https://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/issue/feedJournal of Pollination Ecology2022-12-23T06:28:28-08:00JPE senior editorsJPE@pollinationecology.orgOpen Journal Systems<div id="ConnectiveDocSignExtentionInstalled" data-extension-version="1.0.4"> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">The</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;"> Journal of Pollination Ecology (ASBL) </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">is a non-profit, </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">o</span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">pen access, </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">peer-reviewed </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">journal that aims to promote the exchange of original knowledge and research in any area of pollination and pollinator behaviour.</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;">The associated </span><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black;"><a href="http://jpollecol.blogspot.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pollination Magazine </a></span> publishes short lay summaries of all articles published in JPE. You can also find interesting stories about pollination there.</p> </div>https://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/711Fishing for flies: testing the efficacy of “stink stations” for promoting blow flies as pollinators in mango orchards2022-09-21T10:41:35-07:00Jonathan Finchjonathan.finch@utas.edu.auAmy-Marie GilpinA.Gilpin@westernsydney.edu.auJames Cookjames.cook@westernsydney.edu.au<p>Pollinator communities are composed of diverse groups of insects, with radically different life histories and resource needs. Blow flies are known to visit a variety of economically important crop plants. Larval blow flies develop by feeding on decaying animals. Some fruit growers are known to place carrion on farms during the flowering season to attract adult blow flies (Calliphoridae). However, the efficacy of these “stink stations” has not been tested. We conducted a series of experiments to determine: 1) if stink stations promote the abundance of blow flies in mango orchards (<em>Mangifera indica</em> L.), 2) if any increases in the abundance of flies acts to promote pollination and fruit set in Australian mango orchards. Farms with stink stations had approximately three times more flies than control farms. However, the increased abundance of blow flies did not result in increased fruit set. Although stink stations increased the abundance of blow flies, we found no evidence that their use improves mango yield. This may be due to pollination saturation by a highly abundant native hover fly, <em>Mesembrius bengalensis</em> (Syrphidae), during our study. We hypothesize that stink stations may only be beneficial in years or regions where other pollinators are less abundant.</p>2023-03-21T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Jonathan Finch, Amy-Marie Gilpin, James Cookhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/679 Pollen biology and reproductive ecology of selected paleotropical Dendrobiums and its commercial hybrids2022-01-03T23:44:06-08:00Rumalie de Silvarumaliesilva@gmail.comHarshini Herathharshi@kln.ac.lkSena Ratnayakeratna@kln.ac.lkRenuka Attanayakerenuka@kln.ac.lkPriyanganie Senanayakepriyangi@kln.ac.lk<p>Understanding the reproductive biology is of great importance in the development of novel hybrids in ornamental plants. Pollen fitness-related traits are crucial for the pollination success in any plant species including dendrobiums. The aim of the study was to determine and compare the fitness traits of ten commercial <em>Dendrobium</em> hybrids and two indigenous <em>Dendrobium</em> species, <em>D. crumenatum</em> and <em>D. anosmum</em> found in Sri Lanka. We measured pollen viability, pollen germinability, and fruit production after controlled pollination. The effect of storage temperature on <em>D. crumenatum</em> pollen viability was evaluated to establish a suitable pollen storage method to improve future breeding programmes, as the flowering of dendrobiums is seasonal. The reproductive ecology of selected dendrobiums was studied by the observations of visits of natural pollinators and by assessing floral morphology to predict their potential pollinators. Six commercial hybrids had non-viable pollen while<em> D. crumenatum</em> showed the highest pollen germinability under both <em>in vivo</em> and <em>in vitro</em> conditions. Ninety percent of the commercial hybrids failed <em>in vitro </em>pollen germination whereas under <em>in vivo</em> conditions 50% were successful. Self-incompatibility in <em>D. crumenatum</em> was observed in both hand-pollination and under natural pollination. Pollen of <em>D. crumenatum </em>can be stored for two weeks at 9°C maintaining viability and germinability. Selected dendrobiums have shown adaptations to melittophily, suggesting the pollination by bees. Findings indicated a reduction of male fitness in most of the commercial <em>Dendrobium</em> hybrids and a higher fruit set is seen in selfing than cross-pollination. The present study provides information for developing conservation strategies and future hybridization programmes in paleotropical dendrobiums.</p>2023-02-23T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Rumalie de Silva, Harshini Herath, Sena Ratnayake, Renuka Attanayake, Priyanganie Senanayakehttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/719Genotype and environment effects on sunflower nectar and their relationships to crop pollination2022-09-28T11:13:06-07:00Jarrad Prasifkajarrad.prasifka@usda.govBeth Ferguson maryfrgsn@gmail.comKaren K. Fugate karen.fugate@usda.gov<p>Whether caused by genotype (G) or environment (E), floral trait variation has consequences for plants and their pollinators. Cultivated sunflower is a model system to explore floral trait variation; though sunflowers are bred to self-pollinate, benefits of pollination by bees remain substantial. To better understand sunflower-pollinator interactions, experiments were conducted to: (i) examine genotype and environment effects on nectar quantity and quality under controlled conditions, and (ii) assess effects of bags used for pollinator exclusion on nectar quantity, quality and bee foraging in a field environment. Contrasting temperature treatments (28°C, 21°C, 28°C / 16°C) reveal environment effects or G × E interactions for nectar volume (µl / floret), concentration (°Brix), and sugar composition (% sucrose). Bags used to exclude sunflower pollinators resulted in nectar volumes greater than plants with unrestricted access for bees (= open-pollination), and in ≈ 5-fold increased visitation by wild bees after bags were removed. Differences in bee visits to plants that were previously bagged versus plants never bagged decreased over the 2 h following bag removal. Though genetic variation in sunflower nectar is affected by the environment and G × E interactions, improving pollination via plant breeding still appears feasible. Future research on intraspecific variation in pollen rewards could be helpful, especially because pollen has received little research compared to nectar. For research with nectar or pollen, it seems desirable to measure floral rewards with methods that don’t rely on pollinator exclusion (bags or cages), which should provide more realistic data on what pollinators experience while foraging.</p>2023-02-16T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Jarrad Prasifka, Beth Ferguson , Karen K. Fugate https://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/710Parasites, parasitoids, and hive products that are potentially deleterious to wild and commercially raised bumble bees (Bombus spp.) in North America2022-11-01T05:03:22-07:00Elaine Evansevan0155@umn.eduJames Strangestrange.54@osu.eduBen Saddbmsadd@ilstu.eduAmber Tripodiamberdtripodi@gmail.comLaura Figueroallf44@umass.eduLaurie AdamsLDA@pollinator.orgSheila Collasrcolla@yorku.caMichelle Duennesmichelle.duennes@stvincent.eduDavid LehmannLehmann.David@epa.govHeather Moylettheather.moylett@usda.govLeif Richardsonleifr7@gmail.comJames W. Smithdocbug@gmail.comTamara SmithTamara_Smith@fws.govEdward Spevakspevak@stlzoo.orgDavid W. InouyeInouye@umd.edu<p>Bumble bees are important pollinators for a great diversity of wild and cultivated plants, and in many parts of the world certain species have been found to be in decline, gone locally extinct, or even globally extinct. A large number of symbionts live on, in, or with these social bees. We give an overview of what is known about bumble bee ecto-symbionts and parasitoids. We provide information on assessment of risks posed by select bumble bee symbionts and methods for their detection, quantification, and control. In addition, we assess honey bee hive products such as pollen and wax that are used in commercial bumble bee production, and highlight key risks and knowledge gaps. Knowledge of these potential threats to native pollinators is important and they need to be managed in the context of national and international commercial trade in bumble bees to prevent pest introduction and pathogen spillover that can threaten native bees.</p>2023-02-09T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Elaine C. Evans, James P. Strange, Ben M. Sadd, Amber D. Tripodi, Laura L. Figueroa, Laurie Davies Adams, Sheila R. Colla, Michelle A. Duennes, David M. Lehmann, Heather Moylett, Leif Richardson, James W. Smith, Tamara A. Smith, Edward M. Spevak, David W. Inouyehttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/713Endosymbionts that threaten commercially raised and wild bumble bees (Bombus spp.)2022-11-29T15:28:38-08:00Laura Figueroallf44@umass.eduBen Saddbmsadd@ilstu.eduAmber Tripodiamberdtripodi@gmail.comJames Strangestrange.54@osu.eduSheila Collasrcolla@yorku.caLaurie Adamslda@pollinator.orgMichelle Duennesmichelle.duennes@stvincent.eduElaine Evanselainee@umn.eduDavid LehmannLehmann.David@epa.govHeather Moylettheather.moylett@usda.govLeif Richardsonleif.richardson@xerces.orgJames Smithdocbug@gmail.comTamara SmithTamara_Smith@fws.govEdward Spevakspevak@stlzoo.orgDavid W. InouyeInouye@umd.edu<p>Bumble bees (<em>Bombus</em> spp.) are important pollinators for both wild and agriculturally managed plants. We give an overview of what is known about the diverse community of internal potentially deleterious bumble bee symbionts, including viruses, bacteria, protozoans, fungi, and nematodes, as well as methods for their detection, quantification, and control. We also provide information on assessment of risk for select bumble bee symbionts and highlight key knowledge gaps. This information is crucial for ongoing efforts to establish parasite-free programs for future commerce in bumble bees for crop pollination, and to mitigate the problems with pathogen spillover to wild populations.</p>2023-02-07T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 Laura L. Figueroa, Ben M. Sadd, Amber D. Tripodi, James P. Strange, Sheila R. Colla, Laurie Davies Adams, Michelle A. Duennes, Elaine C. Evans, David M. Lehmann, Heather Moylett, Leif Richardson, James W. Smith, Tamara A. Smith, Edward M. Spevak, David W. Inouyehttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/721An evidence-based rationale for a North American commercial bumble bee clean stock certification program 2022-11-01T05:04:54-07:00James Strangestrange.54@osu.eduSheila Collasrcolla@yorku.caLaurie Davies Adamslda@pollinator.orgMichelle Duennesmichelle.duennes@stvincent.eduElaine Evanselainee@umn.eduLaura Figueroallf44@umass.eduDavid LehmannLehmann.David@epa.govHeather Moylettheather.moylett@usda.govLeif Richardsonleif.richardson@xerces.orgBen Saddbmsadd@ilstu.eduJames Smithdocbug@gmail.comTamara SmithTamara_Smith@fws.govAmber Tripodiamberdtripodi@gmail.comDavid W. InouyeInouye@umd.edu<p>The commercial production and subsequent movement of bumble bees for pollination of agricultural field and greenhouse crops is a growing industry in North America and globally. Concerns have been raised about the impacts of pathogen spillover from managed bees to wild pollinators, including from commercial bumble bees. We recommend development of a program to mitigate disease risk in commercial bumble bee production, which will in turn reduce disease stressors on wild pollinators and other insects. We provide recommendations for the components of a clean stock program with specific best management practices for rearing commercial bumble bees including related products such as wax, pollen, and nesting material.</p>2023-01-24T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2023 James P. Strange, Sheila R. Colla, Laurie Davies Adams, Michelle A. Duennes, Elaine C. Evans, Laura L. Figueroa, David M. Lehmann, Heather Moylett, Leif Richardson, Ben M. Sadd, James W. Smith, Tamara A. Smith, Amber D. Tripodi, David W. Inouyehttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/718Beyond Botany: In appreciation of the life and contributions of Dini Eisikowitch (1936 – 2022)2022-09-08T06:32:01-07:00Amots Dafniadafni@gmail.comPeter G Kevanpkevan@uoguelph.ca<p>Professor Dan Eisikowitch (Dini), one of the greatest researchers in 10 pollination and botany, has passed away (1936-2022). Dini died on 19 July, 2022 at 11 the age of 86. An obituary.</p>2022-09-30T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Amots Dafni, Peter G Kevanhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/702Spatio-temporal differences in pollinator species richness, abundance and conservation status in a Mediterranean island2022-10-31T12:56:35-07:00Pau Enric Serra Marinpau.enric.serra@gmail.comRafel Beltranrbeltran@imedea.uib-csic.esAnna Travesetatraveset@imedea.uib-csic.es<p>Although the Mediterranean basin is a hotspot of pollinator diversity, little is still known about how such diversity is distributed in the region and about its conservation status. This study contributes to filling this information gap by studying pollinator diversity parameters in one of the main Mediterranean islands, Mallorca, and further evaluating their conservation category according to the IUCN criteria. We focus on three communities, two coastal and one mountain shrubland, which we have studied for several years. For each community, we obtained the following variables: (1) Shannon diversity (H'), (2) Pielou's index (J'), (3) Number of pollinators per plant (<em>L<sub>p</sub></em>), (4) Flower visitation rate (FVR), (5) Specialisation index (<em>d'</em>) and (6) Normalised degree of pollinators, i.e. the number of plants visited per pollinator species relative to the total number of plant species in the community (ND). All pollinators were categorised into functional groups to test for differences in such variables among them. Differences across communities, years and functional groups were tested through GLMMs. The three communities showed differences in pollinator species composition, species richness and diversity. Pollinator diversity also varied with time, especially in the coastal community, which suffered a major disturbance during one of the study years. Regardless of the functional group, the pollinator specialisation degree seems context-dependent. Native and endemic species might disappear in the short term if appropriate management measures are not taken to narrow down the threats to pollinator populations. Further research is urgently needed to assess most insect pollinators' conservation status in the Mediterranean before such rich diversity is lost forever.</p>2022-12-23T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2022 Pau Enric Serra Marin, Rafel Beltran, Anna Travesethttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/701Pollen accumulation on hawkmoths varies substantially among moth-pollinated flowers2022-06-03T07:17:33-07:00Gordon Smithgosmith2@gmail.comRobert Ragusorar229@cornell.eduChristine Kimcyk29@cornell.edu<p>Using the pollen loads carried by floral visitors to infer their floral visitation behavior is a powerful technique to explore the foraging of wild pollinators. Interpreting these pollen records, however, requires assumptions about the underlying pollen dynamics. To compare visitor foraging across flower species, the most important assumption is that pollen is picked up and retained on the visitor at similar rates. Given differences in pollen presentation traits such as grain number or stickiness even among flowers with similar morphologies, however, the generality of this assumption is unclear. We investigated pollen accumulation on the hawkmoth <em>Manduca sexta</em>, testing the degree to which accumulation differed among flower species and how pollen stickiness affected this accumulation. In no-choice floral visitation assays to six plant species visited by long-tongued hawkmoths in the wild, <em>M. sexta</em> individuals were allowed to visit flowers 1, 2, or 5 times, after which the pollen on their proboscises was removed and counted. We found that the six plant species varied orders of magnitude in the number of pollen grains deposited on the moths, with some placing thousands of grains after a single visit and other placing none after five. Plant species with sticky pollen adhesion mechanisms placed more pollen on the moths and had relatively less pollen accumulation over successive visits than non-sticky plants. Intriguingly, moths carried fewer pollen grains after 5 visits than after 2 visits, suggesting that both sticky and non-sticky pollen was lost during foraging. Together, our results suggest that interpretation of pollen load data should be made cautiously, especially when comparing across plant species. </p>2022-12-23T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2022 Gordon Smith, Robert Raguso, Christine Kimhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/682The importance of soil and vegetation characteristics for establishing ground-nesting bee aggregations 2022-08-10T21:32:31-07:00Konstantinos Tsiolisk.tsiolis@pgr.reading.ac.ukSimon Pottss.g.potts@reading.ac.ukMichael Garrattm.p.garratt@reading.ac.ukEmma Tilstontilston.emma08@gmail.comJoseph Burmanjpjburman@gmail.comNaomi Rintoul-Hynesnaomi.rintoul-hynes@canterbury.ac.ukMichelle Fountainmichelle.fountain@niab.com<p>Most bee species are ground-nesters, yet knowledge on the nesting behaviour of this diverse group remains sparse. Evidence on the effectiveness of ground-nesting bee species as crop pollinators is growing, but there is limited information on their nesting habits and preferences and how to manage habitats to enhance populations on farms. In this study, artificially prepared plots of bare soil were constructed with the aim to attract ground-nesting bees to nest in a commercial orchard in Kent, UK. Nine soil parameters were measured to determine their preferred soil properties: hydraulic conductivity, soil compaction, soil moisture, soil temperature, soil stoniness, soil organic matter, soil root biomass, soil texture and vegetation cover. Eighteen non-parasitic ground-nesting bee species (7 <em>Andrena</em>, 9 <em>Lasioglossum</em>, 1 <em>Halictus</em> and 1 <em>Colletes</em> spp.) were recorded in the study plots. Soil stoniness and soil temperature at 10cm depth were positively correlated, and vegetation cover and hydraulic conductivity were negatively correlated with the number of ground-nesting bees on the plots. We show that artificially created habitats can be exploited for nesting by several ground-nesting bee species. This study’s findings can inform management practices to enhance ground-nesting bee populations in agricultural and urban areas.</p>2022-11-15T00:00:00-08:00Copyright (c) 2022 Konstantinos Tsiolis, Simon G. Potts, Michael Garratt, Emma L. Tilston, Joseph Burman, Naomi L.J. Rintoul-Hynes, Michelle T. Fountainhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/680Consequences of pollinator availability and effectiveness for pollen transfer in a gynodioecious seed crop system2022-03-03T05:51:39-08:00Riley Wayteswaytesr@gmail.comRalph Cartarralphcartar@gmail.comShelley Hoovers.hoover@uleth.ca<p>Pollinator availability and effectiveness are important considerations in plant systems that depend on insect transfer of pollen. In mixed-flower systems (such as dioecious or gynodioecious systems), pollinators may distinguish between morphs, a behaviour which could have negative implications if it leads to reduced cross-pollination. We examined pollinator visitation, response, and effectiveness in hybrid canola seed production, a gynodioecious crop, to understand how pollinator behaviour contributes to cross-pollination between ‘male’ (hermaphroditic) and ‘female’ (male-sterile) morphs. The pollinator types found in these fields differ in visitation rate, size, and pollen load, factors that may affect pollen transfer between plants. The willingness of pollinators to move between male and female flowers can also affect pollen deposition. We used an interview bouquet to present unvisited female inflorescences to different pollinator types visiting male and female flowers to understand behavioural responses to floral morphs and the factors that contribute to better pollination effectiveness. Managed pollinators (honey and leafcutter bees) were far more abundant than wild pollinators in this system. Bees foraging on male flowers were less likely to accept a proffered female flower than those foraging on female flowers. Pollen deposition on stigmas was influenced by pollinator type (female leafcutter bees were the most effective) and increased with time spent on a flower. Pollinators transferring from a male flower to a female flower deposited more pollen than those that originated on female flowers, emphasizing the importance of transfer between male and female morphs. Surprisingly, pollinators carrying more pollen transferred less pollen to recipient stigmas.</p>2022-09-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Riley Waytes, Dr. Ralph V. Cartar, Shelley Hooverhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/669Pollination ecology and breeding system of the tropical tree Guaiacum sanctum on two Caribbean islands with contrasting pollinator assemblages2021-10-26T09:40:14-07:00Jose J. Fumero-Cabanjosejfumero@gmail.comElvia J. Melendez-Ackermanelmelend@gmail.comJulissa Rojas-Sandovaljulirs07@gmail.com<p>Insular pollination systems are more extinction-prone and vulnerable to invasive species than mainland ones. They often have plants with reproductive mechanisms allowing for self-compatibility and low species-rich communities of pollinators. Here, we document different reproductive traits of the tropical tree <em>Guaiacum sanctum</em> on two insular populations with contrasting pollinator assemblages: Guánica in Puerto Rico with alien honeybees and Mona Island where honeybees do not occur. Using field observations and pollination experiments, we evaluated pollinator species richness, visitation rates, breeding system, and the fitness of selfed- vs. crossed-progenies. We found that flowers are pollinated by insects on both islands, but while the species richness of pollinators was higher on Mona, the visitation rates were considerably higher in Guánica where trees are almost exclusively visited by the introduced <em>Apis mellifera</em>. Flowers are not apomictic, and autogamy is negligible indicating that pollinators are required to set fruits. Outcrossing yielded nearly twice the number of fruits and seeds than selfing and these differences were consistent between populations, which might reflect early acting inbreeding depression, partial self-incompatibility, or differences in resource allocation between selfed and outcrossed fruits. Our combined results suggest that the substantial reduction in pollinator visitors in areas dominated by <em>A. mellifera</em> may add an additional level of vulnerability to these threatened populations. Although reproductive fitness is higher in Guánica, mostly due to the pollination services provided by <em>A. mellifera</em>, this population may be more susceptible to environmental changes and large-scale disturbances affecting pollinator abundance given the reduced diversity of flower visitors.</p>2022-09-21T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Jose J. Fumero-Caban, Elvia, Julissahttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/699Evaluating the effects of observation period, floral density, and weather conditions on the consistency and accuracy of timed pollinator counts2022-08-01T05:20:53-07:00Neil Mahonnmahon99@gmail.comSimon Hodgesimon.hodge@ucd.ie<p>Insect pollinators are experiencing substantial declines as a result of habitat loss, agricultural intensification, invasive pests, and climate change. To investigate factors causing pollinator declines, evaluate the success of conservation measures, and institute long-term monitoring schemes, it is essential to validate and standardize pollinator sampling techniques. This study investigated how sampling duration, weather conditions, and abundance of floral resources influenced the results of timed pollinator counts by repeatedly sampling the same pollinator assemblage in an Irish meadow. The likelihood of detection of <em>Apis mellifera</em>, <em>Bombus</em> spp, solitary bees, and Syrphidae was strongly associated with the density of floral units or floral cover in the observation plot. Also, even though protocol criteria restricted pollinator counts to the middle of the day and benevolent weather, pollinator counts were strongly influenced by factors such as cloud cover, light levels, wind speed and relative humidity. Increasing the duration of the timed counts from 5-minutes to 30-minutes considerably increased the probability of detection of each pollinator group. Additionally, the perceived diversity of the pollinator assemblage at the meadow was markedly affected by sampling duration and floral abundance. To improve the consistency or comparability of studies using timed pollinator counts, we recommend that criteria are set restricting surveys to narrow ranges of weather conditions and floral density when possible. Additionally, pollinator field investigations or monitoring programs would benefit from a systematic evaluation of how erroneous non-detection of target taxa can be reduced to acceptable levels by modifying sampling duration.</p>2022-09-14T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Neil Mahon, Simon Hodgehttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/697Stem-nesting Hymenoptera in Irish farmland: empirical evaluation of artificial trap nests as tools for fundamental research and pollinator conservation 2022-05-31T10:43:35-07:00Simon Hodgesimon.hodge@ucd.ieIrene Botterobotteroi@tcd.ieRobin Deanredbeehive@btopenworld.comStephanie MaherStephanie.Maher@teagasc.ieJane StoutSTOUTJ@tcd.ie<p>Insect pollinators are suffering global declines, necessitating the evaluation and development of methods for long-term monitoring and applied field research. Accordingly, this study evaluated the use of trap nests (“bee hotels”) as tools for investigating the ecology of cavity nesting Hymenoptera within Irish agricultural landscapes. Three trap nests consisting of 110 mm diameter plastic pipe containing 100 cardboard nest tubes of varying diameter were placed at eight apple orchards and eight oilseed rape sites and left in the field for five months. Sealed nest tubes occurred at 15 of the 16 sites, and in 77% of the 48 nests. However, only 7% of the 4800 individual nest tubes were sealed, and only 4% produced cavity-nesting Hymenoptera. Three cavity nesting bee species (<em>Hylaeus communis</em>, <em>Osmia bicornis</em>, <em>Megachile versicolor</em>) and two solitary wasp species (<em>Ancistrocerus trifasciatus, A.</em> <em>parietinus</em>) emerged from nest tubes. There were significant differences among species in terms of emergence date and the diameter of nest tubes from which they emerged, the latter allowing the calculation of niche width and niche overlap, and informing choice of tube size in future studies/conservation efforts. Trap nests, therefore, offer a valuable tool for fundamental ecological research and a model system for investigating interactions between stem-nesting species within their wider ecological networks. The ability of trap nests to actually increase farmland pollinator abundance and diversity as part of agri-environment schemes requires additional investigation. However, used in sufficient numbers, these trap nests provide valuable biogeographical data for cavity nesting Hymenoptera and offer a viable means for long term monitoring of these species in Irish farmland.</p>2022-08-03T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Simon Hodge, Irene Bottero, Robin Dean, Stephanie Maher, Jane Stouthttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/663What are the plant reproductive consequences of losing a nectar robber?2021-11-14T00:20:50-08:00Trevor Ledbettertledbetter@arizona.eduSarah Richmansarahkrichman@gmail.comRebecca Irwinreirwin@ncsu.eduJudith Bronsteinjudieb@email.arizona.edu<p>Pollinator declines worldwide are detrimental for plants. Given the negative effects that antagonisitc visitors, including nectar robbers, can sometimes inflict, might declines in their populations instead confer benefits? During the 1970s, reproductive biology of the Colorado columbine, <em>Aquilegia caerulea</em> (Ranunculaceae), was documented near Gothic, Colorado. At that time, <em>Bombus occidentalis</em>, the Western Bumble bee, was one of its many pollinators, but more commonly acted as its only known nectar robber. <em>Bombus occidentalis</em> abundance has declined precipitously throughout the Western USA since the 1970s. In 2016, we documented floral visitors at sites near those used in the original survey. We then experimentally quantified the effects of nectar robbing, allowing us to estimate the reproductive consequences of losing <em>B. occidentalis</em>. We also quantified the potential pollination services of muscid flies (Muscidae, Diptera). The floral visitor community was dramatically different in 2016 compared to the 1970s. <em>Bombus occidentalis</em> was infrequently observed, and nectar robbing was negligible. Our experiments suggested that a high level of nectar robbing would lead to significantly reduced fruit set, although not seeds per fruit. Fly visits to flowers were dramatically higher in 2016 compared to the 1970s. In the absence of bumble bees, muscid flies significantly reduced fruit set below the self-pollination rate. The negative effect of the increase in these flies likely outweighed any positive effects <em>A. caerulea</em> experienced from the absence of its nectar robber. Although the field observations were conducted in a single year, when interpreted in combination with our manipulative experiments, they suggest how <em>A. caerulea</em> may fare in a changing visitation landscape.</p>2022-08-03T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Trevor A. Ledbetter, Sarah K. Richman, Rebecca E. Irwin, Judith L. Bronsteinhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/683Settling velocity and pollination dynamics in Diarrhena obovata, a grass of temperate forest edges and understories2022-04-11T09:00:15-07:00Phillip Klahspklahs@iastate.edu<p>Pollen from a naturally occurring population of the forest grass species <em>Diarrhena obovata</em> was successfully captured in a series of pollen traps to understand the timing of anthesis and the dispersal mechanics of wind pollination in an example of the flowering plant family Poaceae. Scanning electron microscopy was used to identify the pollen surface ornamentation as microechinate-areolate. The spherical grains have a diameter of 38.74 μm. The settling velocity calculated by Stoke’s Law was 4.48 cm s<sup>-1</sup>, but physical measurement by drop tower experiments resulted in 3.77 ± 0.15 cm s<sup>-1</sup> (sd). The surface ornamentation observed in <em>D. obovata</em> pollen is not expected to alter drag forces considerably but the reduction of settling velocity may be a result of species-specific pollen grain density. In forest grasses an improvement in settling velocity may be adaptive in overcoming dispersal constraints in an environment where trees obstruct wind speeds and create more turbulence.</p>2022-07-12T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Phillip Klahshttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/671By land and by tree: Pollinator taxa diversity of terrestrial and epiphytic orchids2022-02-09T08:04:57-08:00Haleigh Rayharay@stetson.eduJennifer Gillett-KaufmanJennifer.Gillett@ag.tamu.edu<p>There are approximately 30,000 species in the family Orchidaceae, with some species growing terrestrially and others growing as epiphytes. Though the pollination biology of many of these species is not well known, there has been a diversity of taxa recorded as orchid pollinators. Insects, birds, and even a record of a mammal species have been documented as successful pollinators, while some orchids are able to reproduce without the use of a pollen vector. The goal of this review is to provide an overview of orchid pollination tactics, with references to more specific studies of each, and to analyze a large subset of publications to determine differences in pollinator taxa and specificity between epiphytic and terrestrial orchid genera.</p> <p>This review examines pollination data from over 400 orchid species, including 74 epiphytic and 83 terrestrial orchid genera. Two pollinator taxa, Coleoptera and Hymenoptera (Class: Insecta), were found to pollinate significantly more terrestrial than epiphytic orchid genera, while other taxa showed no significant differences. Hymenoptera were the dominant taxa of pollinator in regards to the overall number of species recorded; however, based on species interaction webs that were built, the Lepidoptera (Class: Insecta) have stronger interactions with the orchid species they pollinate, suggesting a more specific relationship between the two.</p>2022-10-26T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Haleigh Ray, Jennifer Gillett-Kaufmanhttps://www.pollinationecology.org/index.php/jpe/article/view/695Pollinator-flower interactions in gardens during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of 20202022-03-23T23:53:33-07:00Jeff Ollertonjeff.ollerton@gmail.comJudith Trunschkejudith.trunschke@gmail.comKayri Havenskhavens@chicagobotanic.orgPatricia Landaverde-Gonzálezpatricia.landaverde@zoologie.uni-halle.deAlexander Kellerkeller@biologie.uni-muenchen.deAmy-Marie Gilpina.gilpin@westernsydney.edu.auAndré Rodrigo Rechandrerodrigorech@gmail.comGudryan J. Baroniogudryan@gmail.comBenjamin J. PhillipsB.B.Phillips@exeter.ac.ukChris MackinC.R.Mackin@sussex.ac.ukDara A. Stanleydara.stanley@ucd.ieErin Treanoreezt5142@psu.eduEllen Bakerellen.baker@balliol.ox.ac.ukEllen L. RotherayE.L.Rotheray@sussex.ac.ukEmily Ericksonere6@psu.eduFelix Fornofffelix.fornoff@nature.uni-freiburg.deFrancis Q. BrearleyF.Q.Brearley@mmu.ac.ukGavin BallantyneG.Ballantyne@napier.ac.ukGraziella Iossagiossa@lincoln.ac.ukGraham N. StoneGraham.Stone@ed.ac.ukIgnasi Bartomeusnacho.bartomeus@gmail.comJenni A. Stockanjenni.stockan@hutton.ac.ukJohana Leguizamónjohaleguizamon@gmail.comKit Prendergastkit.prendergast21@gmail.comLisa Rowleylisarowley@hotmail.co.ukManuela Giovanettimanuela.giovanetti@gmail.comRaquel de Oliveira Buenoraquelbueno87@yahoo.com.brRenate A. Wesselinghrenate.wesselingh@uclouvain.beRachel Mallingerrachel.mallinger@ufl.eduSally Edmondsonsallyed142@gmail.comScarlett R. Howardsrosehoward44@gmail.comSara D. Leonhardtsara.leonhardt@uni-wuerzburg.deSandra V. Rojas-Nossasrojas@uvigo.esMaisie Brettmb18141@bristol.ac.ukTatiana Joaquitasujo123@gmail.comReuber Antoniazzireuberjunior@gmail.comVictoria J. Burtonv.burton@nhm.ac.ukHui-Hui Feng15623915548@163.comZhi-Xi Tianzhixitian@mails.ccnu.edu.cnQi Xu1934170046@qq.comChuan Zhang1169386540@qq.comChang-Li Shi1816783810@qq.comShuang-Quan Huanghsq@mail.ccnu.edu.cnLorna J. Colelorna.cole@sruc.ac.ukLeila Bendifallahbendif_l@yahoo.frEmilie E. EllisEEEllis1@sheffield.ac.ukStein Joar HeglandStein.Joar.Hegland@hvl.noSara Straffon Díazsara.straffondiaz@unito.itTonya Allen Landertonya.lander@plants.ox.ac.ukAntonia V. Mayrantonia.mayr@uni-wuerzburg.deRichard Dawsoninfo@arbarus.co.ukMaxime Eeraertsmaxime.eeraerts@ugent.beW. Scott Armbrusterscott.armbruster@port.ac.ukBecky Waltonbeckywalton77@gmail.comNoureddine Adjlaneadjlanenoureddine@hotmail.comSteven Falkfalkentomology@gmail.comLuis Matalmata@unimelb.edu.auAnya Goncalves Geigergoncal24@uni.coventry.ac.ukClaire Carvellccar@ceh.ac.ukClaire WallaceClaire.Wallace@uea.ac.ukFabrizia Rattofabrizia.ratto@gmail.comMarta Barberismarta.barberis2@unibo.itFay Kahanefk300@exeter.ac.ukStuart Connops.p.connop@uel.ac.ukAnthonie Stipanthonie.stip@vlinderstichting.nlMaria Rosangela Sigristsigristster@gmail.comNicolas J. Vereeckennicolas.vereecken@ulb.beAlexandra-Maria Kleinalexandra.klein@nature.uni-freiburg.deKatherine Baldockk.baldock@northumbria.ac.ukSarah E. J. ArnoldS.E.J.Arnold@greenwich.ac.uk<p>During the main COVID-19 global pandemic lockdown period of 2020 an impromptu set of pollination ecologists came together via social media and personal contacts to carry out standardised surveys of the flower visits and plants in gardens. The surveys involved 67 rural, suburban and urban gardens, of various sizes, ranging from 61.18° North in Norway to 37.96° South in Australia, resulting in a data set of 25,174 rows, with each row being a unique interaction record for that date/site/plant species, and comprising almost 47,000 visits to flowers, as well as records of flowers that were not visited by pollinators, for over 1,000 species and varieties belonging to more than 460 genera and 96 plant families. The more than 650 species of flower visitors belong to 12 orders of invertebrates and four of vertebrates. In this first publication from the project, we present a brief description of the data and make it freely available for any researchers to use in the future, the only restriction being that they cite this paper in the first instance. The data generated from these global surveys will provide scientific evidence to help us understand the role that private gardens (in urban, rural and suburban areas) can play in conserving insect pollinators and identify management actions to enhance their potential.</p>2022-07-27T00:00:00-07:00Copyright (c) 2022 Jeff Ollerton, Judith Trunschke, Kayri Havens, Patricia Landaverde-González, Alexander Keller, Amy-Marie Gilpin, André Rodrigo Rech, Gudryan J. Baronio, Benjamin J. Phillips, Chris Mackin, Dara A. Stanley, Erin Treanore, Ellen Baker, Ellen L. Rotheray, Emily Erickson, Felix Fornoff, Francis Q. Brearley, Gavin Ballantyne, Graziella Iossa, Graham N. Stone, Ignasi Bartomeus, Jenni A. Stockan, Johana Leguizamón, Kit Prendergast, Lisa Rowley, Manuela Giovanetti, Raquel de Oliveira Bueno, Renate A. Wesselingh, Rachel Mallinger, Sally Edmondson, Scarlett R. Howard, Sara D. Leonhardt, Sandra V. Rojas-Nossa, Maisie Brett, Tatiana Joaqui, Reuber Antoniazzi, Victoria J. Burton, Hui-Hui Feng, Zhi-Xi Tian, Qi Xu, Chuan Zhang, Chang-Li Shi, Shuang-Quan Huang, Lorna J. Cole, Leila Bendifallah, Emilie E. Ellis, Stein Joar Hegland, Sara Straffon Díaz, Tonya Allen Lander, Antonia V. Mayr, Richard Dawson, Maxime Eeraerts, W. Scott Armbruster, Becky Walton, Noureddine Adjlane, Steven Falk, Luis Mata, Anya Goncalves Geiger, Claire Carvell, Claire Wallace, Fabrizia Ratto, Marta Barberis, Fay Kahane, Stuart Connop, Anthonie Stip, Maria Rosangela Sigrist, Nicolas J. Vereecken, Alexandra-Maria Klein, Katherine Baldock, Sarah E. J. Arnold