Paper · 2019 · Southwestern Entomologist

Cuphea lanceolata and Cuphea ignia Seed Increase Using Three Pollinators in Insect-Proof Cages in the Field

Craig A. Abel; J. W. Van Roekel; Richard L. Wilson

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Oil from seed of many Cuphea (Lythraceae) species is abundant in medium-chain fatty acids (C8-C14). The fatty acids are valuable to industry and obtained from petrochemicals and tropical plants. Cuphea could provide a valuable temperate plant source of fatty acids, but there are agronomic limitations to commercial production. Many Cuphea spp. are entomophilous, so finding suitable pollinators will enhance development of the crop. In the study, the pollinating ability of three insects, honey bee, Apis mellifera L.; bumble bee, Bombus bimaculatus Cresson; and horned-face bee, Osmia cornifrons (Radoszkowski), were tested on Cuphea lanceolata W.T. Aiton and Cuphea ignia A. DC in insect-proof cages in the field. Based on harvested seed weight, the honey bee was an efficient pollinator of C. lanceolata with significantly more seed produced (40.9 g) than the no-pollinator check (9.8 g). The honey bee was not significantly different than the bumble bee (20.7 g) or O. cornifrons (25.6 g). The honey bee also was an efficient pollinator of C. ignia, with significantly more seed produced than any other pollinator. Bombus spp. are excellent pollinators of Cuphea, but our results indicated B. bimaculatus was an inefficient pollinator of C. ignia in field cages.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Honey bees increased C. lanceolata seed production over the no-pollinator check to 40.9 g versus 9.8 g.

Taxon
C. lanceolataCuphea lanceolatae0
Treatment
honey beee0
Interactor
honey beeApis melliferae0pollinator
Outcome
seed producede0
Direction
moree0
Value
40.9 ge0
Qualifier
9.8 ge0
Comparator
no-pollinator checke0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cuphea lanceolata
Cuphea lanceolata · TaxonHectonichus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Apis mellifera
Apis mellifera · InteractorDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the honey bee was an efficient pollinator of C. lanceolata with significantly more seed produced (40.9 g) than the no-pollinator check (9.8 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–891 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

C. lanceolata seed production with honey bees did not differ significantly from bumble bees.

Taxon
C. lanceolataCuphea lanceolatae0
Treatment
honey beee0
Interactor
honey beeApis melliferae0pollinator
Second interactor
bumble beee0pollinator
Outcome
seed producede0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Qualifier
20.7 ge0
Comparator
bumble beee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cuphea lanceolata
Cuphea lanceolata · TaxonHectonichus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Apis mellifera
Apis mellifera · InteractorDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the honey bee was an efficient pollinator of C. lanceolata with significantly more seed produced (40.9 g) than the no-pollinator check (9.8 g). The honey bee was not significantly different than the bumble bee (20.7 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–967 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cuphea lanceolata”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

C. lanceolata seed production with honey bees did not differ significantly from O. cornifrons.

Taxon
C. lanceolataCuphea lanceolatae0
Treatment
honey beee0
Interactor
honey beeApis melliferae0pollinator
Second interactor
O. cornifronsOsmia cornifronse0pollinator
Outcome
seed producede0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Qualifier
25.6 ge0
Comparator
O. cornifronse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cuphea lanceolata
Cuphea lanceolata · TaxonHectonichus · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Apis mellifera
Apis mellifera · InteractorDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Osmia cornifrons
Osmia cornifrons · Second interactorBeatriz Moisset · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the honey bee was an efficient pollinator of C. lanceolata with significantly more seed produced (40.9 g) than the no-pollinator check (9.8 g). The honey bee was not significantly different than the bumble bee (20.7 g) or O. cornifrons (25.6 g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 749–993 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cuphea lanceolata”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–17 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Honey bees produced significantly more C. ignia seed than any other pollinator.

Taxon
C. igniae0
Treatment
honey beee0
Interactor
honey beeApis melliferae0pollinator
Outcome
seed producede0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
any other pollinatore0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Apis mellifera
Apis mellifera · InteractorDidier Descouens · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The honey bee also was an efficient pollinator of C. ignia, with significantly more seed produced than any other pollinator”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 995–1118 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. bimaculatus was an inefficient pollinator of C. ignia in field cages.

Taxon
C. igniae0
Interactor
B. bimaculatusBombus bimaculatuse0pollinator
Outcome
inefficient pollinatore0
Setting
field cagese0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Bombus bimaculatus
Bombus bimaculatus · Interactor · picture from its Wikimedia Commons categoryJacy Lucier · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B. bimaculatus was an inefficient pollinator of C. ignia in field cages”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1195–1266 · show in text ↑