Kiwifruit is a new emerging crop for the southeastern United States that requires cross-pollination to set fruit. However, the pollination requirements for varieties grown in the southeastern United States are unknown. Through insect surveys and a bagging experiment, we assessed the pollination requirements of two female kiwifruit cultivars (Actinidia chinensis var. chinensis ‘AU Golden Sunshine’ and A. chinensis var. chinensis ‘AU Gulf Coast Gold’). For each, fruit quantity (fruit set) and fruit quality (weight, size, seed count, firmness, soluble solid content, and dry matter) were compared among three pollination treatments (wind, insect, and artificial pollination). Low abundances of insects were observed visiting female flowers of both kiwifruit cultivars, and therefore likely minimally influenced kiwifruit pollination. Artificial pollination resulted in the greatest percentages of fruit set and marketable fruits, followed by insect and wind pollination. Artificial pollination resulted in fruits that were greater in weight, size, and contained more seeds, than insect- and wind-pollinated fruits. Firmness and soluble solid content did not vary greatly between pollination treatments, yet were greater in ‘AU Golden Sunshine’. Dry matter content did not vary greatly between pollination treatments or between each cultivar. To maximize yields and optimize fruit quality, these results suggest that kiwifruit producers should place more effort into artificial pollination compared to wind and insect pollination. Future research should explore the use of managed bees (e.g., honey bees and bumble bees) within kiwifruit orchards to determine ways to utilize them as a secondary source for pollination needs.

Due to a lack of knowledge on the pollination requirements of kiwifruit cultivars grown within the United States, farmers simultaneously implement multiple pollination methods, like the rental of managed bee species or artificial pollination to achieve high fruit yields. However, implementing multiple pollination methods is costly and possibly an inefficient use of resources. We assessed the contribution of two managed bees (Apis mellifera and Bombus impatiens) to the pollination of kiwifruit by i) determining the relative abundance of kiwifruit pollen collected by foragers of each bee species, and ii) comparing fruit set and fruit quality among insect and artificially pollinated flowers through an insect exclusion experiment. A significant difference was observed between the mean relative abundance of kiwifruit pollen carried in the corbicula of A. mellifera and B. impatiens, with B. impatiens carrying on average 46% more kiwifruit pollen than A. mellifera. Artificially pollinated kiwifruit flowers set significantly greater numbers of fruit per flower at four weeks post-bloom and at harvest compared to insect pollination, wind pollination, and pollen exclusion treatment. Artificial pollination produced fruits of greater weight, size, and seed number compared to insect-pollinated flowers, and few fruits were produced in the pollen exclusion and wind pollination treatments. Kiwifruit producers experiencing similar conditions to ours should focus on artificially pollinating their crops rather than relying on managed or wild insects for kiwifruit pollination. Future research should evaluate other methods of artificial pollination to determine their effectiveness, efficiency, and economics in the pollination of kiwifruit grown within the United States.

Habitat loss, agricultural intensification, pesticide use, disease and climate change have contributed to the decline of numerous insect groups. Recent government initiatives have recognized the importance of supplementary wildflower plantings to support native bee populations, yet little information exists on the attractiveness of recommended plant species to bees. With the use of network analysis and generalized linear mixed models, we evaluated the attractiveness of 18 wildflower species belonging to 6 families (Apiaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae and Verbenaceae) planted in a randomized block design by conducting timed targeted sweep netting surveys. We also evaluated the floral preferences of four bee species (Apis mellifera, Halictus poeyi/ligatus, Bombus griseocollis and Bombus impatiens) to the planted wildflower species with the use of GLMs. We found that Asclepias tuberosa, Gaillardia pulchella and Verbena hastata attracted the greatest abundance, richness and diversity of native bees compared to the other wildflower species. Collectively, Asclepias tuberosa, Gaillardia pulchella and Verbena hastata attracted 89% of all bee taxa in the study, which exemplifies the importance of including them in a wildflower mixture to attract native bees. While several wildflower species attracted low abundance, richness and diversity of native bees such as Monarda fistulosa, Symphyotrichum pilosum and Eryngium yuccifolium, they are still ecologically important for attracting uncommon or specialist bee species and should be included in seed mixes for this reason. Solution. Our results highlight that each species of native wildflower varies in the abundance, richness and diversity of native bees they attract; this could be considered in the decision‐making of landowners and land managers to promote wildflower plantings to reflect the needs of certain groups of bees of conservation interest.

Here we provide a comprehensive description of the Auburn University Native Bee Lab’s outreach collection and its role in the lab’s broader outreach program. We outline the mission and goals of the Native Bee Lab, detailing how the outreach drawers are implemented to support public education and promote pollinator conservation. We include a thorough overview of the specific taxa within the outreach collection and explain how these specimens are used to address common misconceptions about bees, educate the public on bee biology and natural history, and highlight bee biodiversity. Additionally, we classify the variety of outreach events the lab hosts and participates in, emphasizing the broader impacts of the lab’s efforts. Special attention is given to how insect collections, such as those used by the Native Bee Lab, serve as valuable tools for connecting communities, enhancing science education, and advancing conservation initiatives.

DNA analysis of environmental samples (eDNA) provides a non-intrusive approach to identify organisms, characterize biological communities, and assess biodiversity, including the detection and monitoring of invasive plant effects. However, the use of eDNA for specific applications, such as targeted-species detection, geographic and floral source tracing, and assessment of invasive plant ecological and environmental effects, requires the development of species-specific genetic primers. Chinese tallow (Triadica sebifera (L.) Small) is a non-native high-impact invader, capable of changing fire regimes, native biodiversity, nutrient cycling, and wildlife habitat and populations, that is expanding in range and abundance throughout the southern United States. In this study, we investigated and identified specific genetic sites, markers, in the tallow chloroplast genome and developed sets of primers for tallow eDNA detection. Two sets of tallow primers were developed, tallow-specific primers and tallow-related primers. Both sets of primers can be used for tallow eDNA detection, with higher target specificity for tallow-specific primers. Primers were subsequently validated for target specificity against closely related species, samples of tallow tissue, and honey and honey bee-collected pollen from areas with tallow. We found that tallow-specific primers differentiated tallow eDNA from closely related species, demonstrating target specificity. Furthermore, a sequence analysis of the tallow-related primers in the polymerase chain reaction accurately distinguished members of the Hippomaninae subtribe, including tallow, from other subtribe or subfamily members within the Euphorbiaceae. Ultimately, the genetic markers and the corresponding sets of primers will facilitate eDNA analysis of tallow for several applications, including detection and monitoring in water and soil, assurance of honey quality and floral source tracing, and perhaps serving as a model for determining plant use by pollinators.

The diversity of plants and their animal pollinators is in decline due to anthropogenic pressures such as habitat loss, pesticide use, and agricultural intensification. Approximately 78% of angiosperms rely on animal‐mediated pollination, yet data on the pollination biology of many native wildflower species is lacking. We investigated the pollination biology of eight wildflower species native to the southeastern United States, including Bidens laevis, Desmanthus illinoensis, Echinacea purpurea, Eryngium yuccifolium, Gaillardia pulchella, Monarda punctata, Verbesina alternifolia, and Verbesina virginica, which are either recommended by the USDA—Natural Resource Conservation Service or the Xerces Society to enhance native pollinator habitat. We evaluated each species' dependence on insect pollinators through an insect exclusion experiment and documented insect floral visitors via sweep netting surveys followed by a plant‐pollinator network analysis. For most species, open‐pollinated inflorescences produced significantly more and/or heavier seeds per inflorescence compared to those excluded from insect visitors, indicating a high degree of pollinator influence. In comparison, several species exhibited potential for self‐pollination. A total of 1417 insects, representing 73 genera/species from 21 families and 4 orders, were observed visiting the wildflower species. These findings indicate the importance of insect pollinators for maximizing seed production and quality in these native wildflower species and underscore the importance of considering the pollination requirements when selecting species for conservation plantings. Our results highlight that some native wildflower species reproduce and set seed in the absence of pollinators, making them valuable for providing floral resources in degraded habitats, while strongly pollinator‐dependent species may be better suited for conservation plantings in areas with robust or recovering pollinator communities.