Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU

All PIRU Publications Pollinating Research Unit

4-1-1960 Pollinators of Carrots in Utah George E. Bohart Utah State University

William P. Nye Utah State University

Recommended Citation Bohart, George E., and William P. Nye. 1960. Insect Pollinators of Carrots in Utah. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 419. 16 p.

This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the Pollinating Insects Research Unit at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All PIRU Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. tt-1 o i~JJJ,t:,;~V\'" ""\;,../ . t ~:'~ .• I t

by GEORGE E. ,'/ I

OF AGRI CULTURE CKNOWLEDGMENTS are due M. D. Levin and L. R. Hawthorn, both of the Agricultural Research Service, who helped plan and carry ofA the experiments of which these observations are a part. S. F. McClellan, Takeshi Miura, and W. A. Trost, graduate students at Utah State Univer­ sity, made most of the many observations. Determinations of the carrot pollinators were made by taxonomic specialists of the Entomology Research Division and by ,V. D. Field, H. A. Scullen, R. M. Bohart, H. E. Evans, M. T. James, and the senior author. The authors are both entomologists with the Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture. They are stationed on the Utah State University Campus and work coop- eratiwly with the Agricultural Experiment Station.

Title on cover picture should read' Left a drone (Tubifera tenax) one of·th ' abundan t and. eff1cient carrot' pollinatorse most o~ the experimental plots at Logan. U er ~1g?t, pollen-collecting honey bee. N~~e 1nt1mat~ contact of body and flower cluster. Lower :1ght, nectar-collecting honey bee. There 1S only slight contact between body and flower cluster. ABSTRACT

N THE course of observation at Logan, Utah, on the occurrence and pollina­ I ting activities of insects on carrots grown for seed, 334 species represent­ ing 71 families, were collected. Most numerous in species were the hymenopterous families and superfamilies Sphecidae, Apoidea, Psammo­ charidae, Vespidae, and Ichneumonidae, and the dipterous families Syrphidae, Tachinidae, Bombyliidae, Stratiomyidae, and Sarcophagidae. Most numer­ ous in individuals were the dipterous families Syrphidae, Ceratopogonidae, Chloropidae, and Piophilidae and the coleopterous family Coccinellidae. Families and superfamilies represented by the most efficient pollinators were Apoidea, Sphecidae, Syrphidae, and Stratiomyidae. Abundance times effi­ ciency was used as a pollination index for each species. On this basis the most important genera of Apoidea were Apis: Andrena, Halictus, Chloralictus, and Colletes; of Sphecidae, Cerceris, Lindenius, Philanthus, Nysson, and Sceliphron; of Syrphidae, Syritta and Tubifera; of Stratiomyidae, Eulalia and Stratiomys. Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) were efficient pollinators, but they were only minor factors in the Logan area because of their scarcity on carrot flowers. In most areas a combination of honey bee colonies adjacent to car­ rot seed fields and elimination of competing bloom may be the most practical method of increasing carrot pollination.

-1- CONTENTS

page

Introduction ...... 3

Description of area...... 3

Characteristics of carrot flowers...... 3

Variety and abundance of pollinators...... 4

Efficiency of pollinators...... 6

~Iethods of increasing pollinators ...... ~ ...... ~ ...... 10

Insects visiting carrot flowers in the vicinity of Logan, Utah, 1954-1957 ...... 10 Hymenoptera ...... 10 Diptera ...... :...... 12 Coleoptera ...... 14 Lepidoptera ...... 15 Hemiptera ...... 15 IIollloptera ...... 15 Neufoptera ...... 15 Orthoptera ...... 16 Dermaptera ...... 16 Thysanoptera ...... 16 INSECT POLLINATORS OF CARROTS IN UTAH by George E. Bohart and William P. Nye

ROM 1954 to 1957 aspects of car­ on carrot flowers, can set a substan­ F rot pollination were studied at tial amount of seed, although not Logan, Utah. The results of the work nearly as much as the larger Diptera in 1954 were reported by Hawthorn and Hymenoptera. Seed yields were et aU The present paper discusses satisfactory in the open plots, but the occurrence and pollinating effi­ slightly better in plots caged with ciency of the many species of insects colonies of honey bees. In subsequent that visited flowers on the open plots years results of the first year were each year. generally substantiated. However, in That insect pollination is necessary 1957, when insect populations in the for satisfactory yields of carrot seed open plots were much lower than was clearly demonstrated by the work previously, there was a large gap be­ in 1954. It was also shown that tiny tween the yields in the open plots Diptera, which are usually abundant and those caged with honey bees.

DESCRIPTION OF AREA

HE work was carried on at three suburban development. In 1955 the T locations near Logan, each of­ plots were a mile farther east, more fering diverse habitats, for insects. isolated from the alkaline areas, and In 1954 and 1956 the plots were lo­ surrounded by alfalfa, grain, small cated a mile north of Logan, where orchards, and sagebrush. In 1957 the the surrounding land is used prin­ plots were a few miles south of Lo­ cipally for dairying; to the west there gan, where the surrounding land is were several artesian springs and more intensely farmed and the foot­ alkaline meadows and hummocks, hills and orchard areas are farther and to the east foothills with sage­ away than in the previous locations. brush, small orchards, and scattered

CHARACTERISTICS OF CARROT FLOWERS

ARROT pollen is abundant and accessible to all insects except those C readily accessible to all visitors. with long, slender tongues. The in­ Carrot nectar is not abundant but it dividual florets are tiny and easily is exposed on the petals and readily worked by minute insects. At the same time they are aggregated into

1 L. R. Hawhom, C. E. Bohart, and E. H. flat, compact heads affording support Toole. Carrot seed vield andgermina­ to larger insects. .It is not surprising, tion as affected by different levels of in­ therefore, that a diverse assemblage sect pollination. Amer. Soc. Hort.· Sci. Proc. 67:384-389. 1956. of insects is attracted to the flowers.

-3- VARIETY AND ABUNDANCE OF POLLINATORS s indicated in the accompanying the same location and year. The 25 A list, 334 species of insects rep­ most abundant species in order of resenting 71 families were collected their abundance each year are shown on the carrot blossoms in the open in table 1. Except in 1957, the small plots and on small adjacent plantings syrphid fly, (L.), was used for other types of studies. Most by far the most numerous. The vari­ of the species were scarce or trans­ able populations of the other species ient and individually contributed from year to year illustrate how futile little pollination, although they ac­ it would be to count on consistent counted for a substantial percentage pollination by anyone species. Many of the total pollination. of the more abundant Diptera breed As might be expected, the different in wet and decaying vegetable mat­ species varied greatly in abundance ter. The availability of this material from location to location, from year varied greatly from place to place to year, and from week to week at and season to season, depending upon

Table 1. Populations 0/ the 25 most abundant species 0/ insects on carrot flowers 0/ the open plots, Logan, Utah, (number per plot per observation) *

Species 1954 1955 4 1956 1957 Average

Syritta pipiens ...... 478 274.0 264.0 11 257 Piophila casei ...... 304 3.2 62.0 0 92 Hippodamia spp...... 14 1.8 0.5 283 75 Chrysomyza demandata ...... 270 12.7 2.4 0 71 Madiza glabra ...... 168 18.6 95.4 0 71 Dasyhelea spp ...... 168 0.0 87.2 0 64 Leptocoris trivittatus ...... 30 0.0 86.4 0 29 Lindenius columbianus ...... 4 0.6 66.8 32 26 Phaenicia sericata ...... 90 6.8 2.6 0 25 Senotainia trilineata ...... 90 0.4 4.5 0 24 Cerceris nigrescens ...... 64 1.0 9.8 8 21 Sepsis punctum ...... 54 6.0 3.7 0 16 Andrena prunorum ...... 50 10.1 2.8 0 16 Lygus spp...... 5 0.2 26.0 29 15 Nysson spp...... 44 2.0 11.6 0 14 Sceliphron caementarium ...... 46 1.0 1.0 0 12 Philanthus anna ...... 18 3.9 22.5 0 11 Chloralictus spp...... 2 2.1 25.4 9.5 10 Philanthus gibbosus ...... 30 5.9 3.4 0 10 Sphecodes arvensiformis ...... 26 2.0 8.3 0 9 Halictus c. arapahonum...... 2 24.8 7.4 3 9 Apis mellifera (honey bee) ...... 14 4.8 3.8 11 8 Trichodes ornatus ...... 30 2.4 1.2 0 8 Tubifera hirta ...... 30 0.0 2.0 0 8 Cerceris minax ...... 18 0.0 12.2 0 8

o There were 4 plots each year with 11 observations in 1954, 10 in 1955, 9 in 1956, and 10 in 1957.

-4- weather conditions, crop rotation, manuring practices, and waste dis­ posal. Species of Tubifera (Syrphidae) and Stratiomyidae commonly breed in water of high organic content, and it is not surprising that these groups ~~ ;8.B \0 ..... '" \0 C';) t- C';) \0 C';) C';) were relatively scarce in 1955 when ~,.:g <:'1\0 ...... <:'1 ...... the plots were on a high, well-drained ::::;~ bench. The great abundance of H ip­ podamia and other ladybird beetles in 1957 was the result of an aphid infes­ tation on an adjacent field of peas grown for seed. Finally, a major factor affecting abundance of nearly all species was competition from other pollen and nectar sources in the area. This is a difficult factor to assess for even a single species, and for such a complex as we were dealing with the task would be overwhelming. Daily and weekly fluctuations were much greater for some species than others. Seasonal fluctuations of some of the more abundant species in 1955 are shown in table 2. Many species followed no discernible trends during the month-long blooming pe­ riod, but in general bees were most numerous in the middle of the period when pollen was most abundant, whereas muscoid and drone flies ( Tubifera) were most numerous later in the season when flowers with dehisced anthers were still secreting nectar. Ceratopogonids (Dasyhelea sp.), which composed the majority of the insects in the cages admitting only tiny insects, were most abundant in the first half of the period. The same was true of most species of stratiomyids. In 1955 Syritta pipiens, the dominant insect in the open plots, ~ ;:::~~~~~t.l~C';)G() increased in numbers throughout the o .a ~ season, but in 1954 and 1956 its .=. -<

-5- populations merely fluctuated up and competing bloom. They usually ap­ down. In 1956 a count was made peared in greatest numbers after when the primary flower heads were nearby fields of alfalfa had been cut first opening. At that time a mod­ for hay. erate amount of nectar but only a In 1955 predatism was an important little pollen was available, and factor affecting the numbers of small many of the sphecid wasps and tiny bees. Balietus con/usus arapahonunt flies Atladiza glabra Fall., Desmometopa Ckll., which had been building up sordida (Fall.), Piophila easei (Linn.), until July 25 to an effective popula­ and Dasyhelea spp. were abundant. tion, suddenly diminished in the However, Syritta pipiens, which a few open plots during the remainder of days later became the dominant in­ the season (table 2). Philanthus gib. sect, had not yet appeared. Several bosus (Fab.), a bee-storing sphecid species of stratiomyids were also wasp, also reached its peak on July common during this early period, but 25 and was busily preying on the hal­ they were mostly absent the remain­ ictids. By July 27 the bees had nearly der of the season. Such seasonal fluc­ disappeared from the open plots, but tutations are probably affected by the the wasps were still there searching weather, condition of the carrot for prey. On the same day arapaho­ flowers, amount of competing bloom, num appeared for the first time in and abundance of insects in the large numbers in the cages designed surrounding area. Honey bees ap­ to •exclude larger insects, and here peared to be affected primarily by they found sanctuary from the wasps.

EFFICIENCY OF POLLINATORS

HE abundance of the various spe­ stamens with their fore legs. The T cies on the flowers is a poor nectar collectors stand higher on the measure of their relative importance flowers, move about less, and lap as carrot pollinators. Bees, for ex­ up droplets from the exposed nec­ ample, are many times more efficient taries. In other species of bees the than minute flies in transferring pol­ females usually behave like pollen­ len from the anthers of one carrot collecting honey bees and the males flower to the stigmas of another. Ef­ like nectar-collecting honey bees. ficiency in this operation depends The pollinating efficiency of the upon size, hairiness, type of pulvilli, more abundant species of insects and activities on the flower heads. was compared on the basis of the The more "flighty" insects are also amount of loose pollen carried on more likely to accomplish cross-polli­ their bodies, their size, flightiness, nation than are those that spend more and contact with stamens and stig­ of their time on one head. In the mas as they move across the flower case of honey bees the pollen collec­ heads. Ratings for representative tors literally wade across the heads, species are illustrated in table 3. swinging their abdomens back and Croups of species can also be evalu­ forth and scraping the pollen from ated in general terms as to their

-6- Table 3. Efficiency ratings· of representative carrot pollinators, Logan, Utah

Loose pollent Size of Flightiness and Efficiency Species on body insect action on heads rating

Apis mellifera ...... 5 Pollen collectors ...... 6 4 6 6 Nectar collectors ...... 4 4 5 4 J-IUJictllS c. arapahonum ...... '" 3.5 Felllales ...... 4 2 5 4 }'lales ...... 2 2 4 2.5 Cerceris nigrescens ...... 2 3 4 3 Tachytes utahensis ...... 4 5 5 4.5 Chrysis sp...... 1 3 3 2 Phaenicia spp...... 2 3 3 2.5 Tubifera brousii ...... 4 4 5 4 Syritta pipiens ...... 1 2 1 1 Stratiomys barbata ...... 4 5 4 4 Madiza glabra ...... 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Dasyhelea sp...... 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Leptocoris trivittatus ...... 2 3 0.01 1

~ Ratings based on an arbitrary scale of 0.01-6.0; the higher the number the greater the efficiency. • 'r Loose pollen given greater weight than other factors. pollinating efficiency. However, an Large Syrphidae evaluation that in some instances Tachytes (Sphecidae) applies to families, in other instances Moderately efficient may apply to orders or merely. to Most Sphecidae Large Muscoidea genera or species. For example, the Large Vespidae highly efficient rating given to Apidae Small male Apoidea applies in the Sphecidae only to a Moderately inefficient few genera such as Tachytes. Fur­ Small Syrphidae thermore, exceptions must often be Chrysididae Small Vespidae made, especially in unusually large Ichneumonidae or small members of a group. It is Rhopalidae sometimes necessary to divide a· taxo­ Small Muscoidea nomic unit into .larger and smaller Highly inefficient species. Group evaluations for the Very small Diptera Chalcidoidea insects found most commonly on car­ Miridae rot flowers in the vicinity of Logan Coccinellidae Braconidae are shown below. Nymphal Acrididae Highly efficient Although the efficiency ratings for Female Apoidea Stnitiomyidae individual species lack precision and

-7- Table 4. Pollination indices 0/ the 25 most important species 0/ pollinators on the open plots, Logan, Utah

Species 1954 1955 1956 1957 Average

Syritta pipiens ...... 478 274 264 11 257 Andrena prunorum ...... 200 40.4 11.2 0 63 Cerceris nigrescens ...... 192 3 29.4 24 62 Phaenicia sericata ...... 180 13.6 5.2 0 50

Apis mellifera ••••••••••••••• a •••••••••••••••• 70 24 19 55 42 Stratiomys unilimbata ...... 64 0 104 0 42 Lindenius columbianus ...... 6 1 100 48 39 Eulalia arcuata ...... 56 41 23 27 37 Halictus c. arapahonum ...... 8 99.2 29.6 12 37 Sceliphron caementarium ...... 138 3.0 3.0 0 36 Nysson spp...... 110 5 27.8 0 36 Chloralictus spp ...... 7 7.4 88.9 33 34 Philanthus anna ...... 54 11.7 67.5 0 33 Tubifera brousii ...... 32 51 50 0 33 Tubifera hirta ...... 120 0 8 0 32 Philanthus gibbosus ...... 90 17.7 10.2 0 30 Leptocoris trivittatus ...... 30 0 86.4 0 29 Senotainia trilineata ...... 90 0.4 4.5 0 24 Sphecodes arvensiformis ...... 65 5 20.8 0 23 Chalybion californicum ...... 66 0 4 0 17 Colletes simulans ...... 20 24 18 0 16 Cerceris minax ...... 36 0 24.4 0 15 Stratiomys barbata ...... 48 2' 2 0 14 Trichodes ornatus ...... 45 3.6 1.8 0 13 Hippodamia spp...... 1.4 .18 .05 28 7 are somewhat subjective, it is believed Since all insects on flower heads that, when multiplied by abundance, feed on available supplies of pollen they give a much truer pollination and nectar, large numbers of ineffi­ index than does abundance alone. cient pollinators tend to reduce rather The 25 species with the highest indi­ than increase pollination, provided ces are listed in table 4. Many of that a potentially effective popula­ the most abundant species drop out tion of more eHicient pollinators is of the picture when their efficiency present in the area. is considered. Of the less efficient species, only Syritta pipiens, by vir­ tue of its exceedingly high popula­ 2 The figures for 1957 are less accurate than those for the proceeding years. In tions, is able to hold its position of 1957 the proportions of species were importance. In table 5 the popula­ obtained by sweeping a small field to one tions of the major groups of pollina­ side of the plots. The ratios were then applied to total counts made in the ex­ tors are compared with their pollina­ perimental plots. In the middle of the tion indices. The indices for all season ladybird beetles invaded the plots from an adjacent pea field but did not insects should represent a fair esti­ become abundant in the field used for mate of the total intensity of insect sweeping. Consequently, a correction fac­ pollination in the open plots each tor had to be applied to make allowance 2 for the known percentages of ladybirds in year. the plots.

-8- Table 5. Populations and pollination indices 0/ various categories of pollinators on carrot flowers, Logan, Utah

1954 1955 1956 1957 Average Number Number Number Number Number Category of insect per plot Index per plot Index per plot Index per plot Index per plot Index

Honey bees 14 70 5 25 4 20 11 55 9 43

Other bees 178 432 44 180 53 175 18 68 73 214

Sphecoid wasps ...... 368 1021 27 82 185 380 43 82 156 391

Other Hypenoptera .. 100 163 11 23 47 57 23 30 45 68 I '"I Larger Diptera ...... 348 767 41 98 78 230 46 106 128 300

Syritta pipiens ...... 478 478 274 274 264 264 11 11 257 257

Tiny Diptera ...... 984 84 62 8 385 29 86 9 379 33

Other insects ...... 192 110 8 5 159 113 428 51 197 70

Insects less honey bees ...... 2648 3055 467 670 1171 1248 657 357 1236 1333

All insects ...... 2662 3125 472 695 1175 1268 666 412 1244 1375 ~fETHODS OF INCREASING POLLINATORS

HE following methods of increas­ tensive breeding can probably be T ing the supply of carrot pollina­ maintained in thick layers of green tors are suggested: (1) Locate enough manure or wastes from food process­ colonies of honey bees in the area to ing plants. The decaying material provide effective populations on the should be kept moist under a thin flower heads; (2) avoid the presence scattering of soil. Of course, such a of competing bloom; (3) restrict method might increase pest or dis­ plantings of carrots for seed to avoid ease-spreading species and would dilution of the pollinator population; have to be carefully considered in (4) choose areas with varied habitats that respect. Another species to be capable of supporting large numbers considered for propagation would be of a wide variety of pollinators; (5) the alkali bee which readily gathers take steps to increase populations of carrot pollen and is an efficient wild pollinators in the area. pollinator. Bohart3 has already sug­ For most large seed-producing gested methods for increasing alkali areas a combination of the first and bees in alfalfa-seed producing areas second methods is likely to prove the of the Northwest. most practical. Among the wild pol­ lina tors, species of Diptera that breed in decaying vegetation are probably 3 C. E. Bohart. Alkali bees versus drainage. Utah Agr. Exp. Sta. Farm and Home the most practical to propagate. Ex- Science 6:23-24. 1955 (June).

INSECTS VISITING CARROT FLOWERS IN THE VICINITY OF LOGAN, UTAH, 1954 - 1957

HYMENOPTERA

Braconidae Coelichneumon maurus (Cress.) Atanycolus simplex (Cress.) Patroclus montanus (Cress.) Atanycolimorpha dissitus (Cress.) Stenichneumon salvus pallidipennis (Vier.) Bracon nuperus (Cress.) Compsocryptus resolutlls (Cress.) hyslopi (Vier.) sp. Apanteles medicaginus Mues. Trychosis sp. Cremnops t'uigaris (Cress.) Pimpla pedalis (?) Cress. Chelonus sp. 1 sp.2 Glypta sp. Pristomems sp. Ichneumonidae Diplazon laetatorius (F.) Pseudamblyteles sp. Ichneumon ru/iventris Brulle sp. nr. ru/iventris Brulle ambulatorius F. Perilampidae sp. nr. ambulatorius F. /ongulus Cress. Perilampus hyalin us Say sp. Perilampus chrysopae Cwfd.

-10- Pteromalidae Ancistrocerlls catskill (Sauss.) S palangia sp. Symmorphus cristatus (Sauss.) Rygchium /oraminatum (Sauss.) exoglyphum albovittatum (R. Bohart) Eurytomidae hidalgo viereckii (Cam.) Eurytoma sp. dorsille (F.) annniatum sulphureum (Sauss.) Brll('hophagll.~ gibbus (Boh.) Eumelles cruei/era Provo Systolt> a/hipennis \Valk. Polisles /uscatus (F.) V t>spulrz mandata (I..) Chalcididae Brachymeria coloradensis (Cress.) Pompilidae Leucospidae Paracyphononyx /unereus (Lep.) Leucospis a/finis Say Pompilus scelestus Cress. Anoplius tenebrosus Cress. aethiops (Cress.) Cynipidae Tachypompilus torridus unicolor (Banks) Xyalophora quinqllelineata Say Episyron snowi (Vier.) Kleidotoma sp. oregon Evans quinquenotatus hurdi Evans Gasteruptiidae Evagetes hyacinthus (Cress.) RhYdin%enus pattersonae (M. & B.) Priocnemiodes uni/asciatus cressoni (Banks) Cryptocheilus term ina tum (Say) Scelionidae Ceropales /ratema Sm. Telenomus lltahensis Ashm. ruqata Townes Ageniella con/licta Banks Chrysididae arcuata (Banks) H edychrum violaceum Brulle lulgi/rons (Cress.) Holopyga ventralis (Say) blaisdelli (Fox) Chrysis Irey-gessneri Grib. sp. dorsalis Aaron sp. 1 sp. 2 Sphecidae sp. 3 Astata unicolor Say pacifica Say nubecula Cress. intricata Brulle nevadica Cress. Elampus sp. Lyroda subita (Say) T achytes obscurus Cress. :Mutillidae elongatus Cress. Dasymutilla vesta (Cress.) utahensis Banks /ulvohirta (Cress.) sayi Banks ursula (Cress.) Larropsis capax (Fox) Timulla grotei (Blake) Tachysphex glabrior \Vms. terminatus (Sm.) Formicidae ashmeadii Fox aequalis Fox Formica sp. (fusca grp.) tarsatus (Say) sp. (m/a grp.) sp. Motes argentata (P.alis.) Mimesa cressoni Pack Vespidae Xylocelia sp. Stenodynerus blandoides R. Bohart Sphex pilnsus (Fern.) valliceps R. Bohart aberti (Hald.) kennicottianus (Sauss.) SceliphTOn caementarium (Dru.)

-11- Sphecidae (cont.) Colletidae Chalybion cali/ornicum (Sauss.) Colletes lutzi Timb. Podalonia luctuosa (Sm.) /ulgidus Swenk communis (Cress.) mandibularis Sm. simulans (?) Cress. Chlorion elegans (Sm.) lucae (Sauss.) Hylaeu5 cressoni (Ckll.) Chlorion ashmeadil Fern. Andrenidae ichneumoneum (L.) Andrena candida Sm. Nysson bicolor (Cress.) cerasi/olii sp. prunorum Ckll. Sphecius grandis (Say) sola Vier. cleodora Vier. Psammaecius spilopterus (Handl.) Nomadopsis scutellaris (Fwlr.) Corytes simillimus Sm. Harpactostigma Iamini/erum (Fox) Halictidae Stizoides unicinctus (Say) Halictus rubicundus (Christ) Bembix amoena (Handl.) ligatus Say con/usus arapahonum Ckll. Microbembex monodonata (Say) H alictus tripartitus Ckll. Philanthus gibbosus (F.) /arinosus Sm. ventilabris (F.) Lasioglossum sisymbrii (Ckll.) anna Dunn. pectoraloides (Ckll.) /Iavi/rons Cress. sp. 1 sp. sp. 2 Cerceris nigrescens Sm. sp. 3 nr. clypeata Dahlb. Sphecodes arvensi/ormis Ckll. sextoides Banks sp. 1 coni/rons Mick. sp. 2 minax Mick. Nomia melanderi Ckll. Lindenius columbianus (Kohl) Ectemnius dives (Lep. and Brulle) Megachilidae spini/erus (Fox) alpheus Pate Osmia texana Cress. seclusa Sandh. Ectemnius chrysargyrus (Lep. and Brulle) M egachile perihirta Ckll. continuus (F.) onobrychidis Ckll. lClpidarius (Panz.) dilectus (Cress.) sp. Apidae Lestica interrupta (Lep. and Brulle) M elissodes agilis Cress. Oxybelus emarginatum Say Nomada sp. uniglumis 4-notatum Say Apis melli/era L.

DIPTERA

Cecidomyiidae Ceratopogonidae Anarete johnsoni (Felt) Forcipomya brevipennis (Macq.) Dasyhelea spp. Chironomidae Sciaridae Bradysia sp. Hydrobaenus sp. Lycoria sp.

-12- Scatopsidae Tubi/era tenax (L.) Scatopse /uscipes Meig. brousii (Will.) hirta (Loew) Ectaetia claripes Lw. anthophorina (Fall.) barda (Say) Stratiomyidae Spilomyia interrupta Will. Stratiomys barbata Loew Tenthredomyia tridens (Loew) currani James unilimbata Loew adelpha Steyskal Conopidae Eulalia pilimana (Loew) Occemyia propinqua Adams alticola (James) loraria Loew communis (James) pubescens (Day) Otitidae virgo (Wd.) H edriodiscus truquii (Bell.) Chrysomyza demandata (F.)

Tabanidae Sepsidae Pilima cali/ornica (Bigot) Sepsis punctum (F.) bi/lexuosa curvitibia M. & S. Bombyliidae Saltella scutellaris (Fall.) Anthrax irrorata Say sp. Piophilidae V iila molitor (?) (Loew) Piophila casei (L.) lateralis (Say) alternata (Say) Milichiidae agrippina (O.S.) Desmometopa sordida (Fall.) utahensis Maughan Madiza glabra Fall. Bombylius laticeps Bigot Milichiella n. sp. Toxophora virgata O.S. M eoneura sp. 1 sp. sp.2

Phoridae Chloropidae Megaselia sp. Siphonella parva Ad. neglecta Beck Conicera sp. sp. 1 Hippelates pallipes Lw. Syrphidae Syritta pipiens (L.) Ephydridae M etasyr phus sp. 1 sp.2 Atissa pygmaca Halid. SYrphus sp. 1 Allotrichoma sp. sp.2 Hydrellia proclinata Cress. Eupeodes volucris O.S. Paragus bicolor (F.) Tachinidae tibialis (Fall.) Promasiphya con/usa (Ald.) Pipiza sp. Sphaerophoria menthastri (L.) Siphophyto turmalis Rein. Sphaerophoria sp. Voria ruralis (Fall.) Chrysogaster parva Shann. Winthemia ru/opicta (Bigot) Eumerus strigatus (Fall.) Peleteria iterans (Wlk.) Lejops lunulatus (Meig.) sp. Helophilus lati/rons Loew Fabriciella sp. 1 Mallota albipilis Snow sp.2

-13- Taehinidae (cant.) Sareophagidae Rhodogyne Juliginosa (Meig.) Senotainia Jlat:icornis Tns. sp. trilineata (\-Vulf.) rubriventris Macq. Phormlthella morrisoni Tns. Taxigramma heteroneura (~leig.) Leucostoma simple.'\: (Fall.) Euphytomima lw~niivora James CylindromYia armata Ald. If" ohlJahrtia opaca Coq. Hyalomya aldrichi (Tns.) Sarcophaga rapax Meig. querula Wlk. Hyalomyiopsis aldrichii Tns. haemorrhoidalis (Fall.) Catalinovoria cauta Tns. Sarcophaga coloradensis Ald. Myiophasia oregonensis Tns. hunteri Hough iherminieri R.D.

Calliphoridae ~luscidae Phormia regina (Meig.) Graphomya maculata (Scop.) Lucilia illustris (Meig.) Muscina stabulans (Fall.) Bu/olucilia silvarum (Meig.) Musca domestica L. Phaenicia sericata (Meig.) Limnophora argentiventris Mall. Pollenia rudis (F.) Hylemya cilicrura (Rond)

COLEOPTERA

Cerambycidae Bruchidae Anaplodera canadensis (Oliv.) M egacerus discoideus (Say)

Chrysomelidae Melyridae Chrysochus cobaltinus Lee. Collops bipunctatus (Say) Epitrix subcrinita (Lee.) vittatus (Say) Malachius aeneus (L.) Altica plicipennis (Mann.) Luperodc8 !ip. CurculiOllidac lIypcTIl puncta/a (F.) Cocdnellidac llippodamia conucrgcllS Guerin lecontei ~Iuls. Cleridae quinquesignata (Kirby) Trichodes urnalus Say Coccinella transversoguttata Fals. 9-notata Hbst. Anthicidae Anthicus sp. Dermestidac Trogoderma sp.

-14- LEPIDOPTERA Pieridae Hesperiidae Pieris occidentalis Reak. Pyrgus communis (Grt.) rapae (L.) Colias eurythemc (Bvd.) Acgeriidae Carmenta sp. Nymphalidae Phyciodes mylitta (Edw.) Pyraustidae Loxostege commixtalis (\Vlk.) Lycaenidae Strymon melinus (Hbn.)

HEMIPTERA

~Hridae Lygaeus reclinatus Say Lygus elisus Van Duzee N ysius ericae (Schilling) sp. Microphylellus sp. Nabidae Orthops scutellatlls Uhlcr Nabis /eru.~ (L.) Chlamydatus associalilS Uhler Berytidae Rhopalidae Jaly-sus u:ickhami Van Duzee Leptocoris tririttatus Say Liorhys~us hyalin us (F.) Anthocoridae Anthocoris musculus (Say) Coreidae Orius tristicolor (White) Harmostes re/lexulus (Say) Pentatomidae Lygaeidae Trichopepla grossa Van Duzee Geocoris pallens (Sta!.)

HOMOPTERA

Cicauellidac Aceratagallia /uscoscripta Oman Dicraneura carneola (Stal.)

NEUROPTERA

Chrysopidac Chrysopa sp.

-15- ORTHOPTERA

Acrididae Trimerotropis cyanipennis Bruner Melanoplus bivattatus (Say)

DERMAPTERA

Forficulidae For/icula auricularia L.

THYSANOPTERA

Thripidae Frankliniella tritici Fitch

-16-