SeniorCapstone_DiTullio

1
BEE-lieve It or Not: Local Pollinator Values
Stephan DiTullio
Capstone Project
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science
In
Environmental Science

2
Table of Contents:
i. Methods (Pg. 5-6)
a. Process and instrumentation
ii. Results (Pg. 6-8)
a. Basic discovery
iii. Discussion (Pg. 8)
a. Explanation of results
iv. Conclusion (Pg. 8-9)
a. Summary
v. Literature Cited (Pg. 9-10)
vi. Figures and Tables (Pg. 11-18)
List of Figures and Tables:
Table 1: Plant species with pollinator value.
Figure 1: Number of species per pollinator value at the DiTullio homestead.
Table 2: Raw data table for the DiTullio homestead, including the percent cover of each species
per plot and frequency data.
Figure 2: Number of species per pollinator value at the Water Tower for transect 1.
Table 3: Taw data table for WTH transect 1, including the percent cover of each species per plot
and frequency data.
Figure 3: Number of species per pollinator value at the Water Tower for transect 2.
Table 4: Raw data table WTH transect 2, including the percent cover of each species per plot and
frequency data.
Figure 4: Number of species per pollinator value at Roger’s Landing transect 1.
Table 5: Raw data table for Roger’s Landing transect 2, including the percent cover of each
species per plot and frequency data.
Figure 5: Number of species per pollinator value at Roger’s Landing transect 2.
Table 6: Raw data table for Roger’s Landing transect 2, including the percent cover of each
Figure 6: Total number of species per pollinator value
Table 7: Summary table of site name with species richness and the number of species per
pollinator value.
Figure 7: Average frequency per transect
Figure 8: Average percent cover per transect

3
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank Professor Koning for her extensive help on this project. To the many hours
of assessing and identifying plant species. I would also like to thank the Cheshire County
Conservation District for the helpful information given during their pollinator presentations.
Abstract:
This study was conducted to find the best overall pollinator plants at the three different research
locations; The DiTullio Homestead in Littleton, MA, Water Tower Hill at Franklin Pierce
University, and the pollinator garden at Roger’s Landing in Rindge, NH. At each site, I ran a
transect with research plots. In each plot, I recorded the percent cover of each species that was
present A single 1m x1m PVC plot was used to sample the vegetation. The findings of this study
are not conclusive, they provide quality information of the pollinator habitat at each site for bees
and other pollinating insects. The goal of this study was to identify the best pollinator plants for
gardens and pollinator garden. There are many plants out there that act as pollinator plants, but
only a handful are great pollinator plants.

4
Introduction
The loss of animal pollinators is becoming a more common occurrence than in the past;
23 bee species and 18 species of butterfly have gone extinct worldwide since the early 1800s
(Ollerton 2012). Without pollinators, crops would be priced significantly higher due to the cost
of labor needed to hand-pollinate plants (Ollerton 2012). Native pollinators are important
because there are 250,000 flowering plants and only 100,000 pollinator species to pollinate all
those plants (Faegri and van der Phijl 1979). Bees are important for plants species that requires
cross pollination. Cross pollination is when the plant needs the male anther to transfer to the
female stigma. This is an important thing to know because it is possible to train bees to pollinate
certain species of plants (Abrol 1993, Faegri and van der Phijl 1979). Having bees that can
pollinate crops and specialty plants, the use of fertilizers, which harm crop yield, we are able to
make a sustainable future and reduce the chance of causing more environmental harm. Non-
honey bees alone account for about $41 billion in pollination of crops, according the United
States Agriculture. Kenmore and Krell (1988) found 25,000 species of bee, including honey,
bumble and solitary bees; solitary bees are species which live, alone in the ground (Kenmore and
Krell 1988).
The bees mentioned above are found here in the northeast at apple orchards, gardens
around the world, and habitats (MacIyor and Packer 2015, Xerces 2016, Hanley and Franco
2014, Faegri and van der Phijl 1979). The types of wild pollinators include all insects such as
bees, butterflies, and flies (Xerces 2016, Donovall and van Engelsdorp 2010). Types of native
pollinators would include the pollinators that are native to the area, such as, oil, yellow-faced
large mining, dark sweat bees, honey, bumble, carpenter digger, squash, and Mason bees (Xerces
2016).
Honey bees, although they are not native to the U.S., are an important insect because they
are the most common pollinator that visits crop fields. Out of the 115 crops that are
commercially grown, 87 of them are dependent on animal pollinators (Sierra Club 2016). The
USDA funded a survey of 7,200 beekeepers. The USDA found that over 23% of the hives were
lost in a single year (Sierra Club 2016). Without the honey bee, we would lose more crops and
farms lands faster than ever seen before. The loss of honey bees is not just felt in crop yield, but
also in honey production. The loss of bee species is decrease in population due to various
diseases and infection. Pollinators are subject to disease and in England, Bombus terrestris (B.
terrestris), a type of honey bee was tested and for the virus that was called Deformed Wing Virus
(DWV). The result of this virus is non-viable offspring and reduced longevity (Fürst et al 2014).
Another factor implicated in the decline of honeybees on farms is the use of
neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids are a nerve-disabling insecticide used to treat corn, soybean, and
citrus crops. Large corporations like Monsanto can legally coat their seeds with neonicotinoids,
genetically modifying the seed. By coating the seeds with this chemical, it spreads throughout
the plant as it grows compromising the nervous and immune system (Sierra Club 2016).
Charles Robertson collected data on 214 bee species on over 400 plant species (National
Academies Press 2007). At the same spot 75 years later, of the 157-bee species that were found
on only 24 plant species, there were 140 bee species found on those 24-plant species (National
Academies Press 2007).

5
In the United Kingdom, gardens cover about one quarter of the landscape, and they
provide pollinator guilds, which is a fancy way of saying they provide a resource that attract
most bee species (Hanley and Franco 2014). In other words, these gardens are a hub for bees and
other insects. By having these gardens and the residents planting exotic flowers, the bee
population is no longer limited to a small variety of floral species, but the native plants don’t get
the required pollination they need, including the bees need for nectar and pollen (Chung et al.
2014, Hanley and Franco 2014). This makes its seem bad to plant gardens to attract bees, but
these garden that are planted should have native plants and not exotic species. As these exotic
species, may become invasive. These gardens are the hub for different bee, butterfly, and fly
species. Land management plans consist of a variety of different ways to increase number of
pollinators and pollination rates. Reducing the impact of land management practices includes the
stoppage of using fertilizer as they are related to lower crop yields, resulting in lower pollination
rates. (Lee-Mäder et al. 2011, Abrol 1993).
The goal of this research is to evaluate existing areas for their pollinator value and
suggest new way to improve the site for its pollinators. Where do these plants fall on a pollinator
scale? The scale is ranked 0-3, low to very high. This will rank each species based on how
attracted pollinators are to them. The goal is to also pick certain high pollinating plants that one
could plant at their home and have a significant number of native pollinators, not just bees, visit
the plants and create an inviting atmosphere.
The Cheshire County Conservation District (CCCD) has been collaborating with several
local farms and communities to spread the word about pollinators and what we can do to help
slow the decline of bee populations. Currently, the CCCD has designed and built two pollinator
habitats, one at Franklin Pierce University and the second along the Rindge Rail Trail off County
Road in Rindge, New Hampshire. With the decline of bees nationwide, it is important that we do
everything we can to help strengthen their colonies.
Methods
The research places include the campus garden (42.779984°N, -72.058289°W), the
DiTullio homestead (42.56507°N, -71.50226°W) (GaiaGPS), the grassy meadow that was once
an old apple orchard at Water Tower Hill, (WTH), southeast of the water tower (42.780972°N, -
72.050735°W) (GaiaGPS) and the pollinator habitat at Roger’s Landing in Rindge, NH
(42.784612°N, -72.029152°W) (GaiaGPS). The study area of the DiTullio Homestead is 0.007
acres (websoil). The study area at WTH is 0.89 acres (websoil). The study area at Rogers
Landing is 1.37 acres (websoil). The campus garden was planted as a pollinator garden at
Franklin Pierce University; located outside of the cafeteria. The garden has many different
species of plants along with a pollinator garden. The pollinator garden contains several plant
species that are vibrant in color that attract native pollinators. The DiTullio homestead is in
Littleton, MA. The homestead is surrounded by many floral species that cater to a wide variety
of pollinator species. The field near the water tower on the Franklin Pierce Place Trail is going to
be used as a control area. It was an old apple orchard and has since grown over and is rarely
mown. The area is used for research in ecology studies, one being Golden Rod; it is seasonally
cleared of its native grass.

6
I sampled the DiTullio Homestead on June 26, 2016, the Water Tower Hill site on
September 6, 2016, and roger’s landing on September 15 and 22, 2016. At each site the data
collected was the same, percent species cover per plot along with some observational data, using
1m X 1m plots. The number of plots used depended on the size of the study site. For the research
at the DiTullio homestead, a 10 meter transect was stretched, placing 1m x 1m quadrats every
other meter starting at one meter. At the water tower field, two 50 meter transects were stretched
from west to east. We placed one 1m x 1m plot every 5 meters along the transect, for a total of
10 plots per transect. At Roger’s Landing, we used two 100 meter transects, placing one 1m x
1m plots at 10 random numbers along the transect. The 10 plots were not evenly spaced out
along the transects, but rather placed by random number generator to give more variance within
the plots.
The data was recorded on data sheets and then input into Microsoft Excel. The data will
be presented using graphs and tables. Species abundance per pollinator value per transect,
average frequency per transect, average percent cover per transect, the weighted rank of each
site, and lastly the total number of species per pollinator value will be displayed (Table 1). The
weighted rank is calculated by multiplying the pollinator value (0,1,2 and 3) by the total percent
cover for each species. The weighted ranks are then added up to get the total weighted rank for
the site.
Pollinator values were given to each plant species based in information from the NRCS,
Monarch Watch, New York Plant Atlas, and Plants for a Future (PFAF, Monarch Watch, NRCS.
USDA, Archer). The plants are ranked from 0-3. Figure 1 shows each plant species with its
pollinator value. The ranking of the plants allows us to determine if it is a good fit for the
pollinator area. The next rank I calculated was its weighted rank, which measured the value of
the pollinator area. This is calculated multiplying the average percent cover by the number of
plots at each transect.
Results
The DiTullio homestead, home to 9 plant species, four of which have high pollinator
values and three with a medium value. The only two species that were low pollinator values were
the ground cover plants; pachysandra (Pachysandra procumens) and Bugleweed (Ajuga
reptans). The research area was small but had lots of pollinator activity. I observed dragonflies,
bumble bees, honey bees and sweat bees over the course of two months. I noticed the bumble
bees were attracted to the lighter color fauna (white, pink, yellow, and orange), while the honey
bees were buzzing around the darker color fauna (dark orange, dark blue and purple). The
dragonflies were observed on all faunas.
The results of the DiTullio homestead species abundance per pollinator value per transect
is shown in Figure 1. Table 2 shows the raw data collected with total percent cover and
frequency per species. The weighted rank for the DiTullio homestead came out to be 10 (Table
7). This site had good pollinator, but the percent cover of these plants is minimal. The homestead
research area is a garden with perennial, ground cover, and annual plants.
The Water Tower Hill transects are similar to one another. The effective pollinator
species found in these two transects are narrow leaf GR (Euthamia graminifolia), wide leaf GR
(Solidago flexicaulis), rough stemmed GR (Solidago rugosa), raspberry (Rubus occidentialia),
cow vetch (Vicia cracca), hope clover (Trifolium repens), caliso aster (Symphyotrichum

7
laterilflorum), and milkweed (Asclepias). Both are densely populated by four species of
goldenrod (GR), which all have a high pollinator value making this area a good pollinator
habitat. I did not have any observations for this site.
The results of the Water Tower Hill transect 1 species abundance per pollinator value per
transect is shown in Figure 2. There are five species with low value, one species with medium
value, three species with high, and three species for very high. Table 3 shows the raw data
collected with total percent cover and frequency per species. The weighted rank for this transect
is 119.2 (Table 7). This number is higher than the DiTullio homestead because more species
were found at this location, along with a larger sampling area. There are many low pollinator
value species affecting the weighted rank. This area is mainly golden rod, ground cover, and
grasses. Making it a great habitat for many different pollinators.
Water Tower Hill transect 2 results of species per pollinator value per transect are found
in Figure 3 and are as follows: five, two, two, and six species going from low to very high in that
order. Table 4 shows the raw data collected with total percent cover and frequency per species.
he weighted rank for the second transect is 118.9 (Table 7). The very high pollinator value
species were limited in abundance, while the low value species were very abundant, creating a
low weighted rank overall. This transect was a little different from the first, a couple a different
species were found. The average weighted rank for the site is
The high and very high pollinator value species for the Roger’s Landing transects are
gray GR (Solidago nemoralis), downy GR (Soligago puberula), raspberry (Rubus occidentialia),
cranberry (Vaccinium), low bush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium), high bush blueberry
(Vaccinium corymbosum), velvet leaf blueberry (Vaccinium mytrilloides), trailing arbutus
(Epigaea repens), and huckleberry (Gaylussacia). The area of research looks like it used to be an
old residence. The open area is different in certain places. The soil composition changes from a
sandy loam to a loamy clay. This area is good for more than just insect pollinators, it is visited by
deer and small animals that might eat the petals and transfer the pollen from that plant to the next
plant it eats.
Roger’s Landing transect 1 results of species per pollinator value per transect can be
found in Figure 4. In this figure, there are 7 species for low and medium, two species for high
and 6 species for very high. Table 6 shows the raw data collected with total percent cover and
frequency per species. The weighted rank for this site is 98.1 (Table 7). The weighted rank is
lower than the Water Tower transect 1 and 2 because there is a large abundance of low and
medium values. A small number of low value species had high percent coverage, but the high
and very high species were again limited. A large portion of the high and very high value species
cover less than 5% each. This transect is a long narrow zone that is shaded from 5m to 13m. The
area was shaded by mature red oak, white pine, paper birch and gray birch.
Roger’s Landing transect 2 results are in Figure 5, showing the number of species per
pollinator value per transect. Low and medium values have 6 species, high has five species and
very high has two species. Table 5 shows the raw data collected with total percent cover and
frequency per species. This site’s weighted rank is 61.5 (Table 7), drastically different from the
first transect at this location. Because this transect had large numbers of species for low and
medium pollinator values, the weight is almost as low as the DiTullio homestead. The high and
very high pollinator value species do not cover much of the area, while the low and medium

8
value species cover more area. This transect had a different soil composition than transect 1. The
trees surrounding the transect were red oak, sugar maple, paper birch and American beech.
Figure 6 is a bar graph showing the total abundance of species for each pollinator value
ranging from low to very high. The abundances are as follows 25, 19, 16, and 17. Table 6 is a
summary table of species richness, number of species per pollinator value, and the weighted rank
for each site. Figure 7 shows a bar graph representing the average frequency for each site. These
frequencies tell you how often a species was recorded. The average percent coverage for each
transect is found in Figure 8. The average percent coverage for the homestead was over 60%,
WTH transect 1 and transect 2 are greater than 100%, and Roger’s Landing transect 1 is almost
100% and transect 2 is just over 60%.
Discussion:
The DiTullio Homestead had 9 alien plants, meaning they do not grow in this region.
However, if you are looking to have a buzzing garden these high pollinator plants are a good
choice to brighten up the space. At WTH the most dominant plant was goldenrod and native
grasses. Per a Rutgers University study of old pasture sites, they found that once the field is
untouched for 3-10 years, the most dominant species they recorded was goldenrod and perennial
grasses (Rutgers University). Water Tower Hill gives us a good list of species that are good
pollinators for pollinator garden or “natural” gardens at the home. Roger’s Landing was a mix of
native and alien plants. Due to drought year, the CCCD’s pollinator plants did not last long in the
heat. Bad soil conditions could cause this, but mainly due to the drought, and the plants not being
hand watered regularly, the pollinator value of the plant is lot. This site has good pollinator
plants but their abundances is low. The plants here can be used in pollinator garden, “natural”
gardens, or even in colorful garden setting.
Conclusion:
This study found that there is a plethora of plant species, but only a fraction of them are
considered high and very high pollinator plants. The plant species with high pollinator values
and very high pollinator values would be considered the best plants to use in pollinator gardens
and home gardens that are looking to liven up the space. Referring to Figure 6 the majority of the
species found were of a low pollinator value, and many of the low value species cover a large
area at their respective sites. An example of this is red fescue grass found at Water Tower Hill,
where it covered over a 100%. This 100% plus coverage is the average percent cover.
This information can improve our understanding of how landscapes return after
disturbance. The water tower transects are a good representation of that. The area was once
cleared, and has since produced plant species that have high pollinator values, such as goldenrod.
We are entering an era where bees are on the verge of extinction, this study helps identify the
right plant species to plant in order to hinder the decline of bee populations. In order for our
efforts to be effective, we must get involved, either privately or publicly. One can take the
initiative to plant high value pollinator plants at their home or join an organization Like the
CCCD that is dedicated to helping and preserving bees. I recommend planting various goldenrod
species, common milkweed, high-low bush blueberry, and wintergreen for a vining groundcover.

9
For the non-native plants, I would recommend Iris’s, the Tiger Lily and the ‘Star Gaze’ Lily.
These plants are colorful and attract different pollinator species.
I was limited for time in this study. If I had1 more time I would have more than three
sites, I would research high pollinator value plants that are not found at the sites, and have a plant
identification book. I had a little trouble with plant identification and finding pollinator value for
all the species I found. The next steps are to do more research into the topic of pollinators, not
just bees, research what other universities and colleges have done about this epidemic, and talk
with local beekeepers, along with beekeepers out west where the bees are most affected by these
neural toxins.
Literature Cited
Abrol, D.P. (1993). Ecology and utilization of insect pollinators frequenting pear flowers and
their impact of fruit production. Korean J Apic 8(1):18-21
Archer, C. (August 2005). Family: Cyperaceae. Retrieved from
http://www.plantzafrica.com/plantcd/cyperaceae.htm
Chung, Y. A., Burkle, L. A., & Knight, T. M. (2014). Minimal Effects of an Invasive Flowering
Shrub on the Pollinator Community of Native Forbs. Plos ONE, 9(10), 1-8.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109088
Donovall, L., & van Engelsdorp, D. (2010). Citizen Scientist. Science, 329(5993), 733-733.
doi:10.1126/science.329.5993.733-d
Faegri K, van der Pijl L. (1979). The principles of pollination ecology, 3rd edn. Pergamon,
Oxford.
Fürst, M. A., McMahon, D. P., Osborne, J. L., Paxton, R. J., & Brown, M. F. (2014). Disease
associations between honeybees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature,
506(7488), 364-366. doi:10.1038/nature12977
GaiaGPS. (2016). Iphone Application.
Hanley, M. E., Awbi, A. J., & Franco, M. (2014). Going native? Flower use by bumblebees in
English urban gardens. Annals of Botany, 113(5), 799-806.
Kenmore P, Krell R (1998). Global perspective on pollination in agriculture and agroecosystem
management. In: International workshop on the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators in
agriculture, with emphasis on bees, Sao Paulo, 7-9 Oct 1998.
Lee-M der, E., Shepherd, M., Vaughan, M., Hoffman Black, S., & LeBauhn, G. (2011).
Attracting native pollinators: Protecting North America's bees and butterflies: The Xerces
Society guide. North Adams, MA: Storey Pub.
MacIvor, J. S., & Packer, L. (2015). ‘Bee Hotels’ as Tools for Native Pollinator Conservation: A
Premature Verdict?. Plos ONE, 10(3), 1-13. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0122126
Monarch Watch. (n.d.). PLANTS FOR BUTTERFLY AND POLLINATOR GARDENS Native
and Non-native Plants Suitable for Gardens in the Northeastern United States. Retrieved
December 06, 2016, from http://www.monarchwatch.org/garden/plant-list-monarchwatch.pdf

10
Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA). (2012). Wildflower plant characteristics for
pollinator and conservation planting. Retrieved from,
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_PLANTMATERIALS/publications/nypmctn11715.pdf
The National Academies Press (2007). 5 Monitoring Pollinator Populations and Services."
National Research Council. Status of Pollinators in North America. Washington, DC.
doi:10.17226/11761.
Ollerton, J. (2012). The importance of native pollinators. Plantsman: New Series, 11(2), 86-89.
Plants for a Future. (1998-2012). Galutheria procumbens. -L. retrieved from
http://www.pfaf.org/user/Plant.aspx?LatinName=Gaultheria+procumbens.
Pebblekeeper. (5 of July, 2005). Isis and pollination. Retrieved from,
https://pebblekeeper.com/2012/06/05/iris-and-pollination/
Rutgers University. (n.d.). Old Field Succession. Retrieved December 06, 2016, from
http://bio.rutgers.edu/~gb102/lab_13/13i3m.html
Sierra Club (2016). Neonicitinoid ABCs.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2014). Land management plan. Cody, WY:
US Forest Service.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (n.d) Fact Sheet and Plant Guides. Retrieved
from, plants.usda.gov/java/factsheet
WebSoil, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (n.d.). Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.html
Xerces Society. (2016). Wild Pollinators Eastern Apple Orchards and How to Control Them.
Retrieved April 13, 2016, from
http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/WildPollinatorsEas
ternAppleOrchards_2ndEd_Aug2015_web.pdf

11
Table 1: Each plant species and its pollinator value
Common name Scientific name
pollinator
value
Am. False pennyroyal Hedeoma pulegiodes 0
Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinus 0
Bugleweed Ajuga reptans 0
Calico Aster Symphyotrichum laterilflorum 3
Canada Mayflower Maianthemum canadense 0
Cinquefoil Potentilla reptans 0
Cow vetch Vicia cracca 2
Cranberry lg. leaf Vaccinium macrocarpon 3
Dewberry Rubus caesius 1
Downy GR Soligago puberula 2
Glossy buckthorn Fangula alnus 1
Glossy willowtree Salix pentandra 2
Grass leaf GR Euthamia carolinana 0
Gray GR Solidago nemoralis 3
Haircap moss Polytrichum commune 0
Hawkweed Hieracium 0
High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum 3
Hope clover Trifolium repens 2
Huckleberry Gaylussacia 3
Inkberry Ilex glabra 2
Lamb Kill Kalmia angustifolia 0
Little Blue-stem grass Schizachyrium scoparium 1
Low bush blueberry Vaccinium angustifolium 3
Milkweed Asclepias 3
Narrow leaf GR Euthamia graminifolia 3
Northern Blue flag Iris versicolor 2
Pachysandra Pachysandra procumens 0
Perwinkle Vinca minor 1
Poa Grass Poa annua 0
Poison Ivy Taxicodendron radicans 0
Purple Clover (Shamrock)Oxalis trianglarius 2
Quack Grass Elytrigia repens 0
Queens Anne's lace Daucus carota 0
Raspberryy Rubus occidentialia 2
Red Fescue grass Festuca rubra 0
Red Maple seedling Acer rubrum 1
Red oak seedling Quercus rubra 0
Rough steamed GR Solidago rugosa 3
Sedge grass Cyperaceae 1
Sedum Sedum acre 2
Sheep sorrel Rumex acetosella 1
Side flowering GR Solidago virgaurea 3
Stargaze Oriental Lily Lilium "Stargazer" 1
Tiger Lily Lilium lancifolium 1
Trailng Arbutus Epigaea repens 2
Unknown cranberry Vaccinium 3
Unknown goosefoot Chenopodium album 1
Unknown sedge Cyperaceae 1
Velvet leaf blueberry Vaccinium mytrilloides 3
White pine seedling Pinus Strobus 1
Wide lead GR Solidago flexicaulis 3
Wild Phlox Phlox divaricata 2
Wild strawberry Fragaria vesca 0
Wintergreen Gaultheria procumbens 1

12
Figure 1: Number of plant species per pollinator value at the DiTullio homestead.
Table 2: Raw data table for the DiTullio homestead, including the percent cover of each
plant species per plot and frequency data.
2
3
4
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
low med. high very high
NUMBEROFSPECIES
POLLINATOR VALUE OF EACH PLANT SPECIES
Species name % cover per plot
Scientific name Common name plot 1 plot 2 plot3 plot 4 total % cover frequency
Ajuga reptans Bugleweed 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.06 0.75
Iris versicolor Northern Blue flag 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0.25
Lilium lancifolium Tiger Lily 0 0.8 0 0 0.8 0.25
Lilum "Stargazer" Stargaze Oriental Lily 0 0.05 0 0 0.05 0.25
Pachysandra procumens Pachysandra 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 0.5 0.75
Phlox divaricata Wild Phlox 0 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.25
Salix pentandra Glossy willowtree 0 0 0 0.15 0.15 0.25
Sedum acre Sedum 0 0 0.05 0 0.05 0.25
Vinca minor Perwinkle 0 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.75

13
Figure 2: Number of plant species per pollinator value at the Water Tower for transect 1.
Table 3: The raw data table for WTH transect 1, including the percent cover of each plant
5
1
3 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
low med high very high
NUMBEROFSPECIES
Species name % cover of species per plot
Scientific name Common name plot 1 plot 2 plot3 plot 4 plot 5 plot 6 plot 7 plot 8 plot 9 plot 10 total % cover frequency
Elytrigia repens Quack Grass 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.05 0.01 0 0 0.01 0.58 0.8
Euthamia graminifolia Narrow leaf GR 0.05 0 0.05 0.6 0.01 0 0 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.41 0.7
Festuca rubra Red Fescue grass 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.95 0.2 0 0.2 0.15 5.75 0.9
Poa annua Poa Grass 0 0 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.051 0.2
Potentilla reptans Cinquefoil 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.1
Rubus caesius Dewberry 0 0 0.001 0.5 0 0 0 0.8 0.85 0 2.151 0.4
Rubus occidentialia Raspberryy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Solidago flexicaulis Wide lead GR 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.001 0.701 0.7
Solidagop rugosa Rough steamed GR 0 0 0.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.35 0.2
taxicodendron radicans Poison Ivy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.2 0.3
Trifolium repens Hope clover 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.1
Vicia cracca Cow vetch 0.001 0.001 0.1 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.05 0.2 0.05 0.001 0.603 1

14
Figure 3: Number of plant species per pollinator value at the Water Tower for transect 2.
Table 4: The raw data table WTH transect 2, including the percent cover of each plant
5
2 2
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NUMBEROFSPECIES
Sp. Abundance per Pollinator Value
Scientific name Common name plot 1 plot 2 plot3 plot 4 plot 5 plot 6 plot 7 plot 8 plot 9 plot 10 total % coverfrequency
Asclepias Milkweed 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.2
Daucus carota Queens Anne's lace 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.031 0.2
Elytrigia repens Quack Grass 0.75 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.8 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.2 2 1
Euthamia graminifolia Narrow leaf GR 0 0.5 0.001 0 0.25 0 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.841 0.7
Festuca rubra Red Fescue grass 0.25 0.25 0.9 0.8 0.001 0.65 0.9 0.95 0.85 0.75 6.301 1
Poa annua Poa Grass 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.1
Polytrichum commune Haircap moss 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.03 0.1
Potentilla reptans Cinquefoil 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.221 0.5
Rubus caesius Dewberry 0.1 0.05 0.25 0.5 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0.91 0.4
Rumex acetosella Sheep sorrel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.1
Solidago flexicaulis Wide lead GR 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.05 0.4 0.3 0.001 0.851 0.5
Solidagop rugosa Rough steamed GR 0.01 0 0 0.02 0 0.15 0 0 0 0.02 0.2 0.4
Symphyotrichum laterilflorum Calico Aster 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.1
Trifolium repens Hope clover 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.1
Vicia cracca Cow vetch 0.01 0.01 0 0.01 0.03 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.25 0.05 0.5 0.9

15
Figure 4: Number of plant species per pollinator value at Roger’s Landing transect 1.
Table 5: The raw data table for Roger’s Landing transect 2, including the percent cover of
each plant species per plot and frequency data.
7 7
2
6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
NUMBEROFSPECIES
Acer rubrum Red Maple seedling 0.001 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0.043 0.5
Cyperaceae Sedge grass 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.1
Epigaea repens Trailng Arbutus 0.08 0 0.02 0 0.02 0.03 0.001 0 0 0 0.151 0.5
Fangula alnus Glossy buckthorn 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.1
Fragaria vesca Wild strawberry 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.1
Gaultheria procumbens Wintergreen 0.05 0.25 0.5 0.45 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.25 3.3 1
Gaylussacia Huckleberry 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.001 0.03 0.101 0.4
Hedeoma pulegiodes Am. False pennyroyal 0 0.01 0 0.001 0 0.01 0.01 0.001 0.001 0 0.033 0.6
Hieracium Hawkweed 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.1
Ilex glabra Inkberry 0 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.1
Kalmia angustifolia Lamb Kill 0 0 0.03 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.2
Pinus Strobus White pine seedling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.01 0.001 0.012 0.3
Polytrichum commune Haircap moss 0.02 0 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.05 0.55 0.85 0.1 0.6 3.77 0.9
Pteridium aquilinus Bracken fern 0 0.02 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.071 0.3
Quercus rubra Red oak seedling 0.001 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.011 0.2
Rubus caesius Dewberry 0.02 0 0.3 0.2 0.15 0.13 0.25 0.05 0.02 0.15 1.27 0.9
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue-stem grass 0 0.03 0 0.001 0.02 0.001 0 0 0.05 0 0.102 0.5
Solidago nemoralis Gray GR 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.2
Vaccinium Unknown cranberry 0 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002 0.2
Vaccinium angustifolium Low bush blueberry 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.02 0.03 0 0 0.03 0.48 0.7
Vaccinium corymbosum High bush blueberry 0 0 0.03 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.131 3
Vaccinium mytrilloides Velvet leaf blueberry 0 0 0 0 0 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.001 0.03 0.101 0.5

16
Figure 5: Number of plant species per pollinator value at Roger’s Landing transect 2.
Table 6: The raw data table for Roger’s Landing transect 2, including the percent cover of
each plant species per plot and frequency data.
6 6
5
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
NUMBEROFSPECIES
Acer rubrum Red Maple seedling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0.1 0.11 0.2
Cyperaceae Unknown sedge 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.1
Epigaea repens Trailng Arbutus 0 0 0 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.1
Gaultheria procumbens Wintergreen 0 0 0 0.01 0.25 0.45 0.3 0.1 0 0.15 1.26 0.6
Hedeoma pulegiodes Am. False pennyroyal 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0 0.001 0.006 0.6
Pinus Strobus White pine seedling 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0 0.002 0.2
Polytrichum commune Haircap moss 0 0.001 0.1 0.8 0.001 0.2 0.2 0 0.9 0.001 2.203 0.8
Pteridium aquilinus Bracken fern 0.05 0 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.3 0.01 0.2 0.67 0.7
Quercus rubra Red oak seedling 0 0.1 0.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.12 0.2
Rubus caesius Dewberry 0 0 0 0 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0.15 0.1
Rubus occidentialia Raspberryy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.001 0.1
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Blue-stem grass 0.1 0.2 0.25 0 0.05 0.001 0 0 0.001 0 0.602 0.6
Solidago nemoralis Gray GR 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0 0.101 0.2
Solidagop rugosa Rough steamed GR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0.001 0.1
Soligago puberula Downy GR 0.001 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0.003 0.3
Taraxacum Unknown seedling 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.02 0.001 0 0.023 0.4
Taxes repens Unknown shrub 0 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0.002 0.2
Vaccinium angustifolium Low bush blueberry 0.001 0.02 0.3 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.001 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.712 1
Vaccinium corymbosum High bush blueberry 0.001 0.05 0 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.01 0 0.081 0.4
Vaccinium mytrilloides Velvet leaf blueberry 0 0 0 0 0.02 0 0 0.02 0 0.05 0.09 0.3

17
Figure 6: Total number of plant species per pollinator value for all sites
Table 7: Summary table of site name with species richness and the number of species per
pollinator value.
25
19
16
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
NUMBEROFSPECIES
POLLINATOR VALUES OF EACH PLANT SPECIES
Site Name
total %
cover
sp.
richness
# sp. w/
low poll.
Value
# sp. w/
med poll.
Value
# sp. w/
high poll.
Value
# sp. w/
very high
poll.
Value
weighted
rank
DiTullio
Homestead 2.49 7 2 3 4 0 10
Water Tower
tran 1 11.92 12 5 1 3 3 119.2
Water Tower
tran 2 11.89 15 5 2 2 6 118.9
Roger's
Landing tran 1 9.81 22 7 7 2 6 98.1
Roger's
Landing tran 2 6.15 19 6 6 5 2 61.5

18
Figure 7: Average frequency per transect. (1= Homestead DiTullio, 2= Water Tower
transect 1, 3= Water Tower transect 2, 4= Roger’s Landing transect 1, and 5= Roger’s
Landing transect 2.)
Figure 8: Average percent cover per transect. (1= DiTullio Homestead, 2= Water Tower
transect 1, 3= Water Tower transect 2, 4= Roger’s Landing transect 1, and 5= Roger’s
Landing transect 2.)
0.416
0.458
0.42
0.518
0.36
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1 2 3 4 5
Frequency
Transects
0.62
1.19 1.19
0.98
0.61
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1 2 3 4 5
Avg.Percentcover
Transects

SeniorCapstone_DiTullio

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to SeniorCapstone_DiTullio

Similar to SeniorCapstone_DiTullio (20)

SeniorCapstone_DiTullio