Search for: All records

Arizona is home to many mosquito species, some of which are known vectors of infectious diseases that harm both humans and animals. Here, we provide an overview of the 56 mosquito species that have been identified in the State to date, but also discuss their known feeding preference and the diseases they can (potentially) transmit to humans and animals. This list is unlikely to be complete for several reasons: (i) Arizona’s mosquitoes are not systematically surveyed in many areas, (ii) surveillance efforts often target specific species of interest, and (iii) doubts have been raised by one or more scientists about the accuracy of some collection records, which has been noted in this article. There needs to be an integrated and multifaceted surveillance approach that involves entomologists and epidemiologists, but also social scientists, wildlife ecologists, ornithologists, representatives from the agricultural department, and irrigation and drainage districts. This will allow public health officials to (i) monitor changes in current mosquito species diversity and abundance, (ii) monitor the introduction of new or invasive species, (iii) identify locations or specific populations that are more at risk for mosquito-borne diseases, and (iv) effectively guide vector control. 

Parasitic plants often attack multiple host species with unique defenses, physiology, and ecology. Reproductive phenology and vectors of parasitic plant genes (pollinators and dispersers) can contribute to or erode reproductive isolation of populations infecting different host species. We asked whether desert mistletoe, Phoradendron californicum (Santalaceae tribe Visceae syn. Viscaceae), differs ecologically across its dominant leguminous hosts in ways affecting reproductive isolation. Parasite flowering phenology on one host species (velvet mesquite, Prosopis velutina) differed significantly from that on four others, and phenology was not predicted by host species phenology or host individual. Comparing mistletoe populations on mesquite and another common host species (catclaw acacia, Senegalia greggii) for which genetically distinct host races are known, we tested for differences in interactions with vectors by quantifying pollinator visitation, reward production, pollen receipt, and fruit consumption. Mistletoes on mesquite produced more pollinator rewards per flower (1.86 times the nectar and 1.92 times the pollen) and received ~ 2 more pollen grains per flower than those on acacia. Mistletoes on the two host species interacted with distinct but overlapping pollinator communities, and pollinator taxa differed in visitation according to host species. Yet, mistletoes of neither host showed uniformly greater reproductive success. Fruit set (0.70) did not differ by host, and the rates of fruit ripening and removal differed in contrasting ways. Altogether, we estimate strong but asymmetric pre-zygotic isolating barriers between mistletoes on the two hosts. These host-associated differences in reproduction have implications for interactions with mutualist vectors and population genetic structure. 

Abstract It is a critical time to reflect on the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) science to date as well as envision what research can be done right now with NEON (and other) data and what training is needed to enable a diverse user community. NEON became fully operational in May 2019 and has pivoted from planning and construction to operation and maintenance. In this overview, the history of and foundational thinking around NEON are discussed. A framework of open science is described with a discussion of how NEON can be situated as part of a larger data constellation—across existing networks and different suites of ecological measurements and sensors. Next, a synthesis of early NEON science, based on >100 existing publications, funded proposal efforts, and emergent science at the very first NEON Science Summit (hosted by Earth Lab at the University of Colorado Boulder in October 2019) is provided. Key questions that the ecology community will address with NEON data in the next 10 yr are outlined, from understanding drivers of biodiversity across spatial and temporal scales to defining complex feedback mechanisms in human–environmental systems. Last, the essential elements needed to engage and support a diverse and inclusive NEON user community are highlighted: training resources and tools that are openly available, funding for broad community engagement initiatives, and a mechanism to share and advertise those opportunities. NEON users require both the skills to work with NEON data and the ecological or environmental science domain knowledge to understand and interpret them. This paper synthesizes early directions in the community’s use of NEON data, and opportunities for the next 10 yr of NEON operations in emergent science themes, open science best practices, education and training, and community building.