52 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Evaluating competition for forage plants between honey bees and wild bees in Denmark
A recurrent concern in nature conservation is the potential competition for forage plants between wild bees and managed honey bees. Specifically, that the highly sophisticated system of recruitment and large perennial colonies of honey bees quickly exhaust forage resources leading to the local extirpation of wild bees. However, different species of bees show different preferences for forage plants. We here summarize known forage plants for honey bees and wild bee species at national scale in Denmark. Our focus is on floral resources shared by honey bees and wild bees, with an emphasis on both threatened wild bee species and foraging specialist species. Across all 292 known bee species from Denmark, a total of 410 plant genera were recorded as forage plants. These included 294 plant genera visited by honey bees and 292 plant genera visited by different species of wild bees. Honey bees and wild bees share 176 plant genera in Denmark. Comparing the pairwise niche overlap for individual bee species, no significant relationship was found between their overlap and forage specialization or conservation status. Network analysis of the bee-plant interactions placed honey bees aside from most other bee species, specifically the module containing the honey bee had fewer links to any other modules, while the remaining modules were more highly inter-connected. Despite the lack of predictive relationship from the pairwise niche overlap, data for individual species could be summarized. Consequently, we have identified a set of operational parameters that, based on a high foraging overlap (>70%) and unfavorable conservation status (Vulnerable+Endangered+Critically Endangered), can guide both conservation actions and land management decisions in proximity to known or suspected populations of these species
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
Wild andmanaged bees arewell documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.Peer Reviewe
Bees increase seed set of wild plants while the proportion of arable land has a variable effect on pollination in European agricultural landscapes
Background and aims - Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods - Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results - Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion - Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants.Peer reviewe
Recommended from our members
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines
Moving past neonicotinoids and honeybees : A systematic review of existing research on other insecticides and bees
Synthetic pesticides (e.g. herbicides, fungicides and insecticides) are used widely in agriculture to protect crops from pests, weeds and disease. However, their use also comes with a range of environmental concerns. One key concern is the effect of insecticides on non-target organisms such as bees, who provide pollination services for crops and wild plants. This systematic literature review quantifies the existing research on bees and insecticides broadly, and then focuses more specifically on non-neonicotinoid insecticides and non-honeybees. We find that articles on honeybees (Apis sp.) and insecticides account for 80% of all research, with all other bees combined making up 20%. Neonicotinoids were studied in 34% of articles across all bees and were the most widely studied insecticide class for non-honeybees overall, with almost three times as many studies than the second most studied class. Of non-neonicotinoid insecticide classes and non-honeybees, the most studied were pyrethroids and organophosphates followed by carbamates, and the most widely represented bee taxa were bumblebees (Bombus), followed by leaf-cutter bees (Megachile) and mason bees (Osmia). Research has taken place across several countries, with the highest numbers of articles from Brazil and the US, and with notable gaps from countries in Asia, Africa and Oceania. Mortality was the most studied effect type, while sub-lethal effects such as on behaviour were less studied. Few studies tested how the effect of insecticides were influenced by multiple pressures, such as climate change and co-occurring pesticides (cocktail effects). As anthropogenic pressures do not occur in isolation, we suggest that future research also addresses these knowledge gaps. Given the changing global patterns in insecticide use, and the increasing inclusion of both non-honeybees and sub-lethal effects in pesticide risk assessment, there is a need for expanding research beyond its current state to ensure a strong scientific evidence base for the development of risk assessment and associated policy
- …