Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
50
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
50 results for “wild pollinators”
Survey of Wild Bee Pollinators on Nyssa Sylvatica at Harvard Forest since 2021
Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica) is amongst the latest blooming canopy species to produce vast numbers of flowers and abundant nectar and pollen within forests of the Northeastern United States, a position previously held by the American Chestnut (Castanea dentata). Prior research indicates N. sylvatica is insect pollinated and wild bees have been observed visiting flowers; we are unaware, however, of any detailed surveys and/or characterization of the Nyssa-associated wild bee community in the Northeastern United States. Wild bee species frequent the canopy from early to late spring, presumably to forage, prior to being found in blooming crops such as apple and strawberry later in the season. The late bloom time of N. sylvatica (in early June) may extend floral resource availability in the temperate forest canopy and support forest-associated wild bee communities prior to the bloom of summer-flowering plant species.
Maintaining habitat diversity at small scales benefits wild bees and pollination services in mountain apple orchards
<p>In 2021, we conducted our study in apple orchards in South Tyrol, an Alpine region in Italy, using pan-traps, direct observations of visitation frequency, and a pollinator exclusion experiment. We investigated the scale-dependent effects of landscape heterogeneity and other parameters on wild bee assemblages and the related pollination service they provide at five spatial scales (radius 100 – 2,000 m).</p>
Fig. 2. The 2019 in Wild bee pollinators foraging in peanut and cotton adjacent to native wildflower strips
Fig. 2. The 2019 mean (± SE) of bees per bee bowl captured in cotton and those with cotton pollen and unidentified pollen (= other) (a), and the mean (± SE) of bees per bee bowl captured in cotton with G. pulchella (IB), Monarda citriodora (mint), and Rudbeckia hirta (susan) (b).
Fig. 1. The 2018 in Wild bee pollinators foraging in peanut and cotton adjacent to native wildflower strips
Fig. 1. The 2018 mean (± SE) of bees per bee bowl captured in peanut and those with peanut pollen (a), and the mean (± SE) of bees per bee bowl captured in peanut with Gaillardia pulchella (IB), and both G. pulchella and peanut pollen (b).
Data from: Isolating the effects of floral temperature on visitation and behavior of wild bee and fly pollinators
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Wild pollinators and honeybees respond differently to landscape-scale organic farming and increase sunflower yields
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data and code for "Loss of pollinator diversity consistently reduces reproductive success for wild and cultivated plants"
<p>Data and code for "Loss of pollinator diversity consistently reduces reproductive success for wild and cultivated plants"</p>
Data for: Honey bees (Apis mellifera) modify plant-pollinator network structure, but do not alter wild species' interactions
<p>Honey bees (<em>Apis mellifera</em>) are widely used for honey production and crop pollination, raising concern for wild pollinators, as honey bees may compete with wild pollinators for floral resources. The first sign of competition, before changes appear in wild pollinator abundance or diversity, may be changes to wild pollinator interactions with plants. Such changes for a community can be measured by looking at changes to metrics of resource use overlap in plant-pollinator interaction networks. Studies of honey bee effects on plant-pollinator networks have usually not distinguished whether honey bees alter wild pollinator interactions, or if they merely alter total network structure by adding their own interactions. To test this question, we experimentally introduced honey bees to a Canadian grassland and measured plant-pollinator interactions at varying distances from the introduced hives. We found that honey bees increased the network metrics of pollinator and plant functional complementarity and decreased interaction evenness. However, in networks constructed from just wild pollinator interactions, honey bee abundance did not affect any of the metrics calculated. Thus, all network structural changes to the full network (including honey bee interactions) were due only to honey bee-plant interactions, and not to honey bees causing changes in wild pollinator-plant interactions. Given widespread and increasing use of honey bees, it is important to establish whether they affect wild pollinator communities. Our results suggest that honey bees did not alter wild pollinator foraging patterns in this system, even in a year that was drier than the 20-year average.</p>
Data from: Direct and indirect effects of urbanization, pesticides, and wild insect pollinators on mango yield
<ol> <li><span>Expanding cities increasingly encroach fertile farmlands, questioning the viability of maintaining agriculture within and around them. Yet, our knowledge on how urbanization influences pollinator communities and the provision of pollination services to crops is limited, especially for the urbanization hotspots of the Global South. </span></li> <li><span>Mango (<em>Mangifera</em> <em>indica</em>) is one of the most important fruit crops in tropical countries. To analyze the dependency of mango on its main insect pollinators, and the direct and indirect effects of urbanization and insecticides on pollinator abundance and mango yield, we conducted a pollinator exclusion experiment and sampled flower visitors on 16 mango farms spread across rural-urban landscapes in Bengaluru, a South Indian megacity. </span></li> <li><span>We found that allowing flowers access to ants and flying visitors (bees, hoverflies, non-syrphid flies), dramatically increased mango yield by 350%, highlighting the importance of wild insects for mango pollination. We detected a trend between wild bee abundance and the final fruit set, with an increase of 20% when the number of bees increased from 25 to 125. </span></li> <li><span>Urbanization did not directly affect pollinator abundance or mango yield. However, the amount of insecticide applications had strong negative effects on wild bee abundance at low and intermediate levels of urbanization, while it had no effect in highly urbanized areas, presumably because of higher availability of flowering resources. Moreover, the amount of insecticides decreased the weight of harvested mango fruits by almost 30%. This may indicate trade-offs between conventional pest control and enhanced crop yields through pollination by wild insects in rural areas. </span></li> <li> <span><em>Synthesis and applications.</em> </span><span>Our results indicate that mango production can be maintained at a profitable level in urbanized landscapes with insect pollinators more than tripling final yield. However, increasing use of insecticides, besides raising farmers' expenses, can have negative effects on wild insect pollinators and mango yield, especially in rural areas. To safeguard crucial pollination services, it is therefore critical to conserve and promote wild insect pollinators by minimizing the negative effects of insecticide applications in these areas. </span> </li> </ol>
Data from: The contributions of flower strips to wild bee conservation in agricultural landscapes can be predicted using pollinator habitat suitability models
<p>Sowing flower strips along field edges is a widely adopted method for conserving pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. To maximize the effect of flower strips given limited resources, we need spatially explicit tools that can prioritize their placement, and for identifying plant species to include in seed mixtures.</p> <p>We sampled bees and plant species as well as their interactions in a semi-controlled field experiment with roadside/field edge pairs with/without a sown flower strip at 31 sites in Norway and used a regional spatial model of solitary bee species richness to test if the effect of flower strips on bee species richness was predictable from the modelled solitary bee species richness.</p> <p>We found that sites with flower strips were more bee species rich compared to sites without flower strips and that this effect was greatest in areas that the regional solitary bee species richness model had identified to be particularly important for bees. Spatial models revealed that even within small landscapes there were pronounced differences between field edges in the predicted effect of sowing flower strips.</p> <p>Of the plant species that attracted the most bee species, the majority mainly attracted bumblebees and only few species also attracted solitary bees. Considering both the taxonomic diversity of bees and the species richness of bees attracted by plants we suggest that seed mixes containing <em>Hieracium </em>spp. such as <em>Hieracium umbellatum </em>and <em>Pilosella officinarum</em>; <em>Taraxacum</em> spp; <em>Trifolium repens</em>;<em> Lotus corniculatus</em>; S<em>tellaria graminea</em>; and <em>Achillea millefolium</em> would provide resources for diverse bee communities in our region.</p> <p>Spatial prediction models of bee diversity can be used to identify locations where flower strips are likely to have the largest effect and can thereby provide managers with an important tool for prioritizing how funding for agri-environmental schemes such as flower strips should be allocated. Such flower strips should contain plant species that are attractive to both solitary and bumblebees, and do not need to be particularly plant species rich as long as the selected plants complement each other.</p>
Data from: Honey bees (Apis mellifera) modify plant-pollinator network structure, but do not alter wild species’ interactions
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: The contributions of flower strips to wild bee conservation in agricultural landscapes can be predicted using pollinator habitat suitability models
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Wild bumble bee colony abundance, scaled by field size, predicts pollination services
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Beyond pollinators: evolution of floral architecture with environment across the wild sunflowers (Helianthus, Asteraceae)
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Pollinator functional group abundance and floral heterogeneity in an agroecological context affect mating patterns in a self-incompatible wild plant
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Honeybees interfere with wild bees in apple pollination in China
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Direct and indirect effects of urbanization, pesticides, and wild insect pollinators on mango yield
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Overabundant populations of large wild herbivores disrupt plant-pollinator networks in a Mediterranean ecosystem
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Are native and non-native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for native wild bee communities?
<p>Bees rely on floral pollen and nectar for food. Therefore, pollinator friendly plantings are often used to enrich habitats in bee conservation efforts. As part of these plantings, non-native plants may provide valuable floral resources, but their effects on native bee communities have not been assessed in direct comparison with native pollinator friendly plantings. In this study, we performed a common garden experiment by seeding mixes of 20 native and 20 non-native pollinator friendly plant species at separate neighboring plots at three sites in Maryland, USA, and recorded flower visitors for two years. A total of 3744 bees (120 species) were collected. Bee abundance and species richness was either similar across plant types (mid-season and for abundance also late season) or lower at native than at non-native plots (early season and for richness also late season). The overall bee community composition differed significantly between native and non-native plots, with 11 and 23 bee species found exclusively at one plot type or the other, respectively. Additionally, some species were more abundant at native plant plots, while others<i> </i>were more abundant at non-natives. Native plants hosted more specialized plant-bee visitation networks than non-native plants. Three species out of the five most abundant bee species were more specialized when foraging on native plants than on non-native plants. Overall, visitation networks were more specialized in the early season than in late seasons. Our findings suggest that non-native plants can benefit native pollinators, but may alter foraging patterns, bee community assemblage, and bee-plant network structures.</p> <p> </p>
Data from: A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland
<p>1. Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.</p> <p> 2. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating <i>taxa</i> (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.</p> <p>3. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.</p> <p>4. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes.</p> <p>5. <i>Policy Implications.</i> To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our study highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer<i>. </i>To achieve this the CAP post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and Agri-Environment and Climate Measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.