It’s quiet here today as I realized the journal article I brought from home is actually largely irrelevant, loaded with theoretical mathmatics and ergo, ripe for the recycling bin. I’m also flat out preparing for my trip to Coastal NSW on the 20th (flying out at 6.40am ^^..^^) so it’s nice to take a break from arranging permits and getting identification books sorted out.
.
So, this week’s plant of the week is another member of the pea family (Fabaceae), one of the few native peas found in New Zealand, apart from the kowhai (Sophora spp.) and native brooms (Carmichaelia spp.).

This plant is really striking, with beautiful red flowers that apparently look something like the beak of the native Kaka (Nestor meridionalis), hence the common name.

Kakabeak flowers look remarkably similar to the other pea that I have profiled Sturt’s Desert Pea, that the latter was originally classified in the Clianthus genus before being reassigned to Swainsona. Kakabeak is now the only remaining species within the Clianthus genus.

Despite being a popular garden cultivar, Kakabeak is actually a threatened native species. It occurs naturally in the East Cape/Hawkes Bay area, where only about 200 wild individuals survive. Most of the garden varieties that people have are clones or cultivars, which means that the genetic diversity of the species is actually far smaller than what would be expected from the number of individuals alive. In the wild, Kakabeak is threatened by goat, deer, pig and possum browsing.

Much of the work I’m doing for my Masters focuses on rates of molecular evolution in plants, specifically neutral; molecular evolution, that is, areas of the genome that are not under any strong selection and are ‘free’ to gather mutations without constraint.

I’m specifically looking at the effect of environmental conditions on those rates, and without giving too much away, rainfall.

Anyway, a recent article by some New Zealand researchers, including Dr. Craig Millar from my department at the Univeristy of Auckland, presents some very interesting data within the field that I’m working in, and it’s seriously cool…

Tuataras are ancient animals, in that they are the only living representative of a lineage of reptiles (the Sphenodontia) that emerged early during the age of the dinosaurs, some 220 million years ago. Since then, they have undergone very little morphological evolution, hence their designation as a ‘living fossil’. They are poikilothermic (cold blooded), they have very low metabolic rates, they grow very slowly, and they reproduce even slower. As a result, and in line with their minimal morphological change, it could be expected that they have a relatively low rate of neutral molecular evolution.

Well, apparently not. Using ancient and modern Tuatara bones, the authors were able to show that the rate of tuatara mitochondrial DNA change isn’t even similar to warm blooded, rapidly breeding animals which have changed their appearance and body structures relatively rapidly over time, but much much faster. Amazing!

This has two important consequences. Firstly, it shows that rates of change to DNA aren’t necessarily matched by rates in morphology or appearance – an animal like the tuatara has changed very little in appearance over the last 220 million years, compared to say a Moa, or a Horse or Cave Lion, which have, relatively speaking, changed very rapidly in the intervening years. Moreover, and more importantly for me: the rate of molecular evolution isn’t necessarily bound to environmental conditions such as temperature, or to life history characteristics like generation time, or even endogenous factors such as metabolic rate.

This field just gets more and more interesting every day! O.o

Article:

This week’s plant of the week is a New Zealand native that many people do not recognise as such. It’s really really common and has been planted as an ornamental all over the place, especially on some of the newer streets where they have finally realised that planting exotics is not that good when you have so many beautiful natives to put in.

Those who deride the New Zealand Government’s practice of growing large surpluses instead of introducing tax cuts often blame it for the ‘exodus’ of workers to Australia. Well, it seems that the new Australian Labor Government is looking at adopting very similar practices over the ditch, at about the same time our own Labour Government finally bows to the pressure and promises tax cuts here. The irony of timing is certainly rich.There’s almost a zen like coalescence of language:

This week’s plant of the week isn’t actually a single species, but rather a group of plants that have become endangered in New Zealand – the representatives of the Loranthaceae family, or mistletoes.

Mistletoes are found throughout the world, and it often comes as a surprise that we have a number (8) of native species here, so absent as they are from public consciousness. Granted, they are certainly more well known in the South Island, where they are more common, but they are generally so rare nowadays, that they are almost unknown by most Kiwis. During my field trip last year to Australia, I couldn’t help but notice the huge amounts of mistletoes there, both in terms of sheer numbers and the number of species, even in the driest regions of the Outback: In any given area, at least one tree had a mistletoe growing into it; in some areas, every tree had one, often more massive than the tree itself.

Like all mistletoes, the New Zealand species are hemi-parasitic. Mistletoe seeds are generally spread by birds, and germinate on host tree branches, often with their own complete portion of fertiliser. From there the seed grows into the branch of the host plant, tapping into the host’s vascular system to get access to sugars, nutrients and water. Over time, the mistletoe will grow and begin to photosynthesise on its own, relying less on the host plant for sugars, and more for its water and nutrient requirements. Like all parasites, mistletoes have negative effects on their hosts, and can severely restrict growth and reproduction. However, they are also recognised as a keystone species in most ecosystems, providing food and nesting sites for a number of animals, particularly birds.

Peraxilla tetrapetala
Peraxilla colensoi
Peraxilla tetrapetala on Beech in the Southern Alps.

Talk about scoring an own goal. Just when you thought there might be some rational debate about crime rates about to begin, Annette King, who’s normally really onto it, has to come out with this doozy:She said the hot summer and full moon were to blame for the recent “unusual events” that had created mad January in south Auckland.

Annette, despite what you may have read in the Herald, residents of Manukau City are not actually werewolves. There are a lot of Maori and Pacific Islanders, but the last I heard they didn’t transform into quasi-mortal ghouls on a lunar cycle. What was I saying about the liberal left having a good message, but sounding like total morons in the delivery? Case. In. Point.We are in desperate need of rational discussion about crime in this country. That doesn’t just go for crime rates, but also the causes of crime and the need to address ways of dealing with criminals. At the moment the entire discourse of crime and crime prevention is the exact opposite. It is not helped either, by John Key’s populist but visionless comments on youth crime, which serve only to increase the hype and fervour around crime. The last thing we need is hypeOf course, the New Zealand Herald is nothing but. There isn’t an iota of rationality in those esteemed pages, except for the odd opinion piece form Colin James, John Armstrong, or Tapu Misa, but judging from the standard of argument, not to mention spelling and grammar, in ‘Your Views’, they’re just pitching to the crowds, I guess.

If Middle New Zealand stopped baying for blood and tax cuts long enough they would realise that homicide numbers haven’t actually increased over the last 5-10 years. Yes, there have been an unusual number this month but even that is not out of the ordinary. The same thing happened in 2005, and the Herald had the same shrill chicken little response. Are we that stupid to fall for the hysteria again? Granted, blaming it on the full moon isn’t very smart, but neither is jumping to the conclusion that we’re turning into a country of knife-wielding maniacs.

Yes, we do have increases in violent youth crime in some areas (particularly South Auckland), and our rate of violent child abuse requires immediate action; both need addressing, but specifically by new ideas. A knee jerk reaction which includes harsher sentencing is not going to bring those rates down. Sure, it makes us feel better, it satisfies our thirst for base vengeance, but in the long run its only going to make the problem worse. Are we surprised that prisoners reoffend? You take someone convicted of an anti-social act, you lock them up with other anti socials in an anti-social environment, and then release them back into the community and expect them not to d0 it again?

In their second term, the Labour government introduced harsher sentencing for violent criminals in response to public calls for a ‘victim-focussed’ justice system. This sounds like a crazy idea, but the way that criminals are treated, especially once they have been imprisoned, should have nothing whatsoever to do with the desires of the victim. If you allow vengeance to infiltrate a justice system, if you allow the need for revenge to dominate how you treat criminals, then you’re just going to end up with more victims; that criminal is going to do the same thing once they get out because we spend our time harping on about how evil they are, rather than trying to fix the problem.

That’s not to say that the victims of crime are not absolutely central to administering justice, criminals need to be made keenly aware of the impacts of their crime, how much misery and hurt and pain they have wrought in their selfish and violent acts – but the treatment of criminals once they have been convicted has nothing to do with the victims. It is our job to deal with criminals in a way that, in the end, reduces the likelihood of their reoffending. That should be the prime objective of the correction system. It shouldn’t be based on anger, or revenge or indignation. It should be based on getting crime rates down, recidivist and non. Sadly, organisations like the Sensible Sentencing Trust seem not to worry about that, and focus more on criminals as ongoing targets of vilification. Its an understandably human response, but it’s all gut, and no head.

It is encouraging to see some moves by the government looking at the causes of crime, specifically social and economic factors. But these things are complex – they are imbedded in economic and social conditions, in drug and alcohol abuse, cultural attitudes towards things like domestic violence. They are they are tied to opportunities, especially economic; and believe it or not most importantly they are tied to personal responsibility, despite the dirtiness of those words to us on the left. People must be made aware that they ultimately decide how they act, and that no crime is committed is made without a conscious choice for which they are ultimately accountable, no matter how desperate their situation. People are not born evil. Evil acts arise partly from circumstances, and ultimately a person’s choice to commit them.

Despite the media frenzy and the folk wisdom and the ‘common sense’, despite the rhetoric from Labour and National, we do not have all the answers. We’re certainly less likely to find them in our current state, baying for blood and boot camps.

Today’s story about plastic bags in the Herald really got me fuming. It is simply unfathomable that 100 BILLION plastic bags are used in the United States every year. It is simply disgusting that less than 1% of these are recycled. It gets even more depressing when you learn that over 12 million barrels of oil are used to produce those bags. Before you can say that that’s just a symptom of the grotesque profligacy of the Land of the Free, it’s not that much better here, with an estimated use of over 1.4 billion bags every year.The problem with plastic bags, other than their quite obvious environmental implications, is that their use is entirely without cost or consequence to the uber-consumers that we have become. They’re free in almost every establishment in this country, except Pak’N'Save; they are not regulated, or taxed. They are a just used and turfed and it means nothing.

What made me most angry, though, was the silver tongue of complacency of Paul curtis, of the Packaging Council of New Zealand:

I’ll tell you what we’d bloody do: we would take a serious look at the consequences of our actions and use an alternative. The “Make a Difference” campaign of Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises has all but failed. Tellers can not be relied upon to gently remind us no to use plastic bags; I have to literally restrain the teller at my local from putting my things into a bag. Moreover, consumers cannot generally be trusted to make a less convenient choice when the more convenient choice is consequence free; the market simply doesn’t work that way. Either vendors need to start charging their customers for plastic bags, and pass the impact of the bags onto consumers, or the industry needs to be regulated and taxed to discourage plastic bag use. Instead, Curtis lulls us into a false sense of security by assuring us that being quietly reminded not to use plastic bags will solve the problem; that thinking twice is better than paying the price.

Anyway, since nothing is likely to happen in this country about this issue, here are my own experiences and tips on plastic bag use:BUY ALTERNATIVES: Cloth and recycled plastic bags, both of which are eminently reuseable, are cheap and reliable. I have had mine for over 6 years and they still work perfectly.

PLAN AHEAD: Make a habit to sit down and make a shopping list, and get your cloth bags out of the pantry or cupboard when you do. Not only will you start to get into the habit of taking them, but you will probably save money: people who use and stick to shopping lists generally spend less money at the supermarket.

DON’T PACK YOUR VEGES OR FRUIT IN PLASTIC: Do you REALLY need to pack each different type of vegetable into a plastic bag? Think about it: 10 types of fruit and veges means ten extra bags – as many again as you would get for your total grocery trip.

BE PREPARED: Keep a cloth bag in your car for small unplanned trips to the supermarket – that was the real killer for me.

REFUSE PLASTIC: If you are asked whether or not you want a plastic bag (which you probably won’t be, but hey), just say no. It’s actually very easy, and it’s one less plastic bag that will end up in the rubbish.

So one semi-regular thing that I thought I would do is write about some plants that I like or come across that are interesting…can’t promise I’ll do one every week, but what they hell. You probably don’t even read this regularly. I’ll mainly do natives, but an exotic every now and then won’t hurt…This week…

Nihinihi – Shore bindweed – Calystegia soldanella

Like all bindweeds, nihinihi belongs to the Convolvulaceae family. Most of the Convolvulaceae, including the Convolvulus genus after which the family is named, are creeping herbaceous vines or prostrate shrubs. Nihinihi is no exception, forming large mats in sandy and rocky coastal areas and lakes.

Nihinihi is native to our shores, and is found throughout most of the country, especially in the northern regions of the North Island. It really is a neat little plant with lovely curved leaves and beautiful pale pink or mauve flowers. I found it recently growing on Te Haupa, an uninhabitated island in the Hauraki Gulf, during some field work there, but I have spotted it elsewhere.

Anyway, it’s nice to say some positive things about the Convolvulaceae, given that several species, particularly from the Convolvulus genus, are invasive in New Zealand, forming inpenetrable mats over everything.What a treat