DOCSLIB.ORG

Secure Pollination for More Productive Agriculture: Guidelines for Effective Pollinator Management and Stakeholder Adoption

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Secure Pollination for More Productive Agriculture: Guidelines for Effective Pollinator Management and Stakeholder Adoption Final Report Secure Pollination for More Productive Agriculture: Guidelines for effective pollinator management and stakeholder adoption Project leader: Jill Whitehouse Delivery partner: AgriFutures Australia, Australian National University, University of Adelaide, University of New England and University of Sydney Project code: PH16004 Hort Innovation – Final Report Project: Secure Pollination for More Productive Agriculture: Guidelines for effective pollinator management and stakeholder adoption PH16004 Disclaimer: Horticulture Innovation Australia Limited (Hort Innovation) makes no representations and expressly disclaims all warranties (to the extent permitted by law) about the accuracy, completeness, or currency of information in this Final Report. Users of this Final Report should take independent action to confirm any information in this Final Report before relying on that information in any way. Reliance on any information provided by Hort Innovation is entirely at your own risk. Hort Innovation is not responsible for, and will not be liable for, any loss, damage, claim, expense, cost (including legal costs) or other liability arising in any way (including from Hort Innovation or any other person’s negligence or otherwise) from your use or non-use of the Final Report or from reliance on information contained in the Final Report or that Hort Innovation provides to you by any other means. Funding statement: This project is being delivered by Hort Innovation – with support from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources as part of its Rural R&D for Profit program – and AgriFutures Australia, Australian National University, University of Adelaide, University of New England, University of Sydney and contributions from the Australian Government. Publishing details: ISBN 978 0 7341 4682 3 Published and distributed by: Hort Innovation Level 7 141 Walker Street North Sydney NSW 2060 Telephone: (02) 8295 2300 www.horticulture.com.au © Copyright 2021 Horticulture Innovation Australia Rural R&D for Profit Program Securing Pollination for more Productive Agriculture: Guidelines for effective pollinator management and stakeholder adoption Final Report 2 March 2021 Katja Hogendoorn, Romina Rader, Saul Cunningham, Ben Oldroyd, Tanya Latty, Julian Brown, Michael Holmes, Nick Gellie, Scott Groom, Andrew Tokmakoff, Patrick O’Connor, Korjent van Dijk, Andy Lowe This project is supported by AgriFutures Australia, though funding from the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment as part of its Rural R&D for Profit program, as well as Horticulture Innovation Australia, Australian National University, University of Adelaide, University of New England, University of Sydney, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Almond Board of Australia, Apple and Pear Growers Association (SA), Australian Mango Industry Association, Australian Melon Association, Costa, Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources SA, Greening Australia, Lucerne Australia, Native Vegetation Council, Natural Resources Northern and Yorke, O’Connor NRM, Primary Industries and Resources SA, Raspberries and Blackberries Australia, South Australian Apiarist Association, Terrestrial Ecosystems Research Network Eco-informatics and Trees For Life. Contents Contents Rural R&D for Profit Program............................................................................................................................................. 1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 1 Project rationale and objectives .......................................................................................................................... 7 2 Methods and project locations ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Assessing our capital: the crop pollinators ........................................................................................... 9 2.3 Understanding the threats to pollination security: ........................................................................... 9 2.4 Designing an investment strategy ............................................................................................................. 9 2.5 Outputs and extension ................................................................................................................................ 10 2.6 Regions, crops and locations .................................................................................................................... 11 3 Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Assessing our capital: The Crop Pollinators ...................................................................................... 12 3.2 Understanding the threats to pollination security .......................................................................... 26 3.3 Designing an investment strategy to support pollinator security and resilience .............. 44 3.4 Advice to enhance pollinators around crops ..................................................................................... 60 4. Contribution to program objectives ............................................................................................................... 71 4.1 The extent to which the activity achieved the project objective ............................................... 71 4.2 How the project contributes to the achievement of the overall program objective ......... 71 4.3 How the project recommendations improve pollination security and resilience ............. 72 5. Collaboration ............................................................................................................................................................ 74 6. Extension and adoption activities ................................................................................................................... 76 7. Lessons learnt .......................................................................................................................................................... 84 8. Appendix - additional project information .................................................................................................. 85 Project, media and communications material and intellectual property ............................................ 85 Equipment and assets ................................................................................................................................................ 85 Monitoring and evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 85 Budget .............................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Outputs ............................................................................................................................................................................ 86 9. References ................................................................................................................................................................. 90 2 3 Summary Introduction The reliability and security of crop pollination services is at risk, for two main reasons: A decrease in floral support for pollinators in the landscape due to habitat clearing, agricultural intensification and climate change, leading to increased and more intense droughts and heatwaves; An increase in the reliance on a single pollinator species for crop pollination services. To enhance pollination security, now and in the future we need to diversify our pollinator portfolio and reduce threats to existing pollinator species. Achieving that requires evidence- based decision making. This project aimed to collect and disseminate the background information needed to design meaningful action to enhance pollination security and resilience for farmers of pollination dependent crops, by developing: an understanding of the identity, density and efficacy of a diverse range of insect flower visitors of eleven pollination dependent crops; an understanding of the nature and extent of the main threats to pollination security; crop and landscape management strategies to secure pollination services in the future. Outcomes and conclusions We identified a wide range of insects that visited the crop flowers, and found that the most efficient and abundant pollinators differed per crop, per region and over time. What they have in common is that they depend on the presence of flowering plants in the landscape. We found that the proximity and composition of native vegetation influences the abundance and diversity of crop pollinating species, with effects noticeable up to ~200 m into the crop. Feral honey bees play a major role in crop pollination, in particular in dryland lucerne and apple. However, in less forested areas, their densities are not high enough to provide all the pollination required, because, in addition
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Male and Female Bees Show Large Differences in Floral Preference
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/432518; this version posted November 16, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Male and female bees show large differences in floral preference 2 3 Michael Roswell [email protected] 4 Graduate program in ecology and evolution, Rutgers University 5 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08904 6 7 Jonathan Dushoff 8 Department of biology, McMaster University 9 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, Ontario ON L8S 4K1 10 11 Rachael Winfree 12 Department of ecology, evolution, and natural resources, Rutgers University 13 14 College Farm Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08904 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/432518; this version posted November 16, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 14 Abstract 15 16 1. Intraspecific variation in foraging niche can drive food web dynamics and 17 ecosystem processes. Field studies and theoretical analysis of plant-pollinator 18 interaction networks typically focus on the partitioning of the floral community 19 between pollinator species, with little attention paid to intraspecific variation 20 among plants or foraging bees. In other systems, male and female animals 21 exhibit different, cascading, impacts on interaction partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Insect Fauna Associated with Pigeon Pea (Cajanus Cajan
    Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2019; 8(4): 766-768 E-ISSN: 2278-4136 P-ISSN: 2349-8234 JPP 2019; 8(4): 766-768 Insect fauna associated with pigeon pea (Cajanus Received: 01-05-2019 Accepted: 04-06-2019 cajan L.) in Odisha D Padhy Department of Entomology, D Padhy, CR Satapathy and RN Mohapatra MSSSOA, Paralakhemundi, Centurion University of Abstract Technology and Management, Field experiments were conducted during Kharif, 2017-2018 undertaken at Entomology Research Station Odisha, India of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar to study the occurrence of different insect pollinators on Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.). Though Pigeon pea is a self pollinated crop with CR Satapathy cleistogamous type of flower, it is visited by an array of insects. Under agroclimatic conditions of AICRP on Honeybees and Pollinators, Department of Odisha, It attracted eleven species of important pollinators represented by family Apidae (45.5%), Entomology, College of Megachilidae (36.4%) and Vespidae (18.2%) all belonging to a single order hymenoptera barring stay Agriculture, Bhubaneswar, population of Dipterans and Lepidopterans. Species wise diversity indicated that Megachile lanata Fab. Odisha University of Agriculture was the most dominant one (29.1%) followed by Megachile disjuncta Fab. (20.5%), Tetragonula and Technology, Odisha, India iridipennis Smith (14.2%), Apis cerana indica Fab. (10.95%) Megachile bicolor Fab. (10.7%), Xylocopa latipes Drury (8.5%), Megachile hera Bingham (2.1%), Eumenes spp. (1.7%), Xylocopa aestuans Lin. RN Mohapatra (1.2%), Vespa tropica Lin. (0.8%) and Apis dorsata Fab. (0.2%). It is inferred from the present AICRP on Honeybees and investigation that Pigeon pea is an ideal crop supporting an array of pollinators, most important being the Pollinators, Department of M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pollination Deficit Towards Supply Chain Resilience in the Face of Pollinator Decline
    The pollination deficit Towards supply chain resilience in the face of pollinator decline Acknowledgements This resource is an output of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI), supported by the Arcadia Fund. We are grateful for the inputs of all the companies, interviewees and workshop attendees who contributed their time and expertise. Particular thanks go to Dr Alexandra-Maria Klein and Dr Virginie Boreux, to Mars, The Jordans & Ryvita Company, Sustainable Agriculture Network and The Body Shop for inputting into this report. Thanks also to Dr Chloe Montes for her work in shaping this project and to Professor Simon Potts and Dr Tom Breeze. Project partners The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) www.cisl.cam.ac.uk The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership empowers business and policy leaders to make the necessary adjustments to their organisations, industries and economic systems in light of this challenge. By bringing together multidisciplinary researchers with influential business and policy practitioners across the globe, we foster an exchange of ideas across traditional boundaries to generate new solutions- oriented thinking. Fauna & Flora International (FFI) www.fauna-flora.org Fauna & Flora International (FFI) protects threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and that take account of human needs. Operating in more than 50 countries worldwide, FFI saves species from extinction and habitats from destruction, while improving the livelihoods of local people. Founded in 1903, FFI is the world’s longest established international conservation body and a registered charity. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) www.unep-wcmc.org UNEP-WCMC is the specialist biodiversity assessment arm of United Nations Environment, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop Pollination Management Needs Flower‐Visitor Monitoring and Target Values
    Received: 30 July 2019 | Accepted: 21 December 2019 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13574 PRACTITIONER'S PERSPECTIVE Crop pollination management needs flower-visitor monitoring and target values Lucas A. Garibaldi1,2 | Agustín Sáez3 | Marcelo A. Aizen3 | Thijs Fijen4 | Ignasi Bartomeus5 1Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural, Abstract Universidad Nacional de Río Negro, San 1. Despite the crucial importance of biotic pollination for many crops, land managers Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina rarely monitor the levels of crop pollination needed to guide farming decisions. 2Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo 2. The few existing pollination recommendations focus on a particular number of Rural, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones honeybee or bumblebee hives per crop area, but these guidelines do not accu- Científicas y Técnicas, San Carlos de Bariloche, Argentina rately predict the actual pollination services that crops receive. 3Grupo de Ecología de la Polinización, 3. We argue that pollination management for pollinator-dependent crops should be INIBIOMA, CONICET—Universidad Nacional del Comahue, San Carlos de Bariloche, based on direct measures of pollinator activity. We describe a protocol to quickly Argentina perform such a task by monitoring flower visitation rates. 4 Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation 4. We provide target values of visitation rates for crop yield maximization for several Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands important crops by considering the number of visits per flower needed to ensure 5Department of Integrative Ecology, full ovule fertilization. If visitation rates are well below or above these target val- Estación Biológica de Doñana, EBD-CSIC, ues, corrective measures should be taken.
    [Show full text]
  • Protocol for Using Pollinators in Hybrid Vegetable Seed Production an Outline for Improving Pollinator Effectiveness FEBRUARY 2018
    Protocol for using pollinators in hybrid vegetable seed production An outline for improving pollinator effectiveness FEBRUARY 2018 APPROVED BY ISF Working Group Vegetable Seed Production EDITTED BY The listed pollination researchers : Avi GABAI - Hazera, Israel Bernard E. VAISSIÈRE - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR406 Abeilles et Environnement, 84914 Avignon cedex, France Tjeerd BLACQUIÈRE - Wageningen Plant Research, Wageningen University & Research, Netherlands Breno M. FREITAS - Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal do Ceará, Brazil Mike ALLSOPP - Plant Protection Research, Agricultural Research Council, Stellenbosch, South Africa Stan CHABERT - Association Nationale des Agriculteurs Multiplicateurs de Semences Oléagineuses, 17700 Saint Pierre d'Amilly, France Arnon DAG - Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, Ministry of Agriculture, Israel Protocol for using pollinators in hybrid vegetable seed production 2 1. INTRODUCTION Pollination in hybrid vegetable seed production is the transfer of pollen from the anthers of the male fertile flowers to the stigma of the male sterile (female) flowers. The pollination phase has a significant impact on final seed yield and quality. In many vegetable crops, such as onion (Allium cepa), carrot (Daucus carota), cabbage (Brassica oleracea), cauliflower (B. oleracea) and radish (Raphanus sativus), pollination is performed mainly by honey bees (Apis mellifera). However, although it is the main managed pollinator, there are other wild and managed pollinators that can be of significant commercial value. Pollination quality is expressed as the quantity of pollen moved to the female flower; this depends on the pollinators’ activity and their mobility between the flowers of the two lines. 2. OBJECTIVES This document details the essential points in using pollinators for commercial hybrid seed production: Honey bee hive management and colony (populated beehive) strength regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • Keys for the Identification of Common Bees of Sri Lanka
    28.2006 KeysJ.Natn.Sci.Foundation to the common bees Sri of Lanka Sri Lanka 2008 36 (1): 69-89 69 RESEARCH ARTICLE Keys for the identification of common bees of Sri Lanka W. A. Inoka P. Karunaratne and Jayanthi P. Edirisinghe* Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science,University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya Revised: 01 March 2007 ; Accepted: 15 February 2008 Abstract: Illustrated keys are provided for the identification A brief taxonomic history of 41 species of bees in 25 genera and three families that are commonly encountered on flowers of common flowering plants The earliest published work on bees of Sri Lanka dates of Sri Lanka. The generic and species keys to bees are annotated back to the British Colonial Period when Bingham2 with known natural history information on distribution, floral recorded, described and provided keys for 42 species hosts, special behaviour at flowers, nest type and nesting sites. of bees in 15 genera from Sri Lanka. Thereafter, the Details of external morphology of bees used in the keys have insect surveys conducted in Sri Lanka (1978-1998) by been included. A brief taxonomic history of bees relevant to the Smithsonian Institution, Washington resulted in the Sri Lanka is also included. identification of several bee species by Sakagami and Ebmer 3; Schwarz 4; Sakagami 5,6; Sakagami; Ebmer & Keywords: Common bees, floral hosts, identification-keys\, Tadauchi 7 , 8; Snelling 9 and Baker 10. These publications taxonomic features, Sri Lanka are noteworthy in that they include descriptions and species keys for specific genera. The landmark 11 INTRODUCTION publication on the bees of the world by Michener has included information and keys for several genera (27) of There has been a long felt need for a key for the bees documented from Sri Lanka.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversity of Insect Pollinators on Pigeon Pea, Cajanus Cajan L. In
    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2018; 6(6): 47-50 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Diversity of Insect pollinators on Pigeon pea, JEZS 2018; 6(6): 47-50 © 2018 JEZS Cajanus cajan L. in Odisha Received: 06-09-2018 Accepted: 09-10-2018 D Padhy D Padhy, CR Satapathy and RN Mohapatra AICRP on Honeybees and Pollinators, Department of Abstract Entomology, College of Agriculture, OUAT, A field experiment was conducted to study the “Diversity of insect pollinators on Pigeon pea (Cajanus Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India cajan L.) in Odisha” during Kharif, 2017-2018 at the Entomology block in Central Research Station of Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha. The Pigeon pea crop attracted CR Satapathy eleven species of pollinators represented by 3 families viz., Apidae (45.5%), Megachilidae (36.4%) and AICRP on Honeybees and Vespidae (18.2%) of order hymenoptera. Species wise diversity indicated that Megachile lanata Fab. was Pollinators, Department of the most dominant one (29.1%) followed by Megachile disjuncta Fab. (20.5%), Tetragonula iridipennis Entomology, College of Smith (14.2%), Apis cerana indica Fab. (10.95%), Megachile bicolor Fab. (10.7%), Xylocopa latipes Agriculture, OUAT, Drury (8.5%), Megachile hera Bingham (2.1%), Eumenes spp. (1.7%), Xylocopa aestuans Lin. (1.2%), Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India Vespa tropica Lin. (0.8%) and Apis dorsata Fab. (0.2%). All the pollinators were active during early and mid-flowering stage except X. latipes which was more active on the late flowering stage. During various RN Mohapatra flowering stages (69-159 DAS) of the crop the number of species varied from 5-11 with the Simpson’s AICRP on Honeybees and diversity index of 0.602-0.897.
    [Show full text]
  • Precision Pollinator Management: Strategies for Supporting Pollinators on Your Crop $240,355,000 $144,207,000 $52,137,000 $31,371,000
    Precision Pollinator Management: Strategies for supporting pollinators on your crop $240,355,000 $144,207,000 $52,137,000 $31,371,000 New York crops dependent on pollination Values from: New York State Agricultural Overview. 2014, USDA $2,800,000 $3,042,000 $20,493,000 $12,640,000 $10,091,000 $7,520,000 $3,472,000 Both wild native bees and honey bees are crucial to agricultural production Wild bee Honey bee 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1. Lewis & Smith 1969, Russo et al 2017, Petersen et al 2013, O’Neill et al, 20??, Winfree et al 2008. Pesticide Management • Growers should follow integrated pest & disease management practices • scouting early and often • Use disease risk models • Spray between late afternoon and very early morning • Select fungicides with lower risk rankings • Grower should consider increasing natural habitat floral diversity within 250 meters of crop • Growers and beekeepers need to communicate more Make and effort to meet local beekeepers • Make pollination contracts • Grower communicates with beekeeper when intending to spray • Beekeeper lets growers know when they put their hives nearby (1-2 miles radius. • Beekeeper educates grower • Grower educates beekeeper Habitat Management 1. Provide a diversity of wild foraging plants species 2. Push for 3-5 species blooming at all times across season • At least before and after crop bloom • At least 30-100 meters from crop margin 3. Provide safe nesting sites for native bees 30-100 meters from crop margin (away from drift) 4. Mow small areas on margins to provide bareground for the ground-nesting species – Manage 1/3 area each year.
    [Show full text]
  • A Systematic Literature Review
    Tropical Ecology 58(1): 211–215, 2017 ISSN 0564-3295 © International Society for Tropical Ecology www.tropecol.com Diversity of native bees on Parkinsonia aculeata L. in Jammu region of North-West Himalaya UMA SHANKAR, D. P. ABROL*, DEBJYOTI CHATTERJEE & S. E. H. RIZVI Division of Entomology, Sher-e- Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Chatha Jammu – 180009, J&K, India Abstract: A study was conducted in Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir State to determine the species composition and relative abundance of pollinators on Parkinsonia aculeata L., (Family Fabaceae) is a perennial flowering plant, growing as an avenue tree on roadsides. Parkinsonia flowers attracted 27 species of insects belonging to orders Hymenoptera, Diptera and Lepidoptera. They included Megachile bicolor (Fabricius), Megachile hera (Bingham), Megachile lanata (Fabricius), Megachile disjuncta (Fab.), Megachile cephalotes (Smith), Megachile badia (Fab.), Megachile semivestita (Smith), Megachile vigilans (Smith), Megachile relata (Fab.), Megachile femorata, Andrena sp., Amegilla zonata (Linnaeus), Amegilla confusa (Smith), Apis dorsata (Fab.), Apis cerana (Fab.), Apis florea (Fab.), Ceratina smaragdula (Fab.)., Xylocopa latipes (Drury), Nomia iridescens (Smith), Nomia curvipes (Fab.), and seven species of unidentified insects. Megachile bees were most abundant and constituted more than 95% of the insects visiting Parkinsonia aculeata flowers. Species diversity measured by Shannon Wiener index showed a high value of H' = 2.03, reflecting a diverse pollinator community in the area. The foragers of all the species were found to be most active between 11.00 and 15.00 hrs and the population of flower visitors declined thereafter. Information on diversity of native pollinators from disturbed habitats and their specific dependence on P.
    [Show full text]
  • Seasonal Patterns in the Diversity of Apis and Non-Apis Bees in an Agro-Ecosystem: a Case Study from Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka
    Current Biotica 6(4): 432-444, 2013 ISSN 0973-4031 Seasonal patterns in the diversity of Apis and non-Apis bees in an agro-ecosystem: A case study from eastern dry zone of Karnataka Arati Pannure* and K. Chandrashekara Department of Entomology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Gandhi Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bangalore - 560065, India *E-mail: [email protected] ABSTRACT A study has been taken up to investigate seasonal patterns in the diversity of bee fauna in different landscape elements of GKVK farming system, Bangalore. The study was carried out over a period of one year from August, 2009 to October, 2010. During sampling, a total of 2030 bees were collected which belong to 20 genera and 65 species. In this paper, the temporal variation in abundance of bee species is examined and compared the patterns in different species. The study concluded that there was a trend towards increased bee abundance and richness during winter with increased flowering with a subsequent decline over the course of the summer season. The assessment of diversity of any taxon at a given temporal or spatial scale is important for its conservation and management. KEY WORDS: Agroecosystem, Apis, Halictids, Megachilids, Non-Apis bees INTRODUCTION (Heemert et al., 1990; Tuell et al., 2009). Moreover, their populations and Apoidea has an important role as diversity also serve as bioindicators of pollinating agents in the ecosystem. the state of many environments Among the pollinator groups, honey (Tscharntke et al., 1998; Keven, 1999; bees have been considered a priority Steffan-Dewenter et al., 2002; group. In addition to honey bees, non- Tylianakis et al., 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions of Wild Bees with Landscape, Farm Vegetation, and Flower Pollen
    WILD BEE SPECIES RICHNESS ON NORTH CENTRAL FLORIDA PRODUCE FARMS: INTERACTIONS OF WILD BEES WITH LANDSCAPE, FARM VEGETATION, AND FLOWER POLLEN By ROSALYN DENISE JOHNSON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2016 © 2016 Rosalyn Denise Johnson To my family and friends who have supported me through this process ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To Rose and Robert, Rhonda and Joe, and Katherine and Matthew without whose encouragement and support I could not have done this. I am grateful to my co- advisors, Kathryn E. Sieving and H. Glenn Hall, and my committee, Rosalie L. Koenig, Emilio M. Bruna III, David M. Jarzen, and Mark E. Hostetler for the opportunity to contribute to the knowledge of wild bees with their expert guidance. I would also like to thank the farmers who allowed me to work on their land and my assistants Michael Commander, Amber Pcolka, Megan Rasmussen, Teresa Burlingame, Julie Perreau, Amanda Heh, Kristen McWilliams, Matthew Zwerling, Mandie Carr, Hope Woods, and Mike King for their hard work 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... 8 ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Study of Biodiversity of Wasps and Bees in Kota, Rajasthan, India
    Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies 2020; 8(6): 807-810 E-ISSN: 2320-7078 P-ISSN: 2349-6800 Study of biodiversity of wasps and bees in Kota, www.entomoljournal.com JEZS 2020; 8(6): 807-810 Rajasthan, India © 2020 JEZS Received: 11-09-2020 Accepted: 18-10-2020 Dr. Kusum Dang and Deoteema Doi Dr. Kusum Dang Associate professor, Department Abstract of zoology, Govt. P.G. College, Kota, Rajasthan, India Studies on diversity and distribution of insects are pre- requisites for biodiversity conservation. Wasps and bees both play important roles in ecosystem. The present study forms a part of evaluation of Deoteema Doi hymenopteran fauna (wasps and bees) in selected areas of Kota. And provides information about a good Student, Department of zoology, assemblage of species of wasps and bees in Kota, Rajasthan. The present study was performed in two Govt. P.G. College, Kota, chosen sites. Site 1 was Government College Kota Campus, Kota and Site 2 was Herbal Park, Kota. The Rajasthan, India study was conducted from January 2019 to May 2019. A total of 11 species of wasps and bees belonging to 6 families were observed and identified during the study from both the sites. 9 of them were identified up to species level and 2 up to genus level. Out of 11 species identified, 4 were of bees and rest 7 were of wasps. Species were also classified as abundant, occasional and rare based on field observations. 4 species of them were abundant, 4 species were occasional and 3 species were rare. Results of college campus show that, among bees, Family Apidae was most dominant with highest number of individuals and Apis dorsata Fabricius was most abundant; and among wasps, Family Vespidae was most abundant and Polistes hebraeus was most abundant species.
    [Show full text]