Biodiversity in a Changing World 2009

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Biodiversity in a Changing World 2009 Envirothon Study Guide Biodiversity in a Changing World 2009 1 This Study GuideEnvirothon is to be Study used Guide to help - Forestry Envirothon teams prepare for the Ontario Envirothon Program. Preface This report was written by Angela Gillespie, Denise Derrick, Jessica Danard and Tamara Tucker, in partial fulfillment of the Credit for Product II course in the third year of the Ecosystem Management Technology Program 2008 at Sir Sandford Fleming College. This study guide was written for Kristina Quinlan of the Ontario Forestry Association, submitted as a deliverable of the project. This study guide contains background information on biodiversity in a changing world, case studies, activities, references and information as to how the current issue affects the core topics of forestry, aquatics, soil and wildlife. Also included is an Ontario Mammals Identification Guide, an Ontario Bird Identification Guide, an Ontario Winter Tree Identification Key and a Soils of Canada Classification booklet. The objective of this study guide is to provide Ontario Envirothon participants with information on the 2009 special topic: biodiversity in a changing world. Activities and case studies are highlighted throughout the study guide to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the current and future threats to biodiversity in Ontario. We would like to thank our faculty advisor, Sara Kelly, for her guidance and input throughout the course of the project. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Kristina for her support as our mentor during this process. Sincere thanks also go to Don McLeod who provided our team with the valuable resource of his personal collection of wildlife photographs. We sincerely hope that this study guide will be of value to Ontario Envirothon Students in the future. Please feel free to contact us at [email protected] if you have any questions, comments or concerns. Angela Gillespie, Denise Derrick, Jessica Danard and Tamara Tucker iii Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………………iii List of Appendices………………………………………………………………………..vi List of Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………….vii Introduction to Biodiversity……………………………………………………………….1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..…1 The Value of Biodiversity…………………………………………………………2 Threats to Biodiversity…………………………………………………………….3 Global Change and Biodiversity…………………………………………………..4 Solutions to Increase Biodiversity………………………………………………...5 Biodiversity Case Study…………………………………………………………...6 Project Paradise……………………………………………………………6 Activity: Estimating Biodiversity in Your Area…………………………………..8 Questions for Discussion ………………………………………………………..11 Aquatic Biodiversity……………………………………………………………………..12 Introduction to Aquatic Ecosystems……………………………………………..12 What is Aquatic Diversity?....................................................................................12 What Causes Change in Aquatic Biodiversity?.....................................................13 Measuring Aquatic Biodiversity…………………………………………………13 Lakes and Ponds…………………………………………………………………14 Streams and Rivers………………………………………………………………15 Wetlands…………………………………………………………………………17 Invasive Species…………………………………………………………………19 Aquatic Case Studies…………………………………………………………….21 Purple loosestrife in Ontario’s Wetlands…………………………………..21 Activity: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Collection…………………………………23 Questions for Discussion………………………………………………………...24 Forestry Biodiversity…………………………………………………………………….25 Introduction to Forests…………………………………………………………...25 Threats to Biodiversity in Ontario’s Forests……………………………………..26 Non-Native Species……………………………………………………………...27 Role of Trees in a Given Ecosystem……………………………………………..28 Affects of Forest Management on Biodiversity………………………………….29 Biodiversity in Various Forest Regions………………………………………….31 Forestry Case Studies…………………………………………………………….32 Asian Longhorn Beetle…………………………………………………..32 Butternut Canker………………………………………………………....33 Activity: Measuring Biodiversity in Forests……………………………………..34 Questions for Discussion………………………………………………………...36 iv Soil Biodiversity…………………………………………………………………………37 Introduction to Soil………………………………………………………………37 Soil Formation and Variability…………………………………………………..38 Biodiversity within Soil………………………………………………………….39 Soils Role in Terrestrial Biodiversity……………………………………………41 Soil Biodiversity in a Changing World…………………………………………..42 Soil Case Studies………………………………………………………………...44 Biodiversity in the Soil: The Ground Beetle………………………….…44 Bioremediation………………………………………………………..…45 Activity: Measuring Soil Biodiversity…………………...………………………46 Questions for Discussion…………………………………...……………………48 Wildlife Biodiversity…………………………………………………………………….49 Wildlife Biodiversity Across Ontario………………………………………………..49 Role of Species and Limited Biodiversity…………………………………………...50 Alien or Invasive Species and Biodiversity………………………………………….52 Wildlife Management and Biodiversity……………………………………………...54 Extirpation and Extinction…………………………………………………………...55 Case Study…………………………………………………………………………...60 The Nutria………………………………………………………………………..60 Activity: Wildlife Tracking………………………………………………………….61 Questions for Discussion…………………………………………………………….62 Biodiversity Across Ontario……………………………………………………………..63 Organizations involved in Monitoring and Increasing Biodiversity……………………..66 Websites for Biodiversity Organizations………………………………………………...69 Glossary………………………………………………………………………………….70 References………………………………………………………………………………..73 v List of Appendices Appendix A: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Index………………………………………..A-1 Appendix B: Fish Identification………………………………………………………...B-1 Appendix C: Winter Tree Identification Key…………………………………………..C-1 Appendix D: Canadian Soil Classification……………………….…………………….D-1 Appendix E: Ontario Mammal Tracking and Identification Guide…………...………..E-1 Appendix F: Ontario Bird Identification Guide………………………………………...F-1 vi List of Figures Figure 1: A typical marsh ecosystem in Ontario………………………………………….1 Figure 2: Biodiversity allows Ontario residents to enjoy time on the lake………………..2 Figure 3: Zebra Mussel……………………………………………………………………3 Figure 4: Volunteers re-planting native vegetation……………………………………….5 Figure 5: Cootes Paradise, Hamilton, Ontario…………………………………………….6 Figure 6: Species-Area Curve……………………………………………………………10 Figure 7: Lake Huron…………………………………………………………………….12 Figure 8: Stream-side construction site…………………………………………………..13 Figure 9: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring……………………………………......13 Figure 10: Cross Section of a Lake Ecosystem………………………………………….14 Figure 11: Walleye………………………………………………………………………15 Figure 12: A Stream Ecosystem…………………………………………………………15 Figure 13: Fish swimming upstream to spawning grounds……………………………...16 Figure 14: Brook Trout…………………………………………………………………..16 Figure 15: A Swamp Ecosystem…………………………………………………………17 Figure 16: A Marsh Ecosystem…………………………………………………………..18 Figure 17: A Bog Ecosystem…………………………………………………………….18 Figure 18: A Fen Ecosystem……………………………………………………………..18 Figure 19: Blanding’s Turtle …………………………………………………………….18 Figure 20: Blanding’s Turtle Range……………………………………………………..19 Figure 21: Common cattail………………………………………………………………19 Figure 22: Purple Loosestrife………………………………………………………….....21 Figure 23: Removal of Purple loosestrife………………………………………………..21 Figure 24: Predators of Purple loosestrife……………………………………………….22 Figure 25: Map of Forest Regions in Ontario……………………………………………25 Figure 26: Ecozones of Ontario………………………………………………………….26 Figure 27: Norway Maple Leaf………………………………………………………….27 Figure 28: European Buckthorn Leaf……………………………………………………27 Figure 29: Emerald Ash Borer and Asian Longhorned Beetle…………………………..28 Figure 30: Example of a Forest Fire……………………………………………………..29 Figure 31: Example of Sustainable Forestry Practices…………………………………..30 Figure 32: Picture of feeding galleries, exit holes and frass in a tree infested with Asian Longhorned Beetles……………………………………………………………………...32 Figure 33: Butternut with Butternut canker and range of trees with Butternut canker…..33 Figure 34: Soil texture triangle ………………………………………………………….37 Figure 35: Soil Profiles of Ontario……………………………………………………….39 Figure 36: Feeding interactions between the classes of organisms found within a soil community……………………………………………………………………………….39 Figure 37: Relationships between soil food web, plants, organic matter, and birds and mammals…………………………………………………………………………………42 Figure 38: Snapping turtle laying eggs in soil…………………………………………...42 Figure 39: Diagram of relationships of soil biota and plants with global change……….43 Figure 40: Image of a Beach Dune Tiger Beetle.………………………………………..44 Figure 41: Berlese-Tullgren funnel…………………………………………………........46 vii Figure 42: Map of Ontario displaying Terrestrial Ecosystems…………………………..49 Figure 43: Bar graph exhibiting the relationship between carnivore and herbivore species and how it relates to biodiversity………………………………………………………...51 Figure 44: Image depicting a healthy food web that would be found in a coniferous forest ecosystem.………………………………………………………………………………..51 Figure 45: Mature Brown-headed Cowbird……………………………………………...52 Figure 46: Young Brown-headed Cowbird gaping for food in the nest of a host……….52 Figures 47: Logos for MNR and CWS……………………..……………………………55 Figure 48: Species at Risk in Ontario……………………………………………………56 Figure 49: The Eastern Elk………………………………………………………………58 Figure 50: The Tiger Salamander………………………………………………………..59 Figure 51: Current range of the Tiger Salamander………………………………………59 Figure 52: Nutria ………………………………………………………………………...60 Figure 53: An enclosed area shows the different between areas affected by Nutria and protected………………………………………………………………………………….60
Recommended publications
  • Wild Species 2010 the GENERAL STATUS of SPECIES in CANADA
    Wild Species 2010 THE GENERAL STATUS OF SPECIES IN CANADA Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council National General Status Working Group This report is a product from the collaboration of all provincial and territorial governments in Canada, and of the federal government. Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC). 2011. Wild Species 2010: The General Status of Species in Canada. National General Status Working Group: 302 pp. Available in French under title: Espèces sauvages 2010: La situation générale des espèces au Canada. ii Abstract Wild Species 2010 is the third report of the series after 2000 and 2005. The aim of the Wild Species series is to provide an overview on which species occur in Canada, in which provinces, territories or ocean regions they occur, and what is their status. Each species assessed in this report received a rank among the following categories: Extinct (0.2), Extirpated (0.1), At Risk (1), May Be At Risk (2), Sensitive (3), Secure (4), Undetermined (5), Not Assessed (6), Exotic (7) or Accidental (8). In the 2010 report, 11 950 species were assessed. Many taxonomic groups that were first assessed in the previous Wild Species reports were reassessed, such as vascular plants, freshwater mussels, odonates, butterflies, crayfishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Other taxonomic groups are assessed for the first time in the Wild Species 2010 report, namely lichens, mosses, spiders, predaceous diving beetles, ground beetles (including the reassessment of tiger beetles), lady beetles, bumblebees, black flies, horse flies, mosquitoes, and some selected macromoths. The overall results of this report show that the majority of Canada’s wild species are ranked Secure.
    [Show full text]
  • COSEWIC Annual Report
    COMMITTEE ON THE COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION STATUS OF ENDANGERED DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL WILDLIFE IN CANADA AU CANADA ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CANADIAN ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION COUNCIL (CESCC) MAY 2003 COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF ENDANGERED WILDLIFE IN CANADA (COSEWIC) MARCO FESTA-BIANCHET CHAIR 1 PREFACE COSEWIC was given its mandate in 1976 by recommendation 6 of the 40th Federal- Provincial Wildlife Conference. In June, 1988, the Canadian Wildlife Directors directed COSEWIC to report to their Committee. In March 1999 the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council (CESCC) released new Terms of Reference for COSEWIC. COSEWIC determines the status in Canada of wildlife species whose future may be in doubt and releases to the public the information upon which the designation of status is based. The twenty-sixth annual report of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada is herein provided to you, the Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee, for your review and comment. ----- ----- ----- 2 PART 1 November 25-29, 2002 meeting General Information The fall, 2002, meeting of COSEWIC took place at the Cartier Place Suite Hotel, Ottawa, Ontario, chaired by Dr. Marco Festa-Bianchet. All members were in attendance. World Wildlife Fund Canada, Canadian Nature Federation and Canadian Wildlife Federation attended the meeting as continuing observers. Workshop/Presentation/Special Meeting On November 25 during the afternoon a Workshop entitled “Approaches to Status Assignments Below the Species Level” took place. All members were in attendance as well as a number of observers. Several presentations were made by members and invited guest speakers. On November 26 in the evening, a meeting took place between members of COSEWIC as well as some observers at the Species Assessment Meeting, Lynda Maltby, director of the Species at Risk Branch of the Canadian Wildlife Service and two representatives of the Canadian Wildlife Directors’ Committee (CWDC), Bruce Morgan, British Columbia and Steve Bowcott, Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • A Realism-Based Approach to an Ontological Representation of Symbiotic Interactions Matthew Diller1* , Evan Johnson1, Amanda Hicks2 and William R
    Diller et al. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (2020) 20:258 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01273-0 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access A realism-based approach to an ontological representation of symbiotic interactions Matthew Diller1* , Evan Johnson1, Amanda Hicks2 and William R. Hogan1 Abstract Background: The symbiotic interactions that occur between humans and organisms in our environment have a tremendous impact on our health. Recently, there has been a surge in interest in understanding the complex relationships between the microbiome and human health and host immunity against microbial pathogens, among other things. To collect and manage data about these interactions and their complexity, scientists will need ontologies that represent symbiotic interactions as they occur in reality. Methods: We began with two papers that reviewed the usage of ‘symbiosis’ and related terms in the biology and ecology literature and prominent textbooks. We then analyzed several prominent standard terminologies and ontologies that contain representations of symbiotic interactions, to determine if they appropriately defined ‘symbiosis’ and related terms according to current scientific usage as identified by the review papers. In the process, we identified several subtypes of symbiotic interactions, as well as the characteristics that differentiate them, which we used to propose textual and axiomatic definitions for each subtype of interaction. To both illustrate how to use the ontological representations and definitions we created and provide additional quality assurance on key definitions, we carried out a referent tracking analysis and representation of three scenarios involving symbiotic interactions among organisms. Results: We found one definition of ‘symbiosis’ in an existing ontology that was consistent with the vast preponderance of scientific usage in biology and ecology.
    [Show full text]
  • Ours to Save: the Distribution, Status & Conservation Needs of Canada's Endemic Species
    Ours to Save The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species June 4, 2020 Version 1.0 Ours to Save: The distribution, status & conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species Additional information and updates to the report can be found at the project website: natureconservancy.ca/ourstosave Suggested citation: Enns, Amie, Dan Kraus and Andrea Hebb. 2020. Ours to save: the distribution, status and conservation needs of Canada’s endemic species. NatureServe Canada and Nature Conservancy of Canada. Report prepared by Amie Enns (NatureServe Canada) and Dan Kraus (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Mapping and analysis by Andrea Hebb (Nature Conservancy of Canada). Cover photo credits (l-r): Wood Bison, canadianosprey, iNaturalist; Yukon Draba, Sean Blaney, iNaturalist; Salt Marsh Copper, Colin Jones, iNaturalist About NatureServe Canada A registered Canadian charity, NatureServe Canada and its network of Canadian Conservation Data Centres (CDCs) work together and with other government and non-government organizations to develop, manage, and distribute authoritative knowledge regarding Canada’s plants, animals, and ecosystems. NatureServe Canada and the Canadian CDCs are members of the international NatureServe Network, spanning over 80 CDCs in the Americas. NatureServe Canada is the Canadian affiliate of NatureServe, based in Arlington, Virginia, which provides scientific and technical support to the international network. About the Nature Conservancy of Canada The Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) works to protect our country’s most precious natural places. Proudly Canadian, we empower people to safeguard the lands and waters that sustain life. Since 1962, NCC and its partners have helped to protect 14 million hectares (35 million acres), coast to coast to coast.
    [Show full text]
  • Endemic Genera of Bryophytes of North America (North of Mexico)
    Preslia, Praha, 76: 255–277, 2004 255 Endemic genera of bryophytes of North America (north of Mexico) Endemické rody mechorostů Severní Ameriky Wilfred Borden S c h o f i e l d Dedicated to the memory of Emil Hadač Department of Botany, University Boulevard 3529-6270, Vancouver B. C., Canada V6T 1Z4, e-mail: [email protected] Schofield W. B. (2004): Endemic genera of bryophytes of North America (north of Mexico). – Preslia, Praha, 76: 255–277. There are 20 endemic genera of mosses and three of liverworts in North America, north of Mexico. All are monotypic except Thelia, with three species. General ecology, reproduction, distribution and nomenclature are discussed for each genus. Distribution maps are provided. The Mexican as well as Neotropical genera of bryophytes are also noted without detailed discussion. K e y w o r d s : bryophytes, distribution, ecology, endemic, liverworts, mosses, reproduction, North America Introduction Endemism in bryophyte genera of North America (north of Mexico) appears not to have been discussed in detail previously. Only the mention of genera is included in Schofield (1980) with no detail presented. Distribution maps of several genera have appeared in scattered publications. The present paper provides distribution maps of all endemic bryophyte genera for the region and considers the biology and taxonomy of each. When compared to vascular plants, endemism in bryophyte genera in the region is low. There are 20 genera of mosses and three of liverworts. The moss families Andreaeobryaceae, Pseudoditrichaceae and Theliaceae and the liverwort family Gyrothyraceae are endemics; all are monotypic. A total of 16 families of mosses and three of liverworts that possess endemic genera are represented.
    [Show full text]
  • A Community Perspective on the Concept of Marine Holobionts: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Directions
    A community perspective on the concept of marine holobionts: current status, challenges, and future directions Simon M. Dittami1, Enrique Arboleda2, Jean-Christophe Auguet3, Arite Bigalke4, Enora Briand5, Paco Cárdenas6, Ulisse Cardini7, Johan Decelle8, Aschwin H. Engelen9, Damien Eveillard10, Claire M.M. Gachon11, Sarah M. Griffiths12, Tilmann Harder13, Ehsan Kayal2, Elena Kazamia14, Francois¸ H. Lallier15, Mónica Medina16, Ezequiel M. Marzinelli17,18,19, Teresa Maria Morganti20, Laura Núñez Pons21, Soizic Prado22, José Pintado23, Mahasweta Saha24,25, Marc-André Selosse26,27, Derek Skillings28, Willem Stock29, Shinichi Sunagawa30, Eve Toulza31, Alexey Vorobev32, Catherine Leblanc1 and Fabrice Not15 1 Integrative Biology of Marine Models (LBI2M), Station Biologique de Roscoff, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Roscoff, France 2 FR2424, Station Biologique de Roscoff, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Roscoff, France 3 MARBEC, Université de Montpellier, CNRS, IFREMER, IRD, Montpellier, France 4 Institute for Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, Bioorganic Analytics, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena, Germany 5 Laboratoire Phycotoxines, Ifremer, Nantes, France 6 Pharmacognosy, Department of Medicinal Chemistry, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden 7 Integrative Marine Ecology Dept, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Napoli, Italy 8 Laboratoire de Physiologie Cellulaire et Végétale, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, CEA, INRA, Grenoble, France 9 CCMAR, Universidade do Algarve, Faro, Portugal 10 Laboratoire des Sciences Numériques de Nantes (LS2N), Université
    [Show full text]
  • On the Evolution and Circumscription of the Neckeraceae (Musci)
    J. Hattori Bot. Lab. No. 76: 13- 20 (Oct. 1994) ON THE EVOLUTION AND CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE NECKERACEAE (MUSCI) JOHANNES ENROTH 1 ABSTRACT. The family Neckeraceae (Musci) contains the traditional subfamilies Neckeroideae and Thamnobryoideae ("Thamnioideae"). The family must be defined mainly on gametophyte characters, since the sporophytes display great plasticity. A few gametophyte characters critical in the definition of the Neckeraceae are pointed out. A list of the 23 genera provisionally accepted in the family is provided. The key word in understanding the evolution of the Neckeraceae is reduction, implying anatomical and morphological reduction in both generations. For example, the evolution of the peri­ stome shows a reduction series from the generalized perfect hypnoid type (e.g., Thamnobryum Nieuwl.) to various reduced "neckeroid" types (e.g., Neckera Hedw. and Neckeropsis Reichardt). Several primitive versus advanced character states in the gametophytes and sporophytes of neckera­ ceous mosses are briefly discussed. Hypnodendron (C. Mull.) Lindb. ex. Mitt. and Climacium Web. & Mohr. are provisionally recognized as outgroups. It is emphasized that the evolution of the two gener­ ations have not always progressed at same "rate", since there exist genera with a primitive gameto­ phyte and an advanced sporophyte, and vice versa. INTRODUCTION To understand the present-day expression of a given natural group of organisms, one must have a good comprehension of the group's evolutionary history. This paper presents, for the first time, ideas on the evolution and their bearing on the circumscription of the iso­ bryalian moss family Neckeraceae. The generic relationships within the Neckeraceae have not yet been cladistically scrutinized, and global revisions are wanting for some critical genera, such as Neckera Hedw., Porotrichum (Brid.) Hampe, Porotrichodendron Fleisch., and Thamnobryum Nieuwl.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecology of Ectosymbiosis at a Mid-Atlantic Ridge Hydrothermal Vent Site
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Biosystematics and Ecology Jahr/Year: 1996 Band/Volume: 11 Autor(en)/Author(s): Polz Martin F., Cavanaugh M. Artikel/Article: IV. Unusual energy sources. The ecology of ectosymbiosis at a Mid-Atlantic Ridge hydrothermal vent site. 337-352 Ublein, F., Ott, J., Stachowtisch,©Akademie d. Wissenschaften M (Eds), Wien;1996: download Deep-sea unter www.biologiezentrum.at and extreme shallow-water habitats: affinities and adaptations. - Biosystematics and Ecology Series 11:337-352. The ecology of ectosymbiosis at a Mid-Atlantic Ridge hydrothermal vent site M. F. POLZ & C. M. CAVANAUGH Abstract: The phylogenetic approach to microbial ecology has radically altered our view of bacterial diversity in nature. Analysis of ribosomal RNA sequences have revealed an extensive number of previously unrecognized microorganisms. This has led to an expecta- tion of complex microbial communities in nature although virtually nothing is known about their structure. It has been shown previously that in a hydrothermal vent habitat, where food webs depend on prokaryotic primary production, the attached microbial community consists largely of only one bacterial phylogenetic type (phylotype) as indicated by the dominance of a single 16S rRNA sequence. The main part of its population occurs as an ectosymbiont on the dominant animals, the shrimp Rimicaris exoculata, where it grows as a monoculture within the carapace and on the extremities. However, the same bacteria are also the major microbial component of the free-living attached community as determined by quantitative nucleic acid hybridization. The retrieved sequence is distincdy different from all studied chemoautotrophic endo- and ectosymbioses from hydrothermal vents and other sulfidic habitats, which all cluster within the gamma-Proteobacteria.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Usage of Symbiosis and Associated Terminology
    International Journal of Biology; Vol. 5, No. 1; 2013 ISSN 1916-9671 E-ISSN 1916-968X Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Current Usage of Symbiosis and Associated Terminology Bradford D. Martin1,2 & Ernest Schwab1 1 School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA, USA 2 Department of Biology, La Sierra University, Riverside, CA, USA Correspondence: Bradford D. Martin, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA 92350, USA. Tel: 1-909-558-4632. E-mail: [email protected] Received: October 8, 2012 Accepted: November 1, 2012 Online Published: November 29, 2012 doi:10.5539/ijb.v5n1p32 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijb.v5n1p32 Abstract Confusion has afflicted the definition of symbiosis for over 130 years. Despite the lack of discussion in recent times, the usage of symbiosis has evolved and appears to be stabilizing to broader interpretations. Current usage of symbiosis and its associated terminology in 10 current general biology (GB) and 10 general ecology (GE) textbooks is presented. The restrictive definition (i.e. symbiosis = mutualism) has essentially disappeared. All GB textbooks (100%) surveyed used an explicit or implicit “de Bary” definition of symbiosis (i.e. mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism), while only 40% of GE textbooks did the same. General ecology textbooks also included 30% defining symbiosis to constitute all species interactions and 30% that completely avoided usage of the term. When combining GB and GE textbooks to analyze symbiotic usage, 85% defined mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism as symbiotic interactions. Also, 70% considered a symbiosis to be a species interaction that is “intimate,” with 45% of those both “intimate and constant.” Unfortunately, only 5% used the terms ecto-/endosymbiosis, which help discern intimacy and constancy in species interactions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Community Perspective on the Concept of Marine Holobionts
    1 A community perspective on the concept of 2 marine holobionts: current status, challenges, 3 and future directions 4 5 The Holomarine working group*: Simon M. Dittami†, Enrique Arboleda, Jean-Christophe 6 Auguet, Arite Bigalke, Enora Briand, Paco Cárdenas, Ulisse Cardini, Johan Decelle, Aschwin H. 7 Engelen, Damien Eveillard, Claire M.M. Gachon, Sarah M. Griffiths, Tilmann Harder, Ehsan 8 Kayal, Elena Kazamia, Francois H. Lallier, Mónica Medina, Ezequiel M. Marzinelli, Teresa 9 Morganti, Laura Núñez Pons, Soizic Prado, José Pintado Valverde, Mahasweta Saha, Marc- 10 André Selosse, Derek Skillings, Willem Stock, Shinichi Sunagawa, Eve Toulza, Alexey 11 Vorobev, Catherine Leblanc†, and Fabrice Not† 12 13 † Corresponding authors: Simon M Dittami ([email protected]), Catherine Leblanc 14 ([email protected]), and Fabrice Not ([email protected]) 15 Simon M. Dittami, [email protected], Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Integrative 16 Biology of Marine Models (LBI2M), Station Biologique de Roscoff, 29680 Roscoff, France 17 Enrique Arboleda, [email protected], Sorbonne Université, CNRS, FR2424, Station 18 Biologique de Roscoff, 29680 Roscoff, France 19 Jean-Christophe Auguet, [email protected], MARBEC, Université de Montpellier, 20 CNRS, IFREMER, IRD, Montpellier, France 21 Arite Bigalke, [email protected], Institute for Inorganic and Analytical Chemistry, 22 Bioorganic Analytics, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Lessingstrasse 8, D-07743 Jena, 23 Germany 24 Enora Briand, [email protected],
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Fungus-Growing Termites and Their Mutualistic Fungal Symbionts
    The evolution of fungus-growing termites and their mutualistic fungal symbionts Duur K. Aanen†‡, Paul Eggleton§, Corinne Rouland-Lefe` vre¶, Tobias Guldberg-Frøslevʈ, Søren Rosendahlʈ, and Jacobus J. Boomsma† †Department of Population Ecology, Zoological Institute, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; §Entomology Department, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom; ¶Laboratoire d’Ecophysiologie des Inverte´bre´s, University of Paris-XII-Val de Marne, 61, Avenue du Ge´ne´ral de Gaulle, 94010 Cre´teil Cedex, France; and ʈDepartment of Mycology, Botanical Institute, Øster Farimagsgade 2D, 1353 Copenhagen, Denmark Edited by Charles D. Michener, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, and approved September 5, 2002 (received for review May 24, 2002) We have estimated phylogenies of fungus-growing termites and genus Termitomyces [tribe Termitomyceteae (Ju¨lich) Singer, their associated mutualistic fungi of the genus Termitomyces using family Tricholomataceae Roze, Basidiomycotina]. The fungus Bayesian analyses of DNA sequences. Our study shows that the helps the termites to degrade the plant-derived material (e.g., symbiosis has a single African origin and that secondary domes- wood, dry grass, and leaf litter) on which they live (8). It grows tication of other fungi or reversal of mutualistic fungi to a free- on a special structure in the nest, the fungus comb, maintained living state has not occurred. Host switching has been frequent, by the termites through continuous addition of predigested plant especially at the lower taxonomic levels, and nests of single termite substrate while the older comb material is consumed (15). species can have different symbionts. Data are consistent with The Macrotermitinae have been divided into 11 taxonomically horizontal transmission of fungal symbionts in both the ancestral well supported genera and Ϸ330 species (ref.
    [Show full text]
  • Myrmecophile Insecta Associated with Some Ant Species (Hymenoptera-Formicidae) in Egypt
    MYRMECOPHILE INSECTA ASSOCIATED WITH SOME ANT SPECIES (HYMENOPTERA-FORMICIDAE) IN EGYPT REDA F. BAKR, HASSAN H. FADL, RAWDA M. BADAWY AND MOSTAFA R. SHARAF Entomology Det., Fac. Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. ABSTRACT Studies of myremcophile insects associated with the Egyptian ant fauna indicate considerable diversity and variability. Thirteen insect orders have been recorded, Coleoptera, Homoptera, Heteroptera, Collembola, Isoptera, Diptera, Thysanura, Psocoptera, Lepidoptera, Dermaptera, Blattoidea, Hymenoptera, Embioptera. Thirty families have been recorded, Lyctidae, Lathridiidae, Anthicidae, Carabidae, Chrysomelidae, Coccinellidae, Cryptophagidae, Cucujidae, Curculionidae, Dermestidae, Elateridae, Histeridae, Mycetophagidae, Nitidulidae, Staphylinidae, Tenebrionidae, Lepismatidae, Labiduridae, Sminthuridae, Entomobryidae, Hodotermitidae, Aphididae, Coccidae, Jassidae, Membracidae, Anthocoridae, Cydinidae, Lygaeidae, Miridae, Polyphagidae. INTRODUCTION In spite of the aggressive behavior of ants, they are hostile to many organisms that can live in or near their nests and create symbiotic association with them; these organisms are termed as “Myrmecophiles”. Many of them depending to a great degree on the ant society during a part or all of their life cycle. These myrmecophiles include a great diversity of arthropod groups like beetles, mites, springtails, flies, bugs, wasps, spiders, pseudoscorpionds, woodlice, booklice, cockroaches and others. Wherever ants are found, intimate symbiotic relationships are established
    [Show full text]