城市草原和花园可以维持植物与传粉者的相互作用,类似于已建立的农村草原

IF 0.6 4区 环境科学与生态学 Q4 Agricultural and Biological Sciences American Midland Naturalist Pub Date : 2022-08-10 DOI:10.1674/0003-0031-188.1.102
Amanda L. Coleman, D. A. Wait
{"title":"城市草原和花园可以维持植物与传粉者的相互作用,类似于已建立的农村草原","authors":"Amanda L. Coleman, D. A. Wait","doi":"10.1674/0003-0031-188.1.102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Urban prairie “gardens/plots” are gaining popularity for providing similar ecological services as remnant and restored prairies, which are predominantly found in rural areas. However, it is not known to what extent small urban prairies can sustain the plant-pollinator interactions that are vital to both the insects and the plants. The goal of our research was to examine plant/pollinator interactions in three urban prairies in southwest Missouri and compare them to rural managed/restored prairies using a visit-based approach. Urban prairies were all in Springfield, Mo. and shared similar habitat matrices (within an area of 8 km2); rural prairies were located within 68 km of urban prairies, shared similar habitat matrices to each other, and shared soil edaphic characteristics with an urban prairie. From May through August 2018 in all six prairies, we observed the five most abundant forbs in bloom, the number of pollinator visits by bees, butterflies/moths, wasps, beetles, and flies; and, pollinator fidelity from dawn to dusk. The areas observed within a prairie, hereafter “plot(s)”, were determined randomly by where at least two plants of the same species, out of the five most abundant forbs, were located. Using these criteria of observations on the five most abundant species across six prairies and four months, a total of 66 forb species were identified, with 58 of the species native to tallgrass prairies. However, only eight of the 58 native forb species were shared across urban and rural prairies. Jaccard similarity indices indicate lower similarity of the five abundant forbs within urban plots (9%) when compared to rural plots (24%), and low similarity between urban and rural plots (9%). Insect visitation varied by prairie type (rural/urban), month, and insect group; however, urban plots received 61% of the total visits compared to 39% in rural plots. Bees accounted for 5913 visits out of 10,113 visits recorded; high bee visits were similar in urban and rural plots. Insect fidelity was over 97% and did not significantly differ between rural and urban prairies. Therefore, the lack of similarity among and across urban and rural prairies in dominant species did not affect insect visitation rates or fidelity in our study. Our results suggest that establishment and management of urban prairie gardens and plots of various size may sustain the same or greater levels of pollinator services as rural prairies.","PeriodicalId":50802,"journal":{"name":"American Midland Naturalist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Urban Prairie Plots and Gardens Can Sustain Plant-Pollinator Interactions Similar to Established Rural Prairies\",\"authors\":\"Amanda L. Coleman, D. A. Wait\",\"doi\":\"10.1674/0003-0031-188.1.102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Urban prairie “gardens/plots” are gaining popularity for providing similar ecological services as remnant and restored prairies, which are predominantly found in rural areas. However, it is not known to what extent small urban prairies can sustain the plant-pollinator interactions that are vital to both the insects and the plants. The goal of our research was to examine plant/pollinator interactions in three urban prairies in southwest Missouri and compare them to rural managed/restored prairies using a visit-based approach. Urban prairies were all in Springfield, Mo. and shared similar habitat matrices (within an area of 8 km2); rural prairies were located within 68 km of urban prairies, shared similar habitat matrices to each other, and shared soil edaphic characteristics with an urban prairie. From May through August 2018 in all six prairies, we observed the five most abundant forbs in bloom, the number of pollinator visits by bees, butterflies/moths, wasps, beetles, and flies; and, pollinator fidelity from dawn to dusk. The areas observed within a prairie, hereafter “plot(s)”, were determined randomly by where at least two plants of the same species, out of the five most abundant forbs, were located. Using these criteria of observations on the five most abundant species across six prairies and four months, a total of 66 forb species were identified, with 58 of the species native to tallgrass prairies. However, only eight of the 58 native forb species were shared across urban and rural prairies. Jaccard similarity indices indicate lower similarity of the five abundant forbs within urban plots (9%) when compared to rural plots (24%), and low similarity between urban and rural plots (9%). Insect visitation varied by prairie type (rural/urban), month, and insect group; however, urban plots received 61% of the total visits compared to 39% in rural plots. Bees accounted for 5913 visits out of 10,113 visits recorded; high bee visits were similar in urban and rural plots. Insect fidelity was over 97% and did not significantly differ between rural and urban prairies. Therefore, the lack of similarity among and across urban and rural prairies in dominant species did not affect insect visitation rates or fidelity in our study. Our results suggest that establishment and management of urban prairie gardens and plots of various size may sustain the same or greater levels of pollinator services as rural prairies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50802,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Midland Naturalist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Midland Naturalist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-188.1.102\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Agricultural and Biological Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Midland Naturalist","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-0031-188.1.102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要城市草原“花园/地块”因提供与主要分布在农村地区的残余草原和恢复草原类似的生态服务而越来越受欢迎。然而,目前尚不清楚小城市草原能在多大程度上维持对昆虫和植物都至关重要的植物-传粉昆虫的相互作用。我们研究的目标是检查密苏里州西南部三个城市草原的植物/传粉昆虫相互作用,并使用基于访问的方法将其与农村管理/恢复的草原进行比较。城市草原都在密苏里州斯普林菲尔德,拥有相似的栖息地矩阵(面积为8平方公里);农村大草原位于城市大草原的68km范围内,具有相似的栖息地矩阵,与城市大草原具有相同的土壤-土壤特征。从2018年5月到8月,在所有六个大草原上,我们观察到了五种最丰富的杂类植物开花,蜜蜂、蝴蝶/蛾、黄蜂、甲虫和苍蝇造访传粉昆虫的次数;以及从早到晚对传粉昆虫的忠诚。在大草原内观察到的区域,以下简称“地块”,是根据五种最丰富的杂类植物中至少两种相同物种的植物的位置随机确定的。利用这些对六个大草原和四个月内五个最丰富物种的观察标准,共鉴定出66种forb物种,其中58种原产于tallgrass大草原。然而,在58种原生forb物种中,只有8种在城市和农村草原上共享。Jaccard相似性指数表明,与农村地块(24%)相比,城市地块内五种丰富的forbs的相似性较低(9%),城市和农村地块之间的相似性也较低(9%)。昆虫造访量因草原类型(农村/城市)、月份和昆虫群而异;然而,城市地块的访问量占总访问量的61%,而农村地块的访问率为39%。在记录的10113次访问中,蜜蜂访问了5913次;在城市和农村地区,蜜蜂数量多的情况相似。昆虫保真度超过97%,农村和城市草原之间没有显著差异。因此,在我们的研究中,城市和农村草原之间以及草原之间优势物种缺乏相似性并没有影响昆虫的造访率或保真度。我们的研究结果表明,城市草原花园和各种规模地块的建立和管理可以维持与农村草原相同或更高水平的传粉昆虫服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Urban Prairie Plots and Gardens Can Sustain Plant-Pollinator Interactions Similar to Established Rural Prairies
Abstract. Urban prairie “gardens/plots” are gaining popularity for providing similar ecological services as remnant and restored prairies, which are predominantly found in rural areas. However, it is not known to what extent small urban prairies can sustain the plant-pollinator interactions that are vital to both the insects and the plants. The goal of our research was to examine plant/pollinator interactions in three urban prairies in southwest Missouri and compare them to rural managed/restored prairies using a visit-based approach. Urban prairies were all in Springfield, Mo. and shared similar habitat matrices (within an area of 8 km2); rural prairies were located within 68 km of urban prairies, shared similar habitat matrices to each other, and shared soil edaphic characteristics with an urban prairie. From May through August 2018 in all six prairies, we observed the five most abundant forbs in bloom, the number of pollinator visits by bees, butterflies/moths, wasps, beetles, and flies; and, pollinator fidelity from dawn to dusk. The areas observed within a prairie, hereafter “plot(s)”, were determined randomly by where at least two plants of the same species, out of the five most abundant forbs, were located. Using these criteria of observations on the five most abundant species across six prairies and four months, a total of 66 forb species were identified, with 58 of the species native to tallgrass prairies. However, only eight of the 58 native forb species were shared across urban and rural prairies. Jaccard similarity indices indicate lower similarity of the five abundant forbs within urban plots (9%) when compared to rural plots (24%), and low similarity between urban and rural plots (9%). Insect visitation varied by prairie type (rural/urban), month, and insect group; however, urban plots received 61% of the total visits compared to 39% in rural plots. Bees accounted for 5913 visits out of 10,113 visits recorded; high bee visits were similar in urban and rural plots. Insect fidelity was over 97% and did not significantly differ between rural and urban prairies. Therefore, the lack of similarity among and across urban and rural prairies in dominant species did not affect insect visitation rates or fidelity in our study. Our results suggest that establishment and management of urban prairie gardens and plots of various size may sustain the same or greater levels of pollinator services as rural prairies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Midland Naturalist
American Midland Naturalist 环境科学-生态学
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
38
审稿时长
18-36 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Midland Naturalist has been published for 90 years by the University of Notre Dame. The connotations of Midland and Naturalist have broadened and its geographic coverage now includes North America with occasional articles from other continents. The old image of naturalist has changed and the journal publishes what Charles Elton aptly termed "scientific natural history" including field and experimental biology. Its significance and breadth of coverage are evident in that the American Midland Naturalist is among the most frequently cited journals in publications on ecology, mammalogy, herpetology, ornithology, ichthyology, parasitology, aquatic and invertebrate biology and other biological disciplines.
期刊最新文献
A Multi-year Adult Emergence Study of the Cicada Neotibicen canicularis (Harris) (Hemiptera: Cicadidae) in Wisconsin Biological Correlates with Degree of Introgressive Hybridization between Coyotes Canis latrans and Wolves Canis sp. in Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Five-Year Effects of Introduced Mountain Goats and Recreation on Plant Communities and Species of Conservation Concern in an Alpine Sky Island Mercury Contamination of Fish and Their Prey Across a Riverine Food Web Seasonal Amphibian Species Richness and Population Fluctuations at Powdermill Nature Reserve, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1