Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Native Bees (native + bee)
Selected AbstractsPollinators and Reproductive Success of the Wild Cucurbit Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana (Cucurbitaceae)PLANT BIOLOGY, Issue 4 2001L. Ashworth Abstract: We studied the reproductive success and pollinators of Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana in different disturbed habitats where it grows naturally. Data were obtained from three populations. One grew within a soybean crop, the other within a corn crop, and the third in an abandoned crop field. Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana is an annual vine with a flowering period from December to April. Male flowers appear first, thereafter female and male flowers appear together. Flower lifetime (9 h) was similar in male and female flowers. The pollinator guild was comparable for the three populations but some differences in the frequency of the insect species were observed. Native bees were the main pollinators in the population in the abandoned field, while beetles pollinated the populations in crop fields. These differences were not linked with the pre-emergent reproductive success, fruit and seed set, or fruit quality. This is a self-compatible plant. Fruit and seed set and fruit traits (total mass, width and length of fruits, number of seeds per fruit, and seed mass) did not show significant differences between hand-cross and hand-self pollinated flowers. This wild cucurbit is a generalist with respect to pollinator guild, and flower visitors seem to be highly efficient in pollen transference. Cucurbita maxima ssp. andreana is well adapted to disturbed habitats because plants ripened fruits successfully, regardless of the group of insects visiting flowers. [source] The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in CaliforniaECOLOGY LETTERS, Issue 11 2004Claire Kremen Abstract Managing ecosystem services is critical to human survival, yet we do not know how large natural areas must be to support these services. We investigated how crop pollination services provided by native, unmanaged, bee communities varied on organic and conventional farms situated along a gradient of isolation from natural habitat. Pollination services from native bees were significantly, positively related to the proportion of upland natural habitat in the vicinity of farm sites, but not to any other factor studied, including farm type, insecticide usage, field size and honeybee abundance. The scale of this relationship matched bee foraging ranges. Stability and predictability of pollination services also increased with increasing natural habitat area. This strong relationship between natural habitat area and pollination services was robust over space and time, allowing prediction of the area needed to produce a given level of pollination services by wild bees within this landscape. [source] Breeding biologies, seed production and species-rich bee guilds of Cleome lutea and Cleome serrulata (Cleomaceae)PLANT SPECIES BIOLOGY, Issue 3 2008JAMES H. CANE Abstract The summer-blooming annual forbs Cleome lutea and Cleome serrulata (Cleomaceae) are native across the US Intermountain West and Rocky Mountains, respectively. Their farmed seed is sought to help rehabilitate western rangelands in those regions. This study of the reproductive biologies and pollinator faunas of C. lutea and C. serrulata is the first for this cosmopolitan family, the sister family to the Brassicaceae. Unlike the S-allele self-incompatibility systems of some Brassicaceae, both species of Cleome were found to be self-fertile and capable of some autogamy. Compared with selfing, outcrossing did not enhance seed set, seed viability or seedling vigor for either species (in fact, selfed progeny were more robust). Large, openly visited plants yielded >20 000 seeds each. Like several species of the sister family Capparaceae, flowers of both species first shed their pollen, secreted nectar and became receptive nocturnally. Although no nocturnal visitors were found, both Cleome species attracted a diverse array of diurnal native bees, wasps and butterflies. Among the many floral generalist bees that work Cleome flowers for pollen and nectar are two managed agricultural pollinators, Apis mellifera and Megachile rotundata. These observations bode well for pollinating C. lutea and C. serrulata in small commercial seed fields. It appears that diverse wild bees would benefit from the addition of native Cleome to restoration seed mixes, with the objective of sustaining native pollinator faunas during the first few years of postfire plant community rehabilitation. [source] The relative importance of birds and bees in the pollination of Metrosideros excelsa (Myrtaceae)AUSTRAL ECOLOGY, Issue 5 2009GABRIELE SCHMIDT-ADAM Abstract Exclusion experiments were used to assess the effect of different pollinator groups on outcrossing and seed production in Metrosideros excelsa. The main study site was Little Barrier Island, New Zealand where indigenous bird and native solitary bees are the main flower visitors. Our results showed that native birds were more important pollinators of M. excelsa than native bees. Seed production was much higher in open pollination than in two exclusion experiments where either birds were excluded and native bees only had access to flowers, or where all pollinators had been excluded. The number of fertile seeds per capsule was 45% higher after open pollination than in treatments with bee visitation only and 28% higher than in treatments where all flower visitors were excluded. Estimated outcrossing rates were significantly higher (tm = 0.71) for open pollination in the upper canopy (>4 m above-ground level) where bird visitation is presumed to be more frequent than for a treatment with native bee access only (tm = 0.40). Our results also suggest that a large proportion of seeds (66%) arise from autonomous self-pollination when all pollinators are excluded. In four trees of a modified mainland population with predominantly introduced birds and a mixture of introduced and native bees there was no decrease in seed production for the treatment allowing bee access only, indicating that , in contrast to native bees , honeybees may be more efficient pollinators of M. excelsa. Observation of the foraging behaviour of both groups of bees showed that native bees contact the stigma of flowers less frequently than honeybees. This is likely to be a consequence of their smaller body size relative to honeybees. [source] Invasive Africanized honey bee impact on native solitary bees: a pollen resource and trap nest analysisBIOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY, Issue 1 2009DAVID W. ROUBIK Little is known of the potential coevolution of flowers and bees in changing, biodiverse environments. Female solitary bees, megachilids and Centris, and their nest pollen provisions were monitored with trap nests over a 17-year period in a tropical Mexican biosphere reserve. Invasion by feral Apis (i.e. Africanized honey bees) occurred after the study began, and major droughts and hurricanes occurred throughout. Honey bee competition, and ostensibly pollination of native plants, caused changes in local pollination ecology. Shifts in floral hosts by native bees were common and driven by plant phylogenetics, whereby plants of the same families or higher taxa were substituted for those dominated by honey bees or lost as a result of natural processes. Two important plant families, Anacardiaceae and Euphorbiaceae, were lost to competing honey bees, but compensated for by greater use of Fabaceae, Rubiaceae, and Sapotaceae among native bees. Natural disasters made a large negative impact on native bee populations, but the sustained presence of Africanized honey bees did not. Over 171 plant species comprised the pollen diets of the honey bees, including those most important to Centris and megachilids (72 and 28 species, respectively). Honey bee pollination of Pouteria (Sapotaceae) plausibly augmented the native bees' primary pollen resource and prevented their decline. Invasive generalist pollinators may, however, cause specialized competitors to fail, especially in less biodiverse environments. No claim to original US government works. Journal compilation © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 98, 152,160. [source] | |||||||||||||||||||