Pollination Requirements of Three Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) Cultivars

MacKenzie, K.

doi:10.21273/jashs.122.6.891

Cited by 60 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fruit set was not responsive to pollination in the ‘Jersey’ cultivar used for this study, whereas we found that the primary response to bee‐mediated pollination was higher fruit weight, stimulated by improved seed set in well‐pollinated fruit. The benefits of pollination to crops are often seen in higher per‐fruit weight and quality rather than in fruit set levels, and the importance of this response varies widely across different blueberry species and cultivars (MacKenzie 1997, 2009; Delaplane & Mayer 2000). Even though highbush blueberry cultivars vary in their levels of parthenocarpy, their yields are often improved by pollination through improved fruit quality and larger berries (MacKenzie 1997).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The benefits of pollination to crops are often seen in higher per‐fruit weight and quality rather than in fruit set levels, and the importance of this response varies widely across different blueberry species and cultivars (MacKenzie 1997, 2009; Delaplane & Mayer 2000). Even though highbush blueberry cultivars vary in their levels of parthenocarpy, their yields are often improved by pollination through improved fruit quality and larger berries (MacKenzie 1997). Similar findings for other crops including grapefruit Citrus paradisi Macf.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Plants dependent on bees for pollen transfer include many perennial fruiting crops, such as the various commercially produced species of blueberry (Delaplane & Mayer 2000). To produce large berries, highbush blueberry requires deposition on the stigma of sufficient pollen tetrads from a compatible cultivar (Marucci & Moulter 1977; MacKenzie 1997; Dogterom 1999; Dogterom, Winston & Mukai 2000). This pollination service is provided by the combined activities of managed A. mellifera and wild bees, and many types of wild bees have higher relative pollination efficiencies on blueberry flowers than honey bees (Javorek, MacKenzie & Vander Kloet 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild and managed bees

Isaacs¹,

Kirk

2010

Journal of Applied Ecology

168

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Plantings of pollinator-dependent crops vary from large, intensively managed fields to small fields that are managed less intensively, yet there is relatively little information on how pollinator populations and their contribution to crop productivity vary across this gradient. 2. We determined the relative importance of wild bees and managed honey bees Apis mellifera L. for crop pollination in the blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum L. system of Michigan, USA, by comparing bee communities in small, isolated blueberry fields with those in large blueberry fields (stocked with managed honey bee hives) and measuring the difference in yields of open-pollinated and pollinator-excluded clusters of flowers. We combined these assessments to calculate the contribution of bees to crop production in this system. 3. Wild bees were the dominant pollinators in small fields, comprising 58% of flower-visiting bees, whereas 97% of bees in large fields were honey bees. Large fields had four times as many bees visiting flowers than small fields, but only one-tenth as many bumble bees as small fields. 4. Levels of fruit set exceeded 85% in all fields and were similar between field sizes. Berry weight increased with flower exposure to pollinators and was positively correlated with bee abundance.Berry weights from open-pollinated flowers were twice as high in large fields compared with small fields. 5. By combining berry weight increases attributable to honey bees and wild bees in blueberry fields with measurements of the bee community adjusted for pollinator efficiency, we calculated the relative contributions of honey bees and wild bees to pollination of Michigan blueberries. We estimate that wild bees provide 82% of the pollination in small fields but only 12% of the total pollination services across this system, mostly through their secondary role in large fields. 6. Synthesis and applications. Wild bees are the primary pollinators of small blueberry fields, but these insects are at low abundance in large fields, perhaps due to a lack of nesting resources or competition for resources with honey bees. Our findings highlight the dependence of commercial fruit producers on honey bees and suggest that increasing the pollination contribution of other bees, particularly bumble bees, in large fields will require that growers adopt wild bee conservation strategies or stock their fields with managed colonies. Quantifying the contributions of managed and wild pollinating bees across the range of crop production scenarios will help to direct development of integrated crop pollination strategies to minimize the risk of pollination deficits affecting food production.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild and managed bees

Isaacs¹,

Kirk

2010

Journal of Applied Ecology

168

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All study sites were conventionally managed but used low‐input management, defined as spraying with fungicides and insecticides fewer than six times during the growing season (from petal drop to fruit harvest). Although blueberry is partially parthenocarpic (Mackenzie ; Eck ), pollination is associated with increased fruit set and fruit weight, as well as decreased ripening time (Eck ; Dogterom, Winston & Mukai ; MacKenzie ; Isaacs & Kirk ), all of which increase the value of the crop to growers. All study fields were monoculture stands of either the ‘Duke’ or ‘Bluecrop’ variety.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollinator body size mediates the scale at which land use drives crop pollination services

Benjamin

Reilly

Winfree

2014

Journal of Applied Ecology

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary1. Ecosystem services to agriculture, such as pollination, rely on natural areas adjacent to farmland to support organisms that provide services. Native insect pollinators depend on natural or semi-natural land surrounding farms for nesting and alternative foraging resources. Despite interest in conserving pollinators through habitat restoration, the scale at which land use affects pollinators and thus crop pollination services is not well understood. 2. We measured abundance of native, wild bee pollinators and the pollination services they provided to highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum L. crops at 16 sites that varied in the proportion of surrounding agricultural land cover at both the field scale (300-m radius) and the landscape scale (1500-m radius). We designed our study such that agricultural land cover at the field scale was uncorrelated with agricultural cover at the landscape scale across sites. We used model selection to determine which spatial scale better predicted aggregate bee abundance, abundance of large versus small bees and crop pollination services. 3. We found that, overall, bees responded more strongly to field-scale than to landscape-scale land cover, but the scale at which land cover had the strongest effect varied by bee body size. Large bees showed a negative response to increasing agricultural cover at both scales, but were most strongly affected by the landscape scale. Small bees were negatively affected by agricultural land cover but only at the field scale, while they had a small positive response to agricultural cover at the landscape scale. 4. Aggregate pollination services from native bees were more strongly influenced by fieldscale agricultural cover, due to the combined effects of both large and small bees responding at that scale. 5. Synthesis and applications. Bee abundance and pollination services were strongly determined by field-scale agricultural cover, suggesting that field-scale set-asides may provide significant benefits to pollination services. Further, we found that pollinators respond differently to land use depending on body size, but all groups of bees benefit from decreasing agricultural cover at the field scale. Therefore, small-scale modifications to habitat can have significant impacts on both pollinator abundance and pollination services to crop plants.

show abstract

“…Historically, the blueberry seed set has been quantiÞed by the number of seeds that Þt qualitative descriptions such as "plump," "sound," "large," "dark," and "apparently viable" (Eaton 1967, Krebs and Hancock 1991, MacKenzie 1997, Dedej and Delaplane 2004, Brevis et al 2006, Isaacs and Kirk 2010. In 2010, we used such methods to visually classify all seeds as small, medium, or large.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple Criteria for Evaluating Pollinator Performance in Highbush Blueberry (Ericales: Ericaceae) Agroecosystems

Rogers¹,

Tarpy²,

Burrack³

2013

env. entom.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous bee species provide pollination services in agricultural ecosystems. Evaluating a pollinator's performance with regard to a crop is an important step in attributing pollination services and predicting how changes in a bee community or foraging environment will affect those services. We used multiple criteria to evaluate pollinators of North Carolina highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum L., agroecosystems. For five groups of bees (Apis mellifera L., Bombus spp., Habropoda laboriosa F., small native bees, and Xylocopa virginica L.), we measured forager abundance through transect observations, quantified per-visit efficiency as viable seed set resulting from a single visit, and analyzed bee presence in different weather conditions. We also considered two other criteria affecting pollinator performance-visitation rate and interspecific influence. A. mellifera was the most abundant bee in the majority of our survey sites, yet had low per-visit efficiency and reduced foraging activity in inclement weather. Small native bees were highly efficient pollinators. Their visits resulted in nearly twice as many seeds as A. mellifera or H. laboriosa. Bombus spp., H. laboriosa, and small native bees were more resilient to fluctuations in temperature, wind speed, and solar radiation than A. mellifera. Although nectar-robbing X. virginica contributed to little pollination through direct flower visits, their presence within the crop impacts the behavior and performance of other individuals. Underscoring the importance of evaluating pollinator performance via multiple criteria, our results show that bee groups contribute to pollination in different ways. These differences may provide functional complementarity and stability of pollination services to agricultural systems.

show abstract

Pollination Requirements of Three Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) Cultivars

Cited by 60 publications

References 0 publications

Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild and managed bees

Pollination services provided to small and large highbush blueberry fields by wild and managed bees

Pollinator body size mediates the scale at which land use drives crop pollination services

Multiple Criteria for Evaluating Pollinator Performance in Highbush Blueberry (Ericales: Ericaceae) Agroecosystems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About