4.1 Article

Comparative ecology of two specialist bees: Dasypoda visnaga Rossi, 1790 and Dasypoda maura Perez, 1895 (Hymenoptera, Melittidae)

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYMENOPTERA RESEARCH
卷 81, 期 -, 页码 109-126

出版社

PENSOFT PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3897/jhr.81.60528

关键词

Conservation; floral preferences; habitat requirements; nesting behaviour; phenology; Scolymus

资金

  1. Federal German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) through the International Climate Initiative (IKI)
  2. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique - FNRS
  3. Research Foundation of Flanders -FWO under EOS Project [3094785]
  4. Academie de Recherche et d'Enseignement Superieur (ARES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study on Dasypoda visnaga and Dasypoda maura shows minor differences in their habitat requirements, with both species exhibiting similar nesting behaviors and floral preferences.
Many wild bee species are declining globally. To design efficient mitigation strategies to slow down or reverse these trends, we urgently need to better understand their basic ecological requirements. In this context, we studied two specialist species for which ecological data are scarce: Dasypoda visnaga and Dasypoda maura. We provide for the first-time detailed information on their phenologies, morphological traits, floral preferences, and nesting behaviours based on historical data and new samples from Morocco. The flight season of both species extends from late spring to late summer but D. maura emerges earlier than D. visnaga. Though the two species show different morphological traits, palynological analyses show that D. visnaga and D. maura females collect almost exclusively pollen from Sco/ymus sp. (Asteraceae). Concerning their nesting behaviour, D. visnaga seems to he more gregarious than D. maura. Both species build nests in sandy soil that can reach a depth of 80 cm. These ecological observations show that the differences between D. visnaga and D. maura are minor with regards to habitat requirements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据