A new, practicable and economical cage design for experimental studies on small honey bee colonies

Bees are in decline globally as a result of multiple stressors including pests, pathogens and contaminants. The management of bees in enclosures can identify causes of decline under standardized conditions but the logistics of conducting effect studies in typical systems used across several colonies is complex and costly. This study details a practicable, new and economical cage system that effectively houses live honey bee colonies to investigate the impact of physical conditions, biological factors and environmental contaminants on honey bee health. The method has broad application for a range of effect studies concerning honey bee development, physiology, survival and population dynamics because it enables entire colonies, as opposed to individual workers, to be managed well in captivity

The role of flies as pollinators of horticultural crops : an Australian case study with worldwide relevance

Australian horticulture relies heavily on the introduced managed honey bee, Apis mellifera Linnaeus 1758 (Hymenoptera: Apidae), to pollinate crops. Given the risks associated with reliance upon a single species, it would be prudent to identify other taxa that could be managed to provide crop pollination services. We reviewed the literature relating to the distribution, efficiency and management potential of a number of flies (Diptera) known to visit pollinator-dependent crops in Australia and worldwide. Applying this information, we identified the taxa most suitable to play a greater role as managed pollinators in Australian crops. Of the taxa reviewed, flower visitation by representatives from the dipteran families Calliphoridae, Rhiniidae and Syrphidae was frequently reported in the literature. While data available are limited, there was clear evidence of pollination by these flies in a range of crops. A review of fly morphology, foraging behaviour and physiology revealed considerable potential for their development as managed pollinators, either alone or to augment honey bee services. Considering existing pollination evidence, along with the distribution, morphology, behaviour and life history traits of introduced and endemic species, 11 calliphorid, two rhiniid and seven syrphid species were identified as candidates with high potential for use in Australian managed pollination services. Research directions for the comprehensive assessment of the pollination abilities of the identified taxa to facilitate their development as a pollination service are described. This triage approach to identifying species with high potential to become significant managed pollinators at local or regional levels is clearly widely applicable to other countries and taxa

Does sorting by color using visible and high‐energy violet light improve classification of taxa in honey bee pollen pellets?

Premise: Pollen collected by honey bees from different plant species often differs in color, and this has been used as a basis for plant identification. The objective of this study was to develop a new, low-cost protocol to sort pollen pellets by color using high-energy violet light and visible light to determine whether pollen pellet color is associated with variations in plant species identity.
 Methods and Results: We identified 35 distinct colors and found that 52% of pollen subsamples (n = 200) were dominated by a single taxon. Among these near-pure pellets, only one color consistently represented a single pollen taxon (Asteraceae: Cichorioideae). Across the spectrum of colors spanning yellows, oranges, and browns, similarly colored pollen pellets contained pollen from multiple plant families ranging from two to 13 families per color.
 Conclusions: Sorting pollen pellets illuminated under high-energy violet light lit from four directions within a custom-made light box aided in distinguishing pellet composition, especially in pellets within the same color

The golden native drone fly (Eristalinus punctulatus) is an effective hybrid carrot pollinator that lives within Australian crop agroecosystems

1. Native insect flower visitors can be important contributors to crop pollination, yet little is known of their pollination abilities and the resources (habitat) they need to be supported within crop agroecosystems. 2. Here, we compared the abundance and pollination abilities of the golden drone fly (Eristalinus punctulatus) to the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in hybrid carrot crop fields known to produce variable seed yields in regional New South Wales, Australia. We further observed the egg-laying behaviours of female golden drone flies at a commercial berry orchard to provide insight into the habitat needs of this species. 3. In hybrid carrot crop fields, golden drone flies were far less abundant flower visitors than European honey bees" however, these flies deposited more carrot pollen grains on average (8.21±3.04SE) onto carrot flowers than European honey bees (3.45±1.06SE). Both insects also deposited pollen onto a similar number of carrot flowers (pollinated) per visit (about 2 out of 18). 4. Golden drone flies were observed laying eggs within masses of discarded red raspberry plant roots and soil (root balls) at a commercial berry orchard. The natural habitat utilised by these flies, as well as their egg-laying behaviours, were described for the first time. 5. Our results indicate that golden drone flies are effective pollinators of hybrid carrot crop plants. The habitat that these flies utilised to lay eggs (discarded plants and water) is cheap and commonly found in crop agroecosystems. Therefore, we recommend placing this low-cost habitat within, or nearby, crop fields as a potential management practice to support the lifecycle needs of golden drone flies and other non-bee pollinators

Corrigendum: Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments

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

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

Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases

Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises

Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments