Results

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Evalua&on  of  Michigan  Na&ve  Plants  and  'Bee  Keeper  Picks'  for  Pollinators  in  Michigan  

Logan Rowe, Rufus Isaacs, Daniel Gibson, Julia Perrone and Doug Landis

Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824

Objectives

1.  Identify which flowering plants best support diverse pollinators on dry soils.

2.  Expand the palette of flowering plant options to provide alternative honey bee forage plants.

3.  Understand the factors that drive pollinator visitation. 4.  Enhance land manager skills in utilizing flowering plant to support

pollinators in farmlands by improving our understanding of the multiple benefits of diverse wildflower plantings for pollinators.

26

§  Common Garden experimental plots were established at 3 research station sites (SWMREC, CRC, NWMHRC) in the summer of 2014.

§  Fifty four plant species with potential for supporting pollinators were planted.

§  During the summer of 2015 we Sampled each plant species weekly during “peak bloom” for a total 5 minutes per week. Collected all native pollinators using an insect vacuum and recorded all honey bees contacting flowers. Measured floral area and plant coverage in each plot.

Methods Figure 1. Pollinators per sample (columns) and floral area (dots) for each plant species at SWMREC (top) and CRC (bottom). Bee keeper suggestions have a red star.

Future Directions •  Sample plots in 2016 season to assess multi-year

patterns of bee response to flowering plants. •  Examine species specific interactions to improve our

understanding of the relationships between floral resource availability and attractiveness.

•  Evaluate cost effective seed mixes of the most attractive species while supporting the implementation of habitat for bees varied across habitats and landscapes.

•  Continue adding to the native plant database at: nativeplants.msu.edu

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0  

2  

4  

6  

8  

10  

12  

14  

Log1

0 flo

ral a

rea

/plo

t (cm

2 )

Polli

nato

rs p

er s

ampl

e Honey Bees Wild Bees Syrphids

Mid season Early season

Late season

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Log1

0 flo

ral a

rea

/plo

t (cm

2 )

Polli

nato

rs p

er s

ampl

e Honey Bees Wild Bees Syrphids

23.25  

Late season Early season

Mid season

Conclusions

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 1 2 3 4 5

Log1

0 w

ild b

ees

/sam

ple

Log10 floral area /sample

SWMREC

CRC

Figure 3. Relationship between floral area and wild bees per sample for SWMREC and CRC.

Figure 2. Average number of honey bees observed per sample on bee keeper suggestions (left) and a subset of native plants (right).

•  A total of 48 and 43 plant species successfully established at SWMREC and CRC, respectively.

•  There is a positive relationship between floral area and wild bees per sample at both SWMREC (p<0.001) and CRC (p=0.017), as well as honey bees (sites combined, p<0.001).

•  The average number of honey bees observed on a plant species can vary by region and by plant.

•  Similar plants tend to be most attractive at both field sites.

•  Beekeeper picks are attractive to honey bees, but not necessarily the most attractive.

Plant species varied drastically in their attractiveness to both native and managed pollinators. In many cases (but not all), this relationship is at least partially driven by the floral area of the plant. In cases where floral area is not a good predictor of pollinator attraction, the availability of resources such as pollen and nectar may be of greater importance. A cost-effective method for the selecting floral resources to incorporate into agricultural enhancements will require a deeper understanding of the relationships between pollinators and their required resources, and a better knowledge of the optimal strategies for plant establishment.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Hon

ey b

ees

/sam

ple

SWMREC CRC

Funding for this project is provided by MSU Project GREEEN and USDA NC-SARE. Plant providers: Wildtype LLC. Dan Gibson, Julia Perrone, Katie Manning helped collect all data. Site maintenance by research station managers Dave Francis (SWMREC), Jerry Skeltis (CRC), and Bill Klein (NWMHRC). Julianna Tuell, who conducted previous plant surveys through a SARE funded grant (see Tuell et al., 2008)

48.16

Literature Cited Blaauw, Brett R., and Rufus Isaacs. (2014) Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop. Journal of Applied Ecology 51.4 Tuell, Julianna., et al. (2008) Visitation by wild and managed bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) to easter US native plants for use in conservation programs. Environmental Entomology 37.3

Land use intensification in many parts of the North Central region has reduced the availability and diversity of the floral resources required by crop pollinators to enhance longevity and reproduction, and to fuel pollination activities. By incorporating floral resource enhancements into the agricultural landscape, land-owners can increase the yield of high value specialty crops, while buffering the effects of land-use intensification on both native bee and honeybee populations (Blaauw & Isaacs 2014). This project explores the relative attractiveness of insectary plants that thrive on coarse-textured soils, with the goal of identifying plants that show the greatest potential for increasing pollination services and native bee abundance and diversity in agricultural landscapes. Here, we report on findings from the 2015 field season to assess pollinator abundance and attractiveness to floral resources.