Search

Pollinators that collect pollen - and specifically, pollen-specialist bees - are often considered to be the best pollinators of a (host) plant. Although pollen collectors and pollen specialists often benefit host plants, especially in the pollen that they deliver (their pollination "effectiveness"), they can also exact substantial costs because they are motivated to collect as much pollen as possible, reducing the proportion of pollen removed that is subsequently delivered to stigmas (their pollination "efficiency"). From the plant perspective, pollen grains that do not pollinate conspecific stigmas are "wasted", and potentially costly. We measured costs and benefits of nectar-collecting, pollen-collecting, and pollen-specialist pollinator visitation to the spring ephemeral Claytonia virginica. Visits by the pollen-specialist bee Andrena erigeniae depleted pollen quickly and thoroughly. Although all pollinators delivered roughly the same number of grains, the pollen specialist contributed most to C. virginica pollen delivery because of high visitation rates. However, the pollen specialist also removed a large number of grains; this removal may be especially costly because it resulted in the depletion of pollen grains in C. virginica populations. While C. virginica appears to rely on pollen transfer by the pollen specialist in these populations, nectar-collecting visitors could provide the same benefit at a lower cost if their visitation rates increased. Pollen depletion affects a pollinator's value to plants, but is frequently overlooked. If they lower the effectiveness of future floral visitors, visits by A. erigeniae females to C. virginica may be more detrimental than beneficial compared to other pollinators and may, in some circumstances, reduce plant fitness rather than increase it. Therefore, A. erigeniae and C. virginica may vary in their degree of mutualism depending on the ecological context.

Environmental protection as a movement is broadening to both invite and require the participation and energy of everyone, including federal agencies, local governments, activists, and enthusiasts. There is evidence that institutions and agencies are moving towards more inclusive visions of their missions, and citizen scientists and community scientists are motivated to be involved. Citizen science and community science, approaches rooted in non-traditional partnerships and diverse participation, are a strong approaches to science, and they are especially strong approaches to a wide range of outcomes with direct impacts on the protection of the environment, from civic engagement to enforcement action. In this discussion paper, we propose a spectrum of engagement that defines opportunities for citizen science and community science beyond the participation of volunteers in institution-driven or scientist-driven research; we also provide examples of projects and efforts that have led to outcomes for each of the spectrum categories. Citizen science and community science represent a more inclusive version of science and provide a model for embracing truly collaborative environmental protection, as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies face a number of challenges in interpreting and reconciling short-duration (seconds to minutes) readings from mobile and handheld air sensors with the longer duration averages (hours to days) associated with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria pollutants-particulate matter (PM), ozone, carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides. Similar issues are equally relevant to the hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) where chemical-specific health effect reference values are the best indicators of exposure limits; values which are often based on a lifetime of continuous exposure. A multi-agency, staff-level Air Sensors Health Group (ASHG) was convened in 2013. ASHG represents a multi-institutional collaboration of Federal agencies devoted to discovery and discussion of sensor technologies, interpretation of sensor data, defining the state of sensor-related science across each institution, and provides consultation on how sensors might effectively be used to meet a wide range of research and decision support needs. ASHG focuses on several fronts: improving the understanding of what hand-held sensor technologies may be able to deliver; communicating what hand-held sensor readings can provide to a number of audiences; the challenges of how to integrate data generated by multiple entities using new and unproven technologies; and defining best practices in communicating health-related messages to various audiences. This review summarizes the challenges, successes, and promising tools of those initial ASHG efforts and Federal agency progress on crafting similar products for use with other NAAQS pollutants and the HAPs. NOTE: The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessary represent the opinions of their Federal Agencies or the US Government. Mention of product names does not constitute endorsement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abiotic environmental variation can have dramatic effects on plant floral morphology and nectar or pollen rewards. In response, pollinators may change their foraging behavior and distribution and if pollinators change their foraging behavior or distribution, this could have dramatic effects on the reproductive success of plant populations. To start tackling this problem, we measured the response of floral morphology (corolla diameter, stamen length, and ovule number) of Raphanus raphanistrum to experimental manipulations of field soil moisture. As soil moisture increased, corolla diameter and anther length grew. We expect these changes to provide more visitation rewards for insects in moist conditions. Therefore, water availability influences growth and development of flowers, and may have dramatic effects on insect community dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]