Evaluation of Select Monarda Taxa in Montane and Piedmont Regions of Georgia: II. Floral Morphology and Nectar Production

Authors:
Rachel S. Smith Department of Horticulture, The University of Georgia, 1111 Plant Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602-7273, USA

Search for other papers by Rachel S. Smith in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Svoboda V. Pennisi Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia Griffin Campus, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223, USA

Search for other papers by Svoboda V. Pennisi in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
,
James Affolter Department of Horticulture, The University of Georgia, 1111 Plant Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602-7273, USA

Search for other papers by James Affolter in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
,
Heather Alley State Botanical Garden of Georgia, University of Georgia, 2450 S Milledge Avenue, Athens, GA 30605, USA

Search for other papers by Heather Alley in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Conor G. Fair Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia Griffin Campus, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223, USA

Search for other papers by Conor G. Fair in
This Site
Google Scholar
Close

Click on author name to view affiliation information

Abstract

We analyzed the floral morphology and nectar production of several cultivars and species of Monarda representing five cultivars and four species grown in Georgia Piedmont and Montane regions. Over the course of two seasons, we detected significant differences among the samples in terms of inflorescence size, petal lobe and corolla widths and lengths, and total sugar content. M. didyma had larger glomerules, longer corollas and petal lobes, and higher nectar volume and total sugar content per flower. M. fistulosa and M. punctata had smaller glomerules, corolla and petal lobe lengths, and total sugar content per flower. Petal lobe and corolla length strongly correlated with sucrose and nectar production. Combined with data on horticultural performance, these results could be valuable in informing breeding goals for conservation-oriented landscape plants.

Breeding more floriferous, compact, and disease-tolerant native plants with high garden value that could also support an abundant and diverse insect community is an optimal goal. Breeders rely on a slate of desirable traits to select from various genotypes—larger and longer lasting flowers and tolerance to abiotic and biotic stressors being among the top characteristics. Until recently, little attention has focused on selection based on nectar production. Intentional landscape design can provide resources for wildlife across multiple seasons in human-dominated landscapes, providing refuge in spaces between natural areas.

Studying differences in floral morphology and nectar production among native plants and their cultivars provides empirical evidence to select plants that offer the most floral rewards to wildlife (Kalaman et al. 2022). Continued exploration of the subject is crucial due to the lack of consistent differences in floral rewards and pollinator preference between native and nonnative plants (Kalaman et al. 2022; Poythress and Affolter 2018; Torrez et al. 2023). Nectar is a primary floral reward important for wildlife and pollination (Dafini 1991), serving as an energy source for adult pollinating insects (Hill et al. 2001; Whitham 1977) and herbivorous hemipterans. The central role of nonprey, plant-derived food has also been shown for carnivorous arthropods (Patt and Pfannenstiel 2007). Several Monarda taxa are found in Georgia native to different regions in the state, and they are often included in seed mixes to provide summer forage to wildlife (Gray et al. 2007; Otto et al. 2017; Quinlan et al. 2021; Rubio et al. 2021; Weakley et al. 2022; Wolf et al. 2022).

There are many published comparisons concerning the relative nutrient value and pollinator attraction of nonnative cultivars and native plants (Braman et al. 2022; Native Plant Partnership 2014; Seitz et al. 2020; Tew et al. 2021; Williams et al. 2011). Nectar production and foraging visitors are well documented by Cruden et al. (1984) and Whitten (1981) among M. fistulosa and M. didyma, respectively, but to our knowledge, no research has been conducted assessing floral morphology and nectar production among cultivars and species within the genus. Due to the site- and species-specific nature of published research, there is a need to evaluate floral and nectar attributes among local plants (Kalaman et al. 2022), and in particular, Georgia-native plants. These properties are important from an applied perspective because Monarda taxa are often included in seed mixes to provide summer forage to wildlife (Gray et al. 2007; Otto et al. 2017; Quinlan et al. 2021; Rubio et al. 2021; Wolf et al. 2022).

Monarda species and cultivars provide an excellent opportunity to study the effect of floral morphology and nectar production because of their natural and intentional hybridization resulting in novel flower forms and color (Collicutt and Davidson 1999; Coombs 2016; Dudchenko et al. 2020; Hawke 1998; Mattarelli et al. 2017; Tabanca et al. 2013). The inflorescence of Monarda has individual flowers condensed into glomerules (head-like cyme), with varying sizes between species (Weakley et al. 2022). For instance, M. didyma has long corollas and deep red flowers compared with the short corollas and lavender to pink flowers of M. fistulosa.

Research has shown a general pattern that flowers with longer corolla tubes produce more nectar and vice versa (Dafini 1991; Gomez et al. 2008; Harder and Cruzan 1990; Kalaman et al. 2022; Petanidou et al. 2000). Specifically, the depth of corolla tubes has been associated with differences in nectar volume (Dafini 1991; Gomez et al. 2008; Harder and Cruzan 1990), largely due to differences in photosynthate secretion, nectar holding capacity, and nectar evaporation rates (Kalaman et al. 2022; Ornelas et al. 2007; Pleasants 1983). In addition, an earlier study by Dafini et al. (1988) found that within Labiatae, nectary size and nectar yield per flower were positively correlated.

As part of a larger study of horticultural performance of Monarda in cultivation (Smith et al. 2024), here we report on the second part of the work, namely flower morphology and nectar production. We used the same Athens and Blairsville, GA, USA, study sites described in Part I to test if floral morphology and nectar yield differed among selected Monarda. We measured perianth diameter, corolla length and width, and petal length and width to assess floral morphology. To study nectar production, we measured nectar volume, sucrose concentration, and total sugar content per flower. We hypothesized that floral morphology and nectar production would vary among Monarda.

Materials and Methods

Plant data

Floral morphology measurements.

Plant material sourcing, descriptions, and at the Georgia Mountain Research and Education Center (GMREC) site in 2020 and at the Mimsie Lanier Center for Native Plant Studies (MLCNPS) site in 2021 are described in Smith et al. (in review). In short, 10 taxa, Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, M. punctata (GA, Georgia provenance), M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, M. Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, M. punctata (NJ, New Jersey provenance), M. didyma, M. ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, M. fistulosa, M. bradburiana, and M. fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’, were evaluated during the 2020 and 2021 growing seasons. Glomerule size/width (millimeters) was measured from the tip of one corolla across the head to the tip of another (Fig. 1). Two random glomerules per plant were measured in 2021 at the GMREC and MLCNPS. In 2020, at the GMREC, 12 to 32 random flowers per Monarda sample were measured for corolla and petal lobe length and width (millimeters). The length of the corolla was determined from where the nectary meets the receptacle to the opening where the lobes (the open part of the petals) fuse. The width of the corolla was the opening measured lengthwise from each union of the upper to lower petal lobe. Length of the lower petal lobe was measured from the corolla opening to the tip of the lip. The width of the lower petal lobe was measured at the widest horizontal point (Fig. 1). Measurements were made with digital calipers during peak bloom.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Flower morphology of Monarda and measurements of floral characteristics.

Citation: HortScience 59, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17794-24

Nectar production.

Nectar volume (microliters) and sucrose concentration (as % w/w sucrose) were measured at the GMREC in 2020 and at both sites in 2021. For each repetition and treatment, a random glomerule was bagged for 24 h to exclude visitors, after which the flowers were probed for nectar. The samples were taken between 9 and 10 am to collect nectar after it had been secreted and before significant evaporation had taken place. In total, 50 random flowers were sampled per Monarda. One flower per inflorescence was used per nectar sample. Volume was measured by inserting a microcapillary tube into the corolla. The nectar was then deposited onto a handheld refractometer (Bellingham Stanley Limited Delta Refractometer Code Range 0% to 50% sucrose w/w) to measure the percent sucrose per flower. The refractometer was rinsed with deionized water and dried after each sample. As microgram sucrose per flower, the total sugar content was the product of volume times concentration times nectar density, the latter taken from reference tables. At micro volumes, nectar density is negligible and for the purpose of this study was considered 1 µL/µg (Bolten et al. 1979; Dafini 1991; Petanidou et al. 2000).

Statistical analysis

To determine which Monarda had the most desirable flower morphology and nectar production, we fit linear models using the lm function in R software (R Core Team 2023) with taxa as the independent variable. Years and sampling locations were analyzed separately. Through testing the assumptions of ordinary least squares, we found evidence of heteroskedasticity among a subset of the models that was confirmed by the Breusch–Pagan test (Zeileis and Hothorn 2002). These models were refit with generalized least squares using the gls function on R (Pinheiro et al. 2023). Following the satisfaction of all model assumptions, we completed post hoc tests using the emmeans function (Lenth et al. 2022) and Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. In the event of a singular fit where the Satterthwaite parameters could not be estimated using the emmeans function, the approximate Satterthwaite mode was used to calculate the degrees of freedom correctly. Data visualizations were completed using ggplot (Wickham 2016) and show the estimated marginal means and the confidence intervals around each mean. The raw data are also plotted for reference.

Additional multivariate analyses using principal component analysis were performed on the flower morphology and nectar production data. Years and sampling locations were analyzed separately. The analysis and visualization of the data were completed using the princomp (R Core Team 2023) and fviz_pca_biplot (Kassambara and Mundt 2020) functions respectively.

Results and Discussion

We found sufficient evidence to support our hypotheses that floral morphology and nectar production vary among Monarda. The petal and corolla length and width, glomerule diameter, and total sugar content all displayed significant differences among taxa for both sites and years (Table 1). Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, M. punctata GA, M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, M. punctata NJ, M. didyma, and M. × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’ (Fig. 2A) had the largest corolla width (F7,150 = 13.268); M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’ (Fig. 2B) had the largest corolla length (F7,150 = 536.794); M. punctata GA (Fig. 2C) had the greatest petal lobe width (F7,150 = 20.148); and M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’ and M. didyma (Fig. 2D) had the greatest petal lobe length (F7,150 = 118.212) in Blairsville in 2020. Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, M. didyma, M. × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, and M. fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’ had the largest glomerule diameter (F8,54 = 16.115) in Athens in 2021 (Fig. 3A). Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, M. didyma, and M. × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’ (Fig. 3B) had the largest glomerule diameter (F9,60 = 275.913) in Blairsville in 2021.

Table 1.

Results of the linear modeling comparing the floral morphology parameters and nectar production among the different Monarda tested.

Table 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Average corolla width (A), corolla length (B), petal lobe width (C), and petal lobe length (D) for Monarda grown in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020. Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

Citation: HortScience 59, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17794-24

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Average glomerule diameter grown in Athens (A) and Blairsville (B), GA, USA, in 2021. Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

Citation: HortScience 59, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17794-24

Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, M. didyma, and M. × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuschsia’ (Fig. 4A) had the highest sugar content in Blairsville in 2020 (F7,150 = 11.0326), in Athens (Fig. 4B) in 2021 (F8,54 = 12.41377), and in Blairsville (Fig. 4C) in 2021 (F9,60 = 38.8501).

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Total sugar content (nectar volume × concentration × nectar density), for Monarda grown in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020 (A), Athens, GA, USA, in 2021 (B), and Blairsville in 2021 (c). Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

Citation: HortScience 59, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17794-24

The multivariate analysis from 2020 showed similar results as the linear modeling with M. ‘Raspberry Wine’, M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, M. didyma, and M. × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’ clustering along the same axis as petal lobe and corolla length as well as sucrose and nectar production (Fig. 5). Furthermore, petal and corolla length strongly correlated with sucrose and nectar production. Similar results were found in 2021 (Fig. 6), when glomerule diameter strongly correlated with sucrose and nectar production.

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.

The ordination results of the principal component analysis of the flower morphology and nectar production data among the Monarda tested in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020. The variables included are the width and length of the corolla and petal lobe (widthC, lengthC, widthPL, lengthPL, micrograms sucrose, microliters nectar, w/w sucrose). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

Citation: HortScience 59, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17794-24

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6.

Ordination results of the principal component analysis of the flower morphology and nectar production data among the Monarda tested in Athens and Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2021.

Citation: HortScience 59, 7; 10.21273/HORTSCI17794-24

In Part I (Smith et al. 2024), we reported that M. fistulosa and M. punctata taxa had a greater number of flowers per plant compared with M. didyma and M. didyma cultivars, excluding M. Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball. In this study (Part II), we found that M. didyma taxa had larger glomerules, longer corollas and petal lobes, and higher nectar volume and total sugar content per flower. M. fistulosa and M. punctata taxa had smaller glomerules, corolla and petal lobe lengths, and total sugar content per flower. There was some overlap between nectar volume in M. punctata taxa and M. didyma cultivars, and this could be due to larger corolla and petal lobe width in M. punctata relative to M. fistulosa (data not shown).

Floral traits can be useful for breeders of ornamental plants, especially if they are paired with nectar data. The wider floral organs could be linked to a larger cavity for nectar (Erickson et al. 2022). Like conclusions in a study of ornamental asters, it is important to consider high flower density regarding nectar because the collective stand of flowers provides a rich nectar resource (Kalaman et al. 2022; Solman Raju 2004). As reported in Part I, most taxa had more inflorescences than M. didyma and M. didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, especially in the Athens study site. These factors could influence the foraging patterns and preferences of bee pollinators (Kalaman et al. 2022; Leonhardt and Blüthgen 2012). Our results are consistent with findings from a similar study on pollinator choice among Salvia species and cultivars (Braman et al. 2022). Such empirical evidence provides detailed resource value of Monarda species and cultivars, which allows considerations for wildlife when designing urban landscapes (Kalaman et al. 2022). As we increase the use of native ornamental plants in the landscape, we must also continue to assess the trade-offs among resource value and novel color, form, and disease tolerance (Wilde et al. 2015). Additionally, studies of insect visitations and detailed investigation of arthropod community on Monarda could provide a complete picture of the resource value of the taxon.

Conclusions

These studies were designed to inform breeders, the ornamental industry, landowners, park managers, civic entities, and consumers on the resource value of select Monarda species and cultivars and to assess the effect of differences in flower morphology. We documented significant differences in diameter of inflorescence, length and width of corolla and petal lobe, and nectar content among 10 Monarda taxa grown in montane and piedmont sites in Georgia.

References Cited

  • Bolten AB, Feinsinger P, Baker HG, Baker I. 1979. On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia. 41(3):301304. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braman SK, Pennisi SV, Fair CG, Quick JC. 2022. Pollinator cultivar choice: An assessment of season-long pollinator visitation among coreopsis, aster, and salvia cultivars. Front. Sustain. Cities. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.988966.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collicutt LM, Davidson CG. 1999. ‘Petite Delight’ Monarda. HortScience. 34(1):149150. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.34.1.149.

  • Coombs G. 2016. Research report: Monarda for the Mid-Atlantic region. Mt. Cuba Center.

  • Cruden RW, Hermanutz L, Shuttleworth J. 1984. The pollination biology and breeding system of Monarda fistulosa (Labiatae). Oecologia. 64:104110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dafini H, Lensky Y, Fahn A. 1988. Flower and nectar characteristics of nine species of Labiatae and their influence on honeybee visits. J Apic Res. 27:103114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dafini A. 1991. Advertisement, flower longevity, reward, and nectar production in Labiatae. Acta Hortic. 288:340346.

  • Dudchenko VV, Svydenko LV, Markovska OY, Sydiakina OV. 2020. Morphobiological and biochemical characteristics of Monarda L. varieties under conditions of the Southern Steppe of Ukraine. J Ecol Eng. 21(8):99107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erickson E, Junker RR, Ali JG, McCartney N, Patch HM, Grozinger CM. 2022. Complex floral traits shape pollinator attraction to ornamental plants. Ann Bot. 130(4):561577. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcac082.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gomez JM, Bosch J, Perfectii F, Fernandez JD, Abdelaziz M, Camacho JPM. 2008. Association between floral traits and rewards in Erysimum mediohispanicum (Brassicaceae). Ann Bot. 101:14131420. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn053.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gray SS, Simpson T, Baccus J, Manning R, Schwertner TW. 2007. Seasonal diet and foraging preference of greater kudu Tragelaphus strepisiceros in the Llano Uplift of Texas. Wildl Biol. 13(1):7583. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harder LD, Cruzan MB. 1990. An evaluation of the physiological and evolutionary influences of inflorescence size and flower depth on nectar production. Funct Ecol. 4:559572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hawke RG. 1998. Plant evaluation notes: Monarda and powdery mildew resistance. Chicago Botanic Garden (12). https://www.chicagobotanic.org/downloads/planteval_notes/no12_monarda.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill PSM, Hollis J, Wells H. 2001. Foraging decisions in nectarivores: Unexpected interactions between flower consistency and energetic rewards. Anim Behav. 62(4):729737. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1775.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalaman H, Wilson SB, Mallinger RE, Knox G, Kim T, Begcy K, van Santen E. 2022. Evaluation of native and nonnative ornamentals as pollinator plants in Florida: II. Floral resource value. HortScience. 57(1):137143. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI16124-21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kassambara A, Mundt F. 2020. factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lenth RV, Buerkner P, Hervel M. 2022. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R (≥ 3.5.0) version 1.7.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leonhardt A, Blüthgen N. 2012. The same, but different: Pollen foraging in honeybee and bumble bee colonies. Apidologie. 43:449464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0112-y.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mattarelli P, Epifano F, Minardi P, Di Vito M, Modesto M, Barbanti L, Bellardi MG. 2017. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of essential oils from aerial parts of Monarda didyma and Monarda fistulosa cultivated in Italy. TEOP. 20(1):7686.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Native Plant Partnership. 2014. UD, Mt. Cuba Center research how native plants contribute to healthy ecosystems. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA. http://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2015/jul/healthyecosystems070714.html. [accessed 18 Mar 2023].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ornelas JF, Ordano M, De-Nova AJ, Quintero ME, Garland T. 2007. Phylogenetic analysis of interspecific variation in nectar of hummingbird-visited plants. J Evol Biol. 20(5):19041917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01374.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Otto CRV, O’Dell S, Bryant RB, Euliss NH, Bush RM, Smart MD. 2017. Using publicly available data to quantify plant–pollinator interactions and evaluate conservation seeding mixes in the northern Great Plains. Environ Entomol. 46(3):565578. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvx070.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petanidou T, Goethals V, Smets E. 2000. Nectary structure of Labiatae in relation to their nectar secretion and characteristics in a Mediterranean shrub community—Does flowering time matter? Plant Syst Evol. 225(1/4):103118. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23644409.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, R Core Team. 2023. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-163. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.

  • Pleasants JM. 1983. Nectar production patterns in Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). Am J Bot. 70:14681475.

  • Poythress JC, Affolter JM. 2018. Ecological value of native plant cultivars versus wild-type native plants for promoting Hemipteran diversity in suburban areas. Environ Entomol. 47(4):890901.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quinlan GM, Milbrath MO, Otto CRV, Isaacs R. 2021. Farmland in U.S. conservations reserve program has unique floral composition that promotes bee summer foraging. Basic Appl Ecol. 56:358368. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvx070.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

  • Rubio A, Wright K, Longing S. 2021. Bee and flowering plant communities in a riparian corridor of the lower Rio Grande River (Texas, USA). Environ Entomol. 51(1):229239. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seitz N, van Engelsdorp D, Leonhardt SD. 2020. Are native and non-native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for wild bee communities? Ecol Evol. 10(1):1283812850. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6826.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith R, Pennisi SV, Affolter J, Alley H. 2024. Evaluation of select Monarda taxa in Montane and Piedmont Regions of Georgia: I. Horticultural performance and disease tolerance. HortScience. 59:759766. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17793-24.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solman Raju AJ. 2004. Nectar host plants of some butterfly species at Visakhapatnam. Sci Cult. 70:187190.

  • Tabanca N, Bernier UR, Ali A, Wang M, Demirci B, Blythe EK, Khan SI, Baser KHC, Khan IA. 2013. Bioassay-guided investigation of two Monarda essential oils asrepellents of yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Agric Food Chem. 61:85738580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tew, NE, Memmott J, Vaughan IP, Bird S, Stone GN, Potts SG, Baldock KCR. 2021. Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes. J Ecol. 109:17471757. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13598.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Torrez VC, Beauzay B, Mc P, Ginnis EE, Knudson AH, Laschkewitsch B, Hatterman-Valenti H, Knodel JJ. 2023. Pollinators and other insect visitations on native and ornamental perennials in two landscapes. HortScience. 58(8):922934. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17146-23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weakley AS and the Southeastern Flora Team. 2022. Lamiaceae: Monarda Linnaeus 1753 (Bergamot, Beebalm), p 1485–1488. In: Flora of the Southeastern United States. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Herbarium and Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

  • Whitham TG. 1977. Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last drag theory. Science. 197:593596.

  • Whitten MW. 1981. Pollination ecology of Monarda didyma, M. clinopoida, and hybrids (Lamiaceae) in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Am J Bot. 68(3):435442.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wickham H. 2016. Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. [accessed 24 Feb 2024].

  • Wilde HD, Gandhi KJK, Colson G. 2015. State of the science and challenges of breeding landscape plants with ecological function. Hortic Res. 2:14069. https://doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2014.69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams NM, Cariveau D, Winfree R, Kremen C. 2011. Bees is disturbed areas use, but do not prefer, alien plants. Basic Appl Ecol. 12:332341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.11.008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wolf AT, Watson JC, Hyde TJ, Carpenter SG, Jean RP. 2022. Floral resources used by the endangered rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) in the midwestern United States. Nat Areas J. 42(2):301312. https://doi.org/10.3375/22-2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeileis A, Hothorn T. 2002. Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News. 2(3):710. https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Fig. 1.

    Flower morphology of Monarda and measurements of floral characteristics.

  • Fig. 2.

    Average corolla width (A), corolla length (B), petal lobe width (C), and petal lobe length (D) for Monarda grown in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020. Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 3.

    Average glomerule diameter grown in Athens (A) and Blairsville (B), GA, USA, in 2021. Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 4.

    Total sugar content (nectar volume × concentration × nectar density), for Monarda grown in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020 (A), Athens, GA, USA, in 2021 (B), and Blairsville in 2021 (c). Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 5.

    The ordination results of the principal component analysis of the flower morphology and nectar production data among the Monarda tested in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020. The variables included are the width and length of the corolla and petal lobe (widthC, lengthC, widthPL, lengthPL, micrograms sucrose, microliters nectar, w/w sucrose). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 6.

    Ordination results of the principal component analysis of the flower morphology and nectar production data among the Monarda tested in Athens and Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2021.

  • Bolten AB, Feinsinger P, Baker HG, Baker I. 1979. On the calculation of sugar concentration in flower nectar. Oecologia. 41(3):301304. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00377434.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Braman SK, Pennisi SV, Fair CG, Quick JC. 2022. Pollinator cultivar choice: An assessment of season-long pollinator visitation among coreopsis, aster, and salvia cultivars. Front. Sustain. Cities. 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2022.988966.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collicutt LM, Davidson CG. 1999. ‘Petite Delight’ Monarda. HortScience. 34(1):149150. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.34.1.149.

  • Coombs G. 2016. Research report: Monarda for the Mid-Atlantic region. Mt. Cuba Center.

  • Cruden RW, Hermanutz L, Shuttleworth J. 1984. The pollination biology and breeding system of Monarda fistulosa (Labiatae). Oecologia. 64:104110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dafini H, Lensky Y, Fahn A. 1988. Flower and nectar characteristics of nine species of Labiatae and their influence on honeybee visits. J Apic Res. 27:103114.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dafini A. 1991. Advertisement, flower longevity, reward, and nectar production in Labiatae. Acta Hortic. 288:340346.

  • Dudchenko VV, Svydenko LV, Markovska OY, Sydiakina OV. 2020. Morphobiological and biochemical characteristics of Monarda L. varieties under conditions of the Southern Steppe of Ukraine. J Ecol Eng. 21(8):99107.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Erickson E, Junker RR, Ali JG, McCartney N, Patch HM, Grozinger CM. 2022. Complex floral traits shape pollinator attraction to ornamental plants. Ann Bot. 130(4):561577. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcac082.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gomez JM, Bosch J, Perfectii F, Fernandez JD, Abdelaziz M, Camacho JPM. 2008. Association between floral traits and rewards in Erysimum mediohispanicum (Brassicaceae). Ann Bot. 101:14131420. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn053.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gray SS, Simpson T, Baccus J, Manning R, Schwertner TW. 2007. Seasonal diet and foraging preference of greater kudu Tragelaphus strepisiceros in the Llano Uplift of Texas. Wildl Biol. 13(1):7583. https://doi.org/10.2981/0909-6396.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Harder LD, Cruzan MB. 1990. An evaluation of the physiological and evolutionary influences of inflorescence size and flower depth on nectar production. Funct Ecol. 4:559572.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hawke RG. 1998. Plant evaluation notes: Monarda and powdery mildew resistance. Chicago Botanic Garden (12). https://www.chicagobotanic.org/downloads/planteval_notes/no12_monarda.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hill PSM, Hollis J, Wells H. 2001. Foraging decisions in nectarivores: Unexpected interactions between flower consistency and energetic rewards. Anim Behav. 62(4):729737. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2001.1775.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kalaman H, Wilson SB, Mallinger RE, Knox G, Kim T, Begcy K, van Santen E. 2022. Evaluation of native and nonnative ornamentals as pollinator plants in Florida: II. Floral resource value. HortScience. 57(1):137143. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI16124-21.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kassambara A, Mundt F. 2020. factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of multivariate data analyses. R package version 1.0.7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lenth RV, Buerkner P, Hervel M. 2022. Emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R (≥ 3.5.0) version 1.7.5. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Leonhardt A, Blüthgen N. 2012. The same, but different: Pollen foraging in honeybee and bumble bee colonies. Apidologie. 43:449464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-011-0112-y.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Mattarelli P, Epifano F, Minardi P, Di Vito M, Modesto M, Barbanti L, Bellardi MG. 2017. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of essential oils from aerial parts of Monarda didyma and Monarda fistulosa cultivated in Italy. TEOP. 20(1):7686.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Native Plant Partnership. 2014. UD, Mt. Cuba Center research how native plants contribute to healthy ecosystems. University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA. http://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2015/jul/healthyecosystems070714.html. [accessed 18 Mar 2023].

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ornelas JF, Ordano M, De-Nova AJ, Quintero ME, Garland T. 2007. Phylogenetic analysis of interspecific variation in nectar of hummingbird-visited plants. J Evol Biol. 20(5):19041917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01374.x.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Otto CRV, O’Dell S, Bryant RB, Euliss NH, Bush RM, Smart MD. 2017. Using publicly available data to quantify plant–pollinator interactions and evaluate conservation seeding mixes in the northern Great Plains. Environ Entomol. 46(3):565578. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvx070.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petanidou T, Goethals V, Smets E. 2000. Nectary structure of Labiatae in relation to their nectar secretion and characteristics in a Mediterranean shrub community—Does flowering time matter? Plant Syst Evol. 225(1/4):103118. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23644409.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, R Core Team. 2023. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1-163. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.

  • Pleasants JM. 1983. Nectar production patterns in Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae). Am J Bot. 70:14681475.

  • Poythress JC, Affolter JM. 2018. Ecological value of native plant cultivars versus wild-type native plants for promoting Hemipteran diversity in suburban areas. Environ Entomol. 47(4):890901.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Quinlan GM, Milbrath MO, Otto CRV, Isaacs R. 2021. Farmland in U.S. conservations reserve program has unique floral composition that promotes bee summer foraging. Basic Appl Ecol. 56:358368. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvx070.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • R Core Team. 2023. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

  • Rubio A, Wright K, Longing S. 2021. Bee and flowering plant communities in a riparian corridor of the lower Rio Grande River (Texas, USA). Environ Entomol. 51(1):229239. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvab108.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Seitz N, van Engelsdorp D, Leonhardt SD. 2020. Are native and non-native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for wild bee communities? Ecol Evol. 10(1):1283812850. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6826.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Smith R, Pennisi SV, Affolter J, Alley H. 2024. Evaluation of select Monarda taxa in Montane and Piedmont Regions of Georgia: I. Horticultural performance and disease tolerance. HortScience. 59:759766. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17793-24.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Solman Raju AJ. 2004. Nectar host plants of some butterfly species at Visakhapatnam. Sci Cult. 70:187190.

  • Tabanca N, Bernier UR, Ali A, Wang M, Demirci B, Blythe EK, Khan SI, Baser KHC, Khan IA. 2013. Bioassay-guided investigation of two Monarda essential oils asrepellents of yellow fever mosquito Aedes aegypti. J Agric Food Chem. 61:85738580.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tew, NE, Memmott J, Vaughan IP, Bird S, Stone GN, Potts SG, Baldock KCR. 2021. Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes. J Ecol. 109:17471757. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.13598.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Torrez VC, Beauzay B, Mc P, Ginnis EE, Knudson AH, Laschkewitsch B, Hatterman-Valenti H, Knodel JJ. 2023. Pollinators and other insect visitations on native and ornamental perennials in two landscapes. HortScience. 58(8):922934. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI17146-23.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Weakley AS and the Southeastern Flora Team. 2022. Lamiaceae: Monarda Linnaeus 1753 (Bergamot, Beebalm), p 1485–1488. In: Flora of the Southeastern United States. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Herbarium and Botanical Garden, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

  • Whitham TG. 1977. Coevolution of foraging in Bombus and nectar dispensing in Chilopsis: A last drag theory. Science. 197:593596.

  • Whitten MW. 1981. Pollination ecology of Monarda didyma, M. clinopoida, and hybrids (Lamiaceae) in the southern Appalachian Mountains. Am J Bot. 68(3):435442.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wickham H. 2016. Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, USA. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. [accessed 24 Feb 2024].

  • Wilde HD, Gandhi KJK, Colson G. 2015. State of the science and challenges of breeding landscape plants with ecological function. Hortic Res. 2:14069. https://doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2014.69.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Williams NM, Cariveau D, Winfree R, Kremen C. 2011. Bees is disturbed areas use, but do not prefer, alien plants. Basic Appl Ecol. 12:332341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.11.008.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wolf AT, Watson JC, Hyde TJ, Carpenter SG, Jean RP. 2022. Floral resources used by the endangered rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) in the midwestern United States. Nat Areas J. 42(2):301312. https://doi.org/10.3375/22-2.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zeileis A, Hothorn T. 2002. Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News. 2(3):710. https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
Rachel S. Smith Department of Horticulture, The University of Georgia, 1111 Plant Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602-7273, USA

Search for other papers by Rachel S. Smith in
Google Scholar
Close
,
Svoboda V. Pennisi Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia Griffin Campus, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223, USA

Search for other papers by Svoboda V. Pennisi in
Google Scholar
Close
,
James Affolter Department of Horticulture, The University of Georgia, 1111 Plant Sciences Building, Athens, GA 30602-7273, USA

Search for other papers by James Affolter in
Google Scholar
Close
,
Heather Alley State Botanical Garden of Georgia, University of Georgia, 2450 S Milledge Avenue, Athens, GA 30605, USA

Search for other papers by Heather Alley in
Google Scholar
Close
, and
Conor G. Fair Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia Griffin Campus, 1109 Experiment Street, Griffin, GA 30223, USA

Search for other papers by Conor G. Fair in
Google Scholar
Close

Contributor Notes

We thank the following organizations: the Larry R. Beauchat Professorship for Annual and Perennial Ornamental Plant Research for providing financial support that was instrumental in progress of the research, especially given the circumstances of the COVID-19 outbreak; the State Botanical Garden of Georgia—Mimsie Lanier Center for Native Plant Studies and the University of Georgia—Georgia Mountain Research and Education Center for providing experimental sites; the University of Georgia Graduate School and Garden Club of America Montine M. Freeman Scholarship in Native Plant Studies for additional funding; and native plant trial interns Benjamin Grady, Christina Thanh-Lan Vu, Justin M. Peterman, Kirtus Brown, and Leeza Romanovski for assistance with data collection and sample processing.

S.V.P. is the corresponding author. E-mail: bpennisi@uga.edu.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 320 320 320
PDF Downloads 271 271 271
  • Fig. 1.

    Flower morphology of Monarda and measurements of floral characteristics.

  • Fig. 2.

    Average corolla width (A), corolla length (B), petal lobe width (C), and petal lobe length (D) for Monarda grown in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020. Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 3.

    Average glomerule diameter grown in Athens (A) and Blairsville (B), GA, USA, in 2021. Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 4.

    Total sugar content (nectar volume × concentration × nectar density), for Monarda grown in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020 (A), Athens, GA, USA, in 2021 (B), and Blairsville in 2021 (c). Different letters indicate significant differences (alpha = 0.05). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 5.

    The ordination results of the principal component analysis of the flower morphology and nectar production data among the Monarda tested in Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2020. The variables included are the width and length of the corolla and petal lobe (widthC, lengthC, widthPL, lengthPL, micrograms sucrose, microliters nectar, w/w sucrose). Taxa: 1—Monarda ‘Raspberry Wine’, 2—Monarda punctata (Georgia provenance), 3—Monarda didyma ‘Jacob Cline’, 4—Monarda Sugar Buzz® Grape Gumball Bee Balm, 5—Monarda punctata (New Jersey provenance), 6—Monarda didyma, 7—Monarda × ‘Judith’s Fancy Fuchsia’, 8—Monarda fistulosa, 9—Monarda bradburiana, and 10—Monarda fistulosa ‘Claire Grace’.

  • Fig. 6.

    Ordination results of the principal component analysis of the flower morphology and nectar production data among the Monarda tested in Athens and Blairsville, GA, USA, in 2021.

Advertisement
Longwood Gardens Fellows Program 2024

 

Advertisement
Save