Tag Archives: Ecologic

Government reneges on ‘no fracking’ promise Updated for 2026





The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389896

Government reneges on ‘no fracking’ promise Updated for 2026





The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389896

Government reneges on ‘no fracking’ promise Updated for 2026





The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389896

Government reneges on ‘no fracking’ promise Updated for 2026





The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389896

Government reneges on ‘no fracking’ promise Updated for 2026





The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389896

Government reneges on ‘no fracking’ promise Updated for 2026





The Government has reneged on its commitments to ban fracking near drinking water zones by amending the Infrastructure Bill at its final stage in the House of Lords today.

The change is contained in a sneaky loophole that most politicans entirely missed – but was spotted by an alert Friends of the Earth campaigner.

Most of the wording of Labour’s amendments, which prohibited fracking in national parks, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, ‘groundwater source protection areas’ and ‘areas of outstanding natural beauty’, remain in the current version of the Bill, Section 4A.

But instead of specifying the designations of the areas that fall under protection, the Government is leaving that to be specified in regulations in a Statutory Instrument to be issued by the Secretary of State before July 2015 – well after the general election, due in May.

This gives the Government the opportunity to weaken or fudge the definitions to the point where the protections become a dead letter – and it’s hard to see any other reason for legislating in this convoluted way.

Broken promises

Reacting to the Government’s late amendment, Friends of the Earth‘s Energy Campaigner Donna Hume, who first spotted the loophole, said: “The Government has U-Turned on its commitment to enforce regulatory conditions that would have introduced common sense measures to protect drinking water from controversial fracking.

“The Government seems determined to make fracking happen whatever the cost and people will be staggered that risky fracking will be allowed in areas that provide one third of our drinking water.

“Ministers must follow the lead of Wales, Scotland, France, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and New York State by putting a stop to fracking and instead focus on renewables and cutting energy waste.” 

In the Commons, the Government accepted the Labour Party amendment that banned fracking within groundwater source protection zones 1-3; the area around aquifers that safeguards drinking water. These collectively cover some 15% of the country – including many areas with potentially oil and gas bearing rock.

There’s only one answer now – defeat the Tories!

The ‘supplementary provisions’ in Section 4B specify that the Secretary of State must, in the statutory instrument, specify the descriptions of areas which are ‘protected groundwater source areas, and ‘other protected areas’ for the purposes of section 4A.

The statutory instrument will have to be laid before both the Commons and the Lords, and approved by a vote in each house. But if the Conservatives are re-elected with an overall majority in the May elections, they could in effect nullify the protections altogether.

Labour’s shadow energy minister Tom Greatrex stated last week that in return for the support of Labour MPs for the Infrastructure Bill as a whole, and for not pressing the demands for a fracking moratorium, demanded by the Environmental Audit Committee, the details of its amendment were not up for further negotiation:

“Let me make it absolutely clear that our new clause is all or nothing; it cannot be cherry-picked”, he said. “All the conditions need to be in place before we can be absolutely confident that any shale extraction can happen.”

But as the Bill will not return to the Commons, and the Conservatives enjoy an overall majority in the Lords, there is in fact nothing at all that Greatrex or his Labour colleagues can do about it.

So now we know – if the Tories win the election, we can expect ‘fracking everywhere’ – national parks, groundwater zones, nature sites, whatever. Nowhere will be safe.

 


 

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




389896

Invaders in plant-pollinator communities Updated for 2026

The introduction of a new species to an ecological community can initiate a chain of events that results in a significant change to the community’s composition. For instance, the introduction of a pollinator species can facilitate the colonization of new plants that rely on the new pollinator for reproduction. Conversely, a pollinator species may drive down the population levels of certain species—e.g., if it aggressively robs a plant of its nectar without pollinating it.

How do communities respond to these invasions, and what lessons can be learned about the underlying properties of ecological communities in response to such invasions? In “Plant-pollinator community network response to species invasions depends on both invader and community characteristics,” the authors investigate the relationships between invasive species and community characteristics in shaping a plant-pollinator community’s response to an invasion.

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) on invasive plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides). Photo credit: Laura Russo

Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) on invasive plumeless thistle (Carduus acanthoides). Photo credit: Laura Russo

The study makes use of a computational model that was originally used to investigate the process by which stable plant-pollinator communities form. The use of such models is attractive for two main reasons. First, a model that recapitulates real-world behavior offers insight into the mechanisms that operate in nature; second, computational models allow rapid and widespread exploration that would be time-consuming, costly, and in some cases impractical to perform in nature. As such, computational models are well-positioned to speed up the process of scientific discovery by providing novel and informative predictions and insights into the properties of the systems being modeled.

The model itself is used to generate simulated plant-pollinator communities with properties drawn from the empirical literature. Interactions may be true mutualisms (beneficial to both species) or detrimental to one species and beneficial to another (e.g., insects that visit flowers for nectar without pollinating the plant and plants that trick pollinators without providing them with nectar rewards). Colonization or maintenance of a species in the community is possible if its beneficial interactions outweigh its detrimental interactions; otherwise, the species goes extinct.

The model predicts that invasive species with properties that are very different from the native species in the region (e.g., supergeneralists that benefit the species with which they interact) are more likely to drive significant changes in the number of species colonizing the community. When an invasive species increases the species richness of the invaded community, there is a corresponding increase in the community’s nestedness and a decrease in the community’s connectance. Nestedness is a measure that accounts for the tendency of the community to be composed of (1) generalist species that interact with many species and (2) specialist species that interact with a subset of generalists. Connectance is the number of observed interactions relative to the number of possible interactions. This predicted divergence in nestedness and connectance is in agreement

with recent empirical work, and stands in contrast to the correlation of these two measures when considering the process by which communities stabilize.

This finding is relevant to the active discussion among researchers concerning the relationship between nestedness and connectance. By investigating the differing behavior of these properties in the context of species invasion, this paper supports the argument that nestedness and connectance are complementary properties that provide a more accurate picture of a community together than either measure provides alone. These findings are most strongly supported in the context of invaders that increase the number of species colonizing the community. As these invaders tend to participate in many species-species interactions, this paper also highlights the important role of generalist species in shaping the structure and dynamics of ecological communities.

WMO: 2014 was hottest year on record Updated for 2026





As many were predicting towards the end of the year, 2014 has proved to be the hottest year on record, according to datasets released by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

But the record was broken by a slim margin: after consolidating leading international datasets, WMO noted that the difference in temperature between the warmest years is only a few hundredths of a degree.

The next hottest years were 2010 and 2005, and these were only 0.02C and 0.03C cooler – less than the margin of uncertainty.

“The overall warming trend is more important than the ranking of an individual year”, said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Analysis of the datasets indicates that 2014 was nominally the warmest on record, although there is very little difference between the three hottest years.”

More significant, he says, is the longer term picture that has developed post-2000: “Fourteen of the fifteen hottest years have all been this century. We expect global warming to continue, given that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the increasing heat content of the oceans are committing us to a warmer future.”

WMO released the global temperature analysis in advance of climate change negotiations to be held in Geneva from 8 to 13 February. These talks will help to pave the way for an agreement on action to be adopted by the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change next December in Paris.

The oceans are the main climate drivers

Around 93% of the excess energy trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and other human activities ends up in the oceans. Therefore, the heat content of the oceans is key to understanding the climate system. Global sea-surface temperatures reached record levels in 2014.

“It is notable that the high 2014 temperatures occurred in the absence of a fully developed El Niño”, says WMO, noting that El Niño is a meteorological condition that occurs when warmer than average sea-surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific combine, in a self-reinforcing loop, with atmospheric pressure systems.

This has an overall warming impact on the climate: blocking the upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich deep ocean waters along the South American Pacific coast; bringing heavy rains to normally arid coastal regions; and bringing drought conditions to much of southeast Asia. High temperatures in 1998 – the hottest year before the 21st century – occurred during a strong El-Niño year.

“In 2014, record-breaking heat combined with torrential rainfall and floods in many countries and drought in some others – consistent with the expectation of a changing climate”, said Mr Jarraud.

“Strong weather and climate services are now more necessary than ever before to increase resilience to disasters and help countries and communities adapt to a fast changing and, in many places, less hospitable climate.”

A synthesis of multiple datasets

Average global air temperatures over land and sea surface in 2014 were 0.57 °C above the long-term average of 14.00°C (57.2 °F) for the 1961-1990 reference period.

By comparison, temperatures were 0.55 °C (1.00°F) above average in 2010 and 0.54°C (0.98°F) above average in 2005,  according to WMO calculations. The estimated margin of uncertainty was 0.10°C (0.18°F).

Global average temperatures are also estimated using reanalysis systems, which use the most advanced weather forecasting systems to combine many sources of data to provide a complementary analysis approaches.

WMO in particular uses data from the reanalysis produced by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, which also ranks 2014 as among the four warmest.

The WMO analysis is based, amongst others,  on three complementary datasets maintained by the Hadley Centre of the UK’s Met Office and the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, United Kingdom (combined); the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Centre; and the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) operated by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The final report on the Status of the Climate in 2014, with full details of regional trends and extreme events, will be available in March 2015.

 

 




389777

Frugivores and seed dispersal Updated for 2026

Everyone who likes to spend some time in nature, or who has trees at home, knows that several animals love to feed on fruits. Figs, tomatoes, peppers, guavas, mangos, bananas, and many other delicacies are harvested by frugivores that range from tiny bats to huge elephants.

Those animals render the plants a service known as seed dispersal: in other words, they carry their seeds away and so increase the chances of their offspring surviving attacks by natural enemies, establishing, and colonizing new sites. This myriad of interactions forms a tangled web of frugivores and fruits, which is vital to maintain and regenerate forests and other natural ecosystems. Some frugivores seem to be more important than others to keep those webs functioning. In our study “Keystone species in seed dispersal networks are mainly determined by dietary specialization”, focused on bats and birds, the main groups of seed dispersers in the Neotropics, we found out that, even though animals with other kinds of primary diets participate in seed dispersal networks, specialized frugivores are the keystones of those systems and hold them together. This finding may help plan for the conservation and restoration of seed dispersal in degraded areas, and also provide insights on how to accelerate the regeneration of tropical rainforests and savannas.

Marco A.R. Mello and co-authors

barro colorado island - bat-fruit network (marco mello) 2 barro colorado island - bat-fruit network (marco mello)

January Cover Updated for 2026

I hope you haven’t missed that Oikos from 2015 changes cover each month! The photo for each issue is from one of the papers. The January cover photo was taken by David W. Inouye. The paper in questions is “Phenological shifts and the fate of mutualizes” by Nicole Rafferty and co-workers.

OIKOS_124_01_COVER-1.indd

Here’s David’s description of the photo:

A male Broadtailed Hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus) visiting a flower of dwarf larkspur (Delphinium nuttallianum) near the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, Gothic, Colorado, USA. The hummingbirds are common at this site, and the larkspur flowers can carpet meadows early in the summer; they are an important nectar source for the birds at the beginning of the breeding season. The male hummingbirds have a slot between their first two primary feathers (visible in the photo), which makes a loud trilling noise as they fly. Nikon D200e camera with a Nikkor 70-200mm lens at 155mm, Nikon R1 flash, iso 250, 1/250 sec, f20.