Evaluation of Native and Nonnative Ornamentals as Pollinator Plants in Florida: I. Floral Abundance and Insect Visitation

Diverse floral resources impart immense value for pollinating insects of all types. With increasing popularity and demand for modern ornamental hybrids, cultivation by breeders has led to selection for a suite of traits such as extended bloom periods and novel colors and forms deemed attractive to the human eye. Largely understudied is pollinator preference for these new cultivars, as compared with their native congeners. To address this gap in understanding, 10 species of popular herbaceous flowering plants, commonly labeled as pollinator-friendly, were evaluated at two sites in Florida [U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cold hardiness zones 8b and 9a] and across three seasons for their floral abundance and overall attractiveness to different groups of pollinating insects. Each genus, apart from pentas, encompassed a native and nonnative species. Native species included blanket flower (Gaillardia pulchella), lanceleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), pineland lantana (Lantana depressa), and scarlet sage (Salvia coccinea). Nonnative species included Barbican™ yellow-red ring blanket flower (G. aristata ‘Gaiz005’), Bloomify™ rose lantana (L. camara ‘UF-1011-2’), mysty salvia (S. longispicata ×farinacea ‘Balsalmysty’), Lucky Star® dark red pentas (Pentas lanceolata ‘PAS1231189’), ruby glow pentas (P. lanceolata ‘Ruby glow’) and Uptick™ Gold & Bronze coreopsis (Coreopsis × ‘Baluptgonz’). Flower-visiting insects were recorded during five-minute intervals in the morning and categorized into the following morpho-groups: honey bees, large-bodied bees (bumble and carpenter bees), other bees (small to medium-bodied native bees), butterflies/moths, and wasps. Floral abundance and pollinator visitation varied widely by season, location, and species. Of the plant species evaluated, nonnative plants produced nearly twice as many flowers as native plants. About 22,000 floral visitations were observed. The majority of visits were by native, small to medium-bodied bees (55.28%), followed by butterflies and moths (15.4%), large-bodied native bees (11.8%), wasps (10.0%), and honey bees (7.6%). Among plant genera, both native and nonnative coreopsis and blanket flower were most attractive to native, small to medium-bodied bees (e.g., sweat bees, leafcutter bees) with the greatest number of visitations occurring during the early and midmonths of the study (May–August). Across the study, butterflies and moths visited lantana more frequently than all other ornamentals evaluated, whereas pentas were most attractive to wasps. Large-bodied bees visited plants most frequently in May and June, primarily foraging from both native and nonnative salvia. While results from this study showed nominal differences between native and nonnative species in their ability to attract the studied pollinator groups, care should be taken to making similar assessments of other modern plant types.

Evaluation of Native and Nonnative Ornamentals as Pollinator Plants in Florida: II. Floral Resource Value

Consumer demand for novel, visually attractive ornamentals has often overshadowed the functional value plants may provide for flower-visiting insects. As native and nonnative species are hybridized for form, color, flowering, and disease resistance, it is important to assess whether some of these alterations influence plant nutrient quality for foraging insect pollinators. A study was conducted to ascertain the resource value of ornamental cultivars compared with their native congeners. The nectar volume and pollen quantity, viability, and protein content of 10 species of popular herbaceous flowering plants, commonly advertised as pollinator-friendly, were evaluated in northcentral Florida. Each genus encompassed a native and nonnative species, apart from pentas. Native species included blanket flower (Gaillardia pulchella), lanceleaf coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), pineland lantana (Lantana depressa), and scarlet sage (Salvia coccinea). Nonnative species included Barbican™ yellow-red ring blanket flower (Gaillardia aristata ‘Gaiz005’), Bloomify™ rose lantana (Lantana camara ‘UF-1011-2’), mysty salvia (Salvia longispicata × farinacea ‘Balsalmysty’), Lucky Star® dark red pentas (Pentas lanceolata ‘PAS1231189’), ruby glow pentas (Pentas lanceolata ‘Ruby glow’) and UpTick™ Gold & Bronze coreopsis (Coreopsis × ‘Baluptgonz’). Floral rewards differed significantly across species. The native scarlet sage exhibited the largest nectar volume per flower in the summer (2.13 ± 0.17 µL), followed by the nonnative mysty salvia (1.26 ± 0.17 µL). In the fall, ruby glow pentas exhibited the largest nectar volume per flower (1.09 ± 0.17 µL) compared with all other ornamentals. The composite flowers of the native and nonnative blanket flower and coreopsis species had the lowest nectar volume per flower regardless of sampling date. Likewise, ruby glow pentas displayed the highest quantity of pollen grains (96.29 ± 0.12) per sample, followed by Lucky star pentas (52.33 ± 0.12), and Barbican blanket flower (50.98 ± 0.12). Pollen viability was similarly high (92% to 98%) among all species, apart from Bloomify rose lantana (20%) and pineland lantana (48%). Pollen protein content was highest in Uptick coreopsis (11.378 ± 1.860 μg/mg dry weight) and Lucky star pentas (10.656 ± 3.726 μg/mg dry weight), followed by lanceleaf coreopsis (7.918 ± 1.793 μg/mg dry weight). These results largely showed that the nonnative ornamentals selected provided resource-rich floral rewards, comparable to native congeners. Still, care should be taken in making similar assessments of other modern floral types.

Checklist of marine and estuarine fishes from the Alaska–Yukon Border, Beaufort Sea, to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico

This paper is a checklist of the fishes that have been documented, through both published and unpublished sources, in marine and estuarine waters, and out 200 miles, from the United States-Canadian border on the Beaufort Sea to Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. A minimum of 241 families and 1,644 species are known within this range, including both native and nonnative species. For each of these species, we include maximum size, geographic and depth ranges, whether it is native or nonnative, as well as a brief mention of any taxonomic issues.

Trophic niches of native and nonnative fishes along a river-reservoir continuum

Instream barriers can constrain dispersal of nonnative fishes, creating opportunities to test their impact on native communities above and below these barriers. Deposition of sediments in a river inflow to Lake Powell, USA resulted in creation of a large waterfall prohibiting upstream movement of fishes from the reservoir allowing us to evaluate the trophic niche of fishes above and below this barrier. We expected niche overlap among native and nonnative species would increase in local assemblages downstream of the barrier where nonnative fish diversity and abundance were higher. Fishes upstream of the barrier had more distinct isotopic niches and species exhibited a wider range in δ15N relative to downstream. In the reservoir, species were more constrained in δ15N and differed more in δ13C, representing a shorter, wider food web. Differences in energetic pathways and resource availability among habitats likely contributed to differences in isotopic niches. Endangered Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) aggregate at some reservoir inflows in the Colorado River basin, and this is where we found the highest niche overlap among species. Whether isotopic niche overlap among adult native and nonnative species has negative consequences is unclear, because data on resource availability and use are lacking; however, these observations do indicate the potential for competition. Still, the impacts of diet overlap among trophic generalists, such as Razorback Sucker, are likely low, particularly in habitats with diverse and abundant food bases such as river-reservoir inflows.

Modeling Habitat Suitability and Management Options for Maintaining Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum) in Adirondack Ponds

Habitat loss, acid precipitation, and nonnative species have drastically reduced the number of Adirondack waterbodies occupied by round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum). The goal of this study was to 1) increase the probability of reintroduction success by modeling the suitability of ponds for reintroduction and 2) better understand the effects of different rates of pond reclamation. We created a species distribution model that identified 70 waterbodies that were physically similar to occupied ponds. The most influential variables for describing round whitefish habitat included trophic, temperature, and alkalinity classes; waterbody maximum depth; maximum air temperature; and surrounding soil texture and impervious surface. Next, we simulated population dynamics under a variety of treatment scenarios and compared the probability of complete extirpation using a modified Markov model. Under almost all management strategies, and under pressure from nonnative competitors like that observed in the past 30 years, the number of occupied ponds will decline over the next 100 years. However, restoring one pond every 3 years would result in a 99% chance of round whitefish persistence after 100 years.