Managed bumblebees outperform honeybees in increasing peach fruit set in China: Different limiting processes with different pollinators
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 10, Issue: 3, Page: e0121143
2015
- 45Citations
- 132Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations45
- Citation Indexes44
- 44
- CrossRef33
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures132
- Readers132
- 132
Article Description
Peach Prunus persica (L.) Batsch is self-compatible and largely self-fertile, but under greenhouse conditions pollinators must be introduced to achieve good fruit set and quality. Because little work has been done to assess the effectiveness of different pollinators on peach trees under greenhouse conditions, we studied 'Okubo' peach in greenhouse tunnels near Beijing between 2012 and 2014. We measured pollen deposition, pollen-tube growth rates, ovary development, and initial fruit set after the flowers were visited by either of two managed pollinators: bumblebees, Bombus patagiatus Nylander, and honeybees, Apis mellifera L. The results show that B. patagiatus is more effective than A. mellifera as a pollinator of peach in greenhouses because of differences in two processes. First, B. patagiatus deposits more pollen grains on peach stigmas than A. mellifera, both during a single visit and during a whole day of open pollination. Second, there are differences in the fertilization performance of the pollen deposited. Half of the flowers visited by B. patagiatus are fertilized 9-11 days after bee visits, while for flowers visited by A. mellifera, half are fertilized 13-15 days after bee visits. Consequently, fruit development is also accelerated by bumblebees, showing that the different pollinators have not only different pollination efficiency, but also influence the subsequent time course of fertilization and fruit set. Flowers visited by B. patagiatus show faster ovary growth and ultimately these flowers produce more fruit. Our work shows that pollinators may influence fruit production beyond the amount of pollen delivered. We show that managed indigenous bumblebees significantly outperform introduced honeybees in increasing peach initial fruit set under greenhouse conditions.
Bibliographic Details
10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g006; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g004; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g007; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g002; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g003; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g005; 10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g001
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84925834902&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25799170; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g006; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g004; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g004; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g007; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g003; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g003; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g005; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g005; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g001; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g003; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g003; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g007; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g007; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g004; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g004; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g005; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g005; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g006; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g006; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g001; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g005; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g004; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g006; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/metrics?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143&type=printable; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g001; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g003; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0121143; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g007; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0121143.g002
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know