Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators [1 Attachment]

Expand Messages
  • Foley, Tess
    Thank you all for doing this. This is great! Tess Foley The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station 123 Huntington Street, P.O. Box 1106 New Haven, CT
    Message 1 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment

      Thank you all for doing this. This is great!

       

      Tess Foley

      The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

      123 Huntington Street, P.O. Box 1106

      New Haven, CT  06504       203-974-8459

      Support Nature 

       

      From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto:beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Zarrillo, Tracy
      Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:34 PM
      To: Laura Russo; Bee United
      Subject: RE: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators [1 Attachment]

       

       

      [Attachment(s) from Zarrillo, Tracy included below]

      Hi Laura,

       

      I don’t know if you have seen this yet, but I am attaching a pamphlet put out by Bryn Mawr College and Rutgers University called Native Bee Benefits.  On page 5 is a list of the most efficient native bees for pollinating top regional fruits and vegetables…Hope you find it helpful.  Maybe you can track down the research that went into making this list. 

       

      Kindest regards,

      Tracy Zarrillo

       

       

      From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto:beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laura Russo
      Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:16 PM
      To: Bee United
      Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

       

       

      Hello all,
      I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

      I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

      Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

      I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

      Thank you for your time,

      Laura Russo

      --
      PhD Candidate
      Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
      Biology Department
      Pennsylvania State University
      University Park, PA 16802

      office: 415 Mueller Lab
      phone: 814-865-7912

    • pollinator2001
      The pamphlet is a very informative one, with some really good photos as well. I plan to link to it soon on my pollination blog. There are a couple misleading
      Message 2 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The pamphlet is a very informative one, with some really good photos as well. I plan to link to it soon on my pollination blog.

        There are a couple misleading points, however and one glaring error that I'd like to point out as a critique. Perhaps the authors need to consider this for an update.

        1. Much is made of colony collapse disorder in honeybees. This is similar to past unexplained dieoffs that have occasionally occured in beekeeping history, only this one was at a larger scale. Much of this loss seems to have run its course, and the bees were easily and quickly replaced, except in cases of beekeeper bankruptcy. At any rate the beekeeping industry, with some research help, is on the way to solutions to CCD.

        What is not made clear is that wild bees are not so quickly and easily replaced; thus are of much more concern. And with this, we go back to the biggest problem for all bees, which beekeepers have been trying to solve for a couple generations, and have been unable to get any significant help.

        The problem is pesticide misuse - violation of the pesticide label directions - that continue to occur. In most cases wild bees and feral honeybees have no legal protection; lip service is given to protecting managed honeybees, but most "protection" involves advising pesticide users to evade the pesticide directions, by notification of beekeepers.

        A pesticide user is the one who makes the choice to use a pesticide, and he is responsible for its safe use, yet these notification schemes allow him to dump the trouble and expense for protecting the bees onto others who are not benefited and have no way to recoup the costs.

        Pesticide misuse is the greatest single danger to all bee species. Wild bee advocates and beekeepers need to be working together to get enforcement of label directions - which generally forbid applications in conditions where they are a threat to foraging bees. (And the labels only say "bees," yet the pesticide cops tend to interpret this clear direction as only applying to honeybees.)

        2. Several times the pamphlet mentions "attracting bees." This is a flawed mindset. When populations are thin, bees can't be attracted, or if they are attracted in small numbers, they tend to go to the rich food sources planted to attract them, rather than to the crops that need pollination.

        What is needed is another mindset - pollination managers need to have an overall view that strives to restore stable normal populations of bees by giving them habitat, including nesting sites, continuous forage, and pesticide protection. The pamplet does explain this, but undoes it to a certain extent, by frequent reference to "attracting bees." When pollinator populations return to normal, competition for forage will ensure that ALL blossoms get the required visitation.

        3. Carpenter bees are NOT good blueberry pollinators. They are notorious nectar thieves with flowers with a deep corrolla, such as blueberries. Then they leave a slit in the side of the corrolla, enabling other bees to happily steal the nectar as well, without contacting the sexual organs of the flower.

        Carpenter bees are excellent pollinators of fruits with open-faced flowers, such as blackberries, apples, plums, peaches; and of flowers designed for a large bee, such as passionflower.

        Dave Green
        http://pollinator.com



        --- In beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com, "Zarrillo, Tracy" <tracy.zarrillo@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hi Laura,
        >
        > I don't know if you have seen this yet, but I am attaching a pamphlet put out by Bryn Mawr College and Rutgers University called Native Bee Benefits. On page 5 is a list of the most efficient native bees for pollinating top regional fruits and vegetables...Hope you find it helpful. Maybe you can track down the research that went into making this list.
        >
        > Kindest regards,
        > Tracy Zarrillo
        >
        >
        > From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto:beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laura Russo
        > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:16 PM
        > To: Bee United
        > Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators
        >
        >
        >
        > Hello all,
        > I hope that this is the right forum for this question. I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?
        >
        > I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators. Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen. Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...). However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators. Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators.
        >
        > Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?
        >
        > I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.
        >
        > Thank you for your time,
        >
        > Laura Russo
        >
        > --
        > PhD Candidate
        > Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
        > Biology Department
        > Pennsylvania State University
        > University Park, PA 16802
        >
        > office: 415 Mueller Lab
        > phone: 814-865-7912
        >
      • Jack Neff
        Laura: Pollinator efficacy is best measured with actual experiments which link visitation and fruit and/or seed set. These can be rather tedious so many
        Message 3 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          Laura:  Pollinator efficacy is best measured with actual experiments which link visitation and fruit and/or seed set.  These can be rather tedious so many workers resort to guesstimates involving some combination of traits which are thought to predict pollinating ability (size, abundance, frequency of visitation, contact with anthers and stigma and so forth).  I believe most the pollinator "information" on the Rutgers/Bryn Mawr pamphlet is of the latter type as some of it is highly dubious (Dialictus as excellent pollinators of tomatoes or peppers,  Peponapis as significant pollinators of muskmelon or watermelon, and the classification of Andrena as only good, not excellent pollinators of apples).  Bees tend to be the dominant pollinators in most communities since they are relatively common, their entire life cycles )with few exceptions) are based on floral resources, and they tend to make frequent contact with plant reproductive parts.  That doesn't mean all bees are great pollinators or that all plants are bee pollinated.  There is vast literature on pollination biology out there if you are interested in such stuff.

          best

          Jack 
           
          John L. Neff
          Central Texas Melittological Institute
          7307 Running Rope
          Austin,TX 78731 USA
          512-345-7219



          From: Laura Russo <lar322@...>
          To: Bee United <beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 11:16:13 AM
          Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

           

          Hello all,
          I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

          I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

          Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

          I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

          Thank you for your time,

          Laura Russo

          --
          PhD Candidate
          Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
          Biology Department
          Pennsylvania State University
          University Park, PA 16802

          office: 415 Mueller Lab
          phone: 814-865-7912


        • pollinator2001
          ... Even this may not quantify much; it may only give rough estimates. Having watched bees for many seasons, it never fails to impress me that a particular
          Message 4 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com, Jack Neff <jlnatctmi@...> wrote:
            >
            > Laura: Pollinator efficacy is best measured with actual experiments which link
            > visitation and fruit and/or seed set.

            Even this may not quantify much; it may only give rough estimates. Having watched bees for many seasons, it never fails to impress me that a particular plant species, in a particular spot, can have one species be the primary pollinator one year, while the next year it's obvious that another pollinator is doing the bulk of the job.

            Another variable was strongly impressed on me just this afternoon as I tried to take some photos of B. impatiens on marigold blossoms. As I did, it left them and moved over to a patch of zinnia blossoms. As I cautiously moved to the new site and began to snap, it left again, moving to a patch of mistflower.

            I can't quantify which bee species move around from one plant species to another, but I've seen it often enough to realize that their efficiency has to be reduced by such activity.

            All told, it seems that you can only come up with case by case information, and that may not be exactly valid the next time.

            Dave in SC
            (Where we still have a few flowers and bees left)
          • Jack Neff
            Pollinator2001 et al: Variation is part of all natural systems but hard data is usually preferable to mere guessing. Jack John L. Neff Central Texas
            Message 5 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              Pollinator2001 et al:  Variation is part of all natural systems but hard data is usually preferable to mere guessing.

              Jack
               
              John L. Neff
              Central Texas Melittological Institute
              7307 Running Rope
              Austin,TX 78731 USA
              512-345-7219



              From: pollinator2001 <Pollinator@...>
              To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 8:40:46 PM
              Subject: [beemonitoring] Re: Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

               



              --- In beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com, Jack Neff <jlnatctmi@...> wrote:
              >
              > Laura: Pollinator efficacy is best measured with actual experiments which link
              > visitation and fruit and/or seed set.

              Even this may not quantify much; it may only give rough estimates. Having watched bees for many seasons, it never fails to impress me that a particular plant species, in a particular spot, can have one species be the primary pollinator one year, while the next year it's obvious that another pollinator is doing the bulk of the job.

              Another variable was strongly impressed on me just this afternoon as I tried to take some photos of B. impatiens on marigold blossoms. As I did, it left them and moved over to a patch of zinnia blossoms. As I cautiously moved to the new site and began to snap, it left again, moving to a patch of mistflower.

              I can't quantify which bee species move around from one plant species to another, but I've seen it often enough to realize that their efficiency has to be reduced by such activity.

              All told, it seems that you can only come up with case by case information, and that may not be exactly valid the next time.

              Dave in SC
              (Where we still have a few flowers and bees left)


            • Nick Stewart
              Hey Laura,    This is from my Palm, so it s brief, but i m currently in the middle (ended 2010 Season early-Oct, continuing ID s) of a large study
              Message 6 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                Hey Laura,

                   This is from my Palm, so it's brief, but i'm currently in the middle (ended 2010 Season early-Oct, continuing ID's) of a large study looking directly into that very thing - though, it's in set in N. GA & specifically I'm looking @ (surveying species richness & evenness) ALL native pollinators w/in my 12 sites, which (w/  apids) includes every family in Apoidea, Leps, & the pollinating taxa of Diptera (syrphids, bombylids, most muscoid calyptrates, etc). 
                    One facet of the project (1 of 7 distinct focuses studied w/in my study plots on each site), is a netting  program during the bloom, where a proportion of the trees are covered by netting w/ a gauge that excludes pollinators 80% the size of A. mellifera, allowing us to check only the open blooms during sampling days (for # of effective pollen tubes), deter. those native's (< apis) efficacy of pollinators.

                (Took me like 30min to write that, darn phones!!) 

                If you're (or anyone's) intrigued, feel free to contact me for more!
                 
                Also, I used to work @ the Frost Museum (Dr. KC Kim was my mentor) for ~4yrs, right across the street from Ento Dept in the Ag Bldg! Worked mostly on biodiversity assesments (doing species, for Gettysburg Asses. (GETT), & family/generic, for Fort Indiantown Gap (FTIG), determinations), the Sea Otter Ectoparasite Study, curatorial duties, etc. - that's where I honed my ID  ability. Great-great school!!

                Nick Stewart
                Georgia Gwinnett College
                nick.s2art@...





                Sent from my Palm Pixi on AT&T


                On Oct 29, 2010 12:16 PM, Laura Russo <lar322@...> wrote:

                 

                Hello all,
                I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

                I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

                Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

                I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

                Thank you for your time,

                Laura Russo

                --
                PhD Candidate
                Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
                Biology Department
                Pennsylvania State University
                University Park, PA 16802

                office: 415 Mueller Lab
                phone: 814-865-7912

              • Eugene J. Scarpulla
                Laura, This information may be a bit dated and you may already have it, but I have just finished reading Forgotten Pollinators by Stephen L. Buchmann and Gary
                Message 7 of 16 , Oct 29, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  Laura,
                   
                  This information may be a bit dated and you may already have it, but I have just finished reading Forgotten Pollinators by Stephen L. Buchmann and Gary Paul Nabhan (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, 292 pp.).  While Appendix 5 (Pollinator Classes for the World's Wild Flowering Plants) does not specifically address pollinator efficiency, it does show an interesting table of "Categories of Pollen Vectors" and "% of Total Flowering Plants (Angiosperms) Pollinated by Taxon."  I have listed them in descending order.
                   
                  Beetles: 88.3%
                  Hymenoptera: 18.0%
                  Bees: 16.6%
                  Wind: 8.3%
                  Butterflies/Moths: 8.0%
                  Flies: 5.9%
                  Water: 0.63%
                  All Vertebrates: 0.51%
                  Birds: 0.4%
                  Thrips: 0.21%
                  All Mammals: 0.1%
                  Bats: 0.07%
                   
                  Gene Scarpulla
                  Millers Island, Maryland
                  Editor, The Maryland Entomologist & The Phaeton
                  ejscarp@...
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:16 PM
                  Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                   

                  Hello all,
                  I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

                  I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

                  Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

                  I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

                  Thank you for your time,

                  Laura Russo

                  --
                  PhD Candidate
                  Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
                  Biology Department
                  Pennsylvania State University
                  University Park, PA 16802

                  office: 415 Mueller Lab
                  phone: 814-865-7912

                • Jack Neff
                  That 88% of the worlds flora is visited by beetles is quite plausible. That beetles are the primary pollinators of 88% of the worlds flora is preposterous.
                  Message 8 of 16 , Oct 30, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That 88%  of the worlds flora is visited by beetles is quite plausible.  That beetles are the primary pollinators of 88% of the worlds flora is preposterous.  Academic rigor is not one of the strong points of Nabhams and Buchmann plea for pollinator conservation.

                    best

                    Jack
                     
                    John L. Neff
                    Central Texas Melittological Institute
                    7307 Running Rope
                    Austin,TX 78731 USA
                    512-345-7219



                    From: Eugene J. Scarpulla <ejscarp@...>
                    To: Bee United <beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 11:28:16 PM
                    Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                     

                    Laura,
                     
                    This information may be a bit dated and you may already have it, but I have just finished reading Forgotten Pollinators by Stephen L. Buchmann and Gary Paul Nabhan (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, 292 pp.).  While Appendix 5 (Pollinator Classes for the World's Wild Flowering Plants) does not specifically address pollinator efficiency, it does show an interesting table of "Categories of Pollen Vectors" and "% of Total Flowering Plants (Angiosperms) Pollinated by Taxon."  I have listed them in descending order.
                     
                    Beetles: 88.3%
                    Hymenoptera: 18.0%
                    Bees: 16.6%
                    Wind: 8.3%
                    Butterflies/Moths: 8.0%
                    Flies: 5.9%
                    Water: 0.63%
                    All Vertebrates: 0.51%
                    Birds: 0.4%
                    Thrips: 0.21%
                    All Mammals: 0.1%
                    Bats: 0.07%
                     
                    Gene Scarpulla
                    Millers Island, Maryland
                    Editor, The Maryland Entomologist & The Phaeton
                    ejscarp@...
                     
                     
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:16 PM
                    Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                     

                    Hello all,
                    I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

                    I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

                    Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

                    I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

                    Thank you for your time,

                    Laura Russo

                    --
                    PhD Candidate
                    Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
                    Biology Department
                    Pennsylvania State University
                    University Park, PA 16802

                    office: 415 Mueller Lab
                    phone: 814-865-7912


                  • Linda Newstrom
                    Hi Laura A group in New Zealand has been considering this topic with our native albeit primitive bees. The contacts are Barry Donovan
                    Message 9 of 16 , Oct 31, 2010

                    Hi Laura

                    A group in New Zealand has been considering this topic with our native albeit primitive bees.

                    The contacts are Barry Donovan  (Barry.Donovan@...)

                    and Brad Howlett (Brad.Howlett@...).

                     

                    I have attached a couple papers. 

                    One on comparing how much pollen is transferred by native bees and honey bees and bumble bees.

                     

                    One on the use of the terms effectiveness and efficiency and importance and ways to measure them.

                    Sorry this last one has been published but I don’t have the pdf copy available to me right now as I do not have access to the source for the final published copy at the moment (In Biological Reviews 2009).

                     

                    Regards

                    Linda Newstrom-Lloyd

                     

                    From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto:beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Laura Russo
                    Sent: Saturday, 30 October 2010 5:16 a.m.
                    To: Bee United
                    Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                     

                     

                    Hello all,
                    I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

                    I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

                    Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

                    I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

                    Thank you for your time,

                    Laura Russo

                    --
                    PhD Candidate
                    Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
                    Biology Department
                    Pennsylvania State University
                    University Park, PA 16802

                    office: 415 Mueller Lab
                    phone: 814-865-7912

                     

                    __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5578 (20101031) __________

                     

                    The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

                     

                    http://www.eset.com



                    __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5580 (20101031) __________

                    The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

                    http://www.eset.com


                    Please consider the environment before printing this email
                    Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails.
                    The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
                  • Greenstone, Matt
                    See also Lundgren JG (2009) Relationships of natural enemies and non-prey foods. Springer. There are some little-known and forgotten instances of pollinivory
                    Message 10 of 16 , Nov 1, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment

                      See also Lundgren JG (2009) Relationships of natural enemies and non-prey foods. Springer.

                       

                      There are some little-known and forgotten instances of pollinivory and nectarivory cited, some in detail, and many of which undoubtedly result in pollination.

                       

                      Matt G

                       


                      From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [mailto:beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack Neff
                      Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 11:05 AM
                      To: Eugene J. Scarpulla; Bee United
                      Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                       

                       

                      That 88%  of the worlds flora is visited by beetles is quite plausible.  That beetles are the primary pollinators of 88% of the worlds flora is preposterous.  Academic rigor is not one of the strong points of Nabhams and Buchmann plea for pollinator conservation.

                       

                      best

                       

                      Jack
                       

                      John L. Neff
                      Central Texas Melittological Institute
                      7307 Running Rope
                      Austin , TX 78731 USA
                      512-345-7219

                       

                       


                      From: Eugene J. Scarpulla <ejscarp@...>
                      To: B! ee United <beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Fri, October 29, 2010 11:28:16 PM
                      Subject: Re: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                       

                      Laura,

                       

                      This information may be a bit dated and you may already have it, but I have just finished reading Forgotten Pollinators by Stephen L. Buchmann and Gary Paul Nabhan (Island Press, Washington, D.C., 1996, 292 pp.).  While Appendix 5 (Pollinator Classes for the World's Wild Flowering Plants) does not specifically address pollinator efficiency, it does show an interesting table of "Categories of Pollen Vectors" and "% of Total Flowering Plants (Angiosperms) Pollinated by Taxon."  I have listed them in descending order.

                       

                      Beetles: 88.3%

                      Hymenoptera: 18.0%

                      Bees: 16.6%

                      Wind: 8.3%

                      Butterflies/Moths: 8.0%

                      Flies: 5.9%

                      Water: 0.63%

                      All Vertebrates: 0.51%

                      Birds: 0.4%

                      Thrips: 0.21%

                      All Mammals: 0.1%

                      Bats: 0.07%

                       

                      Gene Scarpulla
                      Millers Island , Maryland
                      Editor, The Maryland Entomologist & The Phaeton
                      ejscarp@...

                       

                       

                      ----- Original Message -----

                      Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 12:16 PM

                      Subject: [beemonitoring] Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

                       

                       

                      Hello all,
                      I hope that this is the right forum for this question.  I am curious to see whether anyone on this list-serve has strong opinions about the effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators?

                      I may be confused about this topic, but as far as I can tell... floral visitation is commonly used as a surrogate for pollination services in the literature, but it seems clear that not all floral visitors are equally efficient pollinators.  Apids seem to be touted as the most effective because a) they collect pollen for their brood and b) they have branched body hairs that stick to pollen.  Other Hymenopterans are called bees, (the Anthophila families: i.e. Colletidae, Andrenidae, Megachilidae, Halictidae, Melittidae...).  However, some members of the genus Hylaeus carry pollen internally and seem like they would be less effective as pollinators.  Similarly, non-Hymenopteran visitors, such as Syrphids, are sometimes labeled pollinators. 

                      Do you know of any work that has been done to compare the efficacy of these different visitors for pollination?

                      I apologize if this is not an appropriate question, but I felt that I could learn a lot by posing it to all of the experts on the list-serve.

                      Thank you for your time,

                      Laura Russo

                      --
                      PhD Candidate
                      Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
                      Biology Department
                      Pennsylvania State University
                      University Park , PA 16802

                      office: 415 Mueller Lab
                      phone: 814-865-7912

                       

                    • Susan Waters
                      Hello, I ve just read about a bioinformatics system for identifying bees called ABIS. Does anyone know where I can find this software, how to get ahold of it,
                      Message 11 of 16 , Nov 4, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hello,

                        I've just read about a bioinformatics system for identifying bees
                        called ABIS. Does anyone know where I can find this software, how to
                        get ahold of it, and what it might cost?

                        Thank you,

                        Susan Waters
                      • Wilson, Michael E
                        Hi Susan, That reminded me of some honey bee morphometric work I have heard presentations about. I found this reference in an article. Steinhage V., Arbuckle
                        Message 12 of 16 , Nov 5, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi Susan,
                          That reminded me of some honey bee morphometric work I have heard presentations about. I found this reference in an article.

                          Steinhage V., Arbuckle T., Schröder S., Cremers
                          A.B., Wittmann D. (2001) ABIS: Automated
                          Identification of Bee Species, German
                          Programme on Biodiversity and Global Change,
                          Status Report 2001, Bonn, pp. 194–195, [online]
                          http://www.informatik.uni-bonn.de/projects/ABIS/
                          ABIS_publications.html (accessed on 24 October
                          2005).

                          With the link being broken, it appears it used to link from the bottom of this page

                          http://wob.iai.uni-bonn.de/Wob/de/view/class217_id1312.html#class217_id1335

                          Hope that helps.
                          Michael Wilson
                          University of Tennessee

                          From: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com [beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com] on behalf of Susan Waters [smwaters@...]
                          Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 7:04 PM
                          To: beemonitoring@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: [beemonitoring] ABIS system for "fingerprinting" bees

                           

                          Hello,

                          I've just read about a bioinformatics system for identifying bees
                          called ABIS. Does anyone know where I can find this software, how to
                          get ahold of it, and what it might cost?

                          Thank you,

                          Susan Waters

                        • Cane, Jim
                          Susan- ABIS is (was) a sophisticated morphometric digitization and analysis system for identifying bees to species, sometimes even subspecies. It used
                          Message 13 of 16 , Nov 5, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment

                            Susan- ABIS is (was) a sophisticated morphometric digitization and analysis system for identifying bees to species, sometimes even subspecies.  It used angles/lengths/ratios of wing veins and cells fit (collected authomatically in later versions) and automatically chose to fit them to one of 7 (I think) templates, once the system was “trained” on a set of knowns for the genus of interest.  When I last checked, a user-friendly front-end was not available for the software, which was University developed in Germany.  It’s performance would impress if not awe anyone, even a seasoned bee taxonomist.  Last I knew, the software team is now scattered.

                             

                            Yours,

                             

                            jim

                             

                            ===============================

                            James H. Cane

                            USDA-ARS Bee Biology and Systematics Lab

                            Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322 USA

                            tel: 435-797-3879   FAX: 435-797-0461

                            email: Jim.Cane@... 

                            http://www.ars.usda.gov/npa/logan/beelab

                            http://www.biology.usu.edu/people/facultyinfo.asp?username=jcane

                            Gardening for Native Bees: http://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/factsheet/plants-pollinators09.pdf

                             

                            "The obscure takes time to see,

                            but the obvious takes longer"
                            Edward R. Murrow

                             

                          • Susan Waters
                            Thanks to all for your responses! Susan
                            Message 14 of 16 , Nov 5, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thanks to all for your responses!

                              Susan
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.