Towards transparent and replicable flower selection in agricultural flower strips

Abstract Flower 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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ecosphere
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.70487
Primary Topic
Plant and animal studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Towards transparent and replicable flower selection in agricultural flower strips

Faelan Mourmourakis, Tanya Latty
Ecosphere
Plant and animal studies
article

Towards transparent and replicable flower selection in agricultural flower strips

Faelan Mourmourakis, Tanya Latty
article en

Abstract

Abstract Flower 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.

EcosphereVol. 17(4)
The University of Sydney (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Australian Research Council
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Plant and animal studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.