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

Re: Effectiveness of non-Apid pollinators

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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.