The ecological significance of toxic nectar

Although plant-herbivore and plant-pollinator interactions have traditionally been studied separately, many traits are simultaneously under selection by both herbivores and pollinators. For example, secondary compounds commonly associated with herbivore defense have been found in the nectar of many plant species, and many plants produce nectar that is toxic or repellent to some floral visitors. Although secondary compounds in nectar and toxic nectar are geographically and phylogenetically widespread, their ecological significance is poorly understood. Several hypotheses have been proposed for the possible functions of toxic nectar, including encouraging specialist pollinators, deterring nectar robbers, preventing microbial degradation of nectar, and altering pollinator behavior. All of these hypotheses rest on the assumption that the benefits of toxic nectar must outweigh possible costs; however, to date no study has demonstrated that toxic nectar provides fitness benefits for any plant. Therefore, in addition to these adaptive hypotheses, we should also consider the hypothesis that toxic nectar provides no benefits or is tolerably detrimental to plants, and occurs due to previous selection pressures or pleiotropic constraints. For example, secondary compounds may be transported into nectar as a consequence of their presence in phloem, rather than due to direct selection for toxic nectar. Experimental approaches are necessary to understand the role of toxic nectar in plant-animal interactions.     

Identity cards for patients infected with HIV?

Dr A C Srivastava has written to us to describe a case that raises the suggestion that people infected with the human immuno-deficiency virus (HIV) should carry identity cards. We asked two physicians, a general practitioner working with patients with the acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), and a general practitioner with a special interest in medical ethics to respond to the broad issues raised by Dr Srivastava''s letter.     

Sampling for Explosives-Residues at Fort Greely,Alaska

Fort Greely, Alaska has an extensive complex of weapon training and testing areas located on lands withdrawn from the public domain under the Military Lands Withdrawal Act (PL106-65). The Army has pledged to implement a program to identify possible munitions contamination. Because of the large size (344,165,000 m²) of the high hazard impact areas, characterization of these constituents will be difficult. We used an authoritative sampling design to find locations most likely to contain explosives-residues on three impact areas. We focused our sampling on surface soils and collected multi-increment and discrete samples at locations of known firing events and from areas on the range that had craters, pieces of munitions, targets, or a designation as a firing point. In the two impact areas used primarily by the Army, RDX was the most frequently detected explosive. In the impact area that was also used by the Air Force, TNT was the most frequently detected explosive. Where detected, the explosives concentrations generally were low (<0.05 mg/kg) except in soils near low-order detonations, where the explosive-filler was in contact with the soil surface. These low-order detonations potentially can serve as localized sources for groundwater contamination if positioned in recharge areas.