Publications
NIBIOs employees contribute to several hundred scientific articles and research reports every year. You can browse or search in our collection which contains references and links to these publications as well as other research and dissemination activities. The collection is continously updated with new and historical material.
2026
Authors
Linn Vassvik Anders Nielsen Michael Garratt Bjørn Arild Hatteland Joseph Chipperfield Erik Trond AschehougAbstract
In 1968 Free published a paper titled "Dandelion as a competitor to fruit trees for bee visits", and since then mwoing the understory vegetation has been common practice in apple orchards. However, Free's study only included honeybees, and recent research shows that apple flowers need a diverse pollinator community for optimal quality and yield. Wild bees need a diverse floral diet to survive, raising the following questions: Do wild bees also prefer dandelions over apple flowers? And will dandelions compete with apple flowers when all pollinators are considered?
Abstract
Apple is the third most grown fruit worldwide and relies on pollinator visits to increase both fruit quality and yield. Apple, like many other crops, flowers for a short and intensive period, making the collection of high-quality data on pollinator visits challenging and time-consuming when relying on traditional human observations. We therefore tested whether cameras can be used to increase data collection on pollinator visits to apple flowers, and the advantages and limitations camera-based observations has compared to manual observations. Cameras were deployed in five apple orchards in Eastern Norway during apple flowering. Each camera was positioned facing a selection of flowers, on which manual observations were also conducted. Cameras took a photo every minute from sunrise (04:30) to sun set (22:00), and manual observations were conducted twice a day, between 08:00-13:00, and 13:00-19:00, with each observation lasting five minutes. All bees visiting a flower were recorded and classified as honeybees, bumblebees, or solitary bees. Flower phenology was also recorded daily. Preliminary results show that cameras detected almost twice as many bee visits as manual observations. In addition, cameras captured visitation across all hours of the day, throughout the entire flowering period, providing detailed temporal and spatial information on bee activity and phenology. Our study provides valuable insights that cameras are a powerful tool to collect information on pollinator visits to apple flowers, enabling more comprehensive and temporally resolved datasets than traditional observations. Such improvements in data quality are essential for advancing applied pollination research and for informing management strategies aimed at sustaining crop yields under increasing environmental and agricultural pressures.
Authors
Magda KarloAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Brett Kevin Sandercock Martin Malmstrøm Eva Bonsak Thorstad Anders Nielsen Paul Ragnar Berg Anders Bryn Kjetil Hindar Lars Robert Hole Johanna Järnegren Kyrre Kausrud Lawrence R. Kirkendall Erlend Birkeland Nilsen Gaute VelleAbstract
VKM assessed the potential risks to biodiversity in Norway associated with the import and release of biocontrol agents for management of house flies and stable flies in poultry farms, pig or sheep barns, cattle feedlots, and horse stables. Effective control of filth flies requires repeated releases of up to one million mass-reared individuals, but recent permits have restricted releases to lower numbers. Risk assessments were completed for the dump fly Hydrotaea aenescens, the parasitoid wasps Spalangia cameroni, S. endius, Nasonia vitripennis, Muscidifurax raptor, M. raptorellus and M. zarapator, and the hister beetle Carcinops pumilio. Nasonia vitripennis is a native species in Norway, C. pumilio is a non-native species that is widely established in Norway, and S. cameroni occurs on pig farms in southern Norway. Hydrotaea aenescens and M. raptor have been detected in low numbers, whereas S. endius, M. raptorellus and M. zaraptor have not been reported in Norway. The biological control agents are generalist predators and parasitoids that could affect native species through six impact mechanisms from the Environmental Impact Classification for Alien Taxa: competition, predation, hybridization, disease transmission, parasitism, and indirect effects. No impacts on native biodiversity have been documented where the non-native species occur in Norway or elsewhere. The potential for establishment and spread is low because the non-native species are associated with manmade habitats, have poor dispersal ability, and are warm-adapted species unlikely to cope with cold winters. Mitigation measures can reduce risks during import from commercial suppliers and releases in farms and stables, whereas surveillance programs could detect unexpected changes in insect communities. VKM concludes that the risks to native biodiversity in Norway are likely to be low from use of these biocontrol agents for management of pest flies in animal production facilities.
Authors
Zhe Yu Yihui Du Qianwen Ding Qiang Hao Hongwei Yang Kerou Shi Chao Ran Yalin Yang Chen Wang Johan Johansen Giovanna Ottaviani Aalmo Zhen Zhang Zhigang ZhouAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Lampros LamprinakisAbstract
No abstract has been registered
Abstract
No abstract has been registered
Authors
Habtamu AlemAbstract
The lecture provides practical guidance on research proposal development and international funding opportunities, with a particular focus on Horizon Europe. It covers how to identify suitable funding calls, understand call requirements and eligibility, develop competitive research ideas, formulate clear and measurable objectives, and design a sound research methodology. It also explains the main components of a Horizon Europe proposal, including Part A and Part B, and provides step-by-step guidance on writing the Excellence, Impact, and Implementation sections. The lecture further addresses international partnership and consortium building, work packages, deliverables, milestones, risks, staff effort, budget allocation, dissemination, exploitation, communication, and proposal evaluation criteria. Real and illustrative project examples, including collaborations between Norwegian and African universities, are used to connect proposal-writing principles with practical research funding experience.