Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
Journals
Year
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Shivalingaswamy, Timlapur M.
- Pithy Stems - An Effective and Viable Option to Conserve Sub Social and Solitary Bees and Wasps
Abstract Views :324 |
PDF Views:143
Authors
Affiliations
1 Division of Insect Ecology, ICAR – National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR), H.A Farm Post, PB No 2491, Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560024, Karnataka, IN
1 Division of Insect Ecology, ICAR – National Bureau of Agricultural Insect Resources (NBAIR), H.A Farm Post, PB No 2491, Bellary Road, Bangalore – 560024, Karnataka, IN
Source
Journal of Biological Control, Vol 32, No 3 (2018), Pagination: 152-154Abstract
Artificial trap nesting of bees will help in their conservation in situ and utilizing them for enhancing pollination service in cropping systems. The present study was undertaken to study the nesting behavior and rate of acceptance of pithy stems for nesting by the different bee species at ICAR-NBAIR Yelahanka Campus (13.096792N, 77.565976E). Fifteen nests comprising of pithy stems of Caesalpinia pulcherrima each made into three bundles containing five nests each were placed at three places in two sites viz., Site 1 (Pollinator Garden) and Site 2 (Vegetable block). The days taken by the bees to accept the trap nests placed in the pollinator garden and vegetable field were found to be 5.87 and 11.53 days with a percent acceptance of 80 and 66.67 per cent, respectively. The average number of cells built by the bees in the nests obtained from the pollinator garden and vegetable ecosystem were found to be 6.00 and 5.33 respectively. Ceratina binghami, C. hieroglyphica, Megachile lerma and predatory sphecid wasps were found to emerge out from the trap nests. Diversity of the stem nesting bees was found to be higher in the nests placed in the pollinator garden as compared to vegetable block.Keywords
Ceratina binghami, Conservation, Diversity, Evenness, Pithy Stems, Richness.Full Text
References
- Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemuller R, Edwards M, Peeters T. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313: 351–354.
- https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127863 PMid:16857940
- Bosch J, Maeta Y, Rust R. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of nesting behavior in the genus Osmia (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 94: 617–627. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2001)094[0617:APA ONB]2.0.CO;2
- Buschini MLT. 2005. Species diversity and community structure in trap-nesting bees in Southern Brazil. Apidologie 37: 58–66 https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2005059
- Cane JH, Griswold T, Parker FD. 2007. Substrates and materials used for nesting by North American Osmia Bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes: Megachilidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am. 100(3): 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1603/0013-8746(2007)100[350:SAMUFN]2.0 .CO;2
- Gathmann A, Greiler HJ, Tscharntke T. 1994. Trap nesting bees and wasps colonizing set-aside fields: succession and body size, management by cutting and sowing. Oecologia 98: 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00326084 PMid:28312790
- McIntosh M. 1996. Nest-Substrate preferences of the twignesters Ceratina acantha, Ceratina nanula (Apidae) and Pemphredon lethifer (Sphecidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc. 69(4): 216–231.
- Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE. 2010. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Tree 25: 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 PMid:20188434
- Strickler K., Scott VL, Fischer RL. 1996. Comparative nesting ecology of two sympatric leafcutting bees that differ in body size (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J Kans Entomol Soc. 69: 26–44.
- Zhang H, John R, Peng Z, Yuan J, Chu C, Du G, Zhou S. 2012. The relationship between species richness and evenness in plant communities along a successional gradient: A study from sub-alpine meadows of the Eastern QinghaiTibetan Plateau, China. PLoS One 7(11): 49024. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049024 PMid:23152845 PMCid:PMC3494667