Author: patersoa

  • Enemies with benefits

    Enemies with benefits

    The idea of ‘friends with benefits’ is reasonably widespread and understood. Having good interactions with others will often lead to even more productive outcomes. But what about ‘enemies with benefits’? Are there times where your enemy can give you some positive benefits?

    Invasive species cause ecological harm worldwide, threatening biodiversity, disrupting nutrient cycling and displacing native species. Pacific islands, with their characteristically high rates of endemism, experience out-sized effects from plant invasions (Bellard et al. 2014). In biodiversity hotspots, such as New Zealand, exotic invasive plant species now outnumber native species in area and in number.

    But, how do they do it?

    New Zealand habitats are prone to invasion by exotic plant species. Why is this?

    A study by Lauren Waller and other Lincoln University and University of Canterbury colleagues, published in Journal of Ecology attempts to find some answers. Lauren shows that exotic plants may gain their competitive edge by accumulating enemies in the soil and sharing them with neighbouring native plants, a phenomenon that plant ecologists call pathogen spillover.

    Lauren set up a large mesocosm (self-contained area) experiment. These were areas where new species could be added to a known group of native species in a very manageable process. The health and growth of all plants could be measured and microorganisms both present at the start and brought in on the introduced plants could be identified.

    Lauren expected exotic plants to experience improved growth due to escape from pathogens (leaving the burden of enemies behind when they come to NZ). This assumption comes in large part from two well-known hypotheses, the Enemy Release Hypothesis and the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability (EICA) Hypothesis. Enemy Release states that exotic plants can gain incredible success when they move to a new location lacking the enemy pressure they experienced in their home range, particularly co-evolved specialist enemies. EICA goes a step further to suggest that if exotic plants can escape enemy pressure in their new range, those plants will have more resources to allocate to growth over defence.

    Somewhat supporting Enemy Release, exotic plants did not appear to suffer much from specialist fungal pathogens. However, exotic plants did associate with generalist pathogens. Also, in support of Enemy Release, exotic plants did not appear to allocate resources to defence. Instead, exotic plants appeared to tolerate generalist pathogen pressure without reducing their growth.

    Native Poa grown in a native versus exotic dominated plot.

    Lauren did not expect to see big impacts by exotic plants on native plants, and boy, did they! Native plants just wasted away when grown with exotic plants. It was very sad to watch. This photo shows an example of a native bunch-grass, grown with all native neighbours (left) or in communities dominated by exotic plants (right).

    What explained the out-sized effect of exotic plants on native plant growth? Our network analysis showed that exotics not only accumulated and tolerated generalist pathogens, but they shared their pathogens with native plants. Native plants did not appear to have the same tolerance for this enemy pressure like the exotic plants did. 

    We started by asking ‘are there times where your enemy can give you some positive benefits?’. It turns out that yes there are times when your enemies can help you a lot. In this case if species cause you problems it will be OK for you if they cause competing species even more problems! With invasive species, your microbial enemies can do you a good turn but taking out the opposition.

    Now that’s a real enemy with benefits!

    Lauren Waller and Adrian Paterson wrote this together (and not as enemies!). They are lecturers in the Department of Pest-management and Conservation.

    Bellard, C., Leclerc, C., Leroy, B., Bakkenes, M., Veloz, S., Thuiller, W., & Courchamp, F. (2014). Vulnerability of biodiversity hotspots to global change. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 23(12), 1376-1386

  • Darwin and the Sandwalk: AI

    Darwin and the Sandwalk: AI

    Darwin took the best part of 20 years to publish his ideas on natural selection. There has been a lot of speculation as to why he took so long. We here at the Sandwalk have some ideas….

    Darwin loved to write. He wrote books. He scribed copious numbers of letters to people all around the world. And yet he took such a long time to complete his signature work.

    I’m not sure what Darwin would have made of generative AI. I doubt that he would have been impressed, especially at the moment where it only repackages ideas and does not create new one.

    Still he might have impressed in certain aspects. I prompted ChatGPT to re-write the previous two paragraphs in the style of Darwin.

    “It may be observed that Darwin possessed a profound affinity for the act of writing. His pen gave birth to numerous volumes, and through his hand flowed an unceasing correspondence with individuals spanning the globe. Yet, despite this prolific output, it is curious to note the extended period required for the completion of his most seminal work.”

    “As to the advent of generative artificial intelligence, one might surmise that Darwin, ever the champion of originality and slow, deliberate thought, would have regarded such a tool with a measure of skepticism. For while this technology can indeed aggregate and reorganize information, it does not yet appear capable of producing the truly novel insights that arise from deep reflection and careful study—those hallmarks of evolutionary progress in the realm of ideas.”

    Hmmm that might have saved him some time! Or maybe he would have used it for entertainment. What about some tardy Darwin jokes prompted from ChatGPT (although one is created by me – can you guess?):

    ‘It took Charles Darwin over 20 years to write On the Origin of Species. I guess he was evolving his ideas… very slowly!’

    ‘It took Darwin over 20 years to write On the Origin of Species. Talk about natural procrastination!’

    ‘Why did it take so long for Darwin to write On the Origin of Species? Maybe he was worried about natural rejection!’

    ‘Darwin spent 20 years writing his book. I guess even evolution needed a few extra drafts.‘

    ‘Charles Darwin took two decades to finish On the Origin of Species—he was just letting the ideas adapt!‘

    ‘Darwin took 20 years to write his book. I guess survival of the fittest applies to writers’ block too!’

    ‘It took Darwin so long to write On the Origin of Species, you’d think he was waiting for the manuscript to evolve itself!‘

    Not bad. I think that we might not have received the Origin any earlier if Charles had enjoyed playing around with AI.