A framework for comparing pollinator performance: effectiveness and efficiency

Measuring pollinator performance has become increasingly important with emerging needs for risk assessment in conservation and sustainable agriculture that require multi-year and multi-site comparisons across studies. However, comparing pollinator performance across studies is difficult because of the diversity of concepts and disparate methods in use. Our review of the literature shows many unresolved ambiguities. Two different assessment concepts predominate: the first estimates stigmatic pollen deposition and the underlying pollinator behaviour parameters, while the second estimates the pollinator’s contribution to plant reproductive success, for example in terms of seed set. Both concepts include a number of parameters combined in diverse ways and named under a diversity of synonyms and homonyms. However, these concepts are overlapping because pollen deposition success is the most frequently used proxy for assessing the pollinator’s contribution to plant reproductive success. We analyse the diverse concepts and methods in the context of a new proposed conceptual framework with a modular approach based on pollen deposition, visit frequency, and contribution to seed set relative to the plant’s maximum female reproductive potential. A system of equations is proposed to optimize the balance between idealised theoretical concepts and practical operational methods. Our framework permits comparisons over a range of floral phenotypes, and spatial and temporal scales, because scaling up is based on the same fundamental unit of analysis, the single visit.

Less-is-more effects in knowledge-based heuristic inference

Inference on the basis of recognition alone is assumed to occur prior to accessing further information (Pachur & Hertwig, 2006). A counterintuitive result of this is the “less-is-more” effect: a drop in the accuracy with which choices are made as to which of two or more items scores highest on a given criterion as more items are learned (Frosch, Beaman & McCloy, 2007; Goldstein & Gigerenzer, 2002). In this paper, we show that less-is-more effects are not unique to recognition-based inference but can also be observed with a knowledge-based strategy provided two assumptions, limited information and differential access, are met. The LINDA model which embodies these assumptions is presented. Analysis of the less-is-more effects predicted by LINDA and by recognition-driven inference shows that these occur for similar reasons and casts doubt upon the “special” nature of recognition-based inference. Suggestions are made for empirical tests to compare knowledge-based and recognition-based less-is-more effects

Changes in the intestinal microbiota after a short period of dietary over-indulgence, representative of a holiday or festival season

The effects on the intestinal microbiota of a short period of marginal over-eating, characteristic of holiday or festival periods, were investigated in a pilot study. Fourteen healthy male subjects consumed a diet rich in animal protein and fat for seven days. During this period, the subjects significantly increased their dietary energy, protein, carbohydrate and fat intakes by 56, 59, 53 and 58%, respectively (all P < 0.05). The mean weight gain of 0.27 kg was less than the expected 1 kg, but this was consistent with a degree of under-reporting on the baseline diet. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation analysis confirmed the relative stability of each individual’s faecal microbiota but showed considerable variations between them. The diet was associated with a significant increase in numbers of total faecal bacteria and the bacteroides group, as detected by the universal bacterial probe (DAPI) and Bacteroides probe (Bac 303), respectively. Overall, there was a decrease in numbers of the Lactobacillus/Enterococcus group (Lab 158 probe; 2.8 ± 3.0% to 1.8 ± 1.8%) and the Bifidobacterium group (Bif 164 probe; 3.0 ± 3.7% to 1.7 ± 1.2%), although there was considerable inter-individual variation. Analysis of the relative proportions of each bacterial group as a percentage of the subject’s total bacteria showed a trend for a change in the intestinal microbiota that might be considered potentially unhealthy.

Randomized controlled trial of full and brief cognitive-behaviour therapy and wait-list for paediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder

Background: Reviews and practice guidelines for paediatric obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) recommend cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) as the psychological treatment of choice, but note that it has not been sufficiently evaluated for children and adolescents and that more randomized controlled trials are needed. The aim of this trial was to evaluate effectiveness and optimal delivery of CBT, emphasizing cognitive interventions. Methods: A total of 96 children and adolescents with OCD were randomly allocated to the three conditions each of approximately 12 weeks duration: full CBT (average therapist contact: 12 sessions) and brief CBT (average contact: 5 sessions, with use of therapist-guided workbooks), and wait-list/delayed treatment. The primary outcome measure was the child version of the semi-structured interviewer-based Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. Clinical Trial registration: http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN/; unique identifier: ISRCTN29092580. Results: There was statistically significant symptomatic improvement in both treatment groups compared with the wait-list group, with no significant differences in outcomes between the two treatment groups. Controlled treatment effect sizes in intention-to-treat analyses were 2.2 for full CBT and 1.6 for brief CBT. Improvements were maintained at follow-up an average of 14 weeks later. Conclusions: The findings demonstrate the benefits of CBT emphasizing cognitive interventions for children and adolescents with OCD and suggest that relatively lower therapist intensity delivery with use of therapist-guided workbooks is an efficient mode of delivery.

Open Air Laboratories (OPAL): a community-driven research programme

OPAL is an English national programme that takes scientists into the community to investigate environmental issues. Biological monitoring plays a pivotal role covering topics of: i) soil and earthworms; ii) air, lichens and tar spot on sycamore; iii) water and aquatic invertebrates; iv) biodiversity and hedgerows; v) climate, clouds and thermal comfort. Each survey has been developed by an interdisciplinary team and tested by voluntary, statutory and community sectors. Data are submitted via the web and instantly mapped. Preliminary results are presented, together with a discussion on data quality and uncertainty. Communities also investigate local pollution issues, ranging from nitrogen deposition on heathlands to traffic emissions on roadside vegetation. Over 200,000 people have participated so far, including over 1000 schools and 1000 voluntary groups. Benefits include a substantial, growing database on biodiversity and habitat condition, much from previously unsampled sites particularly in urban areas, and a more engaged public.