Dataset Information

Assessing pollinators' use of floral resource subsidies in agri-environment schemes: An illustration using Phacelia tanacetifolia and honeybees.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) are frequently used in agriculture for pollination services because of their abundance, generalist floral preferences, ease of management and hive transport. However, their populations are declining in many countries. Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) are being implemented in agricultural systems to combat the decline in populations of pollinators and other insects. Despite AES being increasingly embedded in policy and budgets, scientific assessments of many of these schemes still are lacking, and only a few studies have examined the extent to which insect pollinators use the floral enhancements that are part of AES and on which floral components they feed (i.e., pollen and/or nectar).

Methods

In the present work, we used a combination of observations on honeybee foraging for nectar/pollen from the Californian annual plant Phacelia tanacetifolia in the field, collection of pollen pellets from hives, and pollen identification, to assess the value of adding phacelia to an agro-ecosystem to benefit honeybees.

Results

It was found that phacelia pollen was almost never taken by honeybees. The work here demonstrates that honeybees may not use the floral enhancements added to a landscape as expected and points to the need for more careful assessments of what resources are used by honeybees in AES and understanding the role, if any, which AES play in enhancing pollinator fitness.

Discussion

We recommend using the methodology in this paper to explore the efficacy of AES before particular flowering species are adopted more widely to give a more complete illustration of the actual efficacy of AES.

SUBMITTER: Sprague R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5119232 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing pollinators' use of floral resource subsidies in agri-environment schemes: An illustration using <i>Phacelia tanacetifolia</i> and honeybees.

Sprague Rowan R Boyer Stéphane S Stevenson Georgia M GM Wratten Steve D SD

PeerJ 20161115

<h4>Background</h4>Honeybees (<i>Apis mellifera</i> L.) are frequently used in agriculture for pollination services because of their abundance, generalist floral preferences, ease of management and hive transport. However, their populations are declining in many countries. Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) are being implemented in agricultural systems to combat the decline in populations of pollinators and other insects. Despite AES being increasingly embedded in policy and budgets, scientific asse ...[more]

PMID: 27896027

Similar Datasets

Project description:Understanding how urbanization alters functional interactions among pollinators and plants is critically important given increasing anthropogenic land use and declines in pollinator populations. Pollinators often exhibit short-term specialization and visit plants of the same species during one foraging trip. This facilitates plant receipt of conspecific pollen-pollen on a pollinator that is the same species as the plant on which the pollinator was foraging. Conspecific pollen receipt facilitates plant reproductive success and is thus important to plant and pollinator persistence. We investigated how urbanization affects short-term specialization of insect pollinators by examining pollen loads on insects' bodies and identifying the number and species of pollen grains on insects caught in urban habitat fragments and natural areas. We assessed possible drivers of differences between urban and natural areas, including frequency dependence in foraging, species richness and diversity of the plant and pollinator communities, floral abundance, and the presence of invasive plant species. Pollinators were more specialized in urban fragments than in natural areas, despite no differences in the species richness of plant communities across site types. These differences were likely driven by higher specialization of common pollinators, which were more abundant in urban sites. In addition, pollinators preferred to forage on invasive plants at urban sites and native plants at natural sites. Our findings reveal indirect effects of urbanization on pollinator fidelity to individual plant species and have implications for the maintenance of plant species diversity in small habitat fragments. Higher preference of pollinators for invasive plants at urban sites suggests that native species may receive fewer visits by pollinators. Therefore, native plant species diversity may decline in urban sites without continued augmentation of urban flora or removal of invasive species.