Cookies Policy
X

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

An evaluation of Israeli forestry trees and shrubs as potential forage plants for bees

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Israel Journal of Plant Sciences

Loss and fragmentation of foraging habitats, and extreme seasonality in the flowering phenology of wild plants, limit honeybee populations in Israel. This problem can be alleviated by the planting of bee forage plants in forests, parks, and along roadsides. To provide recommendations for such planting, we combined a literature survey and qualitative evaluations of experts to compile a list of 266 local wild plant species that have high food potential for bees. We also quantitatively evaluated the food potential of 32 species of trees and shrubs planted by Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael—Jewish National Fund (KKL—JNF). We recorded the following parameters of each species: main flowering season; flower morphology; type of food reward; number of flowers per plant; nectar standing crop; hourly nectar production rate; type of insect visitors; and frequency of insect visits. We ranked the surveyed species according to their potential importance as food plants, assigning high ranks to species that (a) bloom between July and February (the period of dearth in flowering natural vegetation), (b) produce large amounts of nectar, and (c) are highly attractive to honeybees. Of the species surveyed, Amygdalus communis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Ceratonia siliqua, and Ziziphus spina-christi best combined these benefits. A regression model indicated that high nectar production rates increased insect visitation rates, while long flowers reduced them, in an inter-specific analysis. Our study highlights the importance of diversified forestry planting to address agricultural, conservation, and recreational needs.

Affiliations: 1: Department of Biology, Faculty of Science and Science Education, University of Haifa—Oranim tkeasar@research.haifa.ac.il ; 2: Department Life Sciences, Achva College tkeasar@research.haifa.ac.il ; 3: Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology, and Center for the Study of Rationality, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

10.1560/IJPS.57.1-2.49
/content/journals/10.1560/ijps.57.1-2.49
dcterms_title,pub_keyword,dcterms_description,pub_author
10
5
Loading
Loading

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1560/ijps.57.1-2.49
Loading

Data & Media loading...

1. Allen-Wardell, G., Bernhardt, P., Bitner, R., Burquez, A., Buchmann, S., Cane, J., Cox, A. P., Dalton, V., Feinsinger, P., Ingram, M., Inouye, D., Jones, C. E., Kennedy, K., Kevan, P., Koopowitz, H., Medellin, R., Medellin-Morales, S., Nabhan, G. P., Pavlik, B., Tepedino, V., Torchio, P., Walker, S. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv. Biol. 12: 8-17.
2. Bar-Shai, N. 1995. Fruit set in relation to tree size and pollination in the Almond. M.Sc. thesis, Hebrew Univ., Jerusalem (in Hebrew, English summary).
3. Brody, A. K., Mitchell, R. J. 1997. Effects of experimental manipulation of inflorescence size on pollination and pre-dispersal seed predation in the hummingbird-pollinated plant Ipomopsis aggregata. Oecologia 110: 86-93.
4. Carvell, C., Westrich, P., Meek, W. R., Pywell, R. F., Nowakowski, M. 2006. Assessing the value of annual and perennial forage mixtures for bumblebees by direct observation and pollen analysis. Apidologie 37: 326-340.
5. Comba, L., Corbet, S. A., Hunt, L., Warren, B. 1999. Flowers, nectar and insect visits: evaluating British plant species for pollinator-friendly gardens. Ann. Bot. 83: 369-383.
6. Conner, J. K., Rush, S. 1996. Effects of flower size and number on pollinator visitation to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum. Oecologia 105: 609-516.
7. Dag, A., Rotem, T., Sela, N. 1993. Finding pollen sources for bee colonies. Hassade 63: 1286-1289 (in Hebrew).
8. Dag, A., Regev, A., Bar Yossef, Y. 1998. The economic values of planted bee forage plants. Ecology and Environment 4: 234-235 (in Hebrew).
9. Delph, L. F., Lively, C. M. 1992. Pollinator visitation, floral display, and nectar production of the sexual morphs of a gynodioecious shrub. Oikos 63: 161-170.
10. Eisikowitch, D. Dag, A. 2003. Examination of trees as nectariferous plants. Report to the Israeli Tree Improvement Fund, JNF-KKL, Forest Department, Sde Boqer.
11. Fahn, A. 1948. The nectaries of honey plants in the land of Israel: their structure, and the effects of ecological factors on nectar secretion. Published by the Hebrew Apiculturists' Society, Rehovot (in Hebrew).
12. Galen, C. Stanton, M. L. 1989. Bumble bee pollination and floral morphology: factors influencing pollen dispersal in the Alpine Sky Pilot, Polemonium viscosum (Polemoniaceae). Am. J. Bot. 76: 419-426.
13. Gindel, Y. 1951. The Eucalyptus in Israel. 1. A study of its acclimation during 1935-1951. Publication no. 42 of the Agricultural Research Station, Rehovot, Israel (in Hebrew).
14. Ginsberg, P. 2006. Restoring biodiversity to pine afforestations in Israel. J. Nature Cons. 14: 207-216.
15. Goulson, D. 2003. Conserving wild bees for crop pollination. Food Agric. Environ. 1: 142-144.
16. Goulson, D., Stout, J. C., Hawson, S. A., Allen, J. A. 1998. Floral display size in comfey, Symphytum officinale L. (Boraginaceae): relationships with visitation by three bumblebee species and subsequent seed set. Oecologia 113: 502-508.
17. Hill, D. B., Webster, T. C. 1995. Apiculture and forestry (bees and trees). Agroforestry Syst. 29: 313-320.
18. Hodges, S. A. 1995. The influence of nectar production on Hawkmoth behavior, self-pollination, and seed production in Mirabilis multiflora (Nyctaginaceae). Am. J. Bot. 82: 197-204.
19. Israel Honey Board. 2008. Apiculture statistics. Available: http://www.honey.org.il/info/gidul/gidul-dvorim.htm
20. Keasar, T., Sadeh, A., Shmida, A. 2008. Variability in nectar production and standing crop, and their relation to pollinator visits in a Mediterranean shrub. Arthropod—Plant Interactions 2: 117-123.
21. Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Thorp, R. W. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 16812-16816.
22. Levanoni, T. 2005. Species diversity in pine plantations and natural maquis in the Judean Foothills. M.Sc. thesis, Tel Aviv Univ., Tel Aviv (in Hebrew, English summary).
23. Lupo, A., Eisikowitch, D. 1987. Eucalyptus erythrocorys: a honey and pollen plant. Hassade 77: 2363-2367 (in Hebrew).
24. Mitchell, R. J. 1993. Adaptive significance of Ipomopsis aggregata nectar production: observation and experiment in the field. Evolution 47: 25-35.
25. Moeller, D. B. 2004. Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 85: 3289-3301.
26. Pappers, S. M., de Jong, T. J., Klinkhamer, P. G. L., Meelis, E. 1999. Effects of nectar content on the number of bumblebee approaches and the length of visitation sequences in Echium vulgare (Boraginaceae). Oikos 87: 580-586.
27. Pontin, D. R., Wade, M. R., Kehrli, P., Wratten S. D. 2006. Attractiveness of single and multiple species flower patches to beneficial insects in agroecosystems. Ann. Appl. Biol. 148: 39-47.
28. Reves, Y. 2004. A guide to eucalyptus species growing in Israel. Novell Publishers, Tel Aviv (in Hebrew).
29. Robertson, A. W., MacNair, M. R. 1995. The effects of floral display size on pollinator service to individual flowers of Myosotis and Mimulus. Oikos 72: 106-111.
30. Shmida, A., Ritman, S. 1985. The Israel plant data-base: a unified approach to ecology, phytosociology, floristics, teaching, and conservation. In: Glaeser, P. S., ed. The role of data in scientific progress. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 91-95.
31. Shochat, E., Tsurim, I. 2004. Winter bird communities in the northern Negev: species dispersal patterns, habitat use and implications for habitat conservation. Biodiv. Conserv. 13: 1571-1590.
32. Wyatt, R., Broyles, S. B., Derda, G. S. 1992. Environmental influences on nectar production in milkweeds (Ascelapias syriaca and A. exaltata). Am. J. Bot. 79: 636-642.
33. Zohary, M. 1947. The honey plants of the land of Israel. Publication of the Agricultural Research Station, Rehovot, Israel (in Hebrew).
http://brill.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1560/ijps.57.1-2.49
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1560/ijps.57.1-2.49
2009-05-18
2018-08-15

Sign-in

Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
     
    Israel Journal of Plant Sciences — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation