Pollinators other than honey bees visiting certain medicinal plants in Egypt

El‐Berry, A. R.; Gawaad, A. A. A.; Moustafa, M. A.; El‐Gayar, F. H.

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.1974.tb01874.x

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to attract a wide range of flower visiting species and provide pollinators with forage throughout their flying season, the selected MHEP had different blooming phenology (i.e. some MHEP bloomed simultaneously with the main crop, some before and some after the flowering of the main crop, Table 1), various morphological traits and high pollen and/or nectar content (Abd El‐Wahab et al, 2012; Bommarco et al, 2012; El‐Berry et al, 1974; Masierowska, 2003; Nderitu et al, 2008). Considering the limited number of MHEP that can be sown in the study region, the selected MHEP were the only plants meeting these two criteria.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wild vegetation and ‘farming with alternative pollinators’ approach support pollinator diversity in farmland

Sentil

Reverté

Lhomme

et al. 2022

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several management practices have been suggested to mitigate the global pollinator decline in agro-ecosystems, including wildflower strips and Farming with Alternative Pollinators (FAP). FAP proposes to dedicate 25% of the field area to seed Marketable Habitat Enhancement Plants (MHEP) around the main crop, occupying 75% of the field. However, wild pollinators may not rely fully on the resources that fields provide due to differences in flying period and host-plant preferences, and need additional resources from wild flowering plant communities. Here we aim to compare wild pollinator communities between FAP fields, monoculture of pollinator dependent crops and the nearby wild flowering plants. We developed two experimental trials with two main crops (faba bean and eggplant) in 16 fields in North-West Morocco and we compared wild pollinator richness and wild pollinator specialization between FAP fields, control fields and the nearby wild flowering plants. We recorded a significantly higher pollinator richness in FAP fields compared to wild flowering plants and monoculture.Pollinator specialization index (i.e. degree of interaction specialization at the species level) did not differ significantly between the three treatments in faba bean trial (i.e. FAP, control and wild plants), whilst in eggplant trial, wild plants harboured significantly more specialist species than FAP fields. Yet, no significant differences in pollinator specialization index were reported between the other treatments in eggplant trial (i.e. FAP vs. control and control vs. wild plants). Moreover, 28% of the pollinator species collected, were only observed on wild plants, particularly thistles.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wild vegetation and ‘farming with alternative pollinators’ approach support pollinator diversity in farmland

Sentil

Reverté

Lhomme

et al. 2022

J Applied Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among hoverflies, species of the Eristalinae subfamily (Diptera: Syrphidae, subfamily Eristalinae) are frequent visitors of Apiaceae crops including anise (El-Berry et al ., 1974), carrot (Bohart and Nye, 1960; Spurr, 2003; Pérez-Bañón et al ., 2007; Gaffney et al ., 2011, 2018; Hogendoorn and Keller, 2011), coriander (Ambrosino et al ., 2006; Bendifallah et al ., 2013; Sharma et al ., 2016; Shivashankara et al ., 2016; Bhowmik et al ., 2017; Usman et al ., 2018; Wojciechowicz-Zytko, 2019), eryngo (Babaei et al ., 2018), fennel (Sihag, 1986; Chaudhary, 2006; Gama et al ., 2013; Bharti et al ., 2015; Ahmad et al ., 2019; Skaldina, 2020) and parsnip (Jogesh et al ., 2013). In addition, the potential of eristaline hoverflies for pollination of several vegetable seed crops, both in open field and protected environments, has already been studied (Jarlan et al ., 1997; Rader et al ., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollination by the hoverflyEristalinus aeneus(Diptera: Syrphidae) in two hybrid seed crops: celery and fennel (Apiaceae)

Sánchez¹,

Belliure²,

Montserrat³

et al. 2022

J. Agric. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hybrid seed production often relies on managed pollinators whose use in isolation cages can pose challenges. Here, we evaluated the pollination ability of the novel managed pollinator Eristalinus aeneus (Diptera: Syrphidae) in hybrid celery and fennel seed crops. During trials performed in 2019–2020 in Cordoba, Spain, we compared seed production with hoverflies released at high and low densities (40–20 ind./m2), and without released pollinators. In celery, we included a treatment with Lucilia sericata (Diptera: Calliphoridae), a blowfly used for seed production (375 ind./m2). The production of celery seeds when E. aeneus were released at high density was significantly higher (+49%) than without released pollinators, for both sterile and fertile plant genotypes; no significant differences were found between the two hoverfly densities and the blowfly treatments. In fennel, seed yield of fertile plants with high density of hoverflies was higher than with low density (+149%), or without released pollinators (+168%); whereas for sterile plants no differences were found between treatments. In both crops and plant genotypes, the highest pollen adhesion to stigmas (number of pollen grains and proportion of flowers with pollen adhered in two stigmas) was obtained with hoverflies at high density. In celery, pollen adhesion was higher with high density of hoverflies than with blowflies for both plant genotypes, despite the considerably lower numbers of released hoverflies. Our results suggest that E. aeneus is a more efficient pollinator of celery than L. sericata, and that it has the potential to effectively pollinate other hybrid Apiaceae seed crops like fennel.

show abstract

Foraging ecology of hoverflies: morphology of the mouthparts in relation to feeding on nectar and pollen in some common urban species

Gilbert

1981

Ecological Entomology

209

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 1. Previous accounts of the feeding behaviour of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) are contradictory and in many cases do not correspond with field observations.2. Patterns of feeding on nectar and pollen differ between species: these patterns are correlated with morphological differences.3. The data indicate that there are two correlates of increasing tongue length: first, the proportion of pollen in the diet decreases; and second, the flies concentrate on visiting flowers with longer corollae, which contain more nectar sugar.4. Reasons for these effects are discussed.

show abstract

Pollinators other than honey bees visiting certain medicinal plants in Egypt

Cited by 4 publications

References 1 publication

Wild vegetation and ‘farming with alternative pollinators’ approach support pollinator diversity in farmland

Wild vegetation and ‘farming with alternative pollinators’ approach support pollinator diversity in farmland

Pollination by the hoverflyEristalinus aeneus(Diptera: Syrphidae) in two hybrid seed crops: celery and fennel (Apiaceae)

Foraging ecology of hoverflies: morphology of the mouthparts in relation to feeding on nectar and pollen in some common urban species

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About