Brainfood: Cassava diversity, Landrace diversity double, Soybean oil quality, Cucurbit domestication, Carrot colours, Pharaonic emmer, Teosinte RILs, Chinese pigs, Brazilian apples, Teosinte diversity, Forests & diets, Forest productivity, Agricultural productivity

One Reply to “Brainfood: Cassava diversity, Landrace diversity double, Soybean oil quality, Cucurbit domestication, Carrot colours, Pharaonic emmer, Teosinte RILs, Chinese pigs, Brazilian apples, Teosinte diversity, Forests & diets, Forest productivity, Agricultural productivity”

  1. Wood productivity in Amazonian forests
    This complex analysis troubles me. It notes that the: “… variation in wood density being the most important variable in controlling patterns of biomass in these forests”.
    The clear implication is that, in some way unspecified, wood density in diverse ecosystems enhances ecosystem functioning. To me, this collates two different evolutionary pathways. One the authors recognise: “Host ranges of most tree pests and pathogens show a clear phylogenetic signal, with co-occurring, closely related plant lineages being more vulnerable to similar natural enemies than distant relatives.” That we already know – going back at least to Gillett, J.B. (1962) Pest pressure, an underestimated factor in evolution. Systematics Association Publications 4, 37-46. [Gillet was once my boss in the East African Herbarium]. Taxonomic diversity is a disease-escape mechanism in an otherwise benign environment (warm, wet, whatever) but has no obvious evolutionary relation to ecosystem function in vegetation.
    The second evolutionary pathway is also simply Darwinian, evinced at the level of individual species. Masses of diverse woody Dicot species in a warm, wet environment have the same problem: how to stop their dead biomass (heartwood) – needed for supporting the canopy – from rotting. The otherwise benign environment for growth is exactly non-benign for dead wood – the main component of tropical dicot trees.
    The common evolutionary response – recognised by anyone using tropical wood – is to pack the dead wood with anti-rot chemicals. This gives us all those rosewoods, ebonies, purplehearts and the rest coveted by cabinetmakers. Thus the resultant high wood density is a direct evolutionary response of many separate species to rot, rather than the response of the ecosystem to try to function in somehow `better’.
    (The recognition of the rottability of Dicot wood also allows us to explain buttresses – which are living sapwood and therefore far less rottable than heartwood. Monocots – palms, bamboos – are all `sapwood’ and therefore less in danger; some dicot mangroves, living in very threatening conditions, produce spare parts in the form of renewable living prop-roots).
    The review (70+ authors) concludes that: “In particular, this study provides evidence that evolutionary diversity is weakly, but significantly, related to ecosystem functioning at large scales in natural ecosystems.”
    Far simpler to say that in species-diverse wet tropical forests woody species must protect themselves from rot by packing their dense, dead, hardwood with anti-rot chemicals. This has very little (or nothing) to do with the relation between taxonomic diversity and ecosystem functioning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *