Does Pathogen Spillover from Commercially Reared Bumble Bees Threaten Wild Pollinators?

The conservation of insect pollinators is drawing attention because of reported declines in bee species and the 'ecosystem services' they provide. This issue has been brought to a head by recent devastating losses of honey bees throughout North America (so called, 'Colony Collapse Disorder'); yet, we still have little understanding of the cause(s) of bee declines. Wild bumble bees (Bombus spp.) have also suffered serious declines and circumstantial evidence suggests that pathogen 'spillover' from commercially reared bumble bees, which are used extensively to pollinate greenhouse crops, is a possible cause. We constructed a spatially explicit model of pathogen spillover in bumble bees and, using laboratory experiments and the literature, estimated parameter values for the spillover of Crithidia bombi, a destructive pathogen commonly found in commercial Bombus. We also monitored wild bumble bee populations near greenhouses for evidence of pathogen spillover, and compared the fit of our model to patterns of C. bombi infection observed in the field. Our model predicts that, during the first three months of spillover, transmission from commercial hives would infect up to 20% of wild bumble bees within 2 km of the greenhouse. However, a travelling wave of disease is predicted to form suddenly, infecting up to 35-100% of wild Bombus, and spread away from the greenhouse at a rate of 2 km/wk. In the field, although we did not observe a large epizootic wave of infection, the prevalences of C. bombi near greenhouses were consistent with our model. Indeed, we found that spillover has allowed C. bombi to invade several wild bumble bee species near greenhouses. Given the available evidence, it is likely that pathogen spillover from commercial bees is contributing to the ongoing decline of wild Bombus in North America. Improved management of domestic bees, for example by reducing their parasite loads and their overlap with wild congeners, could diminish or even eliminate pathogen spillover.     

Birds Do It. Bees Do It. So Why Not Single Women and Lesbians?

Infertile couples have come to take assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for granted. An increasing number of single women and lesbian couples also desire to have children and turn to ART, especially donor insemination, to fulfill this desire. While most married couples find that access to ART is limited primarily by the ability to pay, for single women and lesbian couples, the story may be much different. In the United States, they may find that doctors and infertility clinics view their desires as immoral and refuse to accept them as patients, although other doctors and clinics readily accept them. In most other countries, however, it is against the law for single women and lesbian couples to make use of ART, including donor insemination.
In this paper I will argue that marital status and sexual orientation should not serve as a barrier to accessing the world of reproductive medicine. I will base this conclusion on two arguments. First, that justice requires that we treat like cases alike. Just as we would not accept or reject patients for cardiac rehabilitation programs based on factors such as a history of poor eating habits, so too we should not look at nonmedical factors such as marital status when deciding whether to treat infertility. For the second justification for the conclusion of equal access to ART, I will examine the concept of the family. I will argue that it is morally acceptable for single women and lesbian couples to have children and to head families.     

What Can Article-Level Metrics Do for You?

Article-level metrics (ALMs) provide a wide range of metrics about the uptake of an individual journal article by the scientific community after publication. They include citations, usage statistics, discussions in online comments and social media, social bookmarking, and recommendations. In this essay, we describe why article-level metrics are an important extension of traditional citation-based journal metrics and provide a number of example from ALM data collected for PLOS Biology.The scientific impact of a particular piece of research is reflected in how this work is taken up by the scientific community. The first systematic approach that was used to assess impact, based on the technology available at the time, was to track citations and aggregate them by journal. This strategy is not only no longer necessary—since now we can easily track citations for individual articles—but also, and more importantly, journal-based metrics are now considered a poor performance measure for individual articles [1],[2]. One major problem with journal-based metrics is the variation in citations per article, which means that a small percentage of articles can skew, and are responsible for, the majority of the journal-based citation impact factor, as shown by Campbell [1] for the 2004 Nature Journal Impact Factor. Figure 1 further illustrates this point, showing the wide distribution of citation counts between PLOS Biology research articles published in 2010. PLOS Biology research articles published in 2010 have been cited a median 19 times to date in Scopus, but 10% of them have been cited 50 or more times, and two articles [3],[4] more than 300 times. PLOS Biology metrics are used as examples throughout this essay, and the dataset is available in the supporting information (Data S1). Similar data are available for an increasing number of other publications and organizations.Open in a separate windowFigure 1Citation counts for PLOS Biology articles published in 2010.Scopus citation counts plotted as a probability distribution for all 197 PLOS Biology research articles published in 2010. Data collected May 20, 2013. Median 19 citations; 10% of papers have at least 50 citations.Scientific impact is a multi-dimensional construct that can not be adequately measured by any single indicator [2],[5],[6]. To this end, PLOS has collected and displayed a variety of metrics for all its articles since 2009. The array of different categorised article-level metrics (ALMs) used and provided by PLOS as of August 2013 are shown in Figure 2. In addition to citations and usage statistics, i.e., how often an article has been viewed and downloaded, PLOS also collects metrics about: how often an article has been saved in online reference managers, such as Mendeley; how often an article has been discussed in its comments section online, and also in science blogs or in social media; and how often an article has been recommended by other scientists. These additional metrics provide valuable information that we would miss if we only consider citations. Two important shortcomings of citation-based metrics are that (1) they take years to accumulate and (2) citation analysis is not always the best indicator of impact in more practical fields, such as clinical medicine [7]. Usage statistics often better reflect the impact of work in more practical fields, and they also sometimes better highlight articles of general interest (for example, the 2006 PLOS Biology article on the citation advantage of Open Access articles [8], one of the 10 most-viewed articles published in PLOS Biology).Open in a separate windowFigure 2Article-level metrics used by PLOS in August 2013 and their categories.Taken from [10] with permission by the authors.A bubble chart showing all 2010 PLOS Biology articles (Figure 3) gives a good overview of the year''s views and citations, plus it shows the influence that the article type (as indicated by dot color) has on an article''s performance as measured by these metrics. The weekly PLOS Biology publication schedule is reflected in this figure, with articles published on the same day present in a vertical line. Figure 3 also shows that the two most highly cited 2010 PLOS Biology research articles are also among the most viewed (indicated by the red arrows), but overall there isn''t a strong correlation between citations and views. The most-viewed article published in 2010 in PLOS Biology is an essay on Darwinian selection in robots [9]. Detailed usage statistics also allow speculatulation about the different ways that readers access and make use of published literature; some articles are browsed or read online due to general interest while others that are downloaded (and perhaps also printed) may reflect the reader''s intention to look at the data and results in detail and to return to the article more than once.Open in a separate windowFigure 3Views vs. citations for PLOS Biology articles published in 2010.All 304 PLOS Biology articles published in 2010. Bubble size correlates with number of Scopus citations. Research articles are labeled green; all other articles are grey. Red arrows indicate the two most highly cited papers. Data collected May 20, 2013.When readers first see an interesting article, their response is often to view or download it. By contrast, a citation may be one of the last outcomes of their interest, occuring only about 1 in 300 times a PLOS paper is viewed online. A lot of things happen in between these potential responses, ranging from discussions in comments, social media, and blogs, to bookmarking, to linking from websites. These activities are usually subsumed under the term “altmetrics,” and their variety can be overwhelming. Therefore, it helps to group them together into categories, and several organizations, including PLOS, are using the category labels of Viewed, Cited, Saved, Discussed, and Recommended (Figures 2 and ​and4,4, see also [10]).Open in a separate windowFigure 4Article-level metrics for PLOS Biology.Proportion of all 1,706 PLOS Biology research articles published up to May 20, 2013 mentioned by particular article-level metrics source. Colors indicate categories (Viewed, Cited, Saved, Discussed, Recommended), as used on the PLOS website.All PLOS Biology articles are viewed and downloaded, and almost all of them (all research articles and nearly all front matter) will be cited sooner or later. Almost all of them will also be bookmarked in online reference managers, such as Mendeley, but the percentage of articles that are discussed online is much smaller. Some of these percentages are time dependent; the use of social media discussion platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook for example, has increased in recent years (93% of PLOS Biology research articles published since June 2012 have been discussed on Twitter, and 63% mentioned on Facebook). These are the locations where most of the online discussion around published articles currently seems to take place; the percentage of papers with comments on the PLOS website or that have science blog posts written about them is much smaller. Not all of this online discussion is about research articles, and perhaps, not surprisingly, the most-tweeted PLOS article overall (with more than 1,100 tweets) is a PLOS Biology perspective on the use of social media for scientists [11].Some metrics are not so much indicators of a broad online discussion, but rather focus on highlighting articles of particular interest. For example, science blogs allow a more detailed discussion of an article as compared to comments or tweets, and journals themselves sometimes choose to highlight a paper on their own blogs, allowing for a more digestible explanation of the science for the non-expert reader [12]. Coverage by other bloggers also serves the same purpose; a good example of this is one recent post on the OpenHelix Blog [13] that contains video footage of the second author of a 2010 PLOS Biology article [14] discussing the turkey genome.F1000Prime, a commercial service of recommendations by expert scientists, was added to the PLOS Article-Level Metrics in August 2013. We now highlight on the PLOS website when any articles have received at least one recommendation within F1000Prime. We also monitor when an article has been cited within the widely used modern-day online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. A good example of the latter is the Tasmanian devil Wikipedia page [15] that links to a PLOS Biology research article published in 2010 [16]. While a F1000Prime recommendation is a strong endorsement from peer(s) in the scientific community, being included in a Wikipedia page is akin to making it into a textbook about the subject area and being read by a much wider audience that goes beyond the scientific community. PLOS Biology is the PLOS journal with the highest percentage of articles recommended in F1000Prime and mentioned in Wikipedia, but there is only partial overlap between the two groups of articles because they focus on different audiences (Figure 5). These recommendations and mentions in turn show correlations with other metrics, but not simple ones; you can''t assume, for example, that highly cited articles are more likely to be recommended by F1000Prime, so it will be interesting to monitor these trends now that we include this information.Open in a separate windowFigure 5 PLOS Biology articles: sites of recommendation and discussion.Number of PLOS Biology research articles published up to May 20, 2013 that have been recommended by F1000Prime (red) or mentioned in Wikipedia (blue).With the increasing availability of ALM data, there comes a growing need to provide tools that will allow the community to interrogate them. A good first step for researchers, research administrators, and others interested in looking at the metrics of a larger set of PLOS articles is the recently launched ALM Reports tool [17]. There are also a growing number of service providers, including Altmetric.com [18], ImpactStory [19], and Plum Analytics [20] that provide similar services for articles from other publishers.As article-level metrics become increasingly used by publishers, funders, universities, and researchers, one of the major challenges to overcome is ensuring that standards and best practices are widely adopted and understood. The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) was recently awarded a grant by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to work on this [21], and PLOS is actively involved in this project. We look forward to further developing our article-level metrics and to having them adopted by other publishers, which hopefully will pave the way to their wide incorporation into research and researcher assessments.     

Do Bees and Hornets Use Acoustic Resonance in Order to Monitor and Coordinate Comb Construction?

We propose that social hornets and bees, who construct large arrays (known as combs) of cells for hatching and brooding their offspring, exploit ultrasonic acoustic resonances in those cells in order to implement the accurate honeycomb structure exhibited by those arrays. This idea is supported by a number of theoretical considerations, including a detailed analysis of the spectrum of lateral acoustic resonances in a cell with circular cross section, considered as an approximation to the actual perfect hexagon shape. It is also supported by the results of some previous measurements of the acoustic spectrum in a nest of Oriental hornets.     

Language Evolution: What Do Chimpanzees Have to Say?

Although unique in important ways, language shares some properties with other animal communication systems. Comparative analyses of nonhuman primate vocalizations can shed light on the evolution of language's special features.     

What Do Mexican Fruit Flies Learn When They Experience Fruit?

Mexican fruit flies learn fruit characteristics that enable them to distinguish familiar fruits from novel fruits. We investigated whether mature Mexican fruit flies learn fruit color, size or odor. We found no evidence that female flies learn fruit color or size after experience with host fruit, including oviposition. However, green fruit and fruit models were more attractive than yellow and red fruit and fruit models regardless of previous experience. Females with grapefruit experience were more attracted to fruit models with extract of either grapefruit peel or pulp, than to models without extract. Females with no experience with grapefruit were not attracted to models treated with grapefruit extract. These results indicate that females learned fruit odor during exposure to grapefruit.     

What Do Eye Gaze Metrics Tell Us about Motor Imagery?

Many of the brain structures involved in performing real movements also have increased activity during imagined movements or during motor observation, and this could be the neural substrate underlying the effects of motor imagery in motor learning or motor rehabilitation. In the absence of any objective physiological method of measurement, it is currently impossible to be sure that the patient is indeed performing the task as instructed. Eye gaze recording during a motor imagery task could be a possible way to “spy” on the activity an individual is really engaged in. The aim of the present study was to compare the pattern of eye movement metrics during motor observation, visual and kinesthetic motor imagery (VI, KI), target fixation, and mental calculation. Twenty-two healthy subjects (16 females and 6 males), were required to perform tests in five conditions using imagery in the Box and Block Test tasks following the procedure described by Liepert et al. Eye movements were analysed by a non-invasive oculometric measure (SMI RED250 system). Two parameters describing gaze pattern were calculated: the index of ocular mobility (saccade duration over saccade + fixation duration) and the number of midline crossings (i.e. the number of times the subjects gaze crossed the midline of the screen when performing the different tasks). Both parameters were significantly different between visual imagery and kinesthesic imagery, visual imagery and mental calculation, and visual imagery and target fixation. For the first time we were able to show that eye movement patterns are different during VI and KI tasks. Our results suggest gaze metric parameters could be used as an objective unobtrusive approach to assess engagement in a motor imagery task. Further studies should define how oculomotor parameters could be used as an indicator of the rehabilitation task a patient is engaged in.     

Cell Surface Analysis Techniques: What Do Cell Preparation Protocols Do to Cell Surface Properties?

Cell surface analysis often requires manipulation of cells prior to examination. The most commonly employed procedures are centrifugation at different speeds, changes of media during washing or final resuspension, desiccation (either air drying for contact angle measurements or freeze-drying for sensitive spectroscopic analysis, such as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy), and contact with hydrocarbon (hydrophobicity assays). The effects of these procedures on electrophoretic mobility, adhesion to solid substrata, affinity to a number of Sepharose columns, structural integrity, and cell viability were systematically investigated for a range of model organisms, including carbon- and nitrogen-limited Psychrobacter sp. strain SW8 (glycocalyx-bearing cells), Escherichia coli (gram-negative cells without a glycocalyx), and Staphylococcus epidermidis (gram-positive cells without a glycocalyx). All of the cell manipulation procedures severely modified the physicochemical properties of cells, but with each procedure some organisms were more susceptible than others. Considerable disruption of cell surfaces occurred when organisms were placed in contact with a hydrocarbon (hexadecane). The majority of cells became nonculturable after air drying and freeze-drying. Centrifugation at a high speed (15,000 × g) modified many cell surface parameters significantly, although cell viability was considerably affected only in E. coli. The type of washing or resuspension medium had a strong influence on the values of cell surface parameters, particularly when high-salt solutions were compared with low-salt buffers. The values for parameters obtained with different methods that allegedly measure similar cell surface properties did not correlate for most cells. These results demonstrate that the methods used to prepare cells for cell surface analysis need to be critically investigated for each microorganism so that the final results obtained reflect the nature of the in situ microbial cell surface as closely as possible. There is an urgent need for new, reliable, nondestructive, minimally manipulative cell surface analysis techniques that can be used in situ.     

Piaroa Manioc Varietals: Hyperdiversity or Social Currency?

The maintenance of exceptionally high numbers of folk varieties by the Piaroa people of the Venezuelan Amazon is considered. We cataloged 113 manioc folk varieties, their nomenclature, use and relevant characters, revealing significant insights into the role of manioc in Piaroa social life. Through a qualitative investigation of the cultivation, processing and symbolic significance of manioc (Manihot esculenta) in two Piaroa regions over a period of 18 years, we have found that such agrobiodiversity can only be fully explained by a combination of multiple factors, including pragmatic and ecological considerations, the subtle and complex diversity of Piaroa manioc preparations and a variety of sociocultural factors, such as manioc’s role as a mediator of social relationships and as a marker of cultural and social heritage.

Bilabiate Flowers: The Ultimate Response to Bees?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bilabiate flowers have evolved in many lineages of the angiosperms, thus representing a convincing example of parallel evolution. Similar to keel blossoms, they have obviously evolved in order to protect pollen against pollen-collecting bees. Although many examples are known, a comprehensive survey on floral diversity and functional constraints of bilabiate flowers is lacking. Here, the concept is widened and described as a general pattern. METHODS: The present paper is a conceptional review including personal observations of the authors. To form a survey on the diversity of bilabiate blossoms, a search was made for examples across the angiosperms and these were combined with personal observations collected during the last 25 years, coupled with knowledge from the literature. New functional terms are introduced that are independent of morphological and taxonomic associations. KEY RESULTS: Bilabiate constructions occur in at least 38 angiosperm families. They are characterized by dorsiventral organization and dorsal pollen transfer. They are most often realised on the level of a single flower, but may also be present in an inflorescence or as part of a so-called 'walk-around flower'. Interestingly, in functional terms all nototribic blossoms represent bilabiate constructions. The great majority of specialized bee-flowers can thus be included under bilabiate and keel blossoms. The syndrome introduced here, however, also paves the way for the inclusion of larger animals such as birds and bats. The most important evolutionary trends appear to be in the saving of pollen and the precision of its transfer. With special reference to the Lamiales, selected examples of bilabiate flowers are presented and their functional significance is discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Bilabiate blossoms protect their pollen against pollen-collecting bees and at the same time render their pollination more precisely. The huge diversity of realised forms indicate the high selection pressure towards the bilabiate syndrome. As bees are very inventive, however, bilabiate constructions will not represent the ultimate response to bees.     

Do We Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration

Over the last decade, several research and opinion pieces have challenged the tenets of restoration ecology but a lack of centralized data has impeded assessment of how scientific developments relate to on‐the‐ground restoration. In response, the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) launched the Global Restoration Network (GRN) to catalog worldwide restoration efforts. We reviewed over 200 GRN projects to identify the goals governing restoration and the frequency with which they are measured. We used the SER Primer on Ecological Restoration to frame our analysis, categorizing goals by SER's attributes of restored ecosystems. We developed additional attributes to characterize goals not encompassed by the SER‐defined attributes. Nearly all projects included goals related to ecosystem form, namely similarity to reference conditions and the presence of indigenous species, and these goals were frequently measured. Most projects included goals related to ecosystem function, and many highlighted interactions between abiotic and biotic factors by either modifying abiotic conditions to support focal species or manipulating species to achieve desired ecosystem functions. Few projects had goals related to ecosystem stability, whereas the majority of projects had goals related to social values. Although less frequently measured, social goals were described as important for long‐term project success. In conclusion, science and practice frequently aligned on goals related to ecosystem composition and function, but scientific guidelines on resilience and self‐sustainability appear insufficient to guide practice. In contrast, the common inclusion of goals for human well‐being indicates that, if intended to advise practice, restoration guidelines should give direction on social goals.     

What Do We Really Know about Cellulose Biosynthesis in Higher Plants?

Cellulose biosynthesis is one of the most important biochemical processes in plant biology. Despite the considerable progress made during the last decade, numerous fundamental questions related to this key process in plant development are outstanding. Numerous models have been proposed through the years to explain the detailed molecular events of cellulose biosynthesis. Almost all models integrate solid experimental data with hypotheses on several of the steps involved in the process. Speculative models are...     

Do Solitary Bees Osmia cornuta Latr. and Osmia lignaria Cresson Use Proximal Visual Cues to Localize Their Nest?

Female Osmia repeatedly return to their nest to provision it with food and building material. The present study investigates the bees' nest localization performance by modifying visual cues in the near-vicinity of the nest. Each of several arrays of nesting holes was surrounded by four geometrical shapes. Removing some or all of the shapes reduced the proportion of direct returns but never prevented a bee from finding the appropriate array and, within that array, its own nest. The more the pattern was modified, the higher was the error score and the longer the delay, but no bee failed finally to find its nest. Shifting the pattern as well as the whole array of holes shifted homing orientation accordingly. There was no effect of the positions of the removed shapes, of contrast inversion, or of modifying the holes array. Our data are discussed in the light of the snapshot theory.     

Ipomoea bahiensis pollinators: Bees or butterflies?

Ipomoea bahiensis presents many characters of a psychophilous nectar flower. At the investigated synanthropic site, it is, however, visited and pollinated primarily by pollen-foraging small to medium sized bees that leave the flowers well before the end of anthesis. The busy bees appear to intimidate, probably by their mere existence, butterflies that function as pollinators in early morning, but disappear from the scene after beginning of anthesis. The plant is allogamous. A higher fruit set in hand cross-pollinated flowers as compared to naturally pollinated controls indicates pollen limitation. For the first time, we observed male bees entering the closing flowers as an overnight accommodation even before noon.     

What Do Aquaporin Knockout Studies Tell Us about Fluid Transport in Epithelia?

The investigation of near-isosmotic water transport in epithelia goes back over 100 years; however, debates over mechanism and pathway remain. Aquaporin (AQP) knockouts have been used by various research groups to test the hypothesis of an osmotic mechanism as well as to explore the paracellular versus transcellular pathway debate. Nonproportional reductions in the water permeability of a water-transporting epithelial cell (e.g., a reduction of around 80–90 %) compared to the reduction in overall water transport rate in the knockout animal (e.g., a reduction of 50–60 %) are commonly found. This nonproportionality has led to controversy over whether AQP knockout studies support or contradict the osmotic mechanism. Arguments raised for and against an interpretation supporting the osmotic mechanism typically have partially specified, implicit, or incorrect assumptions. We present a simple mathematical model of the osmotic mechanism with clear assumptions and, for models based on this mechanism, establish a baseline prediction of AQP knockout studies. We allow for deviations from isotonic/isosmotic conditions and utilize dimensional analysis to reduce the number of parameters that must be considered independently. This enables a single prediction curve to be used for multiple epithelial systems. We find that a simple, transcellular-only osmotic mechanism sufficiently predicts the results of knockout studies and find criticisms of this mechanism to be overstated. We note, however, that AQP knockout studies do not give sufficient information to definitively rule out an additional paracellular pathway.