Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Suzanne Koptur
 + 1214 word(s) 1214 2021-12-22 09:15:11 |
2 format correct
Nora Tang
 Meta information modification 1214 2022-01-19 05:16:18 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Koptur, S.; Kleiman, B. Weeds Enhance Pollinator Diversity in Mango. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18441 (accessed on 17 May 2024).
Koptur S, Kleiman B. Weeds Enhance Pollinator Diversity in Mango. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18441. Accessed May 17, 2024.
Koptur, Suzanne, Blaire Kleiman. "Weeds Enhance Pollinator Diversity in Mango" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18441 (accessed May 17, 2024).
Koptur, S., & Kleiman, B. (2022, January 18). Weeds Enhance Pollinator Diversity in Mango. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/18441
Koptur, Suzanne and Blaire Kleiman. "Weeds Enhance Pollinator Diversity in Mango." Encyclopedia. Web. 18 January, 2022.
Weeds Enhance Pollinator Diversity in Mango
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/insects12121114

Weeds increase the diversity of pollinating insects on mango flowers, and mangos with weeds growing below produced more fruit than those without weeds. Weeds can provide ground cover and flowers that can support insect pollinators, natural enemies, and increase biodiversity at the field and landscape level. 

weeds insects mango pollinators sustainable agriculture

1. Introduction

Cultivated crops are often subject to insect–plant interactions for high yield. There has been a growing interest in environmentally and ecologically sound agriculture using beneficial insects rather than pesticides to produce food and fiber without harmful chemicals in produce and the environment [1][2]. Ecological intensification is the use of biological regulation to manage agroecosystems at various scales [3]. Natural ecosystems can inspire cropping system designs [4], and these approaches may have greatest impact in high-input farming systems [5][6]. Ecological replacement, substituting biodiversity for synthetic inputs, can enhance ecosystem services with similar crop output [6]. The presence of non-crop plants in planted floral strips may be useful in this approach, as a recent meta-analysis has shown [7]. Weeds may also provide resources that attract and maintain populations of beneficial insects, such as pollinators. Weeds—wild plants growing where they are not wanted—are seen as detrimental to crop production in agriculture by pulling resources away from the crop. This lack of weeds diminishes beneficial insects through the loss of floral and prey resources [8]. The benefits of using insectary plants in farms is well known [9][10]; however, using weeds as such in tropical fruit production dependent on pollination is relatively unexplored. Previous work has shown increased success of beneficial insects in the presence of weeds, as these insects use nectar or pollen during their adult life stage to increase life span and fecundity [11]. Pollinator populations may be bolstered in the presence of weeds, and some have been shown to be dependent on them [12][13]. This study examined how leaving, rather than removing, weeds in a mango farm affected pollinators and fruit set of this popular tropical fruit cultivated in southern Florida.
Pollinators are especially important in crops that require pollination by insects [14][15], such as mango, which is known to benefit from the presence of a diversity of weeds. Many tropical crops may be most susceptible to pollination failure from habitat loss [16][17]. Almost 35% of crops depend on pollinators globally, with pollination of at least 63 crops vulnerable to negative effects of agricultural intensification, which may reduce the diversity and abundance of pollinators [18]. The global annual economic value of insect pollination is upward of USD $173 billion worldwide [19]. Pollination by bees and other animals increases the size, quality, and stability of yields for 70% of leading economically important crops around the world [16], including mango [20]. Because native species pollinate many of these crops effectively, conserving habitats for wild pollinators within agricultural landscapes can help promote pollination services for most of the world’s crops [21].
There is a pollinator crisis in areas of intensive human land use and landscape simplification, including farmlands [22]. Insects have shown marked population declines over the past 30 years, with the average decline of terrestrial insect abundance at about 9% per decade [23]. Decline in pollinators is intertwined with habitat simplification through the expansion of monoculture practices [24] and increased applications of pesticides and fertilizers [25][26]. Pollinator abundance increases with flower abundance, vegetation height, and floral diversity [27]. The conservation of plant diversity safeguards native pollinator diversity as well as overall biodiversity and ecosystem services [28]. Mass flowering plants can act as “pollinator hogs”, which can reduce the pollination success of adjacent co-flowering neighbors by drawing pollinators from these plants [29][30]. However, mass-flowering plants can also act as magnets, producing pollination “spillover effects” through increased pollinator movements to adjacent co-flowering taxa, potentially either increasing pollination [31] or impacting it through the transfer of mixed-species pollen [32]. The presence of flower diversity before and during crop flowering facilitates pollination of the hyperabundant crop flower resource [20][33]. For a pollinator-dependent crop, creation of flowering areas can be profitable, improving production within existing areas and reducing the need for agricultural expansion, contributing to the conservation of biodiversity within a region, and increasing the habitat and resources for insects within farms [34].

2. Weeds Enhance the Biodiversity

Weeds have the potential to increase biodiversity of native pollinators by providing alternative floral resources for beneficial insects and encouraging them to remain in an area between crop flowering events [14][35][36]. Pollinators can use weeds as alternative resources before, during, and after the bloom of a crop, and increase crop yields if given these resources [37]. Weeds are an essential pollen and nectar resource for insects because of their continuous flowering phenology and their high species richness, which contributes directly to the pollen diversity dietary needs of insects [28]. Pollinators are healthiest, with at least 15 flowering species providing a season-long food supply [38], and weeds can provide this floral diversity. Arable weeds have specific functional traits that make them tolerant to farmlands, such as soil disturbances and fertilization, making a large overlap in the weedy potential of non-weed species.
Effective insect pollination is essential for good fruit set and yield in mango (Mangifera indica L., Anacardiaceae) [39]. Mango flowers are unspecialized, enabling pollination by most insects that are critical for fruit yield [40]. Nectar production for the attraction of insects indicates entomophilous pollination, and mango does not show adaptations for wind pollination [41]. Managed pollinators are unsuitable [42] or insufficient when acting alone [20][43][44]; honeybees are generally not attracted to mango flowers [45][46], and hand pollination is not economically viable [47]. Pollination is highly dependent on a diverse assemblage of flying visitors, which is strongly negatively affected by distance to natural habitat [46]. Small patches of native flora, planted in nonproductive margins of large mango orchards, enhance the abundance and diversity of mango flower visitors in South Africa, ameliorating the negative effects of isolation from natural habitat and pesticide use [34]. These increases were associated with significantly higher mango production, including the Keitt variety. Two co-flowering species can compete with or facilitate each other for flower visitors, although some studies suggest that facilitation is more likely between plants with unequal flower abundance [29] or that attractive species may facilitate less attractive species, as is the case with mango [20][33].
A field experiment was conducted to investigate the importance of weeds in promoting pollination of mango in an orchard in Homestead, Florida, USA. The insect orders Diptera, Hymenoptera, Lepidoptera, and Coleoptera are the most common insect visitors to mango flowers and carry mango pollen [39][41]. Most pollinators of mango belong to order Hymenoptera, but Diptera (flies) have been suggested as the dominant pollinators in Israel [39]. Dipteran species are good pollinators of more than 550 species of flowering plants, and the family Calliphoridae (blowflies) are the suspected main pollinators of mango in India [48]. Additionally, Chrysomya, Lucilia, and Musca sp. (Diptera) were reported as mango pollinators because of their visiting frequency and abundance [48]. Flower flies (Syrphidae) are also good pollinators of mango [49], as they transport pollen for long distances and reproduce rapidly [50]. More visitors to mango flowers in this study resulted in much higher yield of mango trees surrounded by weeds vs. mango trees with weeds cleared around them [39]. Common blow flies may also serve as effective mango pollinators and are less likely than honeybees to abandon the mango orchard for more attractive blooms, in Israel as well as in the United States [39]. Blow flies visited mango flowers more frequently and ubiquitously than any other pollinator when the mangoes were in bloom, and were increased in mango flowers when the weeds were present.

References

  1. Blaauw, B.R.; Isaacs, R. Larger patches of diverse floral resources increase insect pollinator density, diversity, and their pollination of native wildflowers. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2014, 15, 701–711.
  2. Redhead, J.W.; Powney, G.D.; Woodcock, B.A.; Pywell, R.F. Effects of future agricultural change scenarios on beneficial insects. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 265, 110550.
  3. Doré, T.; Makowski, D.; Malézieux, E.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Tchamitchian, M.; Tittonell, P. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification in agronomy: Revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 34, 197–210.
  4. Ewel, J.J. Natural systems as models for the design of sustainable systems of land use. Agrofor. Syst. 1999, 45, 1–21.
  5. Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Espíndola, A.; Vanbergen, A.J.; Settele, J.; Kremen, C.; Dicks, L.V.; Irwin, R. Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol. Lett. 2017, 20, 673–689.
  6. Kleijn, D.; Bommarco, R.; Fijen, T.P.M.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Potts, S.G.; van der Putten, W.H. Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2019, 34, 154–166.
  7. Albrecht, M.; Kleijn, D.; Williams, N.M.; Tschumi, M.; Blaauw, B.R.; Bommarco, R.; Campbell, A.J.; Dainese, M.; Drummond, F.A.; Entling, M.H.; et al. The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: A quantitative synthesis. Ecol. Lett. 2020, 23, 1488–1498.
  8. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I. Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agroecosystems; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018.
  9. Hogg, B.N.; Bugg, R.L.; Daane, K.M. Attractiveness of common insectary and harvestable floral resources to beneficial insects. Biol. Control. 2011, 56, 76–84.
  10. Colley, M.R.; Luna, J.M. Relative Attractiveness of Potential Beneficial Insectary Plants to Aphidophagous Hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Environ. Èntomol. 2000, 29, 1054–1059.
  11. Norris, R.F.; Kogan, M. Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems. Weed Sci. 2000, 48, 94–158.
  12. Kremen, C.; Williams, N.M.; Thorp, R.W. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 16812–16816.
  13. Kleiman, B.; Koptur, S.; Jayachandran, K. Beneficial Interactions of Weeds and Pollinators to Improve Crop Production. J. Res. Weed Sci. 2021, 4, 151–164.
  14. Melin, A.; Rouget, M.; Colville, J.F.; Midgley, J.J.; Donaldson, J.S. Assessing the role of dispersed floral resources for managed bees in providing supporting ecosystem services for crop pollination. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5654.
  15. Levin, D.A.; Anderson, W.W. Competition for Pollinators between Simultaneously Flowering Species. Am. Nat. 1970, 104, 455–467.
  16. Ricketts, T.H.; Regetz, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Bogdanski, A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Greenleaf, S.S.; Klein, A.M.; Mayfield, M.M.; et al. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: Are there general patterns? Ecol. Lett. 2008, 11, 499–515.
  17. Priess, J.A.; Mimler, M.; Klein, A.-M.; Schwarze, S.; Tscharntke, T.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems. Ecol. Appl. 2007, 17, 407–417.
  18. Klein, A.-M.; Vaissière, B.E.; Cane, J.H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2007, 274, 303–313.
  19. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W.E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353.
  20. Carvalheiro, L.G.; Veldtman, R.; Shenkute, A.G.; Tesfay, G.B.; Pirk, C.W.W.; Donaldson, J.S.; Nicolson, S.W. Natural and within-farmland biodiversity enhances crop productivity. Ecol. Lett. 2011, 14, 251–259.
  21. Garibaldi, L.A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Winfree, R.; Aizen, M.A.; Bommarco, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Harder, L.D.; Afik, O.; et al. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance. Science 2013, 339, 1608–1611.
  22. Dainese, M.; Martin, E.A.; Aizen, M.A.; Albrecht, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Bommarco, R.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Gagic, V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0121.
  23. Van Klink, R.; Bowler, D.E.; Gongalsky, K.B.; Swengel, A.B.; Gentile, A.; Chase, J.M. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 2020, 368, 417–420.
  24. Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Potts, S.G.; Packer, L. Pollinator diversity and crop pollination services are at risk. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2005, 20, 651–652.
  25. Nicholls, C.I.; Altieri, M.A. Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 257–274.
  26. Vogel, G. Where have all the insects gone? Science 2017, 356, 576–579.
  27. Morrison, J.; Izquierdo, J.; Plaza, E.H.; González-Andújar, J.L. The role of field margins in supporting wild bees in Mediterranean cereal agroecosystems: Which biotic and abiotic factors are important? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 247, 216–224.
  28. Requier, F.; Odoux, J.-F.; Tamic, T.; Moreau, N.; Henry, M.; Decourtye, A.; Bretagnolle, V. Honey bee diet in intensive farmland habitats reveals an unexpectedly high flower richness and a major role of weeds. Ecol. Appl. 2015, 25, 881–890.
  29. Ghazoul, J. Floral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J. Ecol. 2006, 94, 295–304.
  30. Koptur, S.; Barrios, B. Are flowering palms “Pollinator Hogs”? A field experiment in pine rocklands of southern Florida. Nat. Areas J. 2020, 40, 142–149.
  31. Thomson, J.D. Effects of Stand Composition on Insect Visitation in Two-Species Mixtures of Hieracium. Am. Midl. Nat. 1978, 100, 431–440.
  32. Gilpin, A.-M.; Denham, A.J.; Ayre, D.J. Do mass flowering agricultural species affect the pollination of Australian native plants through localised depletion of pollinators or pollinator spillover effects? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2019, 277, 83–94.
  33. Winfree, R.; Williams, N.M.; Gaines, H.; Ascher, J.S.; Kremen, C. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 45, 793–802.
  34. Carvalheiro, L.G.; Seymour, C.L.; Nicolson, S.W.; Veldtman, R.; Clough, Y. Creating patches of native flowers facilitates crop pollination in large agricultural fields: Mango as a case study. J. Appl. Ecol. 2012, 49, 1373–1383.
  35. Bretagnolle, V.; Gaba, S. Weeds for bees? A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 891–909.
  36. Lowenstein, D.M.; Matteson, K.C.; Minor, E.S. Evaluating the dependence of urban pollinators on ornamental, non-native, and ‘weedy’ floral resources. Urban Ecosyst. 2019, 22, 293–302.
  37. Kearns, C.; Inouye, D. Pollinators, Flowering Plants, and Conservation Biology. Bioscience 1997, 47, 297–307.
  38. Willmer, P. Pollination and Floral Ecology; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2011.
  39. Dag, A.; Gazit, S. Mango pollinators in Israel. J. Appl. Hortic. 2000, 2, 39–43.
  40. Heard, T.A. The role of stingless bees in crop pollination. Annu. Rev. Èntomol. 1999, 44, 183–206.
  41. Kumar, S.; Joshi, P.C.; Nath, P.; Singh, V.K.; Mansotra, D.K. Role of Insects in Pollination of Mango Trees. Int. Res. J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 5, 64.
  42. Kevan, P.G. Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: Species, activity and diversity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1999, 74, 373–393.
  43. Greenleaf, S.S.; Kremen, C. Wild bee species increase tomato production and respond differently to surrounding land use in Northern California. Biol. Conserv. 2006, 133, 81–87.
  44. Breeze, T.D.; Bailey, A.P.; Balcombe, K.G.; Potts, S.G. Pollination services in the UK: How important are honeybees? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142, 137–143.
  45. Free, J.B.; Williams, I.H. Insect pollination of Anacardium occidentale L., Mangifera indica L., Blighia sapida Koenig and Persea americana Mill. Trop. Agric. 1976, 53, 125–139.
  46. Carvalheiro, L.G.; Seymour, C.L.; Veldtman, R.; Nicolson, S.W. Pollination services decline with distance from natural habitat even in biodiversity-rich areas. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 810–820.
  47. Allsopp, M.H.; De Lange, W.J.; Veldtman, R. Valuing Insect Pollination Services with Cost of Replacement. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3128.
  48. Bhatia, R.; Gupta, D.; Chandel, J.S.; Sharma, N.K. Relative abundance of insect visitors on flowers of major subtropical fruits in Himachal Pradesh and their effect on fruit set. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1995, 65, 907–912.
  49. Evenhuis, N.L.; Pape, T.; Pont, A.C.; Thompson, F.C. Biosystematic Database of World Diptera, Version 10.5; The Catalogue of Life Partnership: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2008.
  50. Ssymank, A. Vegetation and flower-visiting insects in cultivated landscapes. Bonn Bad Godesb. 2001, 64, 513.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Agriculture, Dairy & Animal Science; Environmental Sciences
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Suzanne Koptur
,
Blaire Kleiman
View Times: 484
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 19 Jan 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback