@article {1552,
	title = {Regional, annual and seasonal variation in pollinator guilds: intrinsic traits of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) underlie their patterns of abundance at Vaccinium ashei (Ericaceae)},
	journal = {Annals of the Entomological Society of America},
	volume = {86},
	year = {1993},
	month = {1993///},
	pages = {577 - 588},
	keywords = {ANTHOPHORIDAE, APIDAE, APIS, Apoidea, BOMBUS, COMMUNITIES, ERICACEAE, GUILD, HABROPODA, OLIGOLECTY, PHENOLOGY, POLLINATOR, POLLINATOR LIMITATION, VACCINIUM, VACCINIUM ASHEI, VARIATION},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Payne,J.A.}
}
@article {1616,
	title = {What governs protein content of pollen: Pollinator preferences, pollen-pistil interactions, or phylogeny?},
	journal = {Ecol.Monog.},
	volume = {70},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {617 - 643},
	abstract = {Pollen ranges from 2.5\% to 61\% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate floral visitors consume pollen for protein, protein content may influence floral host choice. Additionally, many floral visitors pollinate their host plants. If protein content influences pollinator visitation, then pollinators are hypothesized to select for increased protein content of host plants. We analyzed or gleaned from the literature crude pollen protein concentrations of 377 plant species from 93 plant families. Using this database, we compared pollen protein concentration with (1) pollination mode, (2) pollen collection by bees, and (3) distance from stigma to ovule, after accounting for phylogeny through paired phylogenetic comparisons and a nested ANOVA including taxonomic rank. We found that pollen protein concentrations were highly conserved within plant genera, families, and divisions. We found that bees did not collect pollen that was unusually rich in protein, whether they pollinated or merely robbed their host plant. Plant species with vibratile pollination systems, which require visitation by pollen-collecting bees in order to transfer pollen, tended to have very protein-rich pollen, but it was not clear whether this was due to plant enhancement of pollinator rewards or to the possession of very small pollen grains. We found that zoophilous species were not statistically richer in pollen protein than anemophilous species after accounting for phylogeny, although the three most species-rich anemophilous clades surveyed were generally poor in protein. Plant genera hosting specialist pollen-collecting bees did not have particularly protein-rich pollen. Both mass of protein per pollen grain and pollen grain volume were correlated with stigma-ovule distance. We suggest that the need for growing pollen tubes probably plays a more important role in determining pollen protein content than rewarding pollinators},
	keywords = {ANEMOPHILY, BUZZ POLLINATION, COEVOLUTION, EVOLUTION, PHYLOGENY, POLLEN, POLLEN TUBE, POLLEN-CHEMISTRY, POLLINATION, POLLINATOR, PROTEIN, STIGMA, VARIATION},
	author = {Roulston,T.H. and Cane, J. H. and Buchmann,S.L.}
}
@article {1567,
	title = {Causes and extent of declines among native North American invertebrate pollinators: Detection, evidence, and consequences},
	journal = {Conservation Ecology},
	volume = {5},
	year = {2001},
	month = {2001///},
	pages = {17 - 26},
	abstract = {Ecosystem health and agricultural wealth in North America depend on a particular invertebrate fauna to deliver pollination services. Extensive losses in pollinator guilds and communities can disrupt ecosystem integrity, a circumstance that today forces most farmers to rely on honey bees for much fruit and seed production. Are North America{\textquoteright}s invertebrate pollinator faunas already widely diminished or currently threatened by human activities? How would we know, what are the spatiotemporal scales for detection, and which anthropogenic factors are responsible? Answers to these questions were considered by participants in a workshop sponsored by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis in October of 1999, and these questions form the nucleus for the papers in this special issue. Several contributors critically interpret the evidence for declines of bee and fly pollinators, the pollination deficits that should ensue, and their economic costs. Spatiotemporal unruliness in pollinator numbers, particularly bees, is shown to hinder our current insights, highlighting the need for refined survey and sampling designs. At the same time, two remarkable studies clearly show the long-term persistence of members of complex bee communities. Other authors offer new perspectives on habitat fragmentation and global warming as drivers of pollinator declines. Bees and lepidopterans are contrasted in terms of their natural genetic variation and their consequent resilience in the face of population declines. Overall, many ecologists and conservation biologists have not fully appreciated the daunting challenges that accompany sampling designs, taxonomy, and the natural history of bees, flies, and other invertebrate pollinators, a circumstance that must be remedied if we are to reliably monitor invertebrate pollinator populations and respond to their declines with effective conservation measures},
	keywords = {Apoidea, COMMUNITIES, CONSERVATION, FRAGMENTATION, GENETIC VARIATION, GUILD, HABITAT, INSECTA, LIFE HISTORY, POLLINATION, POLLINATOR, SEED, SEED PRODUCTION, taxonomy, VARIATION},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Tepedino,V.J.}
}
@article {1569,
	title = {Pollinator genetics and pollination: do honey bee colonies selected for pollen-hoarding field better pollinators of cranberry Vaccinium macrocarpon?},
	journal = {Ecological Entomology},
	volume = {26},
	year = {2001},
	month = {2001///},
	pages = {117 - 123},
	abstract = {1. Genetic polymorphisms of flowering plants can influence pollinator foraging but it is not known whether heritable foraging polymorphisms of pollinators influence their pollination efficacies. Honey bees Apis mellifera L. visit cranberry flowers for nectar but rarely for pollen when alternative preferred flowers grow nearby. 2. Cranberry flowers visited once by pollen-foraging honey bees received fourfold more stigmatic pollen than flowers visited by mere nectar-foragers (excluding nectar thieves). Manual greenhouse pollinations with fixed numbers of pollen tetrads (0, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32) achieved maximal fruit set with just eight pollen tetrads. Pollen-foraging honey bees yielded a calculated 63\% more berries than equal numbers of non-thieving nectar-foragers, even though both classes of forager made stigmatic contact. 3. Colonies headed by queens of a pollen-hoarding genotype fielded significantly more pollen-foraging trips than standard commercial genotypes, as did hives fitted with permanently engaged pollen traps or colonies containing more larvae. Pollen-hoarding colonies together brought back twice as many cranberry pollen loads as control colonies, which was marginally significant despite marked daily variation in the proportion of collected pollen that was cranberry. 4. Caloric supplementation of matched, paired colonies failed to enhance pollen foraging despite the meagre nectar yields of individual cranberry flowers. 5. Heritable behavioural polymorphisms of the honey bee, such as pollen-hoarding, can enhance fruit and seed set by a floral host (e.g. cranberry), but only if more preferred pollen hosts are absent or rare. Otherwise, honey bees{\textquoteright} broad polylecty, flight range, and daily idiosyncrasies in floral fidelity will obscure specific pollen-foraging differences at a given floral host, even among paired colonies in a seemingly uniform agricultural setting},
	keywords = {APIDAE, APIS, Apoidea, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, CRANBERRIES, ERICACEAE, FLIGHT, FLORAL REWARDS-POLLEN, FLOWERING, FRUIT SET, FRUIT SIZE, GENETICS, LARVAE, POLLEN, POLLEN LOAD- STIGMA, POLLEN TRAP, POLLINATION, POLLINATION EFFICIENCY, POLLINATOR, POLYLECTY, POLYMORPHISM, SEED, SEED SET, TRAP, VACCINIUM, VARIATION},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Schiffhauer,D.}
}
@article {1575,
	title = {Temporally persistent patterns of incidence and abundance in a pollinator guild at annual and decadal scales: the bees of Larrea tridentata},
	journal = {Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, London},
	volume = {85},
	year = {2005},
	month = {2005///},
	pages = {319 - 329},
	abstract = {A recent alternative model to conventional coevolution, the geographic mosaic theory of coevolution, posits that reciprocal selection is episodic and local, rather than persistent and spatially extensive. However, little empirical evidence addresses this model{\textquoteright}s tenets, in particular the temporal stability of local plant-pollinator interactions. We evaluated this tenet using the richly diverse guild of bees at creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), a generalist plant that hosts many specialist bees. We systematically resampled over 2-5 years at 11 sites across the south-western USA. Incidence and abundance also were compared for survey sites sampled 20 2 years earlier. Average Morisita-Horn faunal similarities of local bee guilds was 87\% for sequential years and 36\% after 20 years. Similarities in taxonomic composition of resampled local bee guilds could be statistically represented as a random assemblage drawn from the regional source pool of 54-68 bee species that could be expected at Larrea, weighted by regional abundance. At every site, only the minority of abundant bee species was typically persistent in local guilds, even after > 20 years. Most bee species in the Larrea guild were chronically uncommon, geographically sporadic and temporally unpredictable, attributes that render them numerically inconsequential as pollinators in their local guild. Persistence among abundant bee species in local pollinator assemblages satisfies one condition by which reciprocal selection could act locally. The well-being of these more abundant core species, and not bee diversity per se, may better characterize the health of such plant-pollinator associations.},
	keywords = {Apoidea, COMMUNITIES, ECOLOGY-HISTORICAL, GUILD, LARREA, POLLINATOR, VARIATION},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Minckley,R. and Kervin,L. and Roulston,T.}
}
@article {1623,
	title = {Screenhouse evaluations of a mason bee Osmia ribifloris (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) as a pollinator of blueberries in the southeastern United States},
	volume = {3},
	year = {2004},
	month = {2004///},
	pages = {381 - 392},
	keywords = {Apoidea, FRUIT SET, Megachilidae, OSMIA, POLLINATION, POLLINATION EFFICIENCY, POLLINATOR, VACCINIUM, VACCINIUM ASHEI, VARIATION},
	author = {Sampson,B.J. and Stringer,S.J. and Cane, J. H. and Spiers,J.M.}
}
