The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Farming Practices Influence Wild Pollinator Populations on Squash and Pumpkin
Abstract
Recent declines in managed honey bee, Apis mellifera L., colonies have increased interest in the current and potential contribution of wild bee populations to the pollination of agricultural crops. Because wild bees often live in agricultural fields, their population density and contribution to crop pollination may be influenced by farming practices, especially those used to reduce the populations of other insects. We took a census of pollinators of squash and pumpkin at 25 farms in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland to see whether pollinator abundance was related to farming practices. The main pollinators were Peponapis pruinosa Say; honey bees, and bumble bees (Bombus spp.). The squash bee was the most abundant pollinator on squash and pumpkin, occurring at 23 of 25 farms in population densities that were commonly several times higher than that of other pollinators. Squash bee density was related to tillage practices: no-tillage farms hosted three times as great a density of squash bees as tilled farms. Pollinator density was not related to pesticide use. Honey bee density on squash and pumpkin was not related to the presence of managed honey bee colonies on farms. Farms with colonies did not have more honey bees per flower than farms that did not keep honey bees, probably reflecting the lack of affinity of honey bees for these crops. Future research should examine the economic impacts of managing farms in ways that promote pollinators, particularly pollinators of crops that are not well served by managed honey bee colonies.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Hill, S. L. L., Contu, S., Lysenko, I., Senior, R. A., Börger, L., Bennett, D. J., Choimes, A., Collen, B., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14324 · Cited by 4,352
Kremen, C., Williams, N. M., Aizen, M. A., Gemmill‐Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, S. G., Roulston, T., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., et al. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x · Cited by 1,493
Self-citationHas land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment
Newbold, T., Hudson, L. N., Arnell, A. P., Contu, S., De Palma, A., Ferrier, S., Hill, S. L. L., Hoskins, A. J., Lysenko, I., Phillips, H. R. P., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2201 · Cited by 1,119
Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield
Hoehn, P., Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J. M., & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2008) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0405 · Cited by 768
Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower
Greenleaf, S. S., & Kremen, C. (2006) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0600929103 · Cited by 719
Metadata
- Authors
- Shuler, R. E., Roulston, T. H., & Farris, G. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Economic Entomology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2005-06-01
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 790-795
- ISSN
- 0022-0493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2172676495
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Farming Practices Influence Wild Pollinator Populations on Squash and Pumpkin. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1603/0022-0493-98.3.790
- The paper
- Shuler, R. E., Roulston, T. H., & Farris, G. E. (2005). Farming Practices Influence Wild Pollinator Populations on Squash and Pumpkin. Journal of Economic Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-98.3.790
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.