Comparative Pollination Effectiveness Among Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on Lowbush Blueberry (Ericaceae: &lt;I&gt;Vaccinium angustifolium&lt;/I&gt;)

Javorek, S. K.; MacKenzie, K.; Kloet, S. P. Vander

doi:10.1603/0013-8746(2002)095[0345:cpeabh]2.0.co;2

Cited by 241 publications

(234 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

217

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mayfield et al 2001;FumeroCabán and Meléndez-Ackerman 2007;Zych 2007;Niemirski and Zych 2011). In some cases, the most frequent visitor is indeed the most important pollinator (Motten et al 1981;Fishbein and Venable 1996;Olsen 1997;Sahli and Conner 2007;Niemirski and Zych 2011), but in other cases, common floral visitors do not contribute significantly to pollination because, for example, they carry no or little pollen on their bodies (Schemske and Horvitz 1984;Zych 2002;FumeroCabán and Meléndez-Ackerman 2007;Watts et al 2012), their efficiency in pollen transfer is low when compared to other animals (Wilson and Thomson 1991;Cane et al 1993;Mayfield et al 2001; Thomson and Goodell 2001;Javorek et al 2002;Adler and Irwin 2006), and they preferentially visit one flower sexual phase in dioecious or dichogamous plants (Bierzychudek 1987;Schlessman et al 2004;Larsson 2005;Davila and Wardle 2007;Zych 2007). Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.), for instance, being the most common floral visitors in many anthropogenic habitats, may be efficient in pollen removal, but inefficient in pollen deposition, and thus are quoted in some cases as parasites rather than actual pollinators (Westerkamp 1991;Wilson and Thomson 1991;Buchmann and Nabhan 1996;Willmer 2011;Ollerton et al 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The most effective pollinator revisited: pollen dynamics in a spring-flowering herb

Zych

Goldstein

Roguz

et al. 2013

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most flowers are visited by a wide range of potential pollinators. However, their efficiency in pollen removal and deposition, and other behavioural factors affecting pollination effectiveness may greatly differ among taxa, and even individuals. Fritillary (Fritillaria meleagris L., Liliaceae) is a spring-flowering, critically endangered plant in the Polish flora, red-listed in most of the European countries of its range. Based on indirect evidence, that is, body pollen loads, visitation frequency and seasonal abundance, it is estimated that its key pollinators are queen bumblebees, but, as shown in the literature, the largest Fritillaria pollen loads are carried by solitary bees. To study pollinator effectiveness for floral visitors to F. meleagris, we performed a garden experiment, where we analysed pollen deposition and assessed pollen removal per single flowervisit in the plant. Similarly to field conditions reported in the literature, our experimental plants were serviced by nectarseeking bumblebee queens and two taxa of solitary bees, small pollen-collecting Andrena and large, nectar-seeking Anthophora males. When ''quality'' component was addressed, despite the character of visits, insects from all groups deposited more pollen than was found on unvisited flowers, but they did not differ significantly from each other in pollen deposition on virgin stigmas. We also found some differences in pollen removal both within-and among-visitor species and control flowers, unfortunately due to extremely high variation of the results they were all statistically insignificant. However, when ''quantity'' component of insect performance was concerned, we observed that over 81 % of visits were by bumblebees. Bombus queens stayed on flowers significantly less time than small Andrena individuals (13 % of recorded visits) and equally long as Anthophora males (only 6 % of visits). We conclude that although all the visitor groups can pollinate the flowers of F. meleagris, bumblebee queens indeed proved to be the most effective pollinators of the plant, when both quality and quantity components of pollination are concerned.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The most effective pollinator revisited: pollen dynamics in a spring-flowering herb

Zych

Goldstein

Roguz

et al. 2013

Arthropod-Plant Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and larger andrenids (Andrena spp.) (Finnamore and Neary 1978;Mohr and Kevan 1987;Drummond 1999, 2001;Javorek et al 2002), although other, commercially available, bees (e.g., Apis mellifera L. (Aras et al 1996;Javorek et al 2002) and Megachile rotundata F. (Stubbs and Drummond 1997)) may be useful. In fact, there was almost no fruit-set without manipulation of some sort on the flowers of Vaccinium angustifolium and V. myrtilloides (Table 2 and 3).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it is generally accepted that lowbush blueberries usually depend on insects, mostly bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) for pollination (Eck and Childers 1966;McGregor 1976;Reader 1977;Hall et al 1979;Morrissette et al 1985;Mohr and Kevan 1987;Aras et al 1996;Stubbs and Drummond 1997, 1999, 2001Javorek et al 2002), most research on pollination is from commercial lowbush blueberry barrens and there is little information from unmanaged habitats, completely natural stands, and especially the boreal forest (Kevan et al 1993;Mohr and Kevan 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…by bees is essential because of the urceolate (urn-shaped) and pendulous flowers, which require that pollinators hang onto the flowers and enter them from below to obtain nectar or pollen, or both. The most effective pollinators (Javorek et al 2002), such as bumblebees (Bombus spp. (Apidea)) and an array of solitary bees (Apoidea) (Finna-more and Neary 1978) vibrate the anthers to extract pollen (vibratile or "buzz" pollination) (Buchmann 1983).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pollination and Breeding System of Lowbush Blueberries, <em>Vaccinium angustifolium</em> Ait. and <em>V. myrtilloides</em> Michx. (Ericacaeae), in the Boreal Forest

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Breeding systems and pollination requirements of two wild lowbush blueberries, Vaccinium angustifolium and V. myrtilloides, in the Canadian boreal forest in the Chapleau Crown Game Preserve, Ontario, were tested. Fruit production, size and seediness were significantly higher in samples exposed to natural pollination than in those cross-or self-pollinated by hand. There were no significant differences among artificial treatments (variously hand-pollinated and bagged) except when cross-pollination (xenogamy) was done by insect pins. In V. angustifolium, the density of flowering varied with forest age (canopy closure). It was most in open areas and least in the sites with the most mature forest. Although fruit-set and seediness varied among forest habitats of different ages, there were no significant differences between sites in forests of different ages. Thus, pollination seems to be similarly effective no matter the age of the forest. In both species, fruit-set in 1992, which had severe June frosts, was markedly poorer than that in 1993 when the flowers suffered little frost damage. The combined number of complete and incomplete seeds from the fruit among the breeding and pollination systems tested were similar; however, the ratio of complete seeds to total seeds was greater from cross-pollinated than from self-pollinated flowers. Our observations indicate that there is little natural fruit-set without insect-mediated cross-pollination and that cross-pollination provides much better fruit and seed-set than does self-pollination.

show abstract

“…Because of the declining honey bee population worldwide resulting from the condition known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD; Oldroyd 2007, van Engeldorp et al 2008, Ratnieks and Carreck 2010, the use of widespread pesticides (Hopwood et al 2012), climate changes (Bartomeus et al 2011), and the increase in monotonous agricultural landscapes that reduce the biodiversity and the availability of foods for bees, the study of wild and/or domesticated non-Apis bees can provide useful information for complementary bee species that may help with the pollination of food crops in areas where keeping of honey bees colonies are being affected or restricted (Chagnon et al 1993, Wilmer et al 1994, Javorek et al 2002, Hoehn et al 2008, Brittain et al 2013. Until now, only a handful of non-Apis bee species have been used extensively in agriculture, e.g., Bombus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758), Megachile rotundata (Fabricius, 1787), Nomia melanderi Cockerell, 1906, Osmia rufa (Linnaeus, 1758, and some stingless bee species (Westerkamp and Gottsberger 2000, Hogendoorn et al 2006, Greenleaf and Kremen 2006, Slaa et al 2006, Hoehn et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nesting biology of an Oriental carpenter bee, Xylocopa (Biluna) nasalis Westwood, 1838, in Thailand (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Xylocopinae)

Hongjamrassilp¹,

Warrit²

2014

JHR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological study of wild non-Apis bees can provide useful information that may help with the pollination of food crops and native plants in areas where the keeping of honey bee colonies is restricted or affected by CCD. Here, we describe the nesting biology of the Oriental large carpenter bee, Xylocopa (Biluna) nasalis Westwood, 1838. An aggregation of more than 80+ bamboo nests of X. nasalis was discovered in Suan Pheung district, Ratch Buri province, Thailand on the 25 th of May 2012. We collected 27 nests from the site to dissect, measure the external and internal nest architecture, and analyze the pollen composition of the pollen masses. X. nasalis constructs linear unbranched nests with nest entrance mostly located at the open-end of the bamboo culms. The nest length and the branch diameter of the nest entrance (excluding nesting edge) are 25.40 ± 6.95 cm and 17.94 ± 6.00 mm, and the maximum number of provisioned cells is 8. A biased sex ratio of 8♀: 1♂ is reported, with up to 7 adults inhabiting in a single nest. 29 pollen types were identified from 14 pollen masses using an acetolysis method and visualization under both light microscope and scanning electron microscope. 13 pollen types were considered as major pollen sources (contribute ≥ 1% in total pollen volume); however, only 10 can be identified to family and generic levels. The dominant pollen sources are of the families Elaeagnaceae (Elaeagnus cf. latifolia), Euphorbiaceae (Croton), Fabaceae (Senna siamea and Cassia), Fagaceae (Lithocarpus and Castanopsis), and Lythraceae (Trapa) which are mostly native to the region of Southeast Asia. The nesting architectural details should prove to be beneficial to beekeepers and researchers who are interested in trapping and studying X. nasalis, and the polylectic behavior of X. nasalis can be highly valuable for future crop pollination strategies, particularly for plants that require sonication of their poricidal anthers.

show abstract

Comparative Pollination Effectiveness Among Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on Lowbush Blueberry (Ericaceae: <I>Vaccinium angustifolium</I>)

Cited by 241 publications

References 11 publications

The most effective pollinator revisited: pollen dynamics in a spring-flowering herb

The most effective pollinator revisited: pollen dynamics in a spring-flowering herb

Pollination and Breeding System of Lowbush Blueberries, <em>Vaccinium angustifolium</em> Ait. and <em>V. myrtilloides</em> Michx. (Ericacaeae), in the Boreal Forest

Nesting biology of an Oriental carpenter bee, Xylocopa (Biluna) nasalis Westwood, 1838, in Thailand (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Xylocopinae)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About