DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIVERSITY of READING Delivering Biodiversity and Pollination Services on Farmland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIVERSITY of READING Delivering Biodiversity and Pollination Services on Farmland UNIVERSITY OF READING Delivering biodiversity and pollination services on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife- friendly farming schemes Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Agri-Environmental Research School of Agriculture, Policy and Development Chloe J. Hardman June 2016 Declaration I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged. Chloe Hardman i Abstract Gains in food production through agricultural intensification have come at an environmental cost, including reductions in habitat diversity, species diversity and some ecosystem services. Wildlife- friendly farming schemes aim to mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural intensification. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of three schemes using four matched triplets of farms in southern England. The schemes were: i) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS: a flexible widespread government scheme, ii) organic agriculture and iii) Conservation Grade (CG: a prescriptive, non-organic, biodiversity-focused scheme). We examined how effective the schemes were in supporting habitat diversity, species diversity, floral resources, pollinators and pollination services. Farms in CG and organic schemes supported higher habitat diversity than farms only in ELS. Plant and butterfly species richness were significantly higher on organic farms and butterfly species richness was marginally higher on CG farms compared to farms in ELS. The species richness of plants, butterflies, solitary bees and birds in winter was significantly correlated with local habitat diversity. Organic farms supported more evenly distributed floral resources and higher nectar densities compared to farms in CG or ELS. Compared to maximum estimates of pollen demand from six bee species, only organic farms supplied sufficient pollen in late summer. The density and species richness of pollinators did not vary between schemes. Both CG and organic farms supported more insect-flower visitation than ELS farms. Pollination services were higher on organic farms. The results showed that prescriptive schemes (e.g. CG) and organic farming are important for supporting habitat diversity and that this is particularly beneficial for butterflies. Late summer emerged as a priority time of year to increase pollen supply on non-organic farms and management options to achieve this are discussed. The data can be used further to inform our understanding of how land management affects biodiversity, particularly pollinators. ii Acknowledgements I would like to give very special thanks to my supervisors Simon Potts and Ken Norris for their insight, guidance, support, enthusiasm and good humour throughout my PhD. I am extremely grateful to my funders Conservation Grade (CG) and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). I would like to give a big thank you to Tim Nevard and Brin Hughes at CG for their input and support for this scientific research and for linking me with CG farmers. I am extremely grateful to the farmers and land owners for giving me farm access and information. For assistance with site selection, I was grateful to have the help of Harold Makant at Natural England (NE). I also thank Adam West and Martin Ruddy at NE for providing Environmental Stewardship data. In carrying out pollinator, phytometer and botanical surveys, I was capably assisted by Kerri Watson, Emily Edhouse and Amandine Beugnet in 2012, Cassie-Ann Dodson, Laurine Lemesle, Chris Reilly and Matthew Wisby in 2013 and Victoria Burton in 2014. For carrying out bird surveys, I thank the local ornithologists: Rob Yarham, Ian Esland, Giles Darvill, Alan Jackson, Tony Birch, Helen Lumley, Hugh Netley, Glynne Evans, Sheila Evans, Sarah Priest, Jan Jupp, Tim Thomas, Simon Boswell and Neil Fletcher. For collecting winter bird survey data I thank Dominic Harrison and for comments on Chapter 3 I thank Dominic’s supervisor Pete Shaw at the University of Southampton. I am incredibly grateful to Stuart Roberts, Ellen Moss and Rebecca Evans for assisting me in bee species identification, as well as providing training in pollinator field survey methods. I thank all my colleagues in the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research for being a pleasure to work with. Particular thanks go to Jane Adkins for her administrative support and Tom Breeze for comments on Chapters 3 and 4. I also thank Mathilde Baude and Mark Gillespie for advice on floral resource survey methodology and pollen and nectar data. Thanks also to Mathilde Baude for comments on Chapter 5. Thanks to Lynn Dicks for contributing pollen demand estimates. I thank three anonymous reviewers for comments on Chapter 3. I would like to thank my partner Rory McCann for his wonderful support. I am extremely appreciative of the support from all my friends and family, in particular mum, dad, Emma Hardman, and the McCann family. Thanks to Cath and Quentin Shaw for providing me with an excellent working space for writing up. iii Data accessibility statement Habitat diversity and species richness data used in Chapter 3 were deposited in the Dryad repository: http://dx.doi:10.5061/dryad.8n2c0 (Hardman et al. 2015) as part of the publication of the Journal of Applied Ecology article associated with this chapter. Data used in Chapters 4 and 5 were deposited in the University of Reading Research Data Archive: http://dx.doi.org/10.17864/1947.69 iv Table of contents Abstract ii Acknowledgments iii Data accessibility statement iv Table of contents v List of tables x List of figures xi List of appendices xiii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Global land use change 1 1.2 Agricultural intensification 1 1.3 Biodiversity and agriculture 2 1.4 Pollinators and pollination services 2 1.5 European agri-environment schemes 3 1.6 Entry Level Stewardship 4 1.7 Organic agriculture 5 1.8 Higher Level Stewardship 5 1.9 Countryside Stewardship 6 1.10 Conservation Grade 6 1.11 Spatial and temporal scales 7 1.12 Research aim and objectives 8 1.13 References 10 Chapter 2: Study design and overview of methods 16 2.1 Study farms 16 2.2 Habitat mapping 19 2.3 Proportional stratified sampling design 19 2.4 Farm habitat composition 20 2.5 Farm intensity 22 2.6 Landscape mapping 23 2.7 Scope of sampling 24 2.8 Plant surveys 25 2.9 Pollinator surveys 25 2.10 Bird surveys 26 v 2.11 Phytometer surveys 26 2.12 Floral resource surveys 26 2.13 General statistical approach 27 2.14 References 28 Chapter 3: Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of 30 three wildlife-friendly schemes 3.1 Summary 30 3.2 Introduction 31 3.3 Methods 33 3.3.1 Defining spatial scales 33 3.3.2 Study sites 33 3.3.3 Habitat mapping 34 3.3.4 Biodiversity sampling strategy 34 3.3.5 Habitat diversity calculations 34 3.3.6 Biodiversity survey methods 34 3.3.7 Statistical analysis 34 3.3.7.1 Wildlife-friendly farming scheme differences in habitat diversity 34 3.3.7.2 Habitat diversity as a predictor of species richness 35 3.3.7.3 Effects of wildlife-friendly farming scheme and habitat diversity 35 on species richness 3.4 Results 35 3.4.1 Wildlife-friendly farming scheme differences in habitat diversity 35 3.4.2 Habitat diversity as a predictor of species richness 36 3.4.3 Effects of wildlife-friendly farming scheme and habitat diversity on 37 species richness 3.5 Discussion 39 3.5.1 Conclusions and policy recommendations 40 3.6 References 42 Chapter 4: Delivery of floral resources and pollination services on farmland under three 47 different wildlife-friendly schemes 4.1 Summary 47 4.2. Introduction 47 4.3 Methods 49 vi 4.3.1 Study sites 49 4.3.2 Habitat maps 50 4.3.3 Landscape variables 50 4.3.4 Floral resource surveys 51 4.3.5 Pollinator surveys 51 4.3.6 Pollination service surveys 52 4.3.7 Data analysis 53 4.4 Results 54 4.4.1 Spatially differentiated results 54 4.4.1.1 Spatial distribution of floral resources between habitats 54 4.4.1.2 Differences between crop and non-crop habitats in flower density 55 and diversity 4.4.1.3 Differences between crop and non-crop habitats in pollinator 56 density and diversity 4.4.1.4 Differences between crop and non-crop habitats in insect- 57 wildflower visitation 4.4.1.5 Differences between crop and non-crop habitats in pollination 57 services 4.4.2 Farm level results 58 4.4.2.1 Flower density 58 4.4.2.2 Pollinator density and species richness 58 4.4.2.3 Insect-wildflower visitation 59 4.4.2.4 Pollination service 59 4.5 Discussion 59 4.5.1 Spatial distribution of floral resource, pollinators and pollination services 59 4.5.2 Farm level of floral resource, pollinators and pollination services 60 4.5.3 Implications for management 60 4.5.4 Conclusion 61 4.6 References 62 Chapter 5: Seasonal supply of floral resources for pollinators on farms in three different 66 wildlife-friendly schemes 5.1 Summary 66 5.2 Introduction 67 vii 5.3 Methods 69 5.3.1 Site selection 69 5.3.2 Sampling strategy 69 5.3.3 Floral resource surveys 70 5.3.4 Pollinator surveys 70 5.3.5 Local scale density calculations 70 5.3.6 Farm scale density calculations 71 5.3.7 Statistical analysis 71 5.3.7.1 Local density analysis 71 5.3.7.2 Density of floral resource from individual plants at the local scale 71 5.3.7.3 Farm density analysis 71 5.3.7.4 Comparing pollen supply and demand 71 5.3.7.5 Contributions of habitats at the farm scale 72 5.3.7.6 Density of floral resource from individual plants at the farm scale 72 5.4 Results 72 5.3.1 Local scale density 72 5.3.2 Density of floral resource from individual plants
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Review of the Diet and Micro-Habitat Values for Wildlife and the Agronomic Potential of Selected Grassland Plant Species
    Report Number 697 Review of the diet and micro-habitat values for wildlifeand the agronomic potential of selected grassland plant species English Nature Research Reports working today for nature tomorrow English Nature Research Reports Number 697 Review of the diet and micro-habitat values for wildlife and the agronomic potential of selected grassland plant species S.R. Mortimer, R. Kessock-Philip, S.G. Potts, A.J. Ramsay, S.P.M. Roberts & B.A. Woodcock Centre for Agri-Environmental Research University of Reading, PO Box 237, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR A. Hopkins, A. Gundrey, R. Dunn & J. Tallowin Institute for Grassland and Environmental Research North Wyke Research Station, Okehampton, Devon EX20 2SB J. Vickery & S. Gough British Trust for Ornithology The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU You may reproduce as many additional copies of this report as you like for non-commercial purposes, provided such copies stipulate that copyright remains with English Nature, Northminster House, Peterborough PE1 1UA. However, if you wish to use all or part of this report for commercial purposes, including publishing, you will need to apply for a licence by contacting the Enquiry Service at the above address. Please note this report may also contain third party copyright material. ISSN 0967-876X © Copyright English Nature 2006 Project officer Heather Robertson, Terrestrial Wildlife Team [email protected] Contractor(s) (where appropriate) S.R. Mortimer, R. Kessock-Philip, S.G. Potts, A.J. Ramsay, S.P.M. Roberts & B.A. Woodcock Centre for Agri-Environmental Research, University of Reading, PO Box 237, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 6AR A.
    [Show full text]
  • Competition Between Honeybees and Wild Danish Bees in an Urban Area
    Competition between honeybees and wild Danish bees in an urban area Thomas Blindbæk 20072975 Master thesis MSc Aarhus University Department of bioscience Supervised by Yoko Luise Dupont 60 ECTS Master thesis English title: Competition between honeybees and wild Danish bees in an urban area Danish title: Konkurrence mellem honningbier og vilde danske bier i et bymiljø Author: Thomas Blindbæk Project supervisor: Yoko Luise Dupont, institute for bioscience, Silkeborg department Date: 16/06/17 Front page: Andrena fulva, photo by Thomas Blindbæk 2 Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................ 5 Resumé ........................................................................................................ 6 Introduction .................................................................................................. 7 Honeybees .............................................................................................. 7 Pollen specialization and nesting preferences of wild bees .............................. 7 Competition ............................................................................................. 8 The urban environment ........................................................................... 10 Study aims ............................................................................................ 11 Methods ...................................................................................................... 12 Pan traps ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Trait-Based Approach Laura Roquer Beni Phd Thesis 2020
    ADVERTIMENT. Lʼaccés als continguts dʼaquesta tesi queda condicionat a lʼacceptació de les condicions dʼús establertes per la següent llicència Creative Commons: http://cat.creativecommons.org/?page_id=184 ADVERTENCIA. El acceso a los contenidos de esta tesis queda condicionado a la aceptación de las condiciones de uso establecidas por la siguiente licencia Creative Commons: http://es.creativecommons.org/blog/licencias/ WARNING. The access to the contents of this doctoral thesis it is limited to the acceptance of the use conditions set by the following Creative Commons license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/?lang=en Pollinator communities and pollination services in apple orchards: a trait-based approach Laura Roquer Beni PhD Thesis 2020 Pollinator communities and pollination services in apple orchards: a trait-based approach Tesi doctoral Laura Roquer Beni per optar al grau de doctora Directors: Dr. Jordi Bosch i Dr. Anselm Rodrigo Programa de Doctorat en Ecologia Terrestre Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF) Universitat de Autònoma de Barcelona Juliol 2020 Il·lustració de la portada: Gala Pont @gala_pont Al meu pare, a la meva mare, a la meva germana i al meu germà Acknowledgements Se’m fa impossible resumir tot el que han significat per mi aquests anys de doctorat. Les qui em coneixeu més sabeu que han sigut anys de transformació, de reptes, d’aprendre a prioritzar sense deixar de cuidar allò que és important. Han sigut anys d’equilibris no sempre fàcils però molt gratificants. Heu sigut moltes les persones que m’heu acompanyat, d’una manera o altra, en el transcurs d’aquest projecte de creixement vital i acadèmic, i totes i cadascuna de vosaltres, formeu part del resultat final.
    [Show full text]
  • Bees and Wasps of the East Sussex South Downs
    A SURVEY OF THE BEES AND WASPS OF FIFTEEN CHALK GRASSLAND AND CHALK HEATH SITES WITHIN THE EAST SUSSEX SOUTH DOWNS Steven Falk, 2011 A SURVEY OF THE BEES AND WASPS OF FIFTEEN CHALK GRASSLAND AND CHALK HEATH SITES WITHIN THE EAST SUSSEX SOUTH DOWNS Steven Falk, 2011 Abstract For six years between 2003 and 2008, over 100 site visits were made to fifteen chalk grassland and chalk heath sites within the South Downs of Vice-county 14 (East Sussex). This produced a list of 227 bee and wasp species and revealed the comparative frequency of different species, the comparative richness of different sites and provided a basic insight into how many of the species interact with the South Downs at a site and landscape level. The study revealed that, in addition to the character of the semi-natural grasslands present, the bee and wasp fauna is also influenced by the more intensively-managed agricultural landscapes of the Downs, with many species taking advantage of blossoming hedge shrubs, flowery fallow fields, flowery arable field margins, flowering crops such as Rape, plus plants such as buttercups, thistles and dandelions within relatively improved pasture. Some very rare species were encountered, notably the bee Halictus eurygnathus Blüthgen which had not been seen in Britain since 1946. This was eventually recorded at seven sites and was associated with an abundance of Greater Knapweed. The very rare bees Anthophora retusa (Linnaeus) and Andrena niveata Friese were also observed foraging on several dates during their flight periods, providing a better insight into their ecology and conservation requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Very Handy Bee Manual
    The Very Handy Manual: How to Catch and Identify Bees and Manage a Collection A Collective and Ongoing Effort by Those Who Love to Study Bees in North America Last Revised: October, 2010 This manual is a compilation of the wisdom and experience of many individuals, some of whom are directly acknowledged here and others not. We thank all of you. The bulk of the text was compiled by Sam Droege at the USGS Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab over several years from 2004-2008. We regularly update the manual with new information, so, if you have a new technique, some additional ideas for sections, corrections or additions, we would like to hear from you. Please email those to Sam Droege ([email protected]). You can also email Sam if you are interested in joining the group’s discussion group on bee monitoring and identification. Many thanks to Dave and Janice Green, Tracy Zarrillo, and Liz Sellers for their many hours of editing this manual. "They've got this steamroller going, and they won't stop until there's nobody fishing. What are they going to do then, save some bees?" - Mike Russo (Massachusetts fisherman who has fished cod for 18 years, on environmentalists)-Provided by Matthew Shepherd Contents Where to Find Bees ...................................................................................................................................... 2 Nets ............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Netting Technique ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aculeate Bee and Wasp Survey Report 2015/16 for the Knepp Wildland Project
    Aculeate bee and wasp survey report 2015/16 for the Knepp Wildland Project Thomas Wood and Dave Goulson School of Life Sciences, The University of Sussex, Falmer, BN1 9QG Methodology Aculeate bees and wasps were surveyed on the Knepp Castle Estate as part of their biodiversity monitoring programme during the 2015/2016 seasons. The southern block, comprising 473 hectares, was selected for the survey as it is the most extensively rewilded section of the estate. Nine areas were identified in the southern block and each one was surveyed by free searching for 20 minutes on each visit. Surveys were conducted on April 13th, June 3rd and June 30th in 2015 and May 20th, June 24th, July 20th, August 7th and August 12th in 2016. Survey results and species of note A total of 62 species of bee and 30 species of wasp were recorded during the survey. This total includes seven bee and four wasp species of national conservation importance (Table 1, Table 2). Rarity classifications come from Falk (1991) but have been modified by TW to take account of the major shifts in abundance that have occurred since the publication of this review. The important bee species were Andrena labiata, Ceratina cyanea, Lasioglossum puncticolle, Macropis europaea, Melitta leporina, Melitta tricincta and Sphecodes scabricollis. Both A. labiata and C. cyanea show no particular affinity for clay. Both forage from a wide variety of plants and are considered scarce nationally for historical reasons and for their restricted southern distribution. M. leporina and M. tricincta are both oligolectic bees, collecting pollen from one botanical family only.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Agricultural Ecosystems by Using Wild Bees As Environmental Indicators
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal BioRisk 8: 53–71Monitoring (2013) agricultural ecosystems by using wild bees as environmental indicators 53 doi: 10.3897/biorisk.8.3600 RESEARCH ARTICLE BioRisk www.pensoftonline.net/biorisk Monitoring agricultural ecosystems by using wild bees as environmental indicators Matthias Schindler1, Olaf Diestelhorst2, Stephan Härtel3, Christoph Saure4, Arno Schanowski5, Hans R. Schwenninger6 1 University of Bonn, INRES, Dep. Ecology of Cultural Landscape, Melbweg 42, D-53127 Bonn 2 Uni- versity of Düsseldorf, Institute of Sensory Ecology, Universitätsstraße 1, D-40225 Düsseldorf 3 University of Würzburg, Dep. of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Am Hubland, D-97074 Würzburg 4 Büro für tierökologische Studien, Birkbuschstraße 62, D-12167 Berlin 5 Lilienstraße 6, 77880 Sasbach 6 Büro Ento- mologie + Ökologie, Goslarer Str. 53, D-70499 Stuttgart Corresponding author: Matthias Schindler ([email protected]) Academic editor: J. Settele | Received 27 June 2012 | Accepted 2 January 2013 | Published 8 August 2013 Citation: Schindler M, Diestelhorst O, Härtel S, Saure C, Schanowski A, Schwenninger HR (2013) Monitoring agricultural ecosystems by using wild bees as environmental indicators. BioRisk 8: 53–71. doi: 10.3897/biorisk.8.3600 Abstract Wild bees are abundant in agricultural ecosystems and contribute significantly to the pollination of many crops. The specialisation of many wild bees on particular nesting sites and food resources makes them sensitive to changing habitat conditions. Therefore wild bees are important indicators for environmental impact assessments. Long-term monitoring schemes to measure changes of wild bee communities in ag- ricultural ecosystems are currently lacking. Here we suggest a highly standardized monitoring approach which combines transect walks and pan traps (bowls).
    [Show full text]
  • (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Anthophila) in Serbia
    ZooKeys 1053: 43–105 (2021) A peer-reviewed open-access journal doi: 10.3897/zookeys.1053.67288 RESEARCH ARTICLE https://zookeys.pensoft.net Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Contribution to the knowledge of the bee fauna (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Anthophila) in Serbia Sonja Mudri-Stojnić1, Andrijana Andrić2, Zlata Markov-Ristić1, Aleksandar Đukić3, Ante Vujić1 1 University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Sciences, Department of Biology and Ecology, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia 2 University of Novi Sad, BioSense Institute, Dr Zorana Đinđića 1, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia 3 Scientific Research Society of Biology and Ecology Students “Josif Pančić”, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 2, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia Corresponding author: Sonja Mudri-Stojnić ([email protected]) Academic editor: Thorleif Dörfel | Received 13 April 2021 | Accepted 1 June 2021 | Published 2 August 2021 http://zoobank.org/88717A86-19ED-4E8A-8F1E-9BF0EE60959B Citation: Mudri-Stojnić S, Andrić A, Markov-Ristić Z, Đukić A, Vujić A (2021) Contribution to the knowledge of the bee fauna (Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Anthophila) in Serbia. ZooKeys 1053: 43–105. https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.1053.67288 Abstract The current work represents summarised data on the bee fauna in Serbia from previous publications, collections, and field data in the period from 1890 to 2020. A total of 706 species from all six of the globally widespread bee families is recorded; of the total number of recorded species, 314 have been con- firmed by determination, while 392 species are from published data. Fourteen species, collected in the last three years, are the first published records of these taxa from Serbia:Andrena barbareae (Panzer, 1805), A.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Sustainable Crop Pollination Services Measures at Field, Farm and Landscape Scales
    EXTENSION OF KNOWLEDGE BASE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING MAINSTREAMING TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE CROP POLLINATION SERVICES MEASURES AT FIELD, FARM AND LANDSCAPE SCALES POLLINATION SERVICES FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE POLLINATION SERVICES FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE CROP POLLINATION SERVICES MEASURES AT FIELD, FARM AND LANDSCAPE SCALES B. Gemmill-Herren, N. Azzu, A. Bicksler, and A. Guidotti [eds.] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ROME, 2020 Required citation: FAO. 2020. Towards sustainable crop pollination services – Measures at field, farm and landscape scales. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8965en The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-132578-0 © FAO, 2020 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidebook to Invasive Nonnative Plants of the Elwha Watershed Restoration
    Guidebook to Invasive Nonnative Plants of the Elwha Watershed Restoration Olympic National Park, Washington Cynthia Lee Riskin A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Horticulture University of Washington 2013 Committee: Linda Chalker-Scott Kern Ewing Sarah Reichard Joshua Chenoweth Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Environmental and Forest Sciences Guidebook to Invasive Nonnative Plants of the Elwha Watershed Restoration Olympic National Park, Washington Cynthia Lee Riskin Master of Environmental Horticulture candidate School of Environmental and Forest Sciences University of Washington, Seattle September 3, 2013 Contents Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. ii Tables ................................................................................................................................................................. vi Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 1 Bromus tectorum L. (BROTEC) ..................................................................................................................... 19 Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. (CIRARV)
    [Show full text]
  • The Bees (Apidae, Hymenoptera) of the Botanic Garden in Graz, an Annotated List 19-68 Mitteilungen Des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines Für Steiermark Bd
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Mitteilungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins für Steiermark Jahr/Year: 2016 Band/Volume: 146 Autor(en)/Author(s): Teppner Herwig, Ebmer Andreas Werner, Gusenleitner Fritz Josef [Friedrich], Schwarz Maximilian Artikel/Article: The bees (Apidae, Hymenoptera) of the Botanic Garden in Graz, an annotated list 19-68 Mitteilungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereines für Steiermark Bd. 146 S. 19–68 Graz 2016 The bees (Apidae, Hymenoptera) of the Botanic Garden in Graz, an annotated list Herwig Teppner1, Andreas W. Ebmer2, Fritz Gusenleitner3 and Maximilian Schwarz4 With 65 Figures Accepted: 28. October 2016 Summary: During studies in floral ecology 151 bee (Apidae) species from 25 genera were recorded in the Botanic Garden of the Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz since 1981. The garden covers an area of c. 3.6 ha (buildings included). The voucher specimens are listed by date, gender and plant species visited. For a part of the bee species additional notes are presented. The most elaborated notes concern Hylaeus styriacus, three species of Andrena subg. Taeniandrena (opening of floral buds for pollen harvest,slicing calyx or corolla for reaching nectar), Andrena rufula, Andrena susterai, Megachile nigriventris on Glau­ cium, behaviour of Megachile willughbiella, Eucera nigrescens (collecting on Symphytum officinale), Xylocopa violacea (vibratory pollen collection, Xylocopa-blossoms, nectar robbing), Bombus haematurus, Nomada trapeziformis, behaviour of Lasioglossum females, honeydew and bumblebees as well as the flowers ofViscum , Forsythia and Lysimachia. Andrena gelriae and Lasioglossum setulosum are first records for Styria. This inventory is put in a broader context by the addition of publications with enumerations of bees for 23 other botanic gardens of Central Europe, of which few are briefly discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Brittlestem Hempnettle Galeopsis Tetrahit L
    splitlip hempnettle Galeopsis bifida Boenn. brittlestem hempnettle Galeopsis tetrahit L. Synonyms for Galeopsis bifida: Galeopsis bifida var. emarginata Nakai, G. tetrahit var. bifida (Boenn.) Lej. & Court., G. tetrahit var. parviflora Bentham Other common name: none Synonyms for Galeopsis tetrahit: none Other common name: common hempnettle Family: Lamiaceae Invasiveness Rank: 50 The invasiveness rank is calculated based on a species’ ecological impacts, biological attributes, distribution, and response to control measures. The ranks are scaled from 0 to 100, with 0 representing a plant that poses no threat to native ecosystems and 100 representing a plant that poses a major threat to native ecosystems. Description These Galeopsis species can be distinguished from each Splitlip hempnettle and brittlestem hempnettle are other based on the following features. Brittlestem annual plants that grow 20 to 80 cm tall from taproots. hempnettle has stems that are hairy mainly on the nodes, Stems are erect, quadrangular, simple or branched, rounded leaf bases, and central lobes on the corollas that hairy, and usually swollen below nodes. Leaves are are entire. Corollas of brittlestem hempnettle are 15 to opposite, petiolated, lanceolate to ovate, sparsely hairy 23 mm long. Splitlip hempnettle has internodes that are on both sides, 3 to 10 cm long, and 1 to 5 cm wide with usually densely hairy, triangular leaf bases, and central long-pointed tips and coarsely toothed margins. Petioles lobes on the corollas that are notched. Corollas of are hairy and 1 to 2.5 cm long. Flowers are arranged in splitlip hempnettle are usually less than 15 mm long dense clusters in leaf axils near the ends of stems.
    [Show full text]