, Chicago Botanic Garden
o Xin Zhou, China National GeneBank, BGI-Shenzhen
o Chao-Dong Zhu, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
o Fumin Lei, Key Laboratory of Zoological Systematics and Evolution, Beijing

All workshop participants: What are the big challenges that your discipline faces for datasharing? What formats and repositories should be used for character data, publishedphylogenies, specimen vouchers and records to ensure their re-use potential? What are thebest tools for sharing data within the research team?

9:30-10:30. Discussion of sharing data and collections

10:30-11:00. Break

11:00-12:00. Panel discussion on field work and permits. Many projects require field work and permits.In addition material use agreements are often required. The panel discussion should explorechallenges and solutions to field work and permission challenges.

o Melanie Hopkins, American Museum of Natural History (paleontology)o Ken Halanych, Auburn University
o Zhiwei Liu, Eastern Illinois University (insects)
o Zhu-Liang Yang, Kunming Institute of Botany

o Gongle Shi, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology
o Shunping He, Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan

12:00-1:00. Working lunch. Small group discussion of field work and permits. Form six groups fordiscussion.

1:00-2:00. Breakout groups report to full workshop group (10 minutes each)3

2:00-3:45. Panel discussion on publishing and sharing credit. It is very important in collaborativeresearch to discuss how the team will publish the results of the research and how the team members will share credit and be listed in the authorship of the publications. This is especiallyimportant for graduate students and postdocs, who need to be recognized for theircontributions so that they can find jobs!

o Aaron Bauer, Villanova University
o Debashish Bhattacharya, Rutgers University
o Petra Sierwald, Field Museum
o De-Zhu Li, Kunming Institute of Botany
o Jing Che, Kunming Institute of Zoology
o Chao-Dong Zhu, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences

3:45-4:00. Break

4:00-4:30. Discussion on training opportunities. Collaborative projects provide great opportunities forteam members to learn new skills. This open discussion session will focus on examples oftraining opportunities in collaborative projects.

o AJ Harris and Yundong Gao (early career collaboration)

o Patrick Herendeen, graduate training in the US
o Wenjun Bu, graduate training in China

4:30-5:30. Discussion on funding opportunities. Discussion lead by program officers from NSF andNSFC

Funding system in USA (focus in NSF). What can and cannot be included in budget?Howdoes NSF proposal process work? Presented by NSF program officers Funding system in China. What can and cannot be included in budget? How does NSFCproposal process work? Presented by NSFC program officers

Discussion of Genealogy of Life Program (“GoLife”) at NSF
5:30-6:00. General discussion. Any subjects needing more time for discussion?

What would we like to see as products from this workshop? Should we write an article for ajournal to discuss US-China collaboration in systematics? Possible topics to consider in apaper:

o What is the value for Sino – US collaborations? What strengths does each sidecontribute?

o What are the opportunities and challenges?
o What is the role of conservation or other practical consideration?

6:00. End of discussions for today, bus from SCBG to Yanling Hotel6:30-7:30. Dinner. Western Restaurant, Yanling Hotel (the first floor)

Friday, 26 February 2016. South China Botanical Garden and Post-Workshop Excursion

8:15-8:45. Bus from hotel to botanic garden. Note: participants attending the excursion should checkout before breakfast and bring their luggage with them to the garden!

8:45-11:30. Conclusions: identify opportunities and actions that can be taken immediately andoutcomes that will require additional work.
Do we have recommendations that can be developed into a manuscript for publication?

11:30-1:00. Lunch and free time to see conservatory. Please take your delegate card with you.

1:00. Depart for excursion.
Dinghushan National Nature Reserve, Zhaoqing city (a World Network of BiosphereReserves).This reserve has been protected for 400 years as it contains the Qingyu Buddhist Temple. It is 1133 ha and the local vegetation is characterized by evergreen broadleaf forest.There are 1993 vascular plants, of which 700 woody species.

1:00. Bus from SCBG to Yanling Hotel (Who do not attend excursion), check out before 2:30pm6:00 pm. Check in to hotel in Zhaoqing city.

Saturday, 27 February 2016. Post-Workshop Excursion

After breakfast (about 8:00 am), depart for Fengkai county, Zhaoqing city. We will visitHeishiding Nature Reserve as well as the Fengkai national geological park. The HeishidingNature Reserve is located at the Tropic of Cancer and covers about 4200 ha evergreenbroadleaf forest. There are 1900 species of seed plants, 118 families, 670 genera, 1000species of insect, and 42 families, 122 species of birds.

3: 00 pm. Depart for Guangzhou
6: 30 pm, check in Guangdong Hotel, downtown Guangzhou

Prof. Jeff Ollerton is coming to give a talk in IOZ, CAS

生物多样性教授Jeff Ollerton博士学术报告（2016年3月7日上午）

http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-536560-959585.html

英国Northampton大学生物多样性教授Jeff Ollerton博士将到访动物研究所开展合作交流，并做学术报告。

报告题目：Pollinator function, diversity and declines: the view from central England

报告时间：2016年3月7日上午10:00-11:30

报告地点：中国科学院动物研究所C101会议室

Jeff Ollerton教授作为主要或唯一作者在Science、Ecology、Proceedings B、Ecology Letters等期刊上发表了60余篇研究论文。其中Waser etal.（1996）是传粉生态学领域被引用最高的论文之一。他和他的团队关于植物－传粉者相互作用生态学和多样性的研究成果在国际学术界得到公认：1）为传粉者种群保护提供了科学依据，并影响了英国及世界保护政策；2）提高了英国及世界对传粉者保护的公众意识；3）引领了英国园林业的改变。

附：Jeff Ollerton教授简历

ProfessorJEFF OLLERTON BSc (Hons), PhD

CONTACT DETAILS AND LINKS

Email: jeff.ollerton@northampton.ac.uk

Personal blog: http://jeffollerton.wordpress.com/

ResearchGate profile:  https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeff_Ollerton/

Google Scholar profile:  http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=6zHjOd8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0887-8235

The Landscape and Biodiversity Research Group atthe University of Northampton: http://oldweb.northampton.ac.uk/aps/env/lbrg/index.html

EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION

September2014 to present

Head of Research and Enterprise in the School of Science and Technology.

September2012

Promoted to Professor of Biodiversity, School of Science and Technology, The Universityof Northampton.

Current roles include: chair of theSchool of Science and Technology Research and Enterprise Committee; membershipof the Science Research Degrees Board; contributing to research student andearly career researcher training across the university; teaching and moduleleadership within the Department of Environmental and Geographical Sciences; leadershipof the Landscape and Biodiversity Research Group.  I also led the Research Excellence Framework(REF) submission to UoA17 (Geography and Environmental Studies) and in thatrole sat on the University’s REF Working Group.

September2010

Promoted to Reader in Biodiversity, School of Science and Technology, The University ofNorthampton.  In addition I was theSchool’s Research Coordinator (0.5 appointment, effective October 2009).

1995- 2010

Lecturer, then Senior Lecturer, in the Division of Environmental Science, School ofApplied Sciences (now School of Science and Technology), The University ofNorthampton (formerly Nene College, then University College Northampton).  Lecturing on BSc courses in ConservationBiology, Biology and Environmental Science, and MSc Environmental Management.

Previous duties have included:Admissions Tutor for Ecology (1995-1999); Course Leader for MSc EnvironmentalManagement (1997-1999); founder and course leader for BSc (Hons) Biology (1999to 2010); Postgraduate Degrees Tutor for the Division of Environmental Science(2001-2004); member of the Research Degrees Committee of the University(2004-2007); Postgraduate Research Training Framework Coordinator for theUniversity (2001-2007).  The role ofPostgraduate Research Training Framework Coordinator is particularly noteworthyas this was in the period just prior to the then University CollegeNorthampton’s application for Research Degree Awarding Powers and fulluniversity status.  The generic trainingprogramme that I developed and implemented was widely acknowledged within theuniversity, and in the QAA’s subsequent report, as playing a significant rolein the institution successfully attaining full university status.  Although I stepped down from this role in 2007to focus on other activities, I continue to be involved in the twice-yearlyresearch student induction weeks, and the evening and weekend trainingworkshops.  The time that I spent in therole of Postgraduate Research Training Framework Coordinator is one of the mostfulfilling periods of my career to date and I was pleased to play a part,however minor, in a significant developmental stage of the University ofNorthampton.

1994– 1995

Parttime lecturer, Oxford Brookes University.

1993– 1994

Visiting postdoctoral researcher based at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia,studying the pollination ecology of Australian Piperaceae.  Hosted by Professor Andrew Beattie and fundedby grants from the British Ecological Society, the Percy Sladen Memorial Fund(Linnean Society of London) and the British Council.

1989- 1993

PhD:”Ecology of flowering and fruiting in Lotuscorniculatus L.”, Oxford Brookes University (Supervisors: Dr. AndrewLack and Dr Denis Owen).

This research was anassessment of the interaction of flowering phenology, pollinator activity,plant size, seed predation and reproductive output using the Wytham Woodspopulations of Lotus corniculatus(Fabaceae) as a case study.  Whilstcarrying out the research I was at the same time employed as a PostgraduateTeaching Assistant, running tutorials and assisting with laboratory and fieldwork for undergraduate courses.

1987- 1989

BSc(Hons) Environmental Biology (2:i) Oxford Brookes University.

RESEARCHAND SCHOLARLY INTERESTS

The ecology, evolution and conservation the Earth’s biodiversity defines the broad scope ofmy professional interests.  Within thisvast field I mainly work on the biogeography and biodiversity of mutualisticspecies interactions, such as plant-pollinator relationships, in which allparticipants benefit from the relationship. Mutualisms are hugely important ecological relationships that play keyroles in determining community structure and ecosystem function, as well asbeing the basis for ecosystem services of human value, for example croppollination.  As well as plant-pollinatorrelationships, I also work on non-terrestrial mutualisms such as those betweenanemonefish and sea anemones.

In addition I havea wider interest in how biodiversity contributes to human society throughecosystem goods and services, how that biodiversity may be conserved in anever-changing world, and how we have arrived at our current understanding ofthe biogeography and biodiversity of the natural world.  This links to the research and writing I doin the area of the history of human understanding and exploitation ofbiodiversity, specifically botanical science and horticulturalexploration.  The main current project isa biography of John Tweedie, a notable 19th Century plant collector who was asignificant early collector working in the Atlantic Rainforest of Brazil and inthe pampas grasslands.  In addition heintroduced a number of plants from South America that continue to be grown inBritish gardens.

Current internationalresearch collaborations include projects related to the biogeography ofplant-pollinator interactions (e.g. Prof. Nick Waser, Prof. Mary Price, Dr Ruben Alarcón in the USA); the ecology of flowering time with Mexicancolleagues (Prof. Victor Parra-Tabla and Dr Miguel Munguía-Rosas) and theeffect of historical climates on pollination systems (Dr Bo Dalsgaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark).

This research has been covered by a range of local, national and international media, and I am regularly interviewed about my work.

CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

Only those from the last ten years that Ipersonally presented are listed:

2015 – Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology, Denmark (paper)

– Ecological Networks Conference,University of Bristol (paper)

2014 – Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology, Sweden (paper)

2014 – BES Macroecology Special Interest Group,University of Nottingham (paper)

2013 – 64^th NationalBotanical Congress, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (invitedpaper)

2012 – Hedgerow Futures,University of Staffordshire (invitedpaper)

2011- Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology, Denmark (paper)

2010 – Linnean Society – Palynology SpecialistGroup, London (invited paper)

– ScandinavianAssociation for Pollination Ecology, Sweden (paper)

2009 – Origin of Biodiversity byBiological Interactions, Tokyo (invited paper)

2008 – The Ecology and Evolutionof Plant-Pollinator Interactions, Milwaukee (invited paper)

– Biodiversity Research – Safeguarding the Future,Bonn (invited paper – see conference report at:  http://www.iubs.org/pdf/publi/PreCOP9%20Report.pdf)

2007 – Royal Entomological SocietyMeeting, Edinburgh (invited paperand symposium co-organizer)

2005 – Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology, Sweden (invitedspecial paper)

– 17^thInternationalBotanical Congress, Vienna (invited paper)

2004 – Southern Connections Conference, Cape Town (invited paper)

– RoyalEntomological Society Meeting, London (invitedpaper)

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY

• Member of The British Ecological Society since     1990
• Active participant of the Bumblebee Working Group
• Grant reviewer for the Natural Environment     Research Council, Biotechnology and Biosciences Research Council, Science     Foundation Ireland, the Norwegian Research Council, Linnean Society of     London, the U.S.-Israel Binational Science Foundation, the Czech Science     Foundation, National Geographic, the Fund for Scientific Research (Belgium),     the National Science Foundation of South Africa, the Swiss National     Science Foundation, and the U.S. Army Research Office
• Academic     referee for manuscripts in over 30 journals including:  Science,Nature Communications, PNAS-USA, Trends in     Ecology and Evolution,Proceedings of the     Royal Society series B.,     Ecology, Ecology Letters, Evolution,     Biology Letters, American Naturalist, PLoS Biology, PLoS ONE, Heredity, Oikos, Journal of Tropical Ecology, Oecologia and Journal of     Ecology
• Academic     referee for books published by Blackwell Science, Cambridge University     Press and Oxford University Press
• Founding member of the Editorial Board for the Journal of Pollination Ecology
• Academic Editor for PLoS ONE
• Internal examiner for 4 PhDs at The University of     Northampton
• External examiner for 23 PhD candidates, as     follows:

(1)  Cambridge University – February 2002 (Lynn Dicks)

(2)  Open University – February 2002 (Mark Gardener)

(3)  University of Bristol – February 2003 (Mikael Forup)

(4)  University of Southampton – September 2004 (James Peat)

(5)  University of Stockholm – May 2004 (Kjell Bolmgren)

(6)  University of Sydney – June 2006 (Yvonne Davila)

(7)  University of Zurich – August 2006 (Christopher Kaiser)

(8)  University of Leeds – January 2007 (Shazia Raja)

(9)  University of Edinburgh – May 2007 (Kath Baldock)

(10) Swedish Agricultural University,Uppsala – May 2007 (Erik Sjödin)

(11) Norwegian University of LifeSciences – May 2007 (Anders Nielsen)

(12) University of Lausanne – March 2008(Antonina Internicola)

(13) Trinity College Dublin – May 2009(Caroline Nienhuis)

(14) Queen Mary, University of London –May 2010 (Sarah Arnold)

(15) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,Spain – November 2010 (Ana María Martín González)

(16) University of KwaZulu-Natal, SouthAfrica – February 2011 (Adam Shuttleworth)

(17) Rhodes University, South Africa –February 2011 (Gareth Coombs)

(18) University of Bristol – February2013 (Rachel Gibson)

(19) Trinity College Dublin – May 2013(Sarah Mullen)

(20) University of Sydney – September2013 (Tony Popic)

(21) University of Birmingham – November2014 (Robert Fowler)

(22) University of Lausanne – June 2015(Tomasz Suchan)

(23)University of Reading – September2015 (Jennifer Wickens)

• Invited research lectures have been presented at     the Universities of Cambridge, York, Lancaster, Portsmouth, KwaZulu-Natal,     California (Riverside), Southampton, Bayreuth, Mainz, Copenhagen and     Zurich, as well as Royal Holloway, Rothamsted Research, Oxford Brookes     University, Trinity College, Dublin, the Institute of Zoology (London),     the University of Tübingen (the Hilgendorf Lecture) and the University of     Lausanne.  In November 2013 I spoke     at five different Brazilian universities as part of a month-long research     and teaching visit
• External panel member for a number of course     reviews and validations, most recently at the Open University and the     University of Brighton
• Reviewer and Panel Member (2010) for the     L’Oreal-UNESCO Women in Science Fellowships 2010 – 2015
• External examiner for MRes theses at University     of Brighton – 2010 – 2103
• Tutor for Tropical Biology Association Tanzania     field course (July-August 2011).
• External examiner for undergraduate and     postgraduate environmental science courses at University College, Dublin     (2011 –  2015)
• Member of the British Ecological Society Grant     Review College (2012 – present)
• Member of the Northamptonshire Local Nature     Partnership committee, representing The University of Northampton (2012 to     present)
• Visiting Professor at the University of Campinas,     Brazil (2013)

SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY ACTIVITIES

• Script advisor for the BBC Scotland series How to Grow a Planet, broadcast     2012
• Science advisor for a feature length documentary Hidden Beauty: A Love Story That Feeds     the Earth(Cinesite and the Walt Disney Studios).  First international premier was in     Spring 2011 in France (renamed Pollen)
• Science advisor and on-screen participant in the     BBC three part series Bees,     Butterflies and Blooms with Sarah Raven.  Filming and advising during 2010 and     2011, broadcast 2012
• Science advisor and on-screen participant in the     BBC Gardeners’ World – Science in the Garden special     edition with Carol Klein. Filmed August 2009, broadcast November 2010
• Member of the Wildlife Gardening Forum: Research     Working Group (Royal Horticultural Society).  Invited to join 2010, ongoing
• Advisor to the Parliamentary Office of Science     and Technology for their POSTnote briefing on Insect Pollination (POSTnote number 348, January 2010)
• Invited participant in the International Insect     Pollinators Workshop at Westminster, hosted by the Foreign and     Commonwealth Office, the Science and Innovation Network and the Department     for Business Innovation and Skills      (February 2012)
• Invited participant in the Pollinator Monitoring     Workshop, Natural History Museum, London (October 2013)
• Science advisor and on-screen participant in the     BBC series Plant Odyssey with Carol     Klein.  Filming and advising summer     2014 for broadcast 2015
• Expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental     Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Pollination     Assessment Report (2015)
• Invited participant in a two-day RC-funded     workshop at Imperial College to develop novel research actions to support     the National Pollinator Strategy (2015)

RESEARCH IMPACT

The decline of bees, hoverflies, and other pollinators has been widely described as a“pollination crisis” (e.g. Progress Report of FAO on the Implementation of theInternational Pollinators Initiative – September 2012) which could haveprofound effects on both food security, and wild plant populations and theecosystem services they support.  Researchby myself and colleagues into the ecology and diversity of plant-pollinatorinteractions has: (a) provided a scientific evidence base that has influencednational and international policies relating to the conservation of pollinatorpopulations; (b) raised national and international public awareness of thesubject of pollinator conservation; and (c) led to positive changes in UKgardening practices.  This wasacknowledged by a successful REF Impact Case Study entitled “Pollinatorconservation: impact on government policy and public practices – 1996 to 2013”(copy available on request)

PUBLICATIONS

Since1992 I have published or in press, 60 peer reviewed research papers, bookchapters and edited books, the majority as first or sole author.  High Impact Factor journals publishing mypeer-reviewed work include Science, Ecology, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, and Ecology Letters.  One ofthese papers (Waser et al. 1996) isnow the third most highly cited paper in the field of pollination ecology with904 citations.  The average citation ratefor my peer-reviewed research outputs is 49.5 citations per paper and myh-index currently stands at 23 (source for all statistics: ISI Web of Science,all databases, October 2015).  Citationrates and h-index using the less conservative Google Scholar are, of course,significantly higher.

As well as these peer reviewed research outputs I have contributed non-peerreviewed commentaries, book reviews, popular articles and editorials tomagazines and journals, including Natureand Science.

I have co-editedand contributed chapters to two collections of papers: a festschrift in honour of the late Professor Knut Faegri (Totland et al. 2000); and a major volume for theUniversity of Chicago Press (Waser & Ollerton 2006).  The latter received a series of enthusiasticreviews in international journals, with statements such as: “an important contribution to ourunderstanding of plant–pollinator interactions” and “a masterful overview of a rich field in a stage of dynamic ferment”.

PUBLICATIONS

Since 1992 I have published or in press, 60 peer reviewed research papers, book chapters and edited books, the majority as first or sole author. High Impact Factor journals publishing my peer-reviewed work include Science, Ecology, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, and Ecology Letters. One of these papers (Waser et al. 1996) is now the third most highly cited paper in the field of pollination ecology with 904 citations. The average citation rate for my peer-reviewed research outputs is 49.5 citations per paper and my h-index currently stands at 23 (source for all statistics: ISI Web of Science, all databases, October 2015). Citation rates and h-index using the less conservative Google Scholar are, of course, significantly higher.

As well as these peer reviewed research outputs I have contributed non-peer reviewed commentaries, book reviews, popular articles and editorials to magazines and journals, including Nature and Science.

I have co-edited and contributed chapters to two collections of papers: a festschrift in honour of the late Professor Knut Faegri (Totland et al. 2000); and a major volume for the University of Chicago Press (Waser & Ollerton 2006). The latter received a series of enthusiastic reviews in international journals, with statements such as: “an important contribution to our understanding of plant–pollinator interactions” and “a masterful overview of a rich field in a stage of dynamic ferment”.

 

All of my publications are listed below; peer-reviewed journal papers, edited volumes and chapters are marked*

 

[89] *Sonne, J., Kyvsgaard, P., Maruyama, P.K., Vizentin-Bugoni, J., Ollerton, J., Sazima, M., Rahbek, C. & Dalsgaard, B. (in press) Spatial effects of artificial feeders on hummingbird abundance, floral visitation and pollen deposition. Journal of Ornithology

 

[88] *Bailes, E., Ollerton, J., Pattrick, J. & Glover, B.J. (2015) How can an understanding of plant-pollinator interactions contribute to global food security? Current Opinion in Plant Biology 26: 72-79

 

[87] *Moles, A. & Ollerton, J. (in press) Is the notion that species interactions are stronger and more specialized in the tropics a zombie idea? Biotropica

 

[86] *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. & Ollerton, J. (2015) Vegetation cover and grasslands in the vicinity accelerate development of carabid beetle assemblages on restored landfill sites. Zoology and Ecology (in press)

 

[85] *Sirohi, M.H., Jackson, J., Edwards, M. & Ollerton, J. (2015) Diversity and abundance of solitary bees in an urban centre: a case study from Northampton (England). Journal of Insect Conservation 19: 487-500

 

[84] Ollerton, J. (2015) Book review of: “A Veritable Eden” by A. Brooks. Manchester Region History Review in press

 

[83] *Ollerton, J. Waser, N.M., Rodrigo Rech, A. & Price, M.V. (2015) Using the literature to test pollination syndromes — some methodological cautions. Journal of Pollination Ecology 16: 119-

125

 

[82] *Ollerton, J., Erenler, H., Edwards, M. & Crockett, R. (2014) Extinctions of aculeate pollinators in Britain and the role of large-scale agricultural changes. Science 346: 1360-1362

 

[81] Ollerton, J. (2013) The Biodiversity Index – a tool for facilities management. Essential FM Report 109: 2-3

 

[80] *Dalsgaard, B., Trøjelsgaard, K, Martín González, A.M., Nogués-Bravo, D., Ollerton, J., Petanidou, T., Sandel, B., Schleuning, M., Wang, Z., Rahbek, C., Sutherland, W.J., Svenning, J.C. & Olesen, J.M. (2013) Historical climate-change influences modularity of pollination networks. Ecography 36: 1331–1340

 

[79] *Tarrant, S., Ollerton, J., Rahman, L. Md., Griffin, J. & McCollin, D. (2013) Grassland restoration on landfill sites in the East Midlands, UK: an evaluation of floral resources and pollinating insects. Restoration Ecology 21: 560–568

 

[78] *Ollerton, J. & Nuttman, C. (2013) Aggressive displacement of Xylocopa nigrita carpenter bees from flowers of Lagenaria sphaerica (Cucurbitaceae) by territorial male Eastern Olive Sunbirds (Cyanomitra olivacea) in Tanzania. Journal of Pollination Ecology 11: 21-26

 

[77] *Parker, W. & Ollerton, J. (2013) Immunology enlightened by evolutionary biology and anthropology: an approach necessary for public health. Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 2013(1): 89-103 doi:10.1093/emph/eot008

 

[76] *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. Ollerton, J. (2013) Plant community composition and attributes reveal conservation implications for newly created grassland on capped landfill sites. Journal for Nature Conservation 21: 198-205

 

[75] Vanbergen, A.J., Ambrose, N., Aston, D., Biesmeijer, J.C., Bourke, A., Breeze, T., Brotherton, P., Brown, M., Chandler, D., Clook, M., Connolly, C.N., Costigan, P., Coulson, M., Cresswell, J., Dean, R., Dicks, L., Felicioli, A., Fojt, O., Gallai, N., Genersch, E., Godfray, C., Grieg-Gran, M., Halstead, A., Harding, D., Harris, B., Hartfield, C., Heard, M.S., Herren, B., Howarth, J., Ings, T., Kleijn, D., Klein, A., Kunin, W.E., Lewis, G., MacEwen, A., Maus, C., McIntosh, L., Millar, N.S., Neumann, P., Ollerton, J., Olschewski, R., Osborne, J.L., Paxton, R.J., Pettis, J., Phillipson, B., Potts, S.G., Pywell, R., Rasmont, P., Roberts, S., Salles, J.-M., Schweiger, O., Sima, P., Thompson, H., Titera, D., Vaissiere, B., Van der Sluijs, J., Webster, S., Wentworth, J. & Wright, G.A. (2012) Insect pollinators: linking research and policy. Workshop report, U.K. Science and Innovation Network.

 

[74] Ollerton, J. (2012) The names of pubs and inns: not just for the birds. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 43: 46-47

 

[73] Ollerton, J. (2012) Biogeography: are tropical species less specialised? Current Biology 22: R914-R915

 

[72] Ollerton, J. (2012) The importance of native pollinators. The Plantsman 11:86-89

 

[71] *Ollerton, J., Watts, S., Connerty, S., Lock, J., Parker, L., Wilson, I., Schueller, S., Nattero, J., Cocucci, A.A., Izhaki, I., Geerts, S. & Pauw, A. (2012) Pollination ecology of the invasive tree tobacco Nicotiana glauca: comparisons across native and non-native ranges. Journal of Pollination Ecology 9: 85-95

 

[70] *Dalsgaard, B., Timmermann, A., Martín González, A.M., Olesen, J.M, Ollerton, J. & Andersen, L.H. (2012) Heliconia-hummingbird interactions in the Lesser Antilles: a geographic mosaic? Caribbean Journal of Science 46: 328-331

 

[69] *Ollerton, J., Chancellor, G. & van Wyhe, J. (2012) John Tweedie and Charles Darwin in Buenos Aires. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 66: 115-124

 

[68] Ollerton, J. (2012) The importance of LWS meadows for pollinating insects. WildPlaces – the Local Wildlife Sites Newsletter 3: 10

 

[67] *Watts, S., Huamán Ovalle, D., Moreno Herrera, M. & Ollerton, J. (2012) Pollinator effectiveness of native and non-native flower visitors to an apparently generalist Andean shrub, Duranta mandonii (Verbenaceae). Plant Species Biology 27: 147–158

 

[66] *Cranmer, L., McCollin, D. & Ollerton, J. (2012) Landscape structure influences pollinator movements and directly affects plant reproductive success. Oikos 121: 562-568

 

[65] *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. & Ollerton, J. (2012) Influence of habitat quality, landscape structure and food resources on breeding skylark (Alauda arvensis) territory distribution on restored landfill sites. Landscape and Urban Planning 105: 281–287

 

[64] Ollerton, J., Price, V., Armbruster, W.S., Memmott, J., Watts, S., Waser, N.M., Totland, Ø., Goulson, D., Alarcón, R., Stout, J.S. & Tarrant, S. (2012) Overplaying the role of honey bees as pollinators: A comment on Aebi and Neumann (2011). Trends in Ecology and Evolution 27: 141-142

 

[63] *Munguía-Rosas, M.A., Parra-Tabla, V., Ollerton, J. & Carlos Cervera, J. (2012) Environmental control of reproductive phenology and the effect of pollen supplementation on resource allocation in the cleistogamous weed, Ruellia nudiflora (Acanthaceae). Annals of Botany 109: 343-350

 

[62] *Dalsgaard, B., Magård, E., Fjeldså, J., Martín González, A.M., Rahbek, C., Olesen, J.M., Ollerton, J., Alarcón, R., Araujo, A.C., Cotton, P., Lara, C., Machado, C.C., Sazima, I., Sazima, M., Timmermann, A., Watts, S., Sandel, B., Sutherland, W.J., Svenning, J.C. (2011) Specialization in plant-hummingbird networks is associated with species richness, contemporary precipitation and Quaternary climate-change velocity. PLoS ONE 6(10): e25891. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025891

 

[61] *Rahman, L. Md., Tarrant, S., McCollin, D. and Ollerton, J. (2011) The conservation value of restored landfill sites in the East Midlands, UK for supporting bird communities. Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 1879-1893

 

[60] *Munguía-Rosas, M.A. Ollerton, J. Parra-Tabla, V. & Arturo De-Nova, J. (2011) Meta-analysis of phenotypic selection on flowering phenology suggests that early flowering plants are favoured. Ecology Letters 14: 511-521

 

[59] *Munguía-Rosas, M.A. Ollerton, J. & Parra-Tabla, V. (2011) Phenotypic selection on flowering phenology and size of two dioecious plant species with different pollen vectors. Plant Species Biology 26: 205–212

 

[58] *Parra-Tabla, V., Vargas C.F., Naval, C., Calvo, L.M. & Ollerton, J. (2011) Population status and reproductive success of an endangered epiphytic orchid in a fragmented landscape. Biotropica 43: 640-647

 

[57] *Mayer, C., Adler, L., Armbruster, W.S. Dafni, A., Eardley, C., Huang, S.-Q., Kevan, P.G., Ollerton, J., Packer, L. Ssymank, A., Stout, J.C. & Potts, S.G. (2011) Pollination ecology in the 21st century: key questions for future research. Journal of Pollination Ecology 3: 8-23

 

[56] *Waser, N.M., Ollerton, J. & Erhardt, A. (2011) Typology in pollination biology: lessons from an historical critique. Journal of Pollination Ecology 3: 1-7

 

[55] *Ollerton, J., Tarrant, S. & Winfree, R. (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120: 321–326

 

[54] Ollerton, J. and Waser, N.M. (2010) Pollinators as critical ecosystem service providers: the biodiversity of species interactions [abstract]. Proceedings of the CBD – COP 9 Associated Scientific Conference on Biodiversity Research (including the COP 9 President’s Conclusions and the Recommendations to COP 9),

Bonn, May 12 – 16, 2008. Biology International 48: s.n.

 

[53] Ollerton, J. (2010) W(h)ither science? Dark Mountain 1: 146-149

 

[52] *Erenler, H.E., Ashton, P., Gillman, M. & Ollerton, J. (2010) Factors determining species richness of soil seed banks in lowland ancient woodlands. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 1631-1648

 

[51] *Ricciardi, F., Boyer, M. & Ollerton, J. (2010) Assemblage and interaction structure of the anemonefish-anemone mutualism across the Manado region of Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environmental Biology of Fishes 87: 333-347

 

[50] Ollerton, J. & Coulthard, E. (2009) Evolution of animal pollination. Science 326: 808-809

 

[49] *Martin Gonzalez, A.M., Dalsgaard, B., Ollerton, J., Timmermann, A., Olesen, J.M., Andersen, L. & Tossas, A.G. (2009) Effects of climate on pollination networks in the West Indies. Journal of Tropical Ecology 25: 493-506

 

[48] *Ollerton, J., Masinde, S., Meve, U., Picker, M. & Whittington, A. (2009) Fly pollination in Ceropegia (Apocynaceae: Asclepiadoideae): Biogeographic and phylogenetic perspectives. Annals of Botany 103: 1501-1514

 

[47] *Ollerton, J., Alarcón, R., Waser, N.M., Price, M.V., Watts, S., Cranmer, L., Hingston, A. Peter, C.I. & Rotenberry, J. (2009) A global test of the pollination syndrome hypothesis. Annals of Botany 103: 1471-1480

 

[46] *Dalsgaard, B., Martín González, A.M., Olesen, J.M., Ollerton, J., Timmermann, A., Andersen, L.H., & Tossas, A.G. (2009) Plant–hummingbird interactions in the West Indies: floral specialisation gradients associated with environment and hummingbird size. Oecologia 159: 757-766

 

[45] *Ollerton, J., Cranmer, L., Stelzer, R., Sullivan, S. & Chittka, L. (2009) Bird pollination of Canary Island endemic plants. Naturwissenschaften 96: 221-232

 

[44] *Alarcón, R., Waser, N.M. & Ollerton, J. (2008) Year-to-year variation in the topology of a plant-pollinator interaction network. Oikos 117: 1796-1807

 

[43] *Dalsgaard, B., Martín González, A.M., Olesen, J.M. Timmermann, A., Andersen, L.H. & Ollerton, J. (2008) Pollination networks and functional specialization: a test using Lesser Antillean plant-hummingbird assemblages. Oikos 117: 789-793

 

[42] Ollerton, J. (2008) Blogging from Bonn – a personal account of the pre-COP9 meeting: “Biodiversity Research – Safeguarding the Future”. Bulletin of the British Ecological Society 39: 35-38

 

[41] Ollerton, J. (2008) Book review of: “Ecology and Evolution of Flowers” by L.D. Harder & S.C.H. Barrett. Systematic Biology 57: 516-517

 

[40] *Ollerton, J., Killick, A., Lamborn, E., Watts, S. & Whiston, M. (2007) Multiple meanings and modes: on the many ways to be a generalist flower. Taxon 56: 717-728

 

[39] *Ollerton, J., Grace, J. & Smith, K. (2007) Pollinator behaviour and adaptive floral colour change in Anthophora alluadii (Hymenoptera: Apidae) and Erysimum scoparium (Brassicaceae) on Tenerife. Entomologia Generalis 29: 253-268

 

[38] *Ollerton, J., McCollin, D., Fautin, D.G & Allen, G.R. (2007) Finding NEMO – nestedness engendered by mutualistic organisation in anemonefish and their hosts. Proceedings of the Royal Society series B 274: 591-598

 

 

[37] *Ollerton, J., Stott, A., Allnutt, E., Shove, S., Taylor, C. & Lamborn, E. (2007) Pollination niche overlap between a parasitic plant and its host. Oecologia 151: 473-485

 

[36] *Stelzer, R.J., Ollerton, J. & Chittka, L. (2007) Keine Nachweis für Hummelbesuch

der Kanarischen Vogelblumen (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Entomologia Generalis 30: 153-154

 

[35] Ollerton, J. & Raguso, R. (2006) The sweet stench of decay. New Phytologist 172: 382-385

 

[34] *Ollerton, J. (2006) “Biological Barter”: patterns of specialization compared across different mutualisms. Pp. 411—435 in: Waser, N.M. & Ollerton, J. (eds.) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: from Specialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA

 

[33] *Ollerton, J. Johnson, S.D. & Hingston, A.B. (2006) Geographical variation in diversity and specificity of pollination systems. Pp. 283—308 in: Waser, N.M. & Ollerton, J. (eds.) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: from Specialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA

 

[32] *Waser, N.M. & Ollerton, J. [eds.] (2006) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: from Specialization to Generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, USA

 

[31] Ollerton, J. & Dafni, A. (2005) Functional floral morphology and phenology. pp. 1-26 in: Dafni, A., P.G. Kevan & Husband, B.C. (Eds.) Practical Pollination Biology. Enviroquest, Cambridge, Ontario

 

[30] Ollerton, J. (2005) Flowering time and the Wallace Effect. Heredity 95: 181-182

 

[29] *Ollerton J., Johnson S. D., Cranmer, L. & Kellie, S. (2003) The pollination ecology of an assemblage of grassland asclepiads in South Africa. Annals of Botany 92: 807-834

 

[28] *Ollerton, J. & Liede, S. (2003) Corona structure in Cynanchum: linking morphology to function. Ecotropica 9: 107-112

 

[27] Ollerton, J. (2002) Book review: Vuorisalo, T.O. & Mutikainen, P.K. (eds.) Life History Evolution in Plants. Plant Systematics and Evolution 232: 138-141

 

[26] *Ollerton, J. & Cranmer, L. (2002) Latitudinal trends in plant-pollinator interactions: are tropical plants more specialised? Oikos 98: 340-350

 

[25] *Ollerton, J. & Watts, S. (2000) Phenotype space and floral typology: towards an objective assessment of pollination syndromes. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi I. Matematisk-Naturvitenskapelig Klasse, Avhandlinger, Ny Serie 39: 149-159

 

[24] *Totland, Ø., Armbruster, W.S., Fenster, C., Molau, U., Nilsson, L.A., Olesen, J.M., Ollerton, J., Philipp, M. & Ågren, J. [eds.] (2000) The Scandinavian Association for Pollination Ecology honours Knut Fægri. Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi I. Matematisk-Naturvitenskapelig Klasse, Avhandlinger, Ny Serie 39: The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Oslo

 

[23] *Lamborn, E. & Ollerton, J. (2000) Experimental assessment of the functional morphology of inflorescences of Daucus carota (Apiaceae): testing the “fly catcher effect”. Functional Ecology 14: 445-454

 

[22] Ollerton, J. (1999) The evolution of pollinator-plant relationships within the arthropods. pp. 741-758 in Melic, A., DeHaro, J.J., Mendez, M. & Ribera, I. (eds.) Evolution and Phylogeny of the Arthropoda. Entomological Society of Aragon, Zaragoza

 

[21] Ollerton, J. (1999) Fly trapping in Ceropegia flowers – evidence of ant predation of pollinators. Asklepios 77: 31-32

[20] *Ollerton, J. & Diaz, A. (1999) Evidence for stabilising selection acting on flowering time in Arum maculatum (Araceae): the influence of phylogeny on adaptation. Oecologia 119: 340-348

 

[18] *Kite, G.C., Hetterscheid, W.L.A., Lewis, M.J., Boyce, P.C., Ollerton, J., Cocklin, E., Diaz, A., & Simmonds, M.S.J. (1998) Inflorescence odours and pollinators of Arum and Amorphophallus (Araceae).   pp. 295-315 in Owens, S.J. & Rudall, P.J. (eds.) Reproductive Biology in Systematics, Conservation and Economic Botany. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

 

[18] Ollerton, J. (1998) Sunbird surprise for syndromes. Nature 394: 726-727

 

[17] Ollerton, J. & McCollin, D. (1998) Insect and angiosperm diversity in marine environments: a response to van der Hage. Functional Ecology 12: 976-977

 

[16] *Ollerton, J. & Lack, A.J. (1998) Relationships between flowering phenology, plant size and reproductive success in Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae). Plant Ecology 139: 35-47

 

[15] *Ollerton, J. & Liede, S. (1997) Pollination systems in the Asclepiadaceae: a survey and preliminary analysis. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 62: 593-610

 

[14] *Goulson, D. Ollerton, J. & Sluman, C. (1997) Foraging strategies in the small skipper butterfly, Thymelicus flavus; when to switch? Animal Behaviour 53: 1009-1016

 

[13] *Ollerton, J. (1996) Reconciling ecological processes with phylogenetic patterns: the apparent paradox of plant-pollinator systems. Journal of Ecology 84: 767-769

 

[12] *Ollerton, J. (1996) Interactions between gall midges (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae) and inflorescences of Piper novae-hollandiae (Piperaceae) in Australia. The Entomologist 115: 181-184

 

[11] *Ollerton, J. & Lack, A.J. (1996) Partial predispersal seed predation in Lotus corniculatus L. (Fabaceae). Seed Science Research 6: 65-69

 

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

 

[9] Ollerton, J. (1996) An update of the ASCLEPOL project. Asklepios 67: 31-32

 

[8] Ollerton, J. & Forster, P. (1995) Diptera associated with flowers of Ceropegia cumingiana in Australia. Asklepios 66: 21-22

 

[7] Ollerton & Lack (1993) Plant phenology – selection and neutrality – reply. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 35-35

 

[6] *Ollerton, J. & Lack, A.J. (1992) Flowering phenology: an example of relaxation of natural selection? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 274-276

 

[5] Ollerton, J. (1992) Asclepiad cultivation in the early 19th Century: part 2. Asklepios 57: 22-23

 

[4] Ollerton, J. (1992) Asclepiad cultivation in the early 19th Century: part 1. Asklepios 56: 27-28

 

[3] Ollerton, J. (1989) A lesson from the students. New Scientist 1685: 69

 

[2] Ollerton, J. (1989) The Walls of the Garden. Oxford Wildlife News 4: 1-2

 

[1] Ollerton, J. (1986) Adaptations to arid environments in the Asclepiadaceae. British Cactus and Succulent Journal 4: 94-98