Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLatty, Tanya
dc.contributor.authorMourmourakis, Faelan
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-05T03:23:27Z
dc.date.available2025-11-05T03:23:27Z
dc.date.issued2025-11-05
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/34474
dc.description.abstractFlower strips are increasingly employed as ecologically sustainable methods for attracting beneficial insects to agricultural landscapes. Since flowers differ substantially in an array of characteristics including morphology, nutritional content, and phenology, selecting ‘the right flowers for the right job’ requires the designer to make careful decisions about which flowers to include. These decisions ultimately determine the success of flower strips. Given the importance of flower selection, how do researchers choose which flowers to plant? We conducted a quantitative content analysis to examine how researchers make flower selection decisions in studies aimed at supporting or attracting natural enemies or pollinators to target crops. We collected data on the criteria used to justify selection decisions and we recorded the type of evidence (experiential evidence such as “expert recommendations” or “personal communication” vs peer reviewed evidence) used to support selection decisions. We found that the majority of studies relied on experiential data to inform their flower choices. Specific selection criteria varied, but 'attractiveness' and 'native to region' were most frequently cited for both natural enemies and pollinators. Overall, we found that the prevalent use of experiential evidence for flower selection may limit the replicability and transparency of studies. To address this concern, we introduce a flexible framework aimed at ensuring the clear communication of the flower selection process. Our framework emphasizes evidence-based practices to enhance both replicability and transparency in flower strip design, offering a path toward more rigorous and effective ecological interventions.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rightsOtheren
dc.subjectnatural enemiesen
dc.titleTowards transparent and replicable flower selection in agricultural flower stripsen
dc.typeDataseten
dc.subject.asrcANZSRC FoR code::30 AGRICULTURAL, VETERINARY AND FOOD SCIENCESen
dc.description.methodPaper selection and screening Between August and September 2023, we searched Web of Science for studies that investigated the use of supplemental flower plantings using the following search terms in the ‘Topic’ field: Flower strip OR insectary insectary OR wildflower planting wildflower planting Or wildflower strip wildflower strip OR Conservation biological control Conservation biological control OR floral enhancement We refined results to the subjects entomology, zoology, animal ecology, crop science, crop protection, agriculture multidisciplinary horticulture, environmental studies, plant sciences, agronomy, biodiversity conservation, and agricultural policy. Exclusion criteria Since we were interested in contemporary approaches to flower strip design, we restricted our search to papers published in or after the year 2000. We excluded studies that focused on woody plantings such as trees and hedges as we were interested in studies that used perennial or annual flowers. We only included papers which provided a list of flower species (or which had a citation to a species list). This led to the exclusion of studies that provided only the name of a flower seed mix, without access to the list of species therein. We only included studies that were targeted at increasing pollinator or pest control services in an adjacent crop and we excluded studies that only sampled insect biodiversity in the general landscape (rather than on a specific crop). While such papers are of high interest, the selection criteria for plantings where the primary goal is biodiversity enhancement will likely differ from those being selected for the explicit role of promoting beneficial insects. We excluded papers that examined the impact of natural flower diversity, such as the impact of crops being adjacent to native forest or bushland again as we were interested in plantings done specifically for the purposes of attracting natural enemies to crops Note that we did not screen for study quality as our goal was to understand the flower selection strategy and evidence base, rather than formally assessing intervention efficacy. For each paper, we collected general information about the study such as the country and continent the study was conducted in, the number of flower species used in the supplemental planting, and the target functional group (pollinators or natural enemies, where ‘natural enemies’ includes both parasitoids and predators). Studies that investigated both pollinators and natural enemies were classified as “both”.en
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Science::School of Life and Environmental Sciencesen
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.