Bee conservation: Inclusive solutions

Kleijn, David; Biesmeijer, Koos; Dupont, Yoko L.; Nielsen, Anders; Potts, Simon G.; Settele, Josef

doi:10.1126/science.aat2054

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, the latter value, which stands for a 50% land-sharing between honey production and wild bee conservation, is only slightly more permissive than previous recommendations (3.1 colonies/km 2 in 42 or 3.5 colonies/km 2 in 6 ). But most importantly, the distance-based thresholds we suggest herein might help inform the recent debate on the effectiveness of beekeeping regulation in protected areas with respect to honeybee foraging range 14 , 15 . Given the high mobility of foraging honeybees, protected areas may be theoretically exploited from off-site apiaries located up to 10 km away, potentially making local regulation rules inefficient 14 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…But most importantly, the distance-based thresholds we suggest herein might help inform the recent debate on the effectiveness of beekeeping regulation in protected areas with respect to honeybee foraging range 14 , 15 . Given the high mobility of foraging honeybees, protected areas may be theoretically exploited from off-site apiaries located up to 10 km away, potentially making local regulation rules inefficient 14 . On the other hand, such extreme foraging ranges are thought to be uncommon, and competition effects is rather expected to range around the mean honeybee foraging distances, i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…In the absence of clear evidence of the underlying ecological processes, and without specific guideline or legislation on this issue, protected land managers remain unaware of the potential threat high-density beekeeping poses to their nature conservation efforts. Uncertainty also fuels the debate among bee biologists 14 – 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Controlling the impact of the managed honeybee on wild bees in protected areas

Henry¹,

Rodet²

2018

Sci Rep

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, conservation biologists have raised awareness about the risk of ecological interference between massively introduced managed honeybees and the native wild bee fauna in protected natural areas. In this study, we surveyed wild bees and quantified their nectar and pollen foraging success in a rosemary Mediterranean scrubland in southern France, under different conditions of apiary size and proximity. We found that high-density beekeeping triggers foraging competition which depresses not only the occurrence (−55%) and nectar foraging success (−50%) of local wild bees but also nectar (−44%) and pollen (−36%) harvesting by the honeybees themselves. Overall, those competition effects spanned distances of 600–1.100 m around apiaries, i.e. covering 1.1–3.8km2 areas. Regardless the considered competition criterion, setting distance thresholds among apiaries appeared more tractable than setting colony density thresholds for beekeeping regulation. Moreover, the intraspecific competition among the honeybees has practical implications for beekeepers. It shows that the local carrying capacity has been exceeded and raises concerns for honey yields and colony sustainability. It also offers an effective ecological criterion for pragmatic decision-making whenever conservation practitioners envision progressively reducing beekeeping in protected areas. Although specific to the studied area, the recommendations provided here may help raise consciousness about the threat high-density beekeeping may pose to local nature conservation initiatives, especially in areas with sensitive or endangered plant or bee species such as small oceanic islands with high levels of endemism.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Controlling the impact of the managed honeybee on wild bees in protected areas

Henry¹,

Rodet²

2018

Sci Rep

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…European Food Safety Authority 2013). The legitimacy of the honey bee as a conservation proxy has been challenged (Colla and MacIvor 2017;Geldmann and González-Varo 2018), and debate about the attention the honey bee deserves relative to other species continues (Kleijn et al 2018;Saunders, Smith, and Rader 2018). Our concern here, though, is not with the ecological significance of honey bees as such, but rather with what may be considered an epiphenomenon of the honey bee's prominence in the public imagination: the rise of urban beekeeping and its role in the socioecology of cities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beekeeping in, of, or for the city? A socioecological perspective on urban apiculture

Sponsler¹,

Bratman²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The term “urban beekeeping” has come to connote a host meanings --- sociopolitical, commercial, ecological, personal --- beyond the mere description of where bees and beekeepers happen to coincide. Yet these meanings are seldom articulated explicitly and seldom brought into critical engagement with the relevant fields of urban ecology and political ecology. Beginning with a brief account of the history of urban beekeeping in the United States, we draw upon urban ecological theory to construct a conceptual model for classifying urban beekeeping in terms of socioecological integration and socioecological activism. In our model, beekeeping *in* the city describes the mere importation of the traditionally rural practice of beekeeping into urban spaces for the private reasons of the individual beekeeper, while beekeeping *of* the city describes beekeeping that is consciously tailored to the urban context, often accompanied by (semi)professionalization of beekeepers and the formation of local expert communities (i.e. beekeeping associations). Beekeeping *for* the city describes a shift in mindset in which beekeeping is directed to civic ends beyond the boundaries of the beekeeping community *per se*. Using this model, we identify and discuss specific socioecological assets and liabilities of urban beekeeping, and how these relate to the form of urban beekeeping practiced. Based on these assets and liabilities, we then formulate actionable steps for maturing the practice of urban beekeeping into a beneficent and self-critical form of urban ecological citizenship; these include fostering self-regulation within the beekeeping community, harnessing beekeeping as a “gateway” experience for a broader rapprochement between urban residents and nature, and recognizing the political-ecological context of beekeeping with respect to matters of socioecological justice. We conclude by situating our analysis within the larger context of multispecies approaches to the study of cities as coupled human-natural systems.

show abstract

“…As a consequence, the pressure of managed honey bees on wild bees has led to a growing debate between the need for the conservation of native and wild bees and the use of managed honey bees in natural and protected areas (Geldmann and González-Varo, 2018;González-Varo and Geldmann, 2018;Kleijn et al, 2018;Saunders et al, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%