Volatile organic compounds (VOC) are chemical markers used by bacteria and plants for various reasons. Of particular note is the ability of these VOCs to attract bees to flowers to promote pollination. Like many organic molecules these have been proposed to be susceptible to degradation in the presence of ozone. The article Ozone Is Making Flowers Smell Different to Bees published on Smithsonian.com summarizes a recent article published in New Phytologist.
 |
| More interesting to look at than an experimental apparatus |
The article from Smithsonian.com retains most of the core information from the original paper even making a note to cite the initial study along side its summary. VOCs from black mustard plants were subjected to various amounts of ozone and the composition of the mixture was analyzed by mass spectroscopy. The initial study found up to a 30% decrease in certain VOCs upon exposure to ozone. This decrease was most pronounced at higher exposure to ozone going from 0, 80, and 120ppb ozone and as the distance increased from the source of VOCs 1.5, 3, and 4.5m. In particular the molecules anisaldehyde, p-cymene, phenol, and various monoterpenes were found to decrease upon exposure ozone. The exact decrease of each was related to the rate at which each reacts with ozone. Benzaldhyde was found to have increased by about 15%. The particular chemicals are generalized as "scent molecules" in the Smithsonian article.
The Smithsonian article ends by explaining the sources of ozone, citing several articles that imply growing industrial nations such as China and migration of greenhouse gases between continents is responsible for these changes. The article however makes which a big misunderstanding here. This paper does not suggest their experimental results are actually occurring to any significant amount on wild flowers. The paper's conclusions are based solely on experiments conducted in a laboratory without any studies down on natural systems.
Overall the Smithsonian article does a great job at summarizing the original paper's techniques and results without going into extensive technical detail. It however extends the conclusions of this paper to systems beyond the scope of is reasonable for the the current research presented.
Overall the Smithsonian article does a great job at summarizing the original paper's techniques and results without going into extensive technical detail. It however extends the conclusions of this paper to systems beyond the scope of is reasonable for the the current research presented.
This is really interesting. I agree with you, experiments need to be conducted in natural systems too, considering that ozone pollution from other countries like China is accumulating in the U.S. as well.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, but there are a few things I think are worth addressing. Firstly, I think this is a good example of somebody making a problem so they have a solution to find. I understand that ground pollution can increase ground-level ozone levels and I also understand that ground-level pollution can drift from countries and even continents, but was there in initial event that caused scientists to do this study? Ozone destroying VOCs certainly has the potential to cause a problem and I think the article did a good job on not over-hyping this, but there is definitely not enough scientific evidence from the field to cause concern about ground-level ozone affecting our plants and bees.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, will ground-level pollution actually be a problem for our country's major agricultural locations? I haven't read any of the cited sources about migrating ground-level pollution, but I would definitely be interested in hearing more about what parts of the country are hit the hardest by this migrating pollution.
Good post, I think the article does a good job explaining how ozone affects VOCs and how this can negatively affect bees pollination preferences but I agree with Grayson in that they do not mention if this is actually being observed in nature. While this type of air pollution is an issue they don't cite any evidence of this currently happening to give significant negative effects.
ReplyDeleteGreat summary and analysis of the articles, Grayson. I agree with the comments already made above. When reading "New Phytologist" article, there is no mention of any precedence for this study. The article immediately jumps into an explanation of VOCs, types of ozone and how flowers and bees interact. It seems too isolated and not applicable to the typical conditions that would accompany this possible occurrence. I find that the Smithsonian Article is written more for entertainment and does not discuss any of the pitfalls of the paper. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing in that it sensationalizes a scientific topic and gets readers interested, despite the over-generalization of the topic.
ReplyDeleteGreat overview! I thought the smithsonian article did a good job in finding the balance between reporting the facts and appealing to the audience (which includes some sensationalization and simplification of explanations). The main thing I thought they could have explained better was the distinction between the "good ozone" (ozone layer) and the harmful "ground-level ozone". Since their magazine is geared towards the general public, their reporting of the detriments of increased ozone may be very confusing to people that have been told only of the benefits of the "good ozone".
ReplyDeleteI have great interest in agriculture, so I really enjoyed this article! I think that the Smithsonian article did a fair job of approaching the subject and giving it publicity. However, I agree with previous comments made about the viability of the issue at hand without natural environment monitoring of the effects of ozone on floral VOCs.
ReplyDeleteWith the changing climate and the continued introduction of harmful pesticides into the natural environment, life has becoming increasingly difficult for the honeybee and for other pollinators that support the agricultural community. I believe that the "New Phytologist" article did excellent work opening the issue and should continue their work in natural environments. If there is a possibility that ozone is indeed adding to the rapidly increasing rates of bee deaths throughout the world, then this topic is very worth studying. In fact, if ozone is causing diversion of pollinators (that do survive pesticide contamination) from flowers/crops, this becomes a vital agricultural (and sustainable food!) issue. Thanks for the read!
I agree with you, Grayson. The article did a good job of summarizing the paper, but like many of the others posting, I too think that this study is too preliminary to be suggestive of a true threat to an agricultural system. Follow up experiments in natural systems are necessary in order to potentially quantify a threat.
ReplyDeleteInteresting topic and good summary. I agree with you that the article from Smithsonian.com should have conducted some experiments or obtained data from natural system to prove their point of view.
ReplyDeleteI've always been fascinated by how global transport phenomena can have measurable effects on local biological systems; and this is potentially an example of that. Like the other commentators, I agree that it would be interesting to see how these interactions occur in the natural environment. In a quantitative sense, it would be useful to see the threshold for ozone concentrations affecting bee behavior (bee-havior if you will) in comparison to regional and global ozone distributions, to see if this is really a pressing concern given current conditions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the others that it would be beneficial to know the motivation behind this study. Although I think the findings are interesting, I think this needs to be studied in a larger, more realistic environment. One important factor is the growth of the human population and built environment, which likely has a impact on ground-level ozone distribution. There are many other factors currently impacting bee populations (eg: climate change and colony collapse). It would also be important to take these into account. Overall, in order to apply this to a real world setting, which I believe is necessary to make it relevant, many other things need to be understood including other impacts on bee communities and the spread of ground-level ozone pollution.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the interesting article and your summary and analysis of it. I'll echo what others have already said. I, too, would like to know if observations/data from the natural environment supports the findings. As you have pointed out, though the Smithsonian article does a good job summarizing the paper and its findings, it does extend its conclusions a bit too far without any evidence of the significant negative effects being observed in nature. However, I did find the article to be very readable and engaging -- I can definitely see it getting people outside the field interested in the topic.
ReplyDeleteGreat choice on both articles! As others already mentioned, the article seems preliminary but with great potential given that we are currently under a "bee crisis", and we, as humans, keep emitting all sorts of pollutants to our atmosphere. The Smithsonian Article did a great job at keeping the science but making it readable to the community without sensationalism (or at least keeping it at its minimum). Although I do have to disagree when you mentioned that they were "making conclusions beyond their scope". I saw this more as that minimum sensationalism that seems to appear on all types of popular media these days, and it may be there ideal way to get the community concerned about these types of issues.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting article! However, I wonder how relevant this is to real-world application. The reason is that the concentrations of ozone they used (0, 80, 120 ppb) seem high. Ambient concentrations of ozone I would expect in the 30-50 ppb range.
ReplyDeletel
ReplyDelete