DOCSLIB.ORG

(Hymenoptera: Apoidea) Species Visiting Rabbiteye Blueberry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(Hymenoptera: Apoidea) Species Visiting Rabbiteye Blueberry HORTICULTURAL ENTOMOLOGY Pollination Efficiencies of Three Bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) Species Visiting Rabbiteye Blueberry 1 2 BLAIR J. SAMPSON AND JAMES H. CANE J. Econ. Entomol. 93(6): 1726Ð1731 (2000) ABSTRACT Inadequate bee pollination limits rabbiteye blueberry, Vaccinium ashei Reade, pro- duction in the some areas of the southeastern United States. Honey bees, Apis mellifera L., are currently the only manageable pollinators available for pollinating V. ashei. However, a new adaptable pollinator for rabbiteye blueberry, Osmia ribifloris Cockerell, was successfully reared and ßown in captivity. The bee nested successfully in wooden shelters and conferred superior fruit set to 2-yr-old potted, rabbiteye blueberry bushes. Pollination efÞciency or the percentage of blueberry ßowers to set fruit after being visited once by a female O. ribifloris was comparable to that of the female blueberry bee Habropoda laboriosa (F.) and worker honey bees. Interestingly, honey bees once thought to be inefÞcient pollinators of rabbiteye blueberry were found to be very efÞcient, especially for ÔClimaxÕ and ÔPremierÕ ßowers. KEY WORDS Apis mellifera, Habropoda laboriosa, Osmia ribifloris, blueberry, pollination, fruit set BLUEBERRY PRODUCERS HAVE traditionally relied on wild H. laboriosa by active management is difÞcult and bees for blueberry pollination. Many native bee spe- might further be hindered by a tendency of females to cies are highly efÞcient pollinators with single visits to abandon their burrows after disturbances to nesting virgin ßowers setting Ͼ40% fruit (Cane and Payne substrates (Cane 1995). A very promising and new 1990, Payne et al. 1991); repeated or unrestricted visits pollinator for blueberries is a solitary, cavity-nesting can further improve fruit set and size (Danka et al. bee indigenous to the western United States, Osmia 1993, Stubbs and Drummond 1999). For many of the ribifloris Cockerell (Torchio 1990). O. ribifloris co- SoutheastÕs Ϸ10,000 acres of blueberry farmland, pol- coons can be safely harvested and transported and lination problems arise in larger Þelds where there are after a brief courtship period adult females will nest in too few bees to pollinate available blossoms. Clepto- portable wooden shelters. The bee is native to the parasites, pesticides, and competing bloom also con- United States and is subject to less regulation than the tribute to lower pollinator abundance in blueberry A. pilipes and is far easier to manage than H. laboriosa. Þelds (Parker et al. 1987; Payne et al. 1989; Spiers 1990; Osmia ribifloris is a pollen specialist of plants like Torchio 1990; Cane 1993, 1995, 1997; Cane and Payne blueberries that are in the heath family (Ericaceae). 1993; Batra 1995, 1997; Kevan et al. 1997; Pittman et al. Although the single-visit pollination efÞciency of O. 1998). ribifloris females at blueberry ßowers has not been The long-tongued bees Anthophora pilipes Smith determined, when bees were given unlimited and sole (Anthophoridae), Habropoda laboriosa (F.) (An- access to ßowers of rabbiteye blueberry, Vaccinium thophoridae), and Osmia ribifloris Cockerell ashei Reade, average fruit set was 54% (Sampson et al. (Megachilidae) have been evaluated as supplemental 1995). Also, adult emergence, courtship, foraging and pollinators of the major North American blueberry oviposition for this bee can be timed to coincide ex- crops (Cane and Payne 1990, Torchio 1990, Batra 1994, actly with rabbiteye blueberry ßowering. Adult O. Stubbs et al. 1994, Cane 1997, Stubbs and Drummond ribifloris live Ϸ2Ð3 wk (Torchio 1990, Stubbs et al. 1999). A. pilipes nests in portable clods of adobe clay 1994) and their offspring overwinter as preemergent and pollinated both highbush and lowbush blueber- adults in silken cocoons. Thus, there is no need to feed ries (Batra 1994, 1997; Stubbs and Drummond 1999). O. ribifloris beyond blueberry bloom (Parker et al. Originally from Japan, A. pilipes is currently in quar- 1987). antine and unavailable to blueberry producers To justify releasing O. ribifloris into southern blue- (Stubbs and Drummond 1999). H. laboriosa is a wild berry orchards, the beeÕs relative pollination efÞ- and efÞcient native bee pollinator that, although spe- ciency must Þrst be compared with already estab- cializing on southern blueberries, is often rare in many lished and important blueberry pollinators. The two commercial blueberry Þelds. Bolstering populations of important southern pollinators are the native H. la- boriosa, and European honey bee, Apis mellifera L. 1 Small Fruit Research Station, USDA-ARS, Poplarville, MS 39470. The percentage of fruits set after single visits by bees 2 Bee Biology and Systematics Laboratory, USDA-ARS, Utah State to virgin rabbiteye blueberry ßowers is a useful and University, Logan, UT 84322Ð5310. standardized measure of pollination efÞciency (Cane December 2000 SAMPSON AND CANE:POLLINATION EFFICIENCIES OF THREE BEE SPECIES 1727 1997). Xenia pollen effects in blueberry fruit set (Gup- O. ribifloris subspecies between the years 1999 and ton 1984, 1997) should not seriously affect compari- 2000. All females were released during blueberry sons of single-visit pollination efÞciency for this and bloom. We also obtained 565 males, of which one-third other studies, because the interplanting of only a few were released in the screenhouse for mating purposes. highly compatible V. ashei cultivars is consistent Nectar and pollen for the bees was supplied by nearly throughout the Southeast. The three most common equal proportions of 2-yr-old ÔClimaxÕ, ÔPremierÕ, and cultivars ÔTifblueÕ, ÔPremierÕ, and ÔClimaxÕ are largely ÔTifblueÕ plants (n ϭ 300 plants). Portable nesting self-incompatible and currently comprise 80% of the shelters each housed 17 acrylic-coated, untreated pine rabbiteye blueberry production in the southeastern blocks. Each block provided female O. ribifloris with United States (Spiers 1990). Þve or 10 tubular nests lined with paper straws (0.7 cm diameter by 15.0 cm long). Potted strawberry, rose, oak, and southern highbush blueberry plants supplied Materials and Methods female O. ribifloris with suitable leaf material to fash- Fruit set resulting from single visits by bees to 887 ion nest cell partitions and entrance plugs. Additional ßowers occurred on potted, 2-yr-old ßowering V. ashei nest shelters and blocks were provided as needed. plants from the commercial cultivars Climax, Premier, Tanglefoot barriers (Tanglefoot, Grand Rapids, MI) and Tifblue. Single-visit fruit set is a standardized prevented predation of bee brood by the red imported measure of pollination efÞciency that is independent Þre ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren. Single visits by O. of pollinator foraging density. Plants were exposed to ribifloris occurred at 348 virgin ßowers from a total of the same environmental conditions and handling to 134 racemes from 15 plants per cultivar. ensure that management practices did not contribute The second study site was at two nearby rabbiteye to differences in fruit set. Only virgin ßowers on plants blueberry plots (USDA-ARS Small Fruit Research Sta- received single visits by bees; plants were left in the tion in Poplarville, MS). The plots contained Ϸ200 Þeld for only a few hours each day and then returned blueberry plants ranging from 2 to 15 yr of age, hosted to a common area (screenhouse) to mature fruit. All a large foraging population of H. laboriosa, and pro- potted plants received the same amount of water and vided highly compatible pollen sources (ÔClimaxÕ, fertilizing. Intraclonal variability was reduced by se- ÔPremierÕ, ÔTifblueÕ, ÔWoodardÕ, and ÔDeliteÕ). We ob- lecting plants of the same age, plants growing in the served single visits to 434 ßowers by H. laboriosa at 72 same type and size of pot, same soil medium and from racemes from six plants, two plants for each cultivar. the same mother plants and nursery. Plants were returned to a screenhouse so they could On 36 racemes, 228 virgin ßowers were enclosed in mature fruit under the same conditions as plants used Þnely woven mesh bags to completely exclude polli- to evaluate captive O. ribifloris already conÞned inside nators (unvisited control). Caging plants within the screenhouse as well as plants visited by honey bees 1.5-m3 Lumite enclosures (Synthetic Industries, from another site. Gainesville, GA) greatly increased the number of vir- The third and most remote site in 1999 was a com- gin ßowers that were available to bees. Any open mercial blueberry farm, 100 km SE of the Poplarville ßowers that could have been previously visited by an station. No screenhouse existed at this site; O. ribifloris insect pollinator were removed before caging. were not released and Habropoda were entirely ab- When sufÞcient ßowers had opened, random plants sent. This provided a unique opportunity to test the were brought to each of three study sites. Bags or cages pollination efÞciency of honey bees without native were then removed to expose virgin ßowers to single blueberry pollinators being present, a situation that pollination visits by both nectar and pollen foraging normally necessitates the renting of honey bee colo- female bees. Male bees rarely visited our virgin ßowers nies for blueberry pollination. Commercial honey bee and so were not included in the data analysis. colonies were clustered along the tree line at a stock- The Þrst study site was inside a 133-m2 screenhouse ing rate of 1.2 colonies per acre. Compatible pollen at the USDA-ARS Small Fruit Research Station, Pop- sources at the third site included
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]
  • Classification of the Apidae (Hymenoptera)
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU Mi Bee Lab 9-21-1990 Classification of the Apidae (Hymenoptera) Charles D. Michener University of Kansas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/bee_lab_mi Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Michener, Charles D., "Classification of the Apidae (Hymenoptera)" (1990). Mi. Paper 153. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/bee_lab_mi/153 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Bee Lab at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Mi by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 4 WWvyvlrWryrXvW-WvWrW^^ I • • •_ ••^«_«).•>.• •.*.« THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS SCIENC5;^ULLETIN LIBRARY Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 75-164 Sept. 21,1990 OCT 23 1990 HARVARD Classification of the Apidae^ (Hymenoptera) BY Charles D. Michener'^ Appendix: Trigona genalis Friese, a Hitherto Unplaced New Guinea Species BY Charles D. Michener and Shoichi F. Sakagami'^ CONTENTS Abstract 76 Introduction 76 Terminology and Materials 77 Analysis of Relationships among Apid Subfamilies 79 Key to the Subfamilies of Apidae 84 Subfamily Meliponinae 84 Description, 84; Larva, 85; Nest, 85; Social Behavior, 85; Distribution, 85 Relationships among Meliponine Genera 85 History, 85; Analysis, 86; Biogeography, 96; Behavior, 97; Labial palpi, 99; Wing venation, 99; Male genitalia, 102; Poison glands, 103; Chromosome numbers, 103; Convergence, 104; Classificatory questions, 104 Fossil Meliponinae 105 Meliponorytes,
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Sampling and Monitoring Methods for Beneficial Arthropods
    insects Review A Review of Sampling and Monitoring Methods for Beneficial Arthropods in Agroecosystems Kenneth W. McCravy Department of Biological Sciences, Western Illinois University, 1 University Circle, Macomb, IL 61455, USA; [email protected]; Tel.: +1-309-298-2160 Received: 12 September 2018; Accepted: 19 November 2018; Published: 23 November 2018 Abstract: Beneficial arthropods provide many important ecosystem services. In agroecosystems, pollination and control of crop pests provide benefits worth billions of dollars annually. Effective sampling and monitoring of these beneficial arthropods is essential for ensuring their short- and long-term viability and effectiveness. There are numerous methods available for sampling beneficial arthropods in a variety of habitats, and these methods can vary in efficiency and effectiveness. In this paper I review active and passive sampling methods for non-Apis bees and arthropod natural enemies of agricultural pests, including methods for sampling flying insects, arthropods on vegetation and in soil and litter environments, and estimation of predation and parasitism rates. Sample sizes, lethal sampling, and the potential usefulness of bycatch are also discussed. Keywords: sampling methodology; bee monitoring; beneficial arthropods; natural enemy monitoring; vane traps; Malaise traps; bowl traps; pitfall traps; insect netting; epigeic arthropod sampling 1. Introduction To sustainably use the Earth’s resources for our benefit, it is essential that we understand the ecology of human-altered systems and the organisms that inhabit them. Agroecosystems include agricultural activities plus living and nonliving components that interact with these activities in a variety of ways. Beneficial arthropods, such as pollinators of crops and natural enemies of arthropod pests and weeds, play important roles in the economic and ecological success of agroecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • WRA Species Report
    Designation = Evaluate WRA Score = 2 Family: Ericaceae Taxon: Vaccinium virgatum Synonym: Vaccinium amoenum Aiton Common Name: Rabbit-eye blueberry Vaccinium ashei J. M. Reade Southern black blueberry Questionaire : current 20090513 Assessor: Chuck Chimera Designation: EVALUATE Status: Assessor Approved Data Entry Person: Chuck Chimera WRA Score 2 101 Is the species highly domesticated? y=-3, n=0 n 102 Has the species become naturalized where grown? y=1, n=-1 103 Does the species have weedy races? y=1, n=-1 201 Species suited to tropical or subtropical climate(s) - If island is primarily wet habitat, then (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2- High substitute "wet tropical" for "tropical or subtropical" high) (See Appendix 2) 202 Quality of climate match data (0-low; 1-intermediate; 2- High high) (See Appendix 2) 203 Broad climate suitability (environmental versatility) y=1, n=0 y 204 Native or naturalized in regions with tropical or subtropical climates y=1, n=0 n 205 Does the species have a history of repeated introductions outside its natural range? y=-2, ?=-1, n=0 ? 301 Naturalized beyond native range y = 1*multiplier (see n Appendix 2), n= question 205 302 Garden/amenity/disturbance weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see n Appendix 2) 303 Agricultural/forestry/horticultural weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see n Appendix 2) 304 Environmental weed n=0, y = 2*multiplier (see n Appendix 2) 305 Congeneric weed n=0, y = 1*multiplier (see y Appendix 2) 401 Produces spines, thorns or burrs y=1, n=0 n 402 Allelopathic y=1, n=0 n 403 Parasitic y=1, n=0 n 404 Unpalatable
    [Show full text]
  • An Ant–Plant Mutualism Through the Lens of Cgmp-Dependent Kinase
    Downloaded from http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on September 13, 2017 An ant–plant mutualism through the rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org lens of cGMP-dependent kinase genes Pierre-Jean G. Male´1,†, Kyle M. Turner1,†, Manjima Doha1, Ina Anreiter1,2, Aaron M. Allen3, Marla B. Sokolowski1,2 and Megan E. Frederickson1 Research 1Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Willcocks Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3B2 Cite this article: Male´ P-JG, Turner KM, Doha 2Child and Brain Development Program, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), MaRS Centre, M, Anreiter I, Allen AM, Sokolowski MB, West Tower, 661 University Avenue, Suite 505, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 1M1 3Department of Cell and Systems Biology, University of Toronto, 25 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario, Frederickson ME. 2017 An ant–plant Canada M5S 3G5 mutualism through the lens of cGMP- MBS, 0000-0002-7462-8007; MEF, 0000-0002-9058-7137 dependent kinase genes. Proc. R. Soc. B 284: 20170896. In plant–animal mutualisms, how an animal forages often determines how http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.0896 much benefit its plant partner receives. In many animals, foraging behaviour changes in response to foraging gene expression or activation of the cGMP- dependent protein kinase (PKG) that foraging encodes. Here, we show that this highly conserved molecular mechanism affects the outcome of a plant– Received: 26 April 2017 animal mutualism. We studied the two PKG genes of Allomerus octoarticulatus, Accepted: 4 August 2017 an Amazonian ant that defends the ant–plant Cordia nodosa against herbivores. Some ant colonies are better ‘bodyguards’ than others.
    [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]
  • (Native) Bee Basics
    A USDA Forest Service and Pollinator Partnership Publication Bee Basics An Introduction to Our Native Bees By Beatriz Moisset, Ph.D. and Stephen Buchmann, Ph.D. Cover Art: Upper panel: The southeastern blueberry bee Habropoda( laboriosa) visiting blossoms of Rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium virgatum). Lower panel: Female andrenid bees (Andrena cornelli) foraging for nectar on Azalea (Rhododendron canescens). A USDA Forest Service and Pollinator Partnership Publication Bee Basics: An Introduction to Our Native Bees By Beatriz Moisset, Ph.D. and Stephen Buchmann, Ph.D. Illustrations by Steve Buchanan A USDA Forest Service and Pollinator Partnership Publication United States Department of Agriculture Acknowledgments Edited by Larry Stritch, Ph.D. Julie Nelson Teresa Prendusi Laurie Davies Adams Worker honey bees (Apis mellifera) visiting almond blossoms (Prunus dulcis). Introduction Native bees are a hidden treasure. From alpine meadows in the national forests of the Rocky Mountains to the Sonoran Desert in the Coronado National Forest in Arizona and from the boreal forests of the Tongass National Forest in Alaska to the Ocala National Forest in Florida, bees can be found anywhere in North America, where flowers bloom. From forests to farms, from cities to wildlands, there are 4,000 native bee species in the United States, from the tiny Perdita minima to large carpenter bees. Most people do not realize that there were no honey bees in America before European settlers brought hives from Europe. These resourceful animals promptly managed to escape from domestication. As they had done for millennia in Europe and Asia, honey bees formed swarms and set up nests in hollow trees.
    [Show full text]
  • FORTY YEARS of CHANGE in SOUTHWESTERN BEE ASSEMBLAGES Catherine Cumberland University of New Mexico - Main Campus
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Biology ETDs Electronic Theses and Dissertations Summer 7-15-2019 FORTY YEARS OF CHANGE IN SOUTHWESTERN BEE ASSEMBLAGES Catherine Cumberland University of New Mexico - Main Campus Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/biol_etds Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Cumberland, Catherine. "FORTY YEARS OF CHANGE IN SOUTHWESTERN BEE ASSEMBLAGES." (2019). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/biol_etds/321 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Electronic Theses and Dissertations at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biology ETDs by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Catherine Cumberland Candidate Biology Department This dissertation is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication: Approved by the Dissertation Committee: Kenneth Whitney, Ph.D., Chairperson Scott Collins, Ph.D. Paula Klientjes-Neff, Ph.D. Diane Marshall, Ph.D. Kelly Miller, Ph.D. i FORTY YEARS OF CHANGE IN SOUTHWESTERN BEE ASSEMBLAGES by CATHERINE CUMBERLAND B.A., Biology, Sonoma State University 2005 B.A., Environmental Studies, Sonoma State University 2005 M.S., Ecology, Colorado State University 2014 DISSERTATION Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy BIOLOGY The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico July, 2019 ii FORTY YEARS OF CHANGE IN SOUTHWESTERN BEE ASSEMBLAGES by CATHERINE CUMBERLAND B.A., Biology B.A., Environmental Studies M.S., Ecology Ph.D., Biology ABSTRACT Changes in a regional bee assemblage were investigated by repeating a 1970s study from the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bees of Ohio: a Field Guide
    Bees of Ohio: A Field Guide North American Native Bee Collaborative The Bees of Ohio: A Field Guide (Version 1.1.1 , 5/2020) was developed based on Bees of ​ Maryland: A Field Guide, authored by the North American Native Bee Collaborative ​ Editing and layout for The Bees of Ohio : Amy Schnebelin, with input from MaLisa Spring and Denise Ellsworth. Cover photo by Amy Schnebelin Copyright Public Domain. 2017 by North American Native Bee Collaborative Public Domain. This book is designed to be modified, extracted from, or reproduced in its entirety by any group for any reason. Multiple copies of the same book with slight variations are completely expected and acceptable. Feel free to distribute or sell as you wish. We especially encourage people to create field guides for their region. There is no need to get in touch with the Collaborative, however, we would appreciate hearing of any corrections and suggestions that will help make the identification of bees more accessible and accurate to all people. We also suggest you add our names to the acknowledgments and add yourself and your collaborators. The only thing that will make us mad is if you block the free transfer of this information. The corresponding member of the Collaborative is Sam Droege ([email protected]). ​ ​ First Maryland Edition: 2017 First Ohio Edition: 2020 ISBN None North American Native Bee Collaborative Washington D.C. Where to Download or Order the Maryland version: PDF and original MS Word files can be downloaded from: http://bio2.elmira.edu/fieldbio/handybeemanual.html.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bee Genus Andrena (Andrenidae) and the Tribe Anthophorini (Apidae) (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Apoidea)
    Studies in phylogeny and biosystematics of bees: The bee genus Andrena (Andrenidae) and the tribe Anthophorini (Apidae) (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Apoidea) Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Fakultät für Biologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München vorgelegt von Andreas Dubitzky Hebertshausen, 16. Dezember 2005 Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Klaus Schönitzer Zweitgutachter: PD Dr. Roland Melzer Tag der Abgabe: 16.12.05 Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 23.5.06 Disclaimer All nomenclaturically relevant acts in this thesis have to be regarded as unpublished according to Article 8 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and will become available by separate publications. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents Heinz and Christine Dubitzky, who gave me the opportunity to carry out these studies and continuously supported me with their love and patience. Contents 1. Introduction............................................................................................................1 2. Material and methods............................................................................................4 2.1 Material examined ......................................................................................4 2.1.1 Morphological studies.......................................................................4 2.1.2 Molecular analysis ............................................................................5 2.2 Preparation of male genitalia and female head capsule including mouthparts...................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded Pollination Network Data from the Interaction Web Database of the National
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Effects of Habitat Fragmentation and Introduced Species on the Structure and Function of Plant-Pollinator Interactions Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7t50612j Author Hung, Keng-Lou James Publication Date 2017 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Effects of Habitat Fragmentation and Introduced Species on the Structure and Function of Plant-Pollinator Interactions A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Keng-Lou James Hung Committee in charge: Professor David A. Holway, Chair Professor Joshua R. Kohn Professor Lisa A. Levin Professor Jean-Bernard H. Minster Professor James C. Nieh 2017 © Keng-Lou James Hung, 2017 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Keng-Lou James Hung is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Chair University of California, San Diego 2017 iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, who stopped at nothing to nurture my intellectual curiosity; to my brother, who was my ever-reliable field assistant and encourager; and to my wife, who gave up everything she had to make this venture a reality. This dissertation is as much a product of my hard work as it is your unconditional love, support, and prayers. This dissertation is also dedicated to the 43,000 bees, wasps, flies, and other insects whose curtailed lives will be forever immortalized in data that will one day be used to secure a brighter future for their kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Rogers, Shelley Renee
    ABSTRACT ROGERS, SHELLEY RENEE. Pollination Ecology of Highbush Blueberry Agroecosystems. (Under the direction of Hannah J. Burrack and David R. Tarpy). Both managed and wild bee species provide pollination services to agroecosystems. However, our understanding of the relationship between bee community composition and agroecosystem functioning (productivity and stability of pollination) is still evolving. In highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) agroecosystems, we evaluated (1) the relative contribution of different bee taxa to pollination, (2) the mechanisms underlying their contribution, (3) the importance of pollinator taxonomic diversity to crop productivity and stability, and (4) the influence of the pollinator community on bee foraging behavior. In 2010 and 2011, we surveyed the pollinator community (using transect observations and pan traps) during repeated visits to multiple blueberry farms in North Carolina. We assessed pollination (by measuring resultant seed set) from either a single bee visit or unrestricted visitation (i.e., open pollination) to flowers. We found that several bee taxa were consistently present and abundant flower visitors: honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumble bees (Bombus spp.), blueberry bees (Habropoda laboriosa), ‘small native’ bees (predominantly andrenids and halictids), carpenter bees (Xylocopa virginica), and horn-faced bees (Osmia cornifrons; in western NC only). These bee groups varied in their abundance at flowers, per-visit efficiency, and the degree to which their foraging behavior depended on weather. Despite a high density of managed pollinators (A. mellifera), we show that wild bee species contributed almost equally to pollination in the highbush blueberry agroecosystems that we observed. Additionally, blueberry pollinator taxa exhibited 'response diversity' to weather, thus stabilizing plant visitation between inclement and optimal foraging conditions.
    [Show full text]