4.4 Article

Bee visitation rates to cultivated sunflowers increase with the amount and accessibility of nectar sugars

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED ENTOMOLOGY
卷 141, 期 7, 页码 561-573

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jen.12375

关键词

Apoidea; bumble bee; corolla; Helianthus; honey bee; pollen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pollinators make foraging decisions based on numerous floral traits, including nectar and pollen rewards, and associated visual and olfactory cues. For insect-pollinated crops, identifying and breeding for attractive floral traits may increase yields. In this study, we examined floral trait variation within cultivated sunflowers and its effects on bee foraging behaviours. Over 2years, we planted different sunflower inbred lines, including male-fertile and male-sterile lines, and measured nectar volume, nectar sugar concentration and composition, and corolla length. During bloom, we recorded visits by both managed honey bees and wild bees. We then examined consistency in relative nectar production by comparing field results to those from a greenhouse experiment. Sunflower inbred lines varied significantly in all floral traits, including the amount and composition of nectar sugars, and in corolla length. Both wild bee and honey bee visits significantly increased with nectar sugar amount and decreased with corolla length, but appeared unaffected by nectar sugar composition. While wild bees made more visits to sunflowers providing pollen (male-fertile), honey bees preferred plants without pollen (male-sterile). Differences in nectar quantity among greenhouse-grown sunflower lines were similar to those measured in the field, and bumble bees preferentially visited lines with more nectar in greenhouse observations. Our results show that sunflowers with greater quantities of nectar sugar and shorter corollas receive greater pollination services from both managed and wild bees. Selecting for these traits could thus increase sunflower crop yields and provide greater floral resources for bees.

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

4.4
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