Honey bee-native bee competition: focal point for environmental change and apicultural response in Australia

Sugden, Evan A.; Thorp, Robin W.; Buchmann, Stephen L.

doi:10.1080/0005772x.1996.11099280

Cited by 59 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consequently the fecundity, abundance, and ultimately survival of the wild bees are thought to be affected. Some authors have shown a negative impact of honey bees on native bee foraging, reproduction, and populations (Pyke & Balzer, 1985;Sugden, Thorp & Buchmann, 1996;Kato et al, 1999;Goulson & Sparrow, 2009); whereas other researchers did not find such impacts (Butz Huryn, 1997;Horskins & Turner, 1999;Roubik & Wolda, 2001;Paini, Williams & Roberts, 2005). The various and contrasting results among the studies, or in some cases even among areas/seasons from the same study, may arise from multiple factors that may affect the relationship between honey bees and wild bees (i.e.…”

Section: Goras Et Al 50contrasting

confidence: 39%

“…In the last few decades, several researchers have studied the competitive effects of managed honey bees on native bees with conflicting results (Sugden, Thorp & Buchmann, 1996;Butz Huryn, 1997;Kato et al, 1999;Paini, 2004;Paini, Williams & Roberts, 2005;Goulson & Sparrow, 2009). The great majority of the studies were carried out in areas where honey bees were introduced relatively recently (Wils, Lyons & Bell, 1990;Schwarz, Gross & Kukuk, 1991;Bailey, 1994;Roubik, 1996;Paton, 1999;Gross, 2001;Goulson, Stout & Kells, 2002;Inoue, Yokoyama & Washitani, 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Goras

Tananaki

Dimou

et al. 2016

Journal of Apicultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A b s t r a c t Honey bees are globally regarded as important crop pollinators and are also valued for their honey production. They have been introduced on an almost worldwide scale. During recent years, however, several studies argue their possible competition with unmanaged pollinators. Here we examine the possible effects of honey bees on the foraging behaviour of wild bees on Cistus creticus flowers in Northern Greece. We gradually introduced one, five, and eight honey-bee hives per site, each containing ca. 20,000 workers. The visitation frequency and visit duration of wild bees before and after the beehive introductions were measured by flower observation. While the visitation frequencies of wild bees were unaffected, the average time wild bees spent on C. creticus increased with the introduction of the honey-bee hives. Although competition between honey bees and wild bees is often expected, we did not find any clear evidence for significant effects even in honey-bee densities much higher than the European-wide average of 3.1 colonies/km 2 .Keywords: Apis mellifera, Cistus creticus, competition, Mediterranean, native bees 1 Laboratory of Apiculture-Sericulture, School of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece 2 Laboratory of Biogeography and Ecology, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, Greece INTRODUCTIONMost plant species depend on animal pollination for their reproduction . Plant-pollinator relationships are of great importance to ecosystem health (Costanza et al., 1997; Kearns, Inouye & Weser, 1998). During recent years, the biodiversity and number of native bees have been repeatedly reported to be in decline worldwide. The decline is mainly due to changes of agricultural activities such as changes in land use, modern agricultural practices, and pesticide use (Allen-Wardell et al., 1998;Potts et al., 2006;Kremen et al., 2007;Goulson et al., 2008; Brown & Paxton, 2009). Pollinator efficiency, and therefore, pollination effectiveness, is strongly related to the compatibility between flowers and their pollinators. Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are extremely polylectic insects (Cane & Sipes, 2006) visiting and pollinating a variety of species (Crane, 1990;Free, 1993;Vaughton, 1992;Gross, 2001;Dupont et al., 2004). In addition, honey bees have been widely and successfully used as pollinators in crop systems (Free, 1993;Morse & Calderone, 2000;Artz, Hsu & Nault, 2011). Several studies, however, have shown that for certain plant species, honey bees are less efficient pollinators compared to wild flower visitors. The continued use of the honey bees and their possible competition with wild bees in natural areas might gradually affect both fauna and flora (Schaffer et al., 1983;Taylor & Whelan, 1988;Westerkamp, 1991;Vaughton, 1996;Gross & Mackay, 1998; Hansen, Olsen & Jones, 2002; Whelan, Ayre & Benyuon, 2009 Impact of honeybee density on wild bees Competition between honey bees and wild bees is believed to affect the foraging behaviour of wild bees. Consequently the fecundity...

show abstract

Section: Goras Et Al 50contrasting

confidence: 39%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Goras

Tananaki

Dimou

et al. 2016

Journal of Apicultural Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is very difficult, because this level of spatial resolution does not allow for control of all of the multi-scaled factors influencing the abundance of foraging bees (Sudgen et al, 1996). However, investigations on measuring competition effects must be extended to the landscape scale and should be long-term studies rather than observing just a few weeks within the colony cycle.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the mechanisms underlying these interactions are difficult to test in the field. Many studies on resource overlap and possible competition with native wild bees have been carried out in regions where honeybees had been introduced (Buchmann, 1996;Buchmann and Nabhan, 1996;Sudgen et al, 1996;Butz Huryn, 1997). Though honeybees are native to Europe, extraordinarily Corresponding author: K. Walther-Hellwig, walther-hellwig@web.de * Manuscript editor: Jacqueline Pierre high local densities may adversely impact species richness and abundance of wild bees (Westrich, 1989;Evertz, 1995;Corbet et al, 1995;Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke, 2000;Steffan-Dewenter and Kuhn, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increased density of honeybee colonies affects foraging bumblebees

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-The increasing numbers of endangered wild bee species highlights the need for quantifying potential adverse effects of foraging honeybees. We analysed the response of bumblebees at genus and species level to experimentally increased honeybee density. The study was carried out on a Phacelia tanacetifolia field and adjacent patches of wild plants located in an agricultural landscape. Addition of one or ten A. m. ligustica colonies substantially increased total honeybee density not only on Phacelia but also on neighbouring patches of wild plants. The response of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) differed among species. Only minor spatial changes in the abundance of the short-tongued B. terrestris-group were observed on Phacelia. At wild plant patches, the B. lapidarius-group and the longer tongued bumblebee species (B. muscorum, B. sylvarum, B. pascuorum) responded with a shift between plant species. Limitations of competition avoidance in flower-impoverished landscapes are discussed.Apis mellifera / Bombus / competition avoidance / foraging / exploitative competition

show abstract

“…Indeed, advanced eusociality in bees would seem to have had the same general effect that it has had in the ants, termites, and wasps; that is, social cooperation has led to ecological dominance. Honey bees (Apis), in particular, are aggressive foragers and sometimes outcompete other native-bee species foraging for the same floral resources (29)(30)(31)(32)(33). In areas that the western honey bee, Apis mellifera, has been introduced, the diversity of native bees has become diminished somewhat, with some species competitively excluded, including other advanced eusocial lineages (29,30,32,(34)(35)(36).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monophyly and extensive extinction of advanced eusocial bees: Insights from an unexpected Eocene diversity

Engel¹

2001

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advanced eusociality sometimes is given credit for the ecological success of termites, ants, some wasps, and some bees. Comprehensive study of bees fossilized in Baltic amber has revealed an unsuspected middle Eocene (ca. 45 million years ago) diversity of eusocial bee lineages. Advanced eusociality arose once in the bees with significant post-Eocene losses in diversity, leaving today only two advanced eusocial tribes comprising less than 2% of the total bee diversity, a trend analogous to that of hominid evolution. This pattern of changing diversity contradicts notions concerning the role of eusociality for evolutionary success in insects.Apidae ͉ Baltic amber ͉ Hominidae ͉ Paleogene

show abstract

Honey bee-native bee competition: focal point for environmental change and apicultural response in Australia

Cited by 59 publications

References 39 publications

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Impact of honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) density on wild bee foraging behaviour

Increased density of honeybee colonies affects foraging bumblebees

Monophyly and extensive extinction of advanced eusocial bees: Insights from an unexpected Eocene diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About