DOCSLIB.ORG

Native Habitat Restoration in Eastern Washington Wine Vineyards

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Native Habitat Restoration in Eastern Washington Wine Vineyards NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY By KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Entomology MAY 2019 © Copyright by KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY, 2019 All Rights Reserved © Copyright by KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY, 2019 All Rights Reserved To the Faculty of Washington State University: The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of KATHARINE DENISE BUCKLEY find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted. _______________________________ David James, Ph.D., Chair _______________________________ Elizabeth Beers, Ph.D. _______________________________ Joan Davenport, Ph.D. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Lorraine Seymour and Gerry Lauby for their expertise, their organizational skills, their excellence as sounding boards, and hopefully their ability to pass some of that on to me. I thank Cole Provence and my family who were always supportive. I thank all the people who helped me with my statistics, especially Bernardo Chaves. I thank the computer technician who saved my computer’s data and my life. I thank Michael Aquilino. He knows what he did. Finally, I’d like to thank everyone who served on my committee, as well as Laura Lavine, for their guidance along the way. iii NATIVE HABITAT RESTORATION IN EASTERN WASHINGTON WINE VINEYARDS AS A PEST MANAGEMENT STRATEGY Abstract by Katharine Denise Buckley, Ph.D. Washington State University May 2019 Chair: David James Perennial crop systems such as wine grapes have begun using cover crops and hedgerows to increase beneficial insects and promote sustainable vineyard management in areas such as New Zealand and California. However, in arid wine growing regions such as eastern Washington, cover crops are often hard to grow and prohibitively expensive due to water costs. These studies were designed to determine if native plants, which require little or no irrigation, could be used to increase beneficial insect populations and enhance conservation biological control of vineyard pests in eastern Washington. Vineyards with some form of native habitat restoration in four different grape growing regions of eastern Washington were sampled using yellow sticky traps and leaf samples to monitor beneficial and pest insect numbers. These vineyards were compared with nearby conventional vineyards over a three-year period. Secondary pests such as spider mites were well suppressed in habitat-enhanced vineyards, though the primary pests, leafhoppers, were not. Most beneficial insect groups were found to be more abundant in native habitats than in vineyards, and were iv often significantly more abundant in vineyards with native habitat restoration over conventional vineyards. This indicates that native plants used as cover crops or in refugia patches may be a valuable addition to conservation biological control management strategies in arid areas. A partial cost/benefit analysis was also performed, which showed that habitat restoration may be more expensive in the short term than conventional pest control, although long-term benefits may outweigh costs. In a separate study to determine the best plants to use in habitat restorations, native and naturalized plants were evaluated for attractiveness to beneficial insects using clear plastic sticky traps. Plant attractiveness varied greatly by both insect group and time of year. Some native plants currently used to enhance beneficial insect habitat may not be the best option for growers in central Washington, and others such as sagebrush, Artemisia tridentata , may be far more important than previously realized. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. iii ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xv INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 References ............................................................................................................... 9 INCIDENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF BENEFICIAL AND PEST ARTHROPODS IN HABITAT-ENHANCED AND CONVENTIONAL VINEYARDS ................................ 18 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 18 Methods .................................................................................................................. 22 Vineyards ......................................................................................................... 22 Sampling .......................................................................................................... 26 Leaf samples .............................................................................................. 26 Yellow sticky traps ..................................................................................... 26 Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 30 Results .................................................................................................................... 30 Grape Leaf Samples ........................................................................................ 30 Yellow Sticky Traps .......................................................................................... 37 Bee Identification ....................................................................................... 50 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 51 References ............................................................................................................. 55 vi BENEFICIAL INSECT ATTRACTION TO NATIVE FLORA IN CENTRAL WASHINGTON ....................................................................................................... 60 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 60 Methods .................................................................................................................. 63 Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 65 Results .................................................................................................................... 67 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 85 References ............................................................................................................. 89 ANALYSIS OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................................... 94 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 94 Methods .................................................................................................................. 95 Results .................................................................................................................... 97 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 102 References ........................................................................................................... 104 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 107 References ........................................................................................................... 111 SATELLITE MAPS AND PLANT LISTS OF ALL VINEYARDS IN STUDY .................. 112 Columbia Gorge Vineyards ................................................................................... 113 Ancient Lakes Vineyards ...................................................................................... 116 Red Mountain Vineyards....................................................................................... 118 Walla Walla Vineyards .......................................................................................... 121 PESTICIDE RECORDS OF STUDY VINEYARDS ...................................................... 125 Columbia Gorge Vineyards ................................................................................... 125 Dry Hollow ...................................................................................................... 125 vii 2011 ......................................................................................................... 125 2012 ......................................................................................................... 125 2013 ......................................................................................................... 125 Klickitat Canyon .............................................................................................. 126 2011 ........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Wetland Fields in the Maya Lowlands
    Wetland Fields in the Maya Lowlands: Archaeobotanical Evidence from Birds of Paradise, Belize A thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Anthropology of the College of Arts and Sciences 2019 by Martha M. Wendel B.A., University of Cincinnati, 2015 Committee: Susan E. Allen, Ph.D., Chair Sarah E. Jackson, Ph.D. David L. Lentz, Ph.D. Abstract Discoveries of rectangular canal patterns in the margins of wetlands in the ancient Maya lowlands of Guatemala, Belize, and Mexico shed light on a previously unknown agricultural practice: raised wetland fields. One example of wetland fields is found at the site Birds of Paradise (BOP) in the Rio Bravo region of northwestern Belize. For my research project, I have analyzed macrobotanical remains from BOP to: 1) identify the plants that were growing in the canals, 2) identify the plants that were growing in the features identified as raised fields, 3) assess their ecological preferences, 4) assess changing frequencies of different types of plants over time, and 5) provide some insight on how the canals and fields were used. Because this is the first time any systematic macrobotanical analysis has been done at BOP, it makes an important contribution to understanding how the Maya were interacting with their landscape with the use of these features. Additionally, innovative recovery methods such as use of a sonicator and sorting through all geological sieve fractions allowed for more robust quantitative analysis of data. These methods have wide application for use at other sites conducting archaeobotanical research.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National
    Plant Species of Special Concern and Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge Prepared for the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Elk Refuge By Walter Fertig Wyoming Natural Diversity Database The Nature Conservancy 1604 Grand Avenue Laramie, WY 82070 February 28, 1998 Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Jim Ozenberger, ecologist with the Jackson Ranger District of Bridger-Teton National Forest, for guiding me in his canoe on Flat Creek and for providing aerial photographs and lodging; Jennifer Whipple, Yellowstone National Park botanist, for field assistance and help with field identification of rare Carex species; Dr. David Cooper of Colorado State University, for sharing field information from his 1994 studies; Dr. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson of the Rocky Mountain Herbarium, for providing access to unmounted collections by Michele Potkin and others from the National Elk Refuge; Dr. Anton Reznicek of the University of Michigan, for confirming the identification of several problematic Carex specimens; Dr. Robert Dorn for confirming the identification of several vegetative Salix specimens; and lastly Bruce Smith and the staff of the National Elk Refuge for providing funding and logistical support and for allowing me free rein to roam the refuge for plants. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction . 6 Study Area . 6 Methods . 8 Results . 10 Vascular Plant Flora of the National Elk Refuge . 10 Plant Species of Special Concern . 10 Species Summaries . 23 Aster borealis . 24 Astragalus terminalis . 26 Carex buxbaumii . 28 Carex parryana var. parryana . 30 Carex sartwellii . 32 Carex scirpoidea var. scirpiformis .
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Cited
    Literature Cited Robert W. Kiger, Editor This is a consolidated list of all works cited in volumes 19, 20, and 21, whether as selected references, in text, or in nomenclatural contexts. In citations of articles, both here and in the taxonomic treatments, and also in nomenclatural citations, the titles of serials are rendered in the forms recommended in G. D. R. Bridson and E. R. Smith (1991). When those forms are abbre- viated, as most are, cross references to the corresponding full serial titles are interpolated here alphabetically by abbreviated form. In nomenclatural citations (only), book titles are rendered in the abbreviated forms recommended in F. A. Stafleu and R. S. Cowan (1976–1988) and F. A. Stafleu and E. A. Mennega (1992+). Here, those abbreviated forms are indicated parenthetically following the full citations of the corresponding works, and cross references to the full citations are interpolated in the list alphabetically by abbreviated form. Two or more works published in the same year by the same author or group of coauthors will be distinguished uniquely and consistently throughout all volumes of Flora of North America by lower-case letters (b, c, d, ...) suffixed to the date for the second and subsequent works in the set. The suffixes are assigned in order of editorial encounter and do not reflect chronological sequence of publication. The first work by any particular author or group from any given year carries the implicit date suffix “a”; thus, the sequence of explicit suffixes begins with “b”. Works missing from any suffixed sequence here are ones cited elsewhere in the Flora that are not pertinent in these volumes.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Plant List Douglas County by Scientific Name
    The NatureMapping Program Washington Plant List Revised: 9/15/2011 Douglas County by Scientific Name (1) Non- native, (2) ID Scientific Name Common Name Plant Family Invasive √ 763 Acer glabrum Douglas maple Aceraceae 800 Alisma graminium Narrowleaf waterplantain Alismataceae 19 Alisma plantago-aquatica American waterplantain Alismataceae 1087 Rhus glabra Sumac Anacardiaceae 650 Rhus radicans Poison ivy Anacardiaceae 29 Angelica arguta Sharp-tooth angelica Apiaceae 809 Angelica canbyi Canby's angelica Apiaceae 915 Cymopteris terebinthinus Turpentine spring-parsley Apiaceae 167 Heracleum lanatum Cow parsnip Apiaceae 991 Ligusticum grayi Gray's lovage Apiaceae 709 Lomatium ambiguum Swale desert-parsley Apiaceae 997 Lomatium canbyi Canby's desert-parsley Apiaceae 573 Lomatium dissectum Fern-leaf biscuit-root Apiaceae 582 Lomatium geyeri Geyer's desert-parsley Apiaceae 586 Lomatium gormanii Gorman's desert-parsley Apiaceae 998 Lomatium grayi Gray's desert-parsley Apiaceae 999 Lomatium hambleniae Hamblen's desert-parsley Apiaceae 609 Lomatium macrocarpum Large-fruited lomatium Apiaceae 1000 Lomatium nudicaule Pestle parsnip Apiaceae 634 Lomatium triternatum Nine-leaf lomatium Apiaceae 474 Osmorhiza chilensis Sweet-cicely Apiaceae 264 Osmorhiza occidentalis Western sweet-cicely Apiaceae 1044 Osmorhiza purpurea Purple sweet-cicely Apiaceae 492 Sanicula graveolens Northern Sierra) sanicle Apiaceae 699 Apocynum androsaemifolium Spreading dogbane Apocynaceae 813 Apocynum cannabinum Hemp dogbane Apocynaceae 681 Asclepias speciosa Showy milkweed Asclepiadaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho PM Technical Note 2B (Revise): Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho - Spokane, Washington ______________________________________________________________________________ TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 2B OCTOBER 2011 REVISION Plants for Pollinators in the Inland Northwest Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Pamela Pavek, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Mark Stannard, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Pullman, Washington Tim Dring, State Biologist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Jim Cane, Bee Biology and Systematics Lab, ARS, Logan, Utah Karen Fullen, State Biologist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Loren St. John, Manager, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho Brownbelted bumble bee (Bombus griseocollis) visiting a blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata). Pamela Pavek The purpose of this Technical Note is to provide guidance for the design and implementation of conservation plantings to enhance habitat for pollinators including: bees, wasps, butterflies, moths and hummingbirds. Plant species included in this document are adapted to the Inland Northwest, which encompasses northern Idaho, northeastern Oregon and eastern Washington. For species adapted to southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, northern Nevada and northern Utah, refer to Idaho Plant Materials Technical Note 2A. For lists of species adapted to western Washington and western Oregon, refer to the Oregon
    [Show full text]
  • El Género Sclerocarpus (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) En México
    Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 82: 51-61, 2011 El género Sclerocarpus (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) en México The genus Sclerocarpus (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) in Mexico José Luis Villaseñor* y Óscar Hinojosa-Espinosa Departamento de Botánica, Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México., Apartado postal 70-367, 04510 México, D. F., México. *Correspondencia: [email protected] Resumen. El género Sclerocarpus (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) está constituido por 8 especies, 7 de ellas presentes en el territorio mexicano. Este taxón se caracteriza por sus páleas, que al madurar se tornan gruesas, duras y encierran por completo a las cipselas formando estructuras llamadas esclerocarpos. Se presenta una sinopsis del género para México, una clave para la identificación de las especies y mapas de distribución de cada una de ellas. Palabras clave: Asteraceae, esclerocarpo, Heliantheae, México, Sclerocarpus. Abstract.The genus Sclerocarpus (Asteraceae, Heliantheae) comprises 8 pecies, 7 of them recorded in Mexico. It is characterized by its paleae, that become thick and hard when mature, and completely enclosing the cypselae, forming structures called sclerocarps. A synopsis of the genus in the country is provided, including distribution maps of the species and a key to their identification. Key words: Asteraceae, Heliantheae, Mexico, sclerocarp, Sclerocarpus. Introducción y Rhysolepis S.F. Blake (actualmente incluido en Viguiera Kunth). En estos taxones, las cipselas maduras también se encuentran envueltas por completo por sus páleas; sin El género Sclerocarpus Jacq. es un miembro de Helian- embargo, la envoltura paleácea es relativamente delgada, theae, la tribu más grande y diversa de la familia Asteraceae papirácea y de superficie rugosa o corrugada. En los 3 (Stuessy, 1977).
    [Show full text]
  • Riverside State Park
    Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Pacific Biodiversity Institute 2 Provisonal Report Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park Peter H. Morrison [email protected] George Wooten [email protected] Juliet Rhodes [email protected] Robin O’Quinn, Ph.D. [email protected] Hans M. Smith IV [email protected] January 2009 Pacific Biodiversity Institute P.O. Box 298 Winthrop, Washington 98862 509-996-2490 Recommended Citation Morrison, P.H., G. Wooten, J. Rhodes, R. O’Quinn and H.M. Smith IV, 2008. Provisional Report: Rare Plant and Vegetation Survey of Riverside State Park. Pacific Biodiversity Institute, Winthrop, Washington. 433 p. Acknowledgements Diana Hackenburg and Alexis Monetta assisted with entering and checking the data we collected into databases. The photographs in this report were taken by Peter Morrison, Robin O’Quinn, Geroge Wooten, and Diana Hackenburg. Project Funding This project was funded by the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 3 Executive Summary Pacific Biodiversity Institute (PBI) conducted a rare plant and vegetation survey of Riverside State Park (RSP) for the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (WSPRC). RSP is located in Spokane County, Washington. A large portion of the park is located within the City of Spokane. RSP extends along both sides of the Spokane River and includes upland areas on the basalt plateau above the river terraces. The park also includes the lower portion of the Little Spokane River and adjacent uplands. The park contains numerous trails, campgrounds and other recreational facilities. The park receives a tremendous amount of recreational use from the nearby population.
    [Show full text]
  • Mountain Plants of Northeastern Utah
    MOUNTAIN PLANTS OF NORTHEASTERN UTAH Original booklet and drawings by Berniece A. Andersen and Arthur H. Holmgren Revised May 1996 HG 506 FOREWORD In the original printing, the purpose of this manual was to serve as a guide for students, amateur botanists and anyone interested in the wildflowers of a rather limited geographic area. The intent was to depict and describe over 400 common, conspicuous or beautiful species. In this revision we have tried to maintain the intent and integrity of the original. Scientific names have been updated in accordance with changes in taxonomic thought since the time of the first printing. Some changes have been incorporated in order to make the manual more user-friendly for the beginner. The species are now organized primarily by floral color. We hope that these changes serve to enhance the enjoyment and usefulness of this long-popular manual. We would also like to thank Larry A. Rupp, Extension Horticulture Specialist, for critical review of the draft and for the cover photo. Linda Allen, Assistant Curator, Intermountain Herbarium Donna H. Falkenborg, Extension Editor Utah State University Extension is an affirmative action/equal employment opportunity employer and educational organization. We offer our programs to persons regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age or disability. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Robert L. Gilliland, Vice-President and Director, Cooperative Extension
    [Show full text]
  • Part 2 – Fruticose Species
    Appendix 5.2-1 Vegetation Technical Appendix APPENDIX 5.2‐1 Vegetation Technical Appendix Contents Section Page Ecological Land Classification ............................................................................................................ A5.2‐1‐1 Geodatabase Development .............................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐1 Vegetation Community Mapping ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐1 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ............................................................................ A5.2‐1‐3 Limitations of Ecological Land Classification .................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Field Data Collection ......................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐3 Supplementary Results ..................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐4 Rare Vegetation Species and Rare Ecological Communities ........................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Supplementary Desktop Results ..................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐10 Field Methods ................................................................................................................. A5.2‐1‐16 Supplementary Results ................................................................................................... A5.2‐1‐17 Weed Species
    [Show full text]
  • Yakima County Rare Plants County List
    Yakima County Rare Plants County List Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Family Name State Federal Status Status Meadows, open woods, rocky ridge Agoseris elata tall agoseris tops Asteraceae S Allium campanulatum Sierra onion High elevation Liliaceae T Anthoxanthum hirtum common northern sweet grass moist meadows, riparian areas Poaceae R1 shrub-steppe, deep sandy loams, gravelly loams, lithosols and cobbly Astragalus columbianus Columbia milk-vetch sand. Fabaceae S SC Shrub-steppe, open ridgetops and Astragalus misellus var. pauper Pauper milk-vetch upper slopes Fabaceae S Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus long-bearded sego lily Moist meadows, forest Liliaceae S SC gravelly basalt, sandy soils, shrub- Camissonia minor small evening primrose steppe Onagraceae S shrub-steppe, unstable soil or gravel in steep talus, dry washes, banks Camissonia pygmaea dwarf evening primrose and roadcuts. Onagraceae S Carex constanceana Constance's sedge Cyperaceae R1 Carex densa dense sedge intertidal marshland Cyperaceae T Carex heteroneura var. epapillosa smooth-fruit sedge Cyperaceae S seepage areas, wet meadows, Carex macrochaeta large-awned sedge streams,lakes Cyperaceae T Carex vernacula foetid sedge Cyperaceae R1 Castilleja cryptantha obscure paintbrush High elevation Orobanchaceae S SC Collomia macrocalyx bristle-flowered collomia Talus rock outcrops and lithosols Polemoniaceae S Crepis modocensis ssp. glareosa hawksbeard Asteraceae R1 Cryptantha gracilis narrow-stem cryptantha Steep talus slopes Boraginaceae S Cryptantha leucophaea
    [Show full text]
  • Plants for Pollinators in Oregon
    TECHNICAL NOTES U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Portland, Oregon March 2008 PLANT MATERIALS No. 13 PLANTS FOR POLLINATORS IN OREGON Kathy Pendergrass, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Portland, Oregon Mace Vaughan, Conservation Director, Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon Joe Williams, Manager, NRCS, Plant Materials Center, Corvallis, Oregon Left – honey bee on camas flower (Pendergrass) Right – bumble bee on rabbit brush (Vaughan) The purpose of this technical note is to provide information about establishing, maintaining and enhancing habitat and food resources for native pollinators, particularly for native bees, in Riparian buffers, Windbreaks, Hedgerows, Alley cropping, Field borders, Filter strips, Waterways, Range plantings and other NRCS practices. We welcome your comments for improving any of the content of this publication for future editions. Please contact us! PLANTS FOR POLLINATORS IN OREGON Native pollinators are a vital part of our environment. Pollinators are essential for the reproduction of native plants, as well as many crops. Pollinators include some bird and bat species and a wide array of insect species, but bees are the most important for our agricultural landscapes. Native bees are becoming more important pollinators for crop plants in light of recent challenges to honey bee keepers across the U.S., namely Colony Collapse Disorder and the variety of other ailments honey bees face. As a group, pollinators are threatened world-wide by habitat loss and fragmentation, pesticides, introduced diseases and parasites. Habitat enhancement for pollinators can also support other beneficial insects. For example, maintaining native sources of nectar and pollen, as well as protecting or establishing nest sites, provides important resources for other insects which might parasitize or predate upon harmful crop pests.
    [Show full text]