Dataset Information

Assessing the role of dispersed floral resources for managed bees in providing supporting ecosystem services for crop pollination.

ABSTRACT: Most pollination ecosystem services studies have focussed on wild pollinators and their dependence on natural floral resources adjacent to crop fields. However, managed pollinators depend on a mixture of floral resources that are spatially separated from the crop field. Here, we consider the supporting role these resources play as an ecosystem services provider to quantify the use and availability of floral resources, and to estimate their relative contribution to support pollination services of managed honeybees. Beekeepers supplying pollination services to the Western Cape deciduous fruit industry were interviewed to obtain information on their use of floral resources. For 120 apiary sites, we also analysed floral resources within a two km radius of each site based on geographic data. The relative availability of floral resources at sites was compared to regional availability. The relative contribution of floral resources-types to sustain managed honeybees was estimated. Beekeepers showed a strong preference for eucalypts and canola. Beekeepers selectively placed more hives at sites with eucalypt and canola and less with natural vegetation. However, at the landscape-scale, eucalypt was the least available resource, whereas natural vegetation was most common. Based on analysis of apiary sites, we estimated that 700,818 ha of natural vegetation, 73,910 ha of canola fields, and 10,485 ha of eucalypt are used to support the managed honeybee industry in the Western Cape. Whereas the Cape managed honeybee system uses a bee native to the region, alien plant species appear disproportionately important among the floral resources being exploited. We suggest that an integrated approach, including evidence from interview and landscape data, and fine-scale biological data is needed to study floral resources supporting managed honeybees.

SUBMITTER: Melin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6164548 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing the role of dispersed floral resources for managed bees in providing supporting ecosystem services for crop pollination.

Melin Annalie A Rouget Mathieu M Colville Jonathan F JF Midgley Jeremy J JJ Donaldson John S JS

PeerJ 20180927

Most pollination ecosystem services studies have focussed on wild pollinators and their dependence on natural floral resources adjacent to crop fields. However, managed pollinators depend on a mixture of floral resources that are spatially separated from the crop field. Here, we consider the supporting role these resources play as an ecosystem services provider to quantify the use and availability of floral resources, and to estimate their relative contribution to support pollination services of ...[more]

PMID: 30280031

Similar Datasets

Project description:Modeling pollination ecosystem services requires a spatially explicit, process-based approach because they depend on both the behavioral responses of pollinators to the amount and spatial arrangement of habitat and on the within- and between-season dynamics of pollinator populations in response to land use. We describe a novel pollinator model predicting flower visitation rates by wild central-place foragers (e.g., nesting bees) in spatially explicit landscapes. The model goes beyond existing approaches by: (1) integrating preferential use of more rewarding floral and nesting resources; (2) considering population growth over time; (3) allowing different dispersal distances for workers and reproductives; (4) providing visitation rates for use in crop pollination models. We use the model to estimate the effect of establishing grassy field margins offering nesting resources and a low quantity of flower resources, and/or late-flowering flower strips offering no nesting resources but abundant flowers, on bumble bee populations and visitation rates to flowers in landscapes that differ in amounts of linear seminatural habitats and early mass-flowering crops. Flower strips were three times more effective in increasing pollinator populations and visitation rates than field margins, and this effect increased over time. Late-blooming flower strips increased early-season visitation rates, but decreased visitation rates in other late-season flowers. Increases in population size over time in response to flower strips and amounts of linear seminatural habitats reduced this apparent competition for pollinators. Our spatially explicit, process-based model generates emergent patterns reflecting empirical observations, such that adding flower resources may have contrasting short- and long-term effects due to apparent competition for pollinators and pollinator population size increase. It allows exploring these effects and comparing effect sizes in ways not possible with other existing models. Future applications include species comparisons, analysis of the sensitivity of predictions to life-history traits, as well as large-scale management intervention and policy assessment.

Project description:Background and aimsPollen-collecting bees are among the most important pollinators globally, but are also the most common pollen thieves and can significantly reduce plant reproduction. The pollination efficiency of pollen collectors depends on the frequency of their visits to female(-phase) flowers, contact with stigmas and deposition of pollen of sufficient quantity and quality to fertilize ovules. Here we investigate the relative importance of these components, and the hypothesis that floral and inflorescence characteristics mediate the pollination role of pollen collection by bees.MethodsFor ten Aloe species that differ extensively in floral and inflorescence traits, we experimentally excluded potential bird pollinators to quantify the contributions of insect visitors to pollen removal, pollen deposition and seed production. We measured corolla width and depth to determine nectar accessibility, and the phenology of anther dehiscence and stigma receptivity to quantify herkogamy and dichogamy. Further, we compiled all published bird-exclusion studies of aloes, and compared insect pollination success with floral morphology.Key resultsSpecies varied from exclusively insect pollinated, to exclusively bird pollinated but subject to extensive pollen theft by insects. Nectar inaccessibility and strong dichogamy inhibited pollination by pollen-collecting bees by discouraging visits to female-phase (i.e. pollenless) flowers. For species with large inflorescences of pollen-rich flowers, pollen collectors successfully deposited pollen, but of such low quality (probably self-pollen) that they made almost no contribution to seed set. Indeed, considering all published bird-exclusion studies (17 species in total), insect pollination efficiency varied significantly with floral shape.ConclusionsSpecies-specific floral and inflorescence characteristics, especially nectar accessibility and dichogamy, control the efficiency of pollen-collecting bees as pollinators of aloes.

Project description:Bees are critical for crop pollination, but there is limited information on levels and sources of pesticide exposure in commercial agriculture. We collected pollen from foraging honey bees and bumble bees returning to colonies placed in blooming blueberry fields with different management approaches (conventional, organic, unmanaged) and located across different landscape settings to determine how these factors affect pesticide exposure. We also identified the pollen and analyzed whether pesticide exposure was correlated with corbicular load composition. Across 188 samples collected in 2 years, we detected 80 of the 259 pesticide active ingredients (AIs) screened for using a modified QuEChERS method. Detections included 28 fungicides, 26 insecticides, and 21 herbicides. All samples contained pesticides (mean = 22 AIs per pollen sample), with pollen collected from bees on conventional fields having significantly higher average concentrations (2019 mean = 882.0 ppb) than those on unmanaged fields (2019 mean = 279.6 ppb). Pollen collected by honey bees had more AIs than pollen collected by bumble bees (mean = 35 vs. 19 AIs detected at each farm, respectively), whereas samples from bumble bees had higher average concentrations, likely reflecting differences in foraging behavior. Blueberry pollen was more common in pollen samples collected by bumble bees (25.9% per sample) than honey bees (1.8%), though pesticide concentrations were only correlated with blueberry pollen for honey bees. Pollen collected at farms with more blueberry in the surrounding landscape had higher pesticide concentrations, mostly AIs applied for control of blueberry pathogens and pests during bloom. However, for honey bees, the majority of AIs detected at each farm are not registered for use on blueberry at any time (55.2% of AIs detected), including several highly toxic insecticides. These AIs therefore came from outside the fields and farms they are expected to pollinate. For bumble bees, the majority of AIs detected in their pollen are registered for use on blueberry during bloom (56.9% of AIs detected), though far fewer AIs were sprayed at the focal farm (16.7%). Our results highlight the need for integrated farm and landscape-scale stewardship of pesticides to reduce exposure to pollinators during crop pollination.

Dataset Information

Assessing the role of dispersed floral resources for managed bees in providing supporting ecosystem services for crop pollination.

Publications

Assessing the role of dispersed floral resources for managed bees in providing supporting ecosystem services for crop pollination.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets