2018
DOI: 10.13102/sociobiology.v65i4.3464
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two Colors, One Species: The Case of Melissodes nigroaenea (Apidae: Eucerini), an Important Pollinator of Cotton Fields in Brazil

Abstract: Accurate taxonomic delimitation in ecological research is absolutely critical as studies that seek to evaluate levels of biodiversity and qualify human effects on the environment are rapidly undertaken. Coloration is a widely used morphological character for species identification through dichotomous keys. However, taxonomic identification based upon coloration is often unreliable because this character can exhibit high degree of intraspecific variation. In this study, we use a DNA barcoding approach to invest… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
13
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite the dominance of the crop-crop interfaces and other aspects of agricultural intensification, the bee communities were similar in terms of species richness at different interfaces of this highly structured large-scale cotton agroecosystem, suggesting benefits or at least no antagonism of crops intermixed and dominating the original natural gulf prairie habitat. Compared to other studies, where increasing native bee diversity and richness in more diverse landscapes was seen, our findings were rather unexpected given the higher diversity and abundance within agricultural interfaces [10,43,44]. Further, samples taken from natural habitat alone (NH) appeared to have a lower estimated species richness than all cottoncrop or cotton-natural habitat interfaces, supporting that flowering cotton and possibly other resources provided by sorghum benefited at least M. tepaneca in this agroecosystem that was designed from a cotton production perspective.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Despite the dominance of the crop-crop interfaces and other aspects of agricultural intensification, the bee communities were similar in terms of species richness at different interfaces of this highly structured large-scale cotton agroecosystem, suggesting benefits or at least no antagonism of crops intermixed and dominating the original natural gulf prairie habitat. Compared to other studies, where increasing native bee diversity and richness in more diverse landscapes was seen, our findings were rather unexpected given the higher diversity and abundance within agricultural interfaces [10,43,44]. Further, samples taken from natural habitat alone (NH) appeared to have a lower estimated species richness than all cottoncrop or cotton-natural habitat interfaces, supporting that flowering cotton and possibly other resources provided by sorghum benefited at least M. tepaneca in this agroecosystem that was designed from a cotton production perspective.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 88%
“…The genus Melissodes also appears to be important in cotton outside of the U.S. In Brazil, M. nigroaena (Smith) has been identified as an important pollinator in small-scale cotton agroecosystems systems [43,44].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In these studies, the most abundant pollinator was in the genus Melissodes . In Texas, M. tepeaneca was found to be most abundant (species used in our study), and in Brazil, M. nigroaenea was most abundant [ 16 ]. A key difference in our study is that the M. tepaneca sourced for our experiments were taken from large scale commercial cotton fields with relatively little semi-natural habitats present compared to those monitored by Grando et al [ 16 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We note that in the caged flowers not exposed to M. tepaneca , some remnant insects (primarily sucking bugs [ 9 ]) may have been trapped inside at the time of covering the plants. However, these insects have not been noted as cotton pollinators in the literature [ 3 , 5 , 11 , 16 ]. Further, although direct pollination observations were not done for M. tepaneca within the experimental plots, native bees and other potential pollinators were observed in the cotton field where the experiment was conducted and in cotton fields within the region [ 4 , 10 , 15 , 17 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation