Management of Overwintering Cover Crops Influences Floral Resources and Visitation by Native Bees

2015 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 999-1010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine E. Ellis ◽  
Mary E. Barbercheck
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Floral Resources ◽  
Native Bees

scholarly journals Managing Floral Resources in Apple Orchards for Pest Control: Ideas, Experiences and Future Directions

Insects ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annette Herz ◽  
Fabian Cahenzli ◽  
Servane Penvern ◽  
Lukas Pfiffner ◽  
Marco Tasin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pest Control ◽  
Natural Enemies ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
Floral Resources ◽  
Apple Orchards ◽  
Functional Biodiversity ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Mowing Regime

Functional biodiversity is of fundamental importance for pest control. Many natural enemies rely on floral resources to complete their life cycle. Farmers need to ensure the availability of suitable and sufficient floral biodiversity. This review summarizes 66 studies on the management of floral biodiversity in apple orchards, published since 1986. Approaches followed different degrees of intervention: short-term practices (mowing regime and weed maintenance, cover crops), establishment of durable ecological infrastructures (perennial flower strips, hedgerows) and re-design of the crop system (intercropping, agroforestry). Although short-term practices did not always target the nutrition of natural enemies by flowering plants, living conditions for them (alternative prey, provision of habitat) were often improved. Perennial flower strips reliably enhanced natural enemies and techniques for their introduction continuously developed. Resident natural enemies and their impact in pest control reacted positively to the introduction of a more diversified vegetation, whereas the response of very mobile organisms was often not directly linked to the measures taken. A careful selection and management of plants with particular traits exploitable by most natural enemies emerged as a key-point for success. Now the elaborated design of such measures needs to be adopted by stakeholders and policy makers to encourage farmers to implement these measures in their orchards.

Floral resource use and interactions between Apis mellifera and native bees in cucurbit crops in Yucatán, México

2005 ◽  
Vol 137 (4) ◽  
pp. 441-449 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miguel Angel Pinkus-Rendon ◽  
Víctor Parra-Tabla ◽  
Virginia Meléndez-Ramírez
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Interspecific Interactions ◽  
Citrullus Lanatus ◽  
Niche Overlap ◽  
Fruit Production ◽  
Floral Resources ◽  
Native Bees ◽  
Native Bee ◽  
Floral Resource

AbstractDespite the importance of native pollinators in agricultural systems, little is known about the potential competitive interactions among them or the way they exploit crops' floral resources. This study determines the temporal use of floral resources by, and interspecific interactions between, native bees and Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in experimental plots of squash, Cucurbita moschata (Duchesne ex Lam.) Duchesne ex Poir. (Cucurbitaceae), and watermelon, Citrullus lanatus (Thunb.) (Cucurbitaceae). General and specific niche overlap analyses were done to determine whether temporally differential use of floral resources occurred. Direct displacement interactions at the floral level were quantified. The species with the greatest abundances were Peponapis limitaris Cockerell (Apidae), Partamona bilineata Say (Apidae), and A. mellifera. Overall, the niche overlap analyses in both crops suggested that floral resources are not used simultaneously by different bee species. Winner events during aggressive encounters suggested a hierarchy among bee species, with A. mellifera being one of the species with more winner encounters in both crops. It is suggested that those deciding whether or not to introduce A. mellifera into crops should consider whether the abundance of native bee species is sufficient to ensure efficient fruit production.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Native and Nonnative Ornamentals as Pollinator Plants in Florida: I. Floral Abundance and Insect Visitation

HortScience ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 126-136
Author(s):  
Heather Kalaman ◽  
Sandra B. Wilson ◽  
Rachel E. Mallinger ◽  
Gary W. Knox ◽  
Edzard van Santen
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Cold Hardiness ◽  
Floral Resources ◽  
Nonnative Species ◽  
Native Bees ◽  
Pollinator Visitation ◽  
Carpenter Bees ◽  
Pollinating Insects ◽  
Flower Visiting

Diverse floral resources impart immense value for pollinating insects of all types. With increasing popularity and demand for modern ornamental hybrids, cultivation by breeders has led to selection for a suite of traits such as extended bloom periods and novel colors and forms deemed attractive to the human eye. Largely understudied is pollinator preference for these new cultivars, as compared with their native congeners. To address this gap in understanding, 10 species of popular herbaceous flowering plants, commonly labeled as pollinator-friendly, were evaluated at two sites in Florida [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cold hardiness zones 8b and 9a] and across three seasons for their floral abundance and overall attractiveness to different groups of pollinating insects. Each genus, apart from pentas, encompassed a native and nonnative species. Native species included blanket flower (Gaillardia pulchella), lanceleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), pineland lantana (Lantana depressa), and scarlet sage (Salvia coccinea). Nonnative species included Barbican™ yellow-red ring blanket flower (G. aristata ‘Gaiz005’), Bloomify™ rose lantana (L. camara ‘UF-1011-2’), mysty salvia (S. longispicata ×farinacea ‘Balsalmysty’), Lucky Star® dark red pentas (Pentas lanceolata ‘PAS1231189’), ruby glow pentas (P. lanceolata ‘Ruby glow’) and Uptick™ Gold & Bronze coreopsis (Coreopsis × ‘Baluptgonz’). Flower-visiting insects were recorded during five-minute intervals in the morning and categorized into the following morpho-groups: honey bees, large-bodied bees (bumble and carpenter bees), other bees (small to medium-bodied native bees), butterflies/moths, and wasps. Floral abundance and pollinator visitation varied widely by season, location, and species. Of the plant species evaluated, nonnative plants produced nearly twice as many flowers as native plants. About 22,000 floral visitations were observed. The majority of visits were by native, small to medium-bodied bees (55.28%), followed by butterflies and moths (15.4%), large-bodied native bees (11.8%), wasps (10.0%), and honey bees (7.6%). Among plant genera, both native and nonnative coreopsis and blanket flower were most attractive to native, small to medium-bodied bees (e.g., sweat bees, leafcutter bees) with the greatest number of visitations occurring during the early and midmonths of the study (May–August). Across the study, butterflies and moths visited lantana more frequently than all other ornamentals evaluated, whereas pentas were most attractive to wasps. Large-bodied bees visited plants most frequently in May and June, primarily foraging from both native and nonnative salvia. While results from this study showed nominal differences between native and nonnative species in their ability to attract the studied pollinator groups, care should be taken to making similar assessments of other modern plant types.

scholarly journals Bee community and trophic resources in Joinville, Santa Catarina

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Monique Dubet da Silva Mouga ◽  
Bruna Tereza Possamai ◽  
Enderlei Dec
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Urban Area ◽  
Native Species ◽  
Floral Resources ◽  
Native Bees ◽  
Southern Brazil ◽  
Santa Catarina ◽  
Botanical Species ◽  
Trophic Resources ◽  
Bee Community

Aiming to verify the relationships between native bees and floral resources in an urban area, their interactions were observed in Joinville, state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil. Observations were established, lasting 8 hours daily, during different periods from 2009 to 2015. Bees and plants, after preparation, were identified and registered in a database. We sampled 3,073 bees, all of which 1042 were wild native species. The collected bees are included in 34 species and 44 morphospecies (Halictinae-35, Megachilinae-17, Apinae non corbiculate-15, Apinae corbiculate- 10, Andreninae-1). With the exception of Apis mellifera, the most abundant bee taxa sampled were Trigona spinipes (330 individuals), Xylocopa brasilianorum (92) and Pseudaugochlora graminea (92). Euglossini females and species poorly sampled in inventories such as Leiopodus lacertinus, Thygater (Thygater) armandoi, Anthodioctes megachiloides and Coelioxys aculeaticeps were captured. The bees were sampled over 83 botanical species of 38 families. The most visited botanical families were Lamiaceae and Asteraceae. The richness of the studied area is lower than those of other nearby compared places, indicating probably a decrease of the apifauna. The found diversity previews the place as a possible refuge.

Floral resources collected by four native bees species in southern Mexico

Grana ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
López-Roblero Estefhanía ◽  
Espinoza Toledo Cristina ◽  
López García José Alfonso ◽  
Grajales Conesa Julieta ◽  
Quiroz-García David Leonor
Keyword(s):  
Floral Resources ◽  
Native Bees ◽  
Southern Mexico

scholarly journals Attracting Native Bees to Your Florida Landscape

EDIS ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (6) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Rachel Mallinger ◽  
Anne Yasalonis ◽  
Gary Knox ◽  
Wayne Hobbs
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Community Gardens ◽  
The United States ◽  
Floral Resources ◽  
Native Bees ◽  
Wild Bees ◽  
Fact Sheet ◽  
Bee Conservation

Florida is home to approximately 315 species of native wild bees. These bees rely on flowers for survival; their diets consist exclusively of pollen and nectar harvested from flowers. Recently reported declines in some bee species have heightened awareness of bee conservation across the United States and motivated efforts to increase floral resources for bees. This 7-page fact sheet written by Rachel E. Mallinger, Wayne Hobbs, Anne Yasalonis, and Gary Knox and published by the UF/IFAS Entomology and Nematology Department shows how gardeners and land managers can aid in conservation efforts by planting flowers for bees in home or community gardens. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/IN1255

New Technologies to Combat Herbicide Resistance

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 90-92
Author(s):  
Rob Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Winter Wheat ◽  
Herbicide Resistance ◽  
Cover Crops ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Green Revolution ◽  
Arable Land ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Cultural Control ◽  
Arable Farming ◽  
The Uk

Herbicide resistance in problem weeds is now a major threat to global food production, being particularly widespread in wild grasses affecting cereal crops. In the UK, black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) holds the title of number one agronomic problem in winter wheat, with the loss of production associated with herbicide resistance now estimated to cost the farming sector at least £0.5 billion p.a. Black-grass presents us with many of the characteristic traits of a problem weed; being highly competitive, genetically diverse and obligately out-crossing, with a growth habit that matches winter wheat. With the UK’s limited arable crop rotations and the reliance on the repeated use of a very limited range of selective herbicides we have been continuously performing a classic Darwinian selection for resistance traits in weeds that possess great genetic diversity and plasticity in their growth habits. The result has been inevitable; the steady rise of herbicide resistance across the UK, which now affects over 2.1 million hectares of some of our best arable land. Once the resistance genie is out of the bottle, it has proven difficult to prevent its establishment and spread. With the selective herbicide option being no longer effective, the options are to revert to cultural control; changing rotations and cover crops, manual rogueing of weeds, deep ploughing and chemical mulching with total herbicides such as glyphosate. While new precision weeding technologies are being developed, their cost and scalability in arable farming remains unproven. As an agricultural scientist who has spent a working lifetime researching selective weed control, we seem to be giving up on a technology that has been a foundation stone of the green revolution. For me it begs the question, are we really unable to use modern chemical and biological technology to counter resistance? I would argue the answer to that question is most patently no; solutions are around the corner if we choose to develop them.

Evaluation of Ryegrass Cover Crops in Rearing Ponds for Florida Largemouth Bass

1984 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. W. Bowling ◽  
W. P. Rutledge ◽  
J. G. Geiger
Keyword(s):  
Cover Crops ◽  
Largemouth Bass
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document