Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
The aim of our study was to assess the attraction and value of flowering plants at green areas in support and sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) populations in Kyiv. Study objects were the most common flowering ornamental plants of the city and the wild bees visiting their inflorescence...
Gespeichert in:
| Datum: | 2020 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine
2020
|
| Online Zugang: | https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1550 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Назва журналу: | Plant Introduction |
| Завантажити файл: |  |
Institution
Plant Introduction| _version_ | 1860145080927518720 |
|---|---|
| author | Honchar, G.Y. Gnatiuk, A.M. |
| author_facet | Honchar, G.Y. Gnatiuk, A.M. |
| author_sort | Honchar, G.Y. |
| baseUrl_str | https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/oai |
| collection | OJS |
| datestamp_date | 2023-08-26T20:39:45Z |
| description | The aim of our study was to assess the attraction and value of flowering plants at green areas in support and sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) populations in Kyiv. Study objects were the most common flowering ornamental plants of the city and the wild bees visiting their inflorescence during the vegetation season to collect pollen and feed on nectar. The study was conducted at 16 areas of observation and material collection, which include urban parks, M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden, green spaces of residential areas, roadsides, etc. Insects were collected following the standard method of catching individual specimens during the spring and summer periods of 2012–2018. Based on the observations, we visualized trophic relations of bees with plants and calculated the biodiversity index of visiting insects for plants. The blossom periods were analyzed using phenological data. Examination of urban green areas revealed ornamental plants that were the most attractive for bees, including more than 35 taxa of 20 families of trees, shrubs, and grassy plants. Bees are superiorly attracted to plants of the genera Rudbeckia, Sedum, Gypsophila, Cerasus, Tagetes, Spiraea, Lonicera, and Aesculus. There is a succession of plant flowering during spring-summer season, which must be considered while planting of greenery. Certain plant species attract insects at each blossom period, for example, Prunus, Rhododendron, Crataegus, Aesculus in spring, most of Asteraceae – in summer. The diversity of blossoming plants is significantly lower at the end of summer and beginning of fall, coinciding with the decreasing flight activity of wild bees. Overall, the studied ornamental plants attract not only the most common species of wild bees but also highly specific and rare species such as Bombus argillaceus and Xylocopa valga, protected by the Red Data Book of Ukraine. We found that blossoming green areas made up of trees, shrubs, and herbs are essential for feeding many species of wild bees and sustaining their populations in urban conditions. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.46341/PI2020014 |
| first_indexed | 2025-07-17T12:53:38Z |
| format | Article |
| fulltext |
Plant Introduction, 85/86, 93–108 (2020)
© The Authors. This content is provided under CC BY 4.0 license.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera,
Apoidea)
Introduction
The urban environment becomes increasingly
important to the sustenance of biodiversity,
which is critically endangered by the
combined effects of intensive agriculture,
agrotechnical measures, and use of
pesticides (Chiesura, 2004; Winfree et al.,
2009; Dearborn & Kark, 2010; Sanderson &
Huron, 2011). The humankind is now facing
the problem of extinction and rapid decline
of pollinator populations (Potts et al., 2010),
including the wild bees (Hymenoptera,
Apoidea). Those insects are considered the
best pollinators because they pollinate almost
80% of flowering plants (Klein et al., 2007;
Smitley, 2018).
Botanical gardens, parks, and garden
squares are especially significant for the
preservation of biodiversity (Hammitt, 2002;
G.Y. Honchar 1, A.M. Gnatiuk 2
1 Institute for Evolutionary Ecology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Lebedeva str. 37, 03143 Kyiv, Ukraine; apantova@ukr.net
2 M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Timiryazyevska str. 1, 01014 Kyiv, Ukraine;
colchicum@i.ua
Received: 06.04.2020 | Accepted: 26.05.2020 | Published: 30.06.2020
Abstract
The aim of our study was to assess the attraction and value of flowering plants at green areas in support
and sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) populations in Kyiv. Study objects were the most
common flowering ornamental plants of the city and the wild bees visiting their inflorescence during
the vegetation season to collect pollen and feed on nectar. The study was conducted at 16 areas of
observation and material collection, which include urban parks, M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden,
green spaces of residential areas, roadsides, etc. Insects were collected following the standard method
of catching individual specimens during the spring and summer periods of 2012–2018. Based on the
observations, we visualized trophic relations of bees with plants and calculated the biodiversity index of
visiting insects for plants. The blossom periods were analyzed using phenological data. Examination of
urban green areas revealed ornamental plants that were the most attractive for bees, including more than
35 taxa of 20 families of trees, shrubs, and grassy plants. Bees are superiorly attracted to plants of the
genera Rudbeckia, Sedum, Gypsophila, Cerasus, Tagetes, Spiraea, Lonicera, and Aesculus. There is a succession
of plant flowering during spring-summer season, which must be considered while planting of greenery.
Certain plant species attract insects at each blossom period, for example, Prunus, Rhododendron, Crataegus,
Aesculus in spring, most of Asteraceae – in summer. The diversity of blossoming plants is significantly lower
at the end of summer and beginning of fall, coinciding with the decreasing flight activity of wild bees.
Overall, the studied ornamental plants attract not only the most common species of wild bees but also
highly specific and rare species such as Bombus argillaceus and Xylocopa valga, protected by the Red Data
Book of Ukraine. We found that blossoming green areas made up of trees, shrubs, and herbs are essential
for feeding many species of wild bees and sustaining their populations in urban conditions.
Keywords: ornamental plants, wild bees, urban conditions
https://doi.org/10.46341/PI2020014
UDC 58.072:58.072 /579.79
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3429-5500
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5001-971X
94 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
Mexia et al., 2018). For many plants, there
are conditions to grow ex situ in botanical
gardens and parks. The general composition
of green areas of Kyiv, their protective and
purifying functions, esthetic value and
conservation significance were described in
numerous publications (Cherevchenko et al.,
1999; Cherevchenko & Kuznetsov, 2003;
Rubtsova, 2006; Doyko, 2012; Klymenko,
2012; Hatalska & Kryvenko, 2012; Rogovskiy,
2013; Pikhalo, 2014; Melezhyk, 2015;
Matiashuk et al., 2015). Trees and shrubs
are essential food sources for bees (Somme
et al., 2016). The species composition of trees
of urban plantations in Kyiv includes a lot
of plants that are attractive to bees: 39.6 %
linden, 22.2 % horse chestnut, 4.0 % Norway
maple, and nearly 2 % black locust and rowan
(Lesnik, 2015). However, their distribution is
limited, and flowering is rather short-term.
As for shrubs, only 20 of recorded species
are decorative bloomers, representing only
6.7 % of all shrub species in collections of the
botanical gardens of Kyiv (Oleksiychenko &
Breus, 2013).
The primary factors limiting the sustenance
and persistence of wild bee populations are
feeding and nesting resources. Places for
bees to nest are more or less present in urban
biotopes. Species that nest in the soil can use
fragments of soil cover at roadsides, garden
squares, urban parks; those that use plant
material can nest in deadwood in parks and
private plots; for those preferring hollows,
there are walls of buildings and fences.
However, the foraging resources (flowers)
are often limited due to the impoverished
composition of plants. This fact also negatively
impacts the growth and reproduction of bee
populations.
Overall, the trophic relations of wild bees
have been studied extensively in cities of
other countries. Many authors have pointed
out the significance of decorative green areas
(with blossoming trees, shrubs, and herbs)
as foraging resources for bees (Gathmann &
Tscharntke, 2002; Acar et al., 2007; Hennig
& Ghazoul, 2011; Garbuzov & Ratnieks, 2014;
Hausmann et al., 2016; Garbuzov et al., 2017;
Lowenstein et al., 2019; Sikora, 2019; Erickson
et al., 2020). However, the attractiveness and
value of decorative green areas with various
plant species to wild bees have not been
studied in urban conditions before.
Our work aimed to study the trophic
relations of wild bees with flowering plants of
the green areas of Kyiv.
Material and methods
Studies were conducted in Kyiv during the
spring and summer seasons of 2012–2018.
Model areas were located in the M.M. Gryshko
National Botanical Garden of NAS of Ukraine
(a significant hotbed of phytodiversity), and
urban parks “Feofaniya”, “Nyvky”, “Peremoha”,
“Partizans’koi slavy”. Also, the ornamental
green plantations of residential areas
“Teremky 1”, “Vynohradar”, as well as the
avenues, roadsides, stops of civil transport,
and road intersections were studied (Fig. 1).
Here, we consider the most common
flowering ornamental plants (more than 35
taxa) of green areas and decorative plant
compositions of the model territories, in
relation to their attractiveness to bees. Bees
were collected with an insect net while bees
were visiting flowers (Pesenko, 1982). The
visited plants and their botanical family
membership were recorded. Individual
specimens were caught, euthanized with
ethyl acetate, and brought to the laboratory
for species identification. We chose the
most common bee species found in a city
from our previously published check-lists of
wild bee species (Honchar, 2017; Honchar &
Gnatiuk, 2018; Radchenko & Honchar, 2019)
to determine their trophic relations. In total,
around 50 species of wild bees are considered
here from the families Сolletidae (two species
of Colletes Latreille, 1802 and three of Hylaeus
Fabricius, 1793), Andrenidae (seven species
of Andrena Fabricius, 1775), Halictidae (one
species of Nomioides Schenck, 1866, two of
Sphecodes Latreille, 1804, two of Seladonia
Robertson, 1918, two of Lasioglossum Curtis,
1833, three of Halictus Latreille, 1804, and six
of Evylaeus Robertson, 1902), Megachilidae
(one species of Heriades Spinola, 1808, two
of Osmia Panzer, 1806, one of Anthidium
Fabricius, 1804, one of Anthidiellum Cockerell,
1904, three of Megachile Latreille, 1802), Apidae
(one of Xylocopa Latreille, 1802, one of Eucera
Scopoli, 1770, one of Tetralonia Spinola, 1838,
two of Anthophora Latreille, 1803, and eight of
Bombus Latreille, 1802). In total, 1041 samples
were collected (see Appendix).
Plant Introduction • 85/86 95
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
The trophic relations were visualized in
R version 3.6.1 (R Core Team, 2014) using the
“bipartite” package (Dormann, 2011, 2020).
Trophic relations between bees and the
respective plants are presented graphically.
The width of relation on one side indicates
the number of visits and diversity of visitors
for plants, and on the other side for bees
(Figs. 2 & 3).
We used the diversity index S for the bee
visitors of flowers (Table 1). The index is based
on Fisher’s α (Fisher et al., 1943; Magurran,
2013; Dormann, 2020).
Results
The bee species differed by periods of their
flight activity and nesting specifics. Some
of them build their nests in soil, other – in
plant material, for example, members of the
family Megachilidae or the genus Hylaeus
prefer hollows. There were solitary bees,
inquilines (Sphecodes spp.), and eusocial
species (Bombus). The main trophic relations
that we have observed in the system “bee –
angiosperm” are represented on Figs. 2 & 3.
The bipartite network (Fig. 2 & 3)
constitutes weighted representations of
the plant-pollinator interactions. We used
the frequency of flower visits by bees as the
interaction weight to construct the network.
The number of relations and index of diversity
for each plant are given in Table 1.
The highest diversity of bee visitors,
seen at Figs. 2 & 3, is indicated for the
genera Spiraea L. (mostly for S. japonica L.f.,
S. media Schmidt, S. vanhouttei (Briot)
Zabel.), Malva L., Prunus L. (Cerasus L.), L.,
Rhododendron L., Rudbeckia L., Tagetes L.,
Dahlia L. Representatives of the genus Bombus
(B. lapidarius (Linnaeus, 1758), B. lucorum
(Linnaeus, 1761), B. terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758),
B. pascuorum Scopoli, 1763, and of Hylaeus
communis Nylander, 1852, Anthophora
plumipes (Pallas, 1772) and a few other taxa
were the most frequent visitors of decorative
plants in our study (Figs. 2 & 3).
Figure 1. Model areas: 1 – “Babin Yar” park; 2 – “Nyvki” park; 3 – “KPI” park; 4 – “Vinogradar” residential
area; 5 – M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden; 6 – “Teremki-1” residential area; 7 – “Feofaniya”
park; 8 – Trukhaniv island; 9 – Hydropark island; 10 – “Peremoha” park; 11 – “Partizans’koi Slavy”
park; 12 – Akademika Zabolotnoho str.; 13 – Druzhby Narodiv blvd.; 14 – Saperno-Slobidska str.;
15 – Zakrevskogo str.; 16 – Mayakovs’koho avn.
96 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
As can be seen from Table 1 and Figs. 2 & 3,
there are plant species that attract more than
10 wild bee species. However, there are plants
such as Spirea, which mostly attract the most
common bumblebee species and abundant
species of the genus Evylaeus, less so other
wild bees. Similarly, flowers of Gypsophila
paniculata, Dahlia, and Tagetes attract a
significant number of these insect species.
However, the visitor diversity index is 3 to
6 in these cases because of the domination
of certain species. Some plant species,
such as Calendula, Coreopsis, Rudbeckia,
Sedum L., Prunus, attract pollinators more
evenly. In general, the bee species with
higher ecological plasticity dominate in
the urban environment, though specific
oligolectic pollinators of certain species
also are represented (Banaszak-Cibicka &
Żmihorski, 2012; da Rocha-Filho, 2018). Those
bees are attracted to plants of the genus
Malva (specifically, Tetralonia malvae (Rossi,
1790), bees eat pollen from these flowers),
Campanula (to which Andrena curvungula
Thomson, 1870 is specialized), Stachys
and Digiatalis are pollinated by Anthidium
manicatum (Linnaeus, 1758) and Osmia bicolor
(Schrank, 1781).
Aesculus hippocastanum L. attracts eight of
the most common wild bee species, including
two protected by the Red Data Book of
Ukraine (Radchenko, 2009; Radchenko et al.,
2009), Bombus argillaceus (Scopoli, 1763) and
Xylocopa valga Gerstaecker, 1872. Bees of the
latter species have a lot of various trophic
relations on the studied territory. Fruiting
trees of the family Rosaceae that are planted
in green areas are also essential for bees in
early spring throughout the season, especially
in herb-free urban biotopes.
We have found that bees are more
attracted to plants from the following 20
families. Families Asteraceae and Rosaceae
were exceptionally diverse by the number
of plant taxa visited by bees (Table 1; Fig. 4).
At the same time, several families which
were presented by only one or two genera
(such as Tamaricaceae and Sapindaceae) are
significant for feeding of wild bees of various
species.
Figure 2. General view of the trophic relations of wild bees with ornamental plants of the urban green
areas. The size of boxes is proportional to the total number of visits recorded per species. The thickness
of the interaction lines represents the frequency categories of the interactions.
Plant Introduction • 85/86 97
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
Figure 3. Detailed view of the trophic relations of wild bees with ornamental plants of the urban green
areas. The size of boxes is proportional to the total number of visits recorded per species. The thickness
of the interaction lines represents the frequency categories of the interactions.
There are seasonal fluctuations in the
species diversity of wild bees. Overall, wild
bees begin their flight activity in the middle
of March though that is notably dependent on
weather conditions. The highest level of bee
diversity is observed in May and June, then
again in early July, and declines in August.
During the large-scale distribution and
reproduction of bees, the presence of pollen
and nectar reserves is critical, affecting the
nutritive qualities of feeding resources, and
most importantly, the collection of a provision
98 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
intended for broods. Thus, a continuance of
blossom is needed from March to September.
According to our data, it is not found in a
number of parks, and less so at roadsides, in
flowerbeds and garden squares. Therefore,
the assortment of angiosperms does not
provide the succession of flowering plants
to sustain wild bees. Some plant species
bloom only in early spring, others only in
summer. Only by combining plants with
varying periods of flowering, it is possible to
sustain wild bees with good-quality nutrition
resources. In Kyiv, the most common and
attractive for bees ornamental plants flower
from the end of April till the middle of August
(Fig. 5). This fact indicates the incompleteness
Plant taxa
N
um
be
r
of
v
is
iti
ng
be
e
sp
ec
ie
s
Fi
sh
er
’s
α
in
de
x
of
di
ve
rs
ity
Asteraceae Bercht. & J. Presl
Calendula L. 8 8.85
Dahlia Cav. 10 6.17
Coreopsis L. 7 10.36
Rudbeckia L. 15 11.00
Tagetes L. 11 5.40
Cosmos sulphureus Cav. 7 4.00
Echinacea purpurea (L.) Moench 3 1.45
Campanulaceae Juss.
Campanula L. 3 1.98
Caprifoliaceae Juss.
Lonicera tatarica L. 8 4.20
Weigela floribunda (Sieb. et Zucc.)
C. Koch. 5 3.21
Caryophyllaceae Juss.
Gypsophila paniculata L. 12 5.00
Crassulaceae J. St.-Hil.
Sedum acre L. 14 16.57
Ericaceae Juss.
Rhododendron dauricum L. 5 1.84
Fabaceae Lindl.
Caragana arborescens Lam. 3 1.98
Hydrangeacea Dumort.
Deutzia scabra Thunb. 2 2.62
Philadelphus coronarius L. 4 3.87
Lamiaceae Martinov
Stachys byzantina K. Koch 5 3.21
Salvia L. 5 2.78
Liliaceae Juss.
Tulipa L. 3 1.74
Table 1. Diversity of relations of certain decorative plants with bees.
Plant taxa
N
um
be
r
of
v
is
iti
ng
be
e
sp
ec
ie
s
Fi
sh
er
’s
α
in
de
x
of
di
ve
rs
ity
Magnoliaceae Juss.
Magnolia L. 3 1.98
Malvacea Juss.
Malva L. 7 2.76
Oleacea Hoffmanns. & Link
Syringa L. 3 2.38
Papaveraceae Juss.
Eschscholzia californica Cham. 3 2.38
Papaver orientale L. 3 5.45
Plantaginaceae Juss.
Digitalis purpurea L. 1 0.427
Rosaceae Juss.
Cerasus erythrocarpa Nevski. 12 7.18
Chaenomeles japonica (Thunb.) Lindl.
ex Spach 5 2.21
Crataegus Tourn. ex L. 4 3.18
Malus P. Mill. 7 4.00
Prunus L. 4 1.13
Rosa L. 4 2.75
Spiraea L. 11 3.24
Sapindaceae Juss.
Aesculus hippocastanum L. 8 5.51
Tamaricaceae Link
Tamarix ramosissima Ldb. 6 3.15
Asparagaceae Juss.
Hosta Tratt. 5 2.13
Bignoniaceae Juss.
Catalpa Scop. 3 3.16
Plant Introduction • 85/86 99
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
of feeding resources for bees in early spring
and autumn.
Discussion
Urban ornamental plants are usually
introduced species. The nectar they
produce may contain metabolites, which are
unattractive, unusable, and even poisonous
to bees due to the narrow ranges of feeding
preferences of the latter (Novotny & Basset,
2005; Dyer et al., 2007). An example of such a
plant is Tilia tomentosa Moench, with nectar
that can cause mass mortality of bumblebees
(Koch et al., 2017; Jacquemart et al., 2018).
We would like to note that this plant is rarely
used in green areas of Kyiv, only sometimes
in residential areas and collections of
botanical gardens and arboretums.
Double-flowered plants are widely used
for ornamentation of green areas and
present another problem for the foraging
bees. Such plants are less attractive for
pollinators due to lower production of
nectar and accessibility of flowers (Comba
et al., 1999; Corbet et al., 2001). According
to our data, double-flowered cultivars of
the genera Dahlia, Tagetes, Рaeonia L., and
Rosa were indeed less attractive for bees
compared to the cultivars with simple
flowers. Among other ornamental and widely
used plants, cultivars of Petunia Juss. had
low value for bees. Their flowers produce
nectar and pollen in low quantities, and
their deep and narrow corollas limit the
access to the flower in general. Varieties
and cultivars of Ageratum L., Hydrangea L.,
Viola × wittrockiana, and Begonia L. are also
unattractive for bees.
On the other hand, there are such widely
grown, aggressive introduced species
as Robinia pseudoacacia L., Amorpha
fruticosa L., Solidago canadensis L., S.
gigantea Aiton and Asclepias syriaca L. They
are considered to be quality honey plants,
rich with nectar and pollen, with long periods
of flowering and at times presenting the
only foraging resource for bees. However,
their ability to displace other plants has
negative effect on the ecosystem as a
whole (Salisbury et al., 2015; Baker & Potter,
2018; Jachuła et al., 2020). Therefore, using
species of the natural flora of Ukraine to
maintain green areas is preferable, because
that would also sustain the populations of
rare and specialized species of wild bees
(Gnatiuk & Gaponenko, 2018). We think that
using species of the genera Tamarix and
Rhododendron (in particular, R. dauricum)
would be advantageous in the maintenance
of urban green areas because these plants
are of high ornamental value and produce
nectar and pollen for many wild bee
Figure 4. The relative share of most common ornamental plant families in the diet of wild bees in
urban areas.
100 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
Figure 5. Periods of the blossom of ornamental plants, which are most common and attractive for bees
in Kyiv: – no flowering; – beginning and ending of anthesis; – the main period of anthesis (IV–IX –
months; 1–3 – first, second and third 10-day periods).
species in spring. Similar recommendations
concerning the species mentioned above
and species of the genus Lonicera and to a
lesser degree, Deutzia, have been made for
the maintenance of green areas in other
European cities (Bagatska & Romanenko,
2011; Jachuła et al., 2019; Masierowska, 2006).
Conclusions
Parks, botanical gardens, garden squares,
and other green areas sustain the biological
diversity in cities. For pollinators, whose
populations face a worldwide decline, the
flowering plants of green areas are especially
important. We examined more than 35 species
of plants of 20 families and observed the
highest bee diversity on plants of the families
Asteraceae, Rosaceae, and Lamiaceae. The
most attractive plant species under study
belong to the genera Aesculus, Rhododendron,
Rudbeckia, Sedum, Gypsophila, Prunus, Malus,
Tagetes, Spiraea, Lonicera, and Tamarix.
Certain plant species, for example, from
the genera Malva, Campanula, Stachys, and
Plant Introduction • 85/86 101
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
Digitalis attract specialized bee species.
Ornamental angiosperms also provide pollen
and nectar to species listed in the Red Data
Book of Ukraine, Bombus argillaceus and
Xylocopa valga.
In our opinion, the plants used in urban
green areas should not have decorative value
only but also provide pollen and nectar to
the wild bees of urban landscapes. To ensure
the excellent nutritive resources for bees,
the assortment of flowering plants should be
continuous, and cultivars and varieties with
simple flowers should be a preference for the
green areas. Of particular interest are early-
flowering species and plants which bloom
in autumn. Using plant species with low-
productive flowers which are inaccessible for
insects should be limited. Introduced plants,
which are tolerant of urban conditions and
actively produce seeds and self-propagate,
should be avoided.
It should be noted that the assortment of
ornamental plants used in urban green areas
is continuously growing. Thus the studies of
trophic relations between the wild bees (and
insects in general) have to be continued. That
would provide scientific recommendations
for the selection of species and cultivars of
esthetically pleasing plants that ensure the
survival of many groups of insects in urban
conditions.
References
Acar, C., Acar, H., & Eroğlu, E. (2007). Evaluation
of ornamental plant resources to urban
biodiversity and cultural changing: a case
study of residential landscapes in Trabzon city
(Turkey). Building and Environment, 42, 218–229.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.030
Bagatska, O. M., & Romanenko, T. A. (2011).
Future use of the genus Tamarix L. in gardening
settlements. Scientific Bulletin of Ukrainian National
Forestry University, 21(16), 301–306. (In Ukrainian)
Baker, A. M., & Potter, D. A. (2018). Colonization
and usage of eight milkweed (Asclepias) species
by monarch butterflies and bees in urban garden
settings. Journal of Insect Conservation, 22(3–4), 405–
418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0069-5
Banaszak-Cibicka, W., & Żmihorski, M. (2012).
Wild bees along an urban gradient: winners and
losers. Journal of Insect Conservation, 16(3), 331–
343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9419-2
Cherevchenko, Т. M., Moroz, P. A., Kuznetsov, S. I.,
& Muzychuk G. M. (1999). Plant diversity
conservation problems ex situ. Plant Introduction,
1, 7–13. (In Ukrainian). https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.3367330
Cherevchenko, N. M., & Kuznetsov, S. I. (2003). The
biodiversity of trees and shrubs in great sites and
its provident (on the example of Kiev). Scientific
Bulletin of Ukrainian National Forestry University,
13(5), 22–27. (In Ukrainian)
Chiesura, A. (2004). The role of urban parks for the
sustainable city. Landscape and Urban Planning,
68(1), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landurbplan.2003.08.003
Comba, L., Corbet, S. A., Hunt, L., & Warren, B.
(1999). Flowers, nectar and insect visits:
Evaluating British plant species for pollinator-
friendly gardens. Annals of Botany, 83(4), 369–383.
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0835
Corbet, S. A., Bee, J., Dasmahapatra, K., Gale, S.,
Gorringe, E., La Ferla, B., Moorhouse, T.,
Trevail A., Van Bergen, Y., & Vorontsova, M.
(2001). Native or exotic? Double or single?
Evaluating plants for pollinator-friendly gardens.
Annals of Botany, 87(2), 219–232. https://doi.
org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1322
da Rocha-Filho, L. C., Ferreira-Caliman, M. J.,
Garófalo, C. A., & Augusto, S. C. (2018).
A specialist in an urban area: are cities suitable to
harbour populations of the oligolectic bee Centris
(Melacentris) collaris (Apidae: Centridini)? Annales
Zoologici Fennici, 55(1–3), 135–149. https://doi.
org/10.5735/086.055.0101
Dearborn, D. C., & Kark, S. (2010). Motivations
for conserving urban biodiversity. Conservation
Biology, 24(2), 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x
Dormann, C. F. (2011). How to be a specialist?
Quantifying specialisation in pollination networks.
Network Biology, 1(1), 1–20. Retrieved from https://
www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-be-a-
specialist-Quantifying-specialisation-Dormann/3
4459dae080790d7aafe9bb1e1db9e045b78bde3
Dormann, C. F. (2020). Using bipartite to describe and
plot two-mode networks in R. Freiburg: University
of Freiburg. Retrieved from https://cran.r-
project.org/web/packages/bipartite/vignettes/
Intro2bipartite.pdf
Doyko, N. (2012). Floral park unit “Alexandria”.
Agrobiology, 8, 72–74 (In Ukrainian)
Dyer, J. S., Halterman, J. R., Hunner, G. J., &
Muehlbach, G. B. (2007). Method and system of
evaluating performance of a crop. U.S. Patent No.
7,184,892. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office. Retrieved from https://insight.
rpxcorp.com/pat/US7184892B1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.030
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-018-0069-5
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-011-9419-2
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3367330
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3367330
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.08.003
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0835
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1322
https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1322
https://doi.org/10.5735/086.055.0101
https://doi.org/10.5735/086.055.0101
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01328.x
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-be-a-specialist-Quantifying-specialisation-Dormann/34459dae080790d7aafe9bb1e1db9e045b78bde3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-be-a-specialist-Quantifying-specialisation-Dormann/34459dae080790d7aafe9bb1e1db9e045b78bde3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-be-a-specialist-Quantifying-specialisation-Dormann/34459dae080790d7aafe9bb1e1db9e045b78bde3
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/How-to-be-a-specialist-Quantifying-specialisation-Dormann/34459dae080790d7aafe9bb1e1db9e045b78bde3
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bipartite/vignettes/Intro2bipartite.pdf
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bipartite/vignettes/Intro2bipartite.pdf
https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bipartite/vignettes/Intro2bipartite.pdf
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/pat/US7184892B1
https://insight.rpxcorp.com/pat/US7184892B1
102 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
Erickson, E., Adam, S., Russo, L., Wojcik, V., Patch, H. M.,
& Grozinger, C. M. (2020). More than meets the
eye? The role of annual ornamental flowers in
supporting pollinators. Environmental Entomology,
49(1), 178–188. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvz133
Fisher, R. A., Corbet, A. S., & Williams, C. B. (1943).
The relation between the number of species and
the number of individuals in a random sample of
an animal population. The Journal of Animal Ecology,
12(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1411
Garbuzov, M., & Ratnieks, F. L. (2014). Quantifying
variation among garden plants in attractiveness
to bees and other flower-visiting insects.
Functional Ecology, 28(2), 364–374. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2435.12178
Garbuzov, M., Alton, K., & Ratnieks, F. L. (2017).
Most ornamental plants on sale in garden centres
are unattractive to flower-visiting insects. PeerJ,
5, e3066. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3066
Gathmann, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2002). Foraging
ranges of solitary bees. Journal of Animal Ecology,
71(5), 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-
2656.2002.00641.x
Gnatiuk, A. M., & Gaponenko, M. B. (2018, June 12–
15). Prospects for the use of herbaceous species
of flora of Ukraine in landscaping and landscape
architecture. In Proceedings of the X International
Scientific Conference “Landscape Architecture in
Botanical Gardens and Arboretums” (pp. 48–52).
Kyiv. (In Ukrainian)
Hammitt, W. E. (2002). Urban forests and parks as
privacy refuges. Journal of Arboriculture, 28(1), 19–26.
Hatalska, N., & Kryvenko, O. (2012). Compex
estimation of plantings on the territory of
educational building NUBiP of Ukraine.
Agrobiology, 8, 50–54. (In Ukrainian)
Hausmann, S. L., Petermann, J. S., & Rolff, J. (2016).
Wild bees as pollinators of city trees. Insect
Conservation and Diversity, 9(2), 97–107. https://
doi.org/10.1111/icad.12145
Hennig, E. I., & Ghazoul, J. (2011). Plant-pollinator
interactions within the urban environment.
Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and
Systematics, 13(2), 137–150. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ppees.2011.03.003
Honchar, H. Y. (2017). Species composition and
ecological features of wild bees (Hymenoptera:
Apoidea) of the Dnipro Islands in Kyiv. The Kharkov
Entomological Society Gazette, 25(2), 11–21. (In Russian)
Honchar, H. Y., & Gnatiuk, A. M. (2018). The
diversity of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
in M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of
the NAS of Ukraine. The Kharkov Entomological
Society Gazette, 26(2). (In Ukranian). https://doi.
org/10.36016/KhESG-2018-26-2-5
Jachuła, J., Denisow, B., & Strzałkowska-
Abramek, M. (2019). Floral reward and insect
visitors in six ornamental Lonicera species –
plants suitable for urban bee-friendly gardens.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 44, 126390.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126390
Jachuła, J., Denisow, B., & Strzałkowska-
Abramek, M. (2020). Does an invader have a
bright side? Floral reward in two Solidago species.
Journal of Apicultural Research. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/00218839.2019.1703086
Jacquemart, A. L., Moquet, L., Ouvrard, P., Quetin-
Leclercq, J., Hérent, M. F., & Quinet, M. (2018).
Tilia trees: Toxic or valuable resources for
pollinators?. Apidologie, 49(5), 538–550. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s13592-018-0581-3
Klein, A. M., Vaissiere, B. E., Cane, J. H., Steffan-
Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S. A., Kremen, C., &
Tscharntke, T. (2007). Importance of pollinators
in changing landscapes for world crops.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,
274(1608), 303–313. http://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2006.3721
Klymenko, H. (2012). Bioecological characteristics
of planting assortment of tree and shrub
plantations in Kyiv. Bulletin SNBG 104, 58.
(In Ukrainian)
Koch, H., & Stevenson, P. C. (2017). Do linden
trees kill bees? Reviewing the causes of bee
deaths on silver linden (Tilia tomentosa). Biology
Letters, 13(9), 20170484. http://doi.org/10.1098/
rsbl.2017.0484
Lesnik, O. M., & Girs, О. А. (2015). Analysis of
providing the city of Kyiv with green space.
Ukrainian Journal of Forest and Wood Science,
216(1), 15–21. (In Ukrainian)
Lowenstein, D. M., Matteson, K. C., & Minor, E. S.
(2019). Evaluating the dependence of urban
pollinators on ornamental, non-native, and
‘weedy’ floral resources. Urban Ecosystems, 22(2),
293–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-
0817-z
Magurran, A. E. (2013). Measuring biological diversity.
Wiley-Blackwell.
Masierowska, M. L. (2006). Floral reward and insect
visitation in ornamental deutzias (Deutzia spp.),
Saxifragaceae sensu lato. Journal of Apicultural
Research, 45(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0
0218839.2006.11101306
Matiashuk, R. K., Goncharenko, I. V.,
Tkachenko, І. V., Prokopuk, Y. S., & Shchur, K. Y.
(2015). Taxonomic composition and spatial
structure of the elements of landscaping park
“Feofaniya”. Ecology and Noospherology, 26, (3–4),
21–29. (In Ukrainian)
https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvz133
https://doi.org/10.2307/1411
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12178
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12178
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.3066
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12145
https://doi.org/10.1111/icad.12145
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2011.03.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2011.03.003
https://doi.org/10.36016/KhESG-2018-26-2-5
https://doi.org/10.36016/KhESG-2018-26-2-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126390
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2019.1703086
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2019.1703086
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-018-0581-3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-018-0581-3
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0484
http://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2017.0484
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0817-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0817-z
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2006.11101306
https://doi.org/10.1080/00218839.2006.11101306
Plant Introduction • 85/86 103
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
Melezhyk, O.V. (2015). Assessment of the status of
the monuments of landscape art in Kyiv. Common
Environmental Safety, 5, 110. (In Ukrainian)
Mexia, T., Vieira, J., Príncipe, A., Anjos, A.,
Silva, P., Lopes, N., Freitas, C., Santos-
Reisa, M., Correia, O., Branquinhoa, C., &
Pinho, P. (2018). Ecosystem services: Urban
parks under a magnifying glass. Environmental
research, 160, 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2017.10.023
Novotny, V., & Basset, Y. (2005). Host specificity of
insect herbivores in tropical forests. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 272
(1568), 1083–1090. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2004.3023
Oleksiychenko, N. O., & Breus, N. Y. (2013).
Assessment of the decorative nature of
beautiful flowering shrubs that bloom in the
season “height of spring”. Forestry and Landscape
Gardening, 3, 9841. (In Ukrainian). Retrieved from
http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Lis/
article/view/9841
Pesenko, Y. A. (1982). Principles and methods of
quantitative analysis in faunistic researches. Moskva:
Nauka. (In Russian)
Pikhalo, O. V. (2014). Organization of the territory of
urban single-level transport interchanges (on the
example of the Obolon district of Kyiv). Forestry
and Landscape Gardening, 4, 9969. (In Ukrainian).
Retrieved from http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/
index.php/Lis/article/view/9969
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C.,
Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E.
(2010). Global pollinator declines: trends,
impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
25(6), 345–353. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2010.01.007
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment
for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R
Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved
from https://www.R-project.org
Radchenko, V. G. (2009). Dzhmil hlynystiy. Bombus
(Megabombus) argillaceus Smith, 1854. In
I. A. Akimov (Ed.), The Red Data Book of Ukraine.
Animals (p. 269). Kyiv: Global Consulting.
(In Ukrainian)
Radchenko, V. G., Filatov, M. O., & Ivanov, S. P.
(2009). Ksylokopa (bdzhola-tesliar) zvychayna.
Xylocopa (Xylocopa) valga Gerstaecker, 1872.
In I. A. Akimov (Ed.), The Red Data Book of
Ukraine. Animals (p. 264). Kyiv: Global Consulting.
(In Ukrainian)
Radchenko, V., & Honchar, H. (2019). Species diversity
of wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in parks of
Kyiv. Bulletin of Taras Shevchenko National University
of Kyiv, Series Biology, 78(2), 40–49. (In Ukranian)
Rogovskiy, S. V. (2013). Experience in the creation
and maintenance of green spaces in European
cities and its use in Ukraine. Ukrainian Journal
of Forest and Wood Science, 187(1), 126–134.
(In Ukrainian)
Rubtsova, O. L. (2006). Ukrainian botanical,
acclimatization gardens and dendroparks
– centers of introduction of Rosa L.
representatives. Plant Introduction, 1, 3–10.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2567187
Salisbury, A., Armitage, J., Bostock, H., Perry, J.,
Tatchell, M., & Thompson, K. (2015). Editor’s
choice: Enhancing gardens as habitats for
flower-visiting aerial insects (pollinators):
Should we plant native or exotic species? Journal
of Applied Ecology, 52(5), 1156–1164. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365-2664.12499
Sanderson, E. W., & Huron, A. (2011).
Conservation in the city. Conservation Biology,
25, 421– 423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-
1739.2011.01683.x
Sikora, A., Michołap, P., & Sikora, M. (2020).
What kind of flowering plants are attractive
for bumblebees in urban green areas? Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, 48,126546. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126546
Smitley, D. (2018). Marketing the ecosystem
services provided by food plants for pollinators.
In Proceedings of the 2017 Annual Meeting of the
International Plant Propagators’ Society. Acta
Horticulturae, 1212, 101–102. https://doi.
org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1212.20
Somme, L., Moquet, L., Quinet, M.,
Vanderplanck, M., Michez, D., Lognay, G.,
& Jacquemart, A. L. (2016). Food in a row:
urban trees offer valuable floral resources to
pollinating insects. Urban Ecosystems, 19, 1149–
1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-
0555-z
Winfree, R., Aguilar, R., Vázquez, D. P.,
LeBuhn, G., & Aizen, M. A. (2009). A meta-
analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic
disturbance. Ecology, 90(8), 2068–2076. http://
doi.org/10.1890/08-1245.1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.10.023
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3023
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2004.3023
http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Lis/article/view/9841
http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Lis/article/view/9841
http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Lis/article/view/9969
http://journals.nubip.edu.ua/index.php/Lis/article/view/9969
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007
https://www.R-project.org
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2567187
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12499
https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12499
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01683.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01683.x
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126546
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126546
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1212.20
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1212.20
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0555-z
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0555-z
http://doi.org/10.1890/08-1245.1
http://doi.org/10.1890/08-1245.1
104 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
Ta
xa
“Babin Yar” park
“Nyvki” park
“KPI” park
“Vinogradar”
residential area
M.M. Gryshko National
Botanical Garden
“Teremki-1”
residential area
“Feofaniya” park
Trukhaniv island
Hydropark island
“Peremoha” park
“Partizans’koi Slavy”
parl
Akademika
Zabolotnoho str.
Druzhby Narodiv blvd.
Saperno-Slobidska str
Zakrevskogo str.
Mayakovs’koho avn.
Total
Fa
m
ily
С
ol
le
tid
ae
L
ep
el
et
ie
r,
18
41
G
en
us
C
ol
le
te
s L
at
re
ill
e,
18
02
C
. c
un
ic
ul
ar
iu
s (
Li
nn
ae
us
, 1
76
1)
3
3
1
0
5
2
7
7
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
37
C
. d
av
ie
sa
nu
s S
m
ith
, 1
84
6
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
G
en
us
H
yl
ae
us
F
ab
ri
ci
us
, 1
79
3
H
. a
nn
ul
ar
is
(K
ir
by
, 1
80
2)
2
1
0
0
2
0
3
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
13
H
. b
re
vi
co
rn
is
N
yl
an
de
r,
18
52
0
0
0
0
5
0
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
12
H
. c
om
m
un
is
N
yl
an
de
r,
18
52
2
2
1
0
3
0
4
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
21
Fa
m
ily
A
nd
re
ni
da
e
La
tr
ei
lle
r,
18
02
G
en
us
A
nd
re
na
F
ab
ri
ci
us
, 1
77
5
A.
c
ur
vu
ng
ul
a
Th
om
so
n,
18
70
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
A.
fl
av
ip
es
P
an
ze
r,
17
99
2
4
1
0
4
1
4
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
22
A.
h
ae
m
or
rh
oa
(F
ab
ri
ci
us
, 1
78
1)
1
2
1
0
3
0
3
0
1
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
15
A.
m
in
ut
ul
a
Ki
rb
y,
18
02
0
0
4
0
8
0
7
0
0
5
3
0
0
0
0
0
27
A.
m
in
ut
ul
oi
de
s P
er
ki
ns
, 1
91
4
2
4
0
0
8
0
5
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
24
A.
s
ub
op
ac
a
N
yl
an
de
r,
18
48
2
3
1
0
5
0
4
1
2
3
8
0
0
0
0
0
29
A.
li
m
at
a
Sm
ith
, 1
85
3
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Fa
m
ily
H
al
ic
tid
ae
T
ho
m
so
n,
18
69
G
en
us
S
ph
ec
od
es
L
at
re
ill
e,
18
04
S.
a
lb
ila
br
is
(F
ab
ri
ci
us
, 1
79
3)
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
S.
r
ub
ic
un
du
s v
on
H
ag
en
s,
18
75
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
Ap
pe
nd
ix
. O
bs
er
ve
d
be
es
v
is
iti
ng
p
la
nt
s
in
s
om
e
m
od
el
a
re
as
.
Plant Introduction • 85/86 105
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
Ta
xa
“Babin Yar” park
“Nyvki” park
“KPI” park
“Vinogradar”
residential area
M.M. Gryshko National
Botanical Garden
“Teremki-1”
residential area
“Feofaniya” park
Trukhaniv island
Hydropark island
“Peremoha” park
“Partizans’koi Slavy”
parl
Akademika
Zabolotnoho str.
Druzhby Narodiv blvd.
Saperno-Slobidska str
Zakrevskogo str.
Mayakovs’koho avn.
Total
Fa
m
ily
H
al
ic
tid
ae
T
ho
m
so
n,
18
69
G
en
us
H
al
ic
tu
s L
at
re
ill
e,
18
04
H
. m
ac
ul
at
us
S
m
ith
, 1
84
8
0
2
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
H
. r
ub
ic
un
du
s (
C
hr
is
t,
17
91
)
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
H
. s
im
pl
ex
B
lü
th
ge
n,
19
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
G
en
us
S
el
ad
on
ia
R
ob
er
ts
on
, 1
91
8
S.
s
ub
au
ra
ta
(R
os
si
, 1
79
2)
0
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
10
S.
tu
m
ul
or
um
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
0
0
0
9
0
7
0
0
3
5
0
0
0
0
0
24
G
en
us
L
as
io
gl
os
su
m
C
ur
tis
, 1
83
3
L.
m
aj
us
(N
yl
an
de
r,
18
52
)
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
L.
le
uc
oz
on
iu
m
(S
ch
ra
nk
, 1
78
1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
G
en
us
E
vy
la
eu
s R
ob
er
ts
on
, 1
90
2
E.
c
al
ce
at
us
(S
co
po
li,
17
63
)
2
3
0
0
4
0
5
2
2
5
7
0
0
0
0
0
30
E.
la
ti
ce
ps
(S
ch
en
ck
, 1
87
0)
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
E.
m
al
ac
hu
ru
s
Ki
rb
y,
18
02
3
3
0
0
4
0
5
2
2
8
7
0
2
0
3
1
40
E.
m
or
io
(F
ab
ri
ci
us
, 1
79
3)
3
9
0
2
5
1
5
0
0
5
1
2
0
0
0
0
33
E.
p
ol
it
us
(S
ch
en
ck
, 1
85
3)
5
5
6
3
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
6
3
3
5
2
42
G
en
us
N
om
io
id
es
S
ch
en
ck
, 1
86
6
N
. m
in
ut
is
si
m
us
(R
os
si
, 1
79
0)
0
0
0
0
4
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Ap
pe
nd
ix
. C
on
tin
ue
d.
106 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
Ta
xa
“Babin Yar” park
“Nyvki” park
“KPI” park
“Vinogradar”
residential area
M.M. Gryshko National
Botanical Garden
“Teremki-1”
residential area
“Feofaniya” park
Trukhaniv island
Hydropark island
“Peremoha” park
“Partizans’koi Slavy”
parl
Akademika
Zabolotnoho str.
Druzhby Narodiv blvd.
Saperno-Slobidska str
Zakrevskogo str.
Mayakovs’koho avn.
Total
Fa
m
ily
M
eg
ac
hi
lid
ae
L
at
re
ill
e,
18
02
G
en
us
H
er
ia
de
s S
pi
no
la
, 1
80
8
H
. t
ru
nc
or
um
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
9
G
en
us
O
sm
ia
P
an
ze
r,
18
06
O
. b
ic
ol
or
(S
ch
ra
nk
, 1
78
1)
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
O
. b
ic
or
ni
s (
Li
nn
ae
us
, 1
75
8)
3
3
0
3
9
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
G
en
us
A
nt
hi
di
um
F
ab
ri
ci
us
, 1
80
4
A.
m
an
ic
at
um
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
2
0
0
5
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
G
en
us
A
nt
hi
di
el
lu
m
C
oc
ke
re
ll
19
04
A.
s
tr
ig
at
um
(P
an
ze
r,
18
05
)
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
8
G
en
us
M
eg
ac
hi
le
L
at
re
ill
e,
18
02
M
. c
en
tu
nc
ul
ar
is
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
M
. c
ir
cu
m
ci
nc
ta
(K
ir
by
, 1
80
2)
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
M
. w
ill
ug
hb
ie
lla
(K
ir
by
, 1
80
2)
3
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
Fa
m
ily
A
pi
da
e
La
tr
ei
lle
, 1
80
2
G
en
us
X
yl
oc
op
a
La
tr
ei
lle
, 1
80
2
X
. v
al
ga
G
er
st
ae
ck
er
, 1
87
2
0
2
0
0
5
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
G
en
us
E
uc
er
a
Sc
op
ol
i,
17
70
E.
lo
ng
ic
or
ni
s
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
G
en
us
T
et
ra
lo
ni
a
Sp
in
ol
a,
18
38
T.
m
al
va
e
(R
os
si
, 1
79
0)
0
2
0
3
9
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
Ap
pe
nd
ix
. C
on
tin
ue
d.
Plant Introduction • 85/86 107
Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
Ta
xa
“Babin Yar” park
“Nyvki” park
“KPI” park
“Vinogradar”
residential area
M.M. Gryshko National
Botanical Garden
“Teremki-1”
residential area
“Feofaniya” park
Trukhaniv island
Hydropark island
“Peremoha” park
“Partizans’koi Slavy”
parl
Akademika
Zabolotnoho str.
Druzhby Narodiv blvd.
Saperno-Slobidska str
Zakrevskogo str.
Mayakovs’koho avn.
Total
Fa
m
ily
A
pi
da
e
La
tr
ei
lle
, 1
80
2
G
en
us
A
nt
ho
ph
or
a
La
tr
ei
lle
, 1
80
3
A.
r
et
us
a
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
A.
p
lu
m
ip
es
(P
al
la
s,
17
72
)
3
9
0
4
16
4
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
44
G
en
us
B
om
bu
s L
at
re
ill
e,
18
02
B.
v
es
ta
lis
(G
eo
ffr
oy
, 1
78
5)
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
B.
b
oh
em
ic
us
(S
ei
dl
, 1
83
7)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
B.
h
or
to
ru
m
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
61
)
0
0
0
0
6
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
B.
h
yp
no
ru
m
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
0
4
0
0
7
10
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
30
B.
la
pi
da
ri
us
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
13
0
3
14
25
9
25
0
0
0
0
0
4
5
4
3
10
5
B.
lu
co
ru
m
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
61
) /
B
. t
er
re
st
ri
s
(L
in
na
eu
s,
17
58
)
10
19
3
18
34
5
15
5
4
7
7
3
5
6
5
17
16
3
B.
p
as
cu
or
um
(S
co
po
li,
17
63
)
5
13
9
12
9
4
31
9
11
13
9
0
0
0
0
0
12
5
B.
a
rg
ill
ac
eu
s
(S
co
po
li,
17
63
)
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
To
ta
l
64
11
1
30
59
22
9
42
18
6
40
41
77
83
11
14
14
17
23
10
41
Ap
pe
nd
ix
. C
on
tin
ue
d.
108 Plant Introduction • 85/86
G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk
Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea)
Г.Ю. Гончар 1, А.М. Гнатюк 2
1 Інститут еволюційної екології НАН України, вул. Лебедєва, 37, Київ, 03143, Україна; apantova@ukr.net
2 Національний ботанічний сад імені М.М. Гришка НАН України, вул. Тімірязєвська, 1, Київ, 01014,
Україна; colchicum@i.ua
Метою нашого дослідження було визначення привабливості та ролі зелених квітучих насаджень
міста Києва для підтримки та збереження популяцій диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Об’єктом
дослідження були найпоширеніші квітучі насадження міста та дикі бджоли, які відвідували їхні
квітки протягом сезону квітування для збору пилку та харчування нектаром. Територія дослідження
охоплювала міські парки, НБС ім. М.М. Гришка, зелені насадження житлових кварталів, узбіч, тощо
(загалом 16 пунктів спостереження та відбору). Відбір комах здійснювався за загальноприйнятою
методикою – індивідуальним відловом на квітках протягом весняно-літнього сезону 2012–2018
років. На основі цих спостережень будували графічне зображення трофічних зв’язків бджіл із
відповідними рослинами, а також обраховували індекс різноманіття відвідувачів для рослин. На
основі фенологічних даних будували графік періоду квітування основних рослин. У результаті
обстеження зелених насаджень міста виявлено найбільш привабливі для бджіл декоративні
насадження із деревних, чагарникових та трав’янистих видів рослин, що складається з понад 35
таксонів та близько 20 родин. Серед найбільш привабливих для комах виділено такі роди рослин як
Rudbeckia, Sedum, Gypsophila, Cerasus, Tagetes, Spiraea, Lonicera, Aesculus, та деякі інші. Протягом весняно-
літнього сезону відбувається зміна квітучих рослин, що необхідно враховувати при озелененні. У
кожен період квітування певні види є привабливими для комах, так упродовж весняного періоду
– Prunus, Rhododendron, Crataegus, Aesculus, у літній – більшість представників родини Asteraceae, на
кінець літа та початок осені залишається незначне різноманіття рослин, але у цей період основна
льотна активність більшості диких бджіл вже завершується. Загалом, досліджені декоративні
рослини приваблюють не тільки найбільш поширені види диких бджіл, але і спеціалізовані та
рідкісні види, наприклад Bombus argillaceus та Xylocopa valga, що внесені до Червоної Книги України.
Нами встановлено, що квітучі зелені насадження, які складаються із декоративних деревних,
чагарникових та трав’янистих форм відіграють значну роль у живленні багатьох видів диких бджіл,
що сприяє збереженню та підтримці популяцій цих комах у міських умовах.
Ключові слова: декоративні рослини, дикі бджоли, міські умови
|
| id | oai:ojs2.plantintroduction.org:article-1550 |
| institution | Plant Introduction |
| keywords_txt_mv | keywords |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2025-07-17T12:53:38Z |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| publisher | M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine |
| record_format | ojs |
| resource_txt_mv | wwwplantintroductionorg/44/b9c6a75af79bf47a65fe2cbd28199b44.pdf |
| spelling | oai:ojs2.plantintroduction.org:article-15502023-08-26T20:39:45Z Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) Honchar, G.Y. Gnatiuk, A.M. The aim of our study was to assess the attraction and value of flowering plants at green areas in support and sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) populations in Kyiv. Study objects were the most common flowering ornamental plants of the city and the wild bees visiting their inflorescence during the vegetation season to collect pollen and feed on nectar. The study was conducted at 16 areas of observation and material collection, which include urban parks, M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden, green spaces of residential areas, roadsides, etc. Insects were collected following the standard method of catching individual specimens during the spring and summer periods of 2012–2018. Based on the observations, we visualized trophic relations of bees with plants and calculated the biodiversity index of visiting insects for plants. The blossom periods were analyzed using phenological data. Examination of urban green areas revealed ornamental plants that were the most attractive for bees, including more than 35 taxa of 20 families of trees, shrubs, and grassy plants. Bees are superiorly attracted to plants of the genera Rudbeckia, Sedum, Gypsophila, Cerasus, Tagetes, Spiraea, Lonicera, and Aesculus. There is a succession of plant flowering during spring-summer season, which must be considered while planting of greenery. Certain plant species attract insects at each blossom period, for example, Prunus, Rhododendron, Crataegus, Aesculus in spring, most of Asteraceae – in summer. The diversity of blossoming plants is significantly lower at the end of summer and beginning of fall, coinciding with the decreasing flight activity of wild bees. Overall, the studied ornamental plants attract not only the most common species of wild bees but also highly specific and rare species such as Bombus argillaceus and Xylocopa valga, protected by the Red Data Book of Ukraine. We found that blossoming green areas made up of trees, shrubs, and herbs are essential for feeding many species of wild bees and sustaining their populations in urban conditions. Метою нашого дослідження було визначення привабливості та ролі зелених квітучих насаджень міста Києва для підтримки та збереження популяцій диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Об’єктом дослідження були найпоширеніші квітучі насадження міста та дикі бджоли, які відвідували їхні квітки протягом сезону квітування для збору пилку та харчування нектаром. Територія дослідження охоплювала міські парки, НБС ім. М.М. Гришка, зелені насадження житлових кварталів, узбіч, тощо (загалом 16 пунктів спостереження та відбору). Відбір комах здійснювався за загальноприйнятою методикою – індивідуальним відловом на квітках протягом весняно-літнього сезону 2012–2018 років. На основі цих спостережень будували графічне зображення трофічних зв’язків бджіл із відповідними рослинами, а також обраховували індекс різноманіття відвідувачів для рослин. На основі фенологічних даних будували графік періоду квітування основних рослин. У результаті обстеження зелених насаджень міста виявлено найбільш привабливі для бджіл декоративні насадження із деревних, чагарникових та трав’янистих видів рослин, що складається з понад 35 таксонів та близько 20 родин. Серед найбільш привабливих для комах виділено такі роди рослин як Rudbeckia, Sedum, Gypsophila, Cerasus, Tagetes, Spiraea, Lonicera, Aesculus, та деякі інші. Протягом весняно-літнього сезону відбувається зміна квітучих рослин, що необхідно враховувати при озелененні. У кожен період квітування певні види є привабливими для комах, так упродовж весняного періоду – Prunus, Rhododendron, Crataegus, Aesculus, у літній – більшість представників родини Asteraceae, на кінець літа та початок осені залишається незначне різноманіття рослин, але у цей період основна льотна активність більшості диких бджіл вже завершується. Загалом, досліджені декоративні рослини приваблюють не тільки найбільш поширені види диких бджіл, але і спеціалізовані та рідкісні види, наприклад Bombus argillaceus та Xylocopa valga, що внесені до Червоної Книги України. Нами встановлено, що квітучі зелені насадження, які складаються із декоративних деревних, чагарникових та трав’янистих форм відіграють значну роль у живленні багатьох видів диких бджіл, що сприяє збереженню та підтримці популяцій цих комах у міських умовах. M.M. Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine 2020-06-30 Article Article application/pdf https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1550 10.46341/PI2020014 Plant Introduction; No 85/86 (2020); 93-108 Інтродукція Рослин; № 85/86 (2020); 93-108 2663-290X 1605-6574 10.46341/PI85-86 en https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1550/1490 Copyright (c) 2020 G.Y. Honchar, A.M. Gnatiuk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
| spellingShingle | Honchar, G.Y. Gnatiuk, A.M. Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title | Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title_alt | Urban ornamental plants for sustenance of wild bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title_full | Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title_fullStr | Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title_short | Роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) |
| title_sort | роль зелених насаджень міста у збереженні диких бджіл (hymenoptera, apoidea) |
| url | https://www.plantintroduction.org/index.php/pi/article/view/1550 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT honchargy urbanornamentalplantsforsustenanceofwildbeeshymenopteraapoidea AT gnatiukam urbanornamentalplantsforsustenanceofwildbeeshymenopteraapoidea AT honchargy rolʹzelenihnasadženʹmístauzberežennídikihbdžílhymenopteraapoidea AT gnatiukam rolʹzelenihnasadženʹmístauzberežennídikihbdžílhymenopteraapoidea |