Land cover composition, local plant community composition and honeybee colony density affect wild bee species assemblages in a Mediterranean biodiversity hot-spot

Ropars, Lise; Affre, Laurence; Schurr, Lucie; Flacher, Floriane; Genoud, David; Mutillod, Clémentine; Geslin, Benoît

doi:10.1016/j.actao.2020.103546

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on this estimation the map in Figure 3 shows that beekeeping based on current data is unsustainable in most locations in London. This is a serious problem for bee conservation because honey bees can outcompete wild bees by monopolizing floral resources (Geslin et al., 2017; Henry & Rodet, 2018; Herrera, 2020; Mallinger, Gaines‐Day, & Gratton, 2017; Ropars et al., 2019, 2020; Torné‐Noguera, Rodrigo, Osorio, & Bosch, 2016). Wild pollinator populations may also be weakened by diseases spilling over from honey bees (Alger, Alexander Burnham, Boncristiani, & Brody, 2019; Fürst, McMahon, Osborne, Paxton, & Brown, 2014; Graystock, Blane, McFrederick, Goulson, & Hughes, 2016; Singh et al., 2010).…”

Section: Urban Trees and Beesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state of the world’s urban ecosystems: What can we learn from trees, fungi, and bees?

Stevenson

Bidartondo

Blackhall-Miles³

et al. 2020

Plants People Planet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Urban Trees and Beesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state of the world’s urban ecosystems: What can we learn from trees, fungi, and bees?

Stevenson

Bidartondo

Blackhall-Miles³

et al. 2020

Plants People Planet

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All of this suggests that massive introductions of honey bees could potentially lead to depauperate wild pollinator communities, with important consequences for natural ecosystems and agricultural productivity (Winfree et al 2007, Aizen and Harder 2009, Potts et al 2010b, Breeze et al 2011, Garibaldi et al 2013). However, the effect of honey bee density on wild pollinator diversity has been little explored (Mallinger et al 2017) and the results are so far inconclusive, with some studies reporting negative effects on pollinator richness (Valido et al 2019, Ropars et al 2020), while others failing to find any relationship with wild pollinator richness or species composition (Steffan‐Dewenter and Tscharntke 2000, Russo et al 2015, Torné‐Noguera et al 2016, Reverté et al 2019). To our knowledge, no previous study has evaluated the relationship between the density of honey bees and wild bee richness at large scales.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of beekeeping on wild bee diversity and pollination networks in the Aegean Archipelago

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining the diversity of wild bees is a priority for preserving ecosystem function and promoting stability and productivity of agroecosystems. However, wild bee communities face many threats and beekeeping could be one of them, because honey bees may have a strong potential to outcompete wild pollinators when placed at high densities. Yet, we still know little about how beekeeping intensity affects wild bee diversity and their pollinator interactions. Here, we explore how honey bee density relates to wild bee diversity and the structure of their pollination networks in 41 sites on 13 Cycladic Islands (Greece) with similar landscapes but differing in beekeeping intensity. Our large‐scale study shows that increasing honey bee visitation rate had a negative effect on wild bee species richness and abundance, although the latter effect was relatively weak compared to the effect of other landscape variables. Competition for flowering resources (as indicated by a resource sharing index) increased with the abundance of honey bees, but the effect was more moderate for wild bees in family Apidae than for bees in other families, suggesting a stronger niche segregation in Apidae in response to honey bees. Honey bees also influenced the structure of wild bee pollination networks indirectly, through changes in wild bee richness. Low richness of wild bees in sites with high honey bee abundance resulted in wild bee networks with fewer links and lower linkage density. Our results warn against beekeeping intensification in these islands and similar hotspots of bee diversity, and shed light on how benefits to pollination services of introducing honey bees may be counterbalanced by detriments to wild bees and their ecosystem services.

show abstract

“…At the local level bees can respond directly to the availability of suitable foraging, nesting, and overwintering sites in different habitats (Carvell et al 2011;Lanterman et al 2019). At the landscape level they respond to the mosaic of suitable habitats in the surrounding area (at a scale of several kilometers) and the quality of the intervening matrix that determines their connectivity (Hines and Hendrix 2005;McFrederick and LeBuhn 2006;Heard et al 2007;Ahrné et al 2009;Ropars et al 2020). At the regional level, presence of bumble bee species may vary with latitude, altitude, and other large-scale features that determine whether a location lies within the physiological tolerance of each species (Hines 2008;Dohzono and Suzuki 2010;Williams et al 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bumble bee species distributions and habitat associations in the Midwestern USA, a region of declining diversity

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are important pollinators, yet rapidly declining globally. In North America some species are thriving while others are nearing extinction. Recognizing subtle differences in species’ biology and responses to environmental factors is required to illuminate key threats and to understand their different population trajectories. We intensively surveyed bumble bees in Ohio, USA, along the receding southern boundary of many species’ ranges, to evaluate current conservation status of the state’s species. In 318 90-min field surveys across two consecutive years we observed 23,324 bumble bees of 10 species visiting 170 plant species. Habitat, landscape, latitude, and their interactions significantly influenced bumble bee abundance, species richness, and community composition during peak season. Sites planted with flowers yielded more bumble bee individuals and species than did sites not planted with bee food plants. Bombus impatiens, B. griseocollis, and B. bimaculatus comprised 93% of all observations. Their abundances all peaked in habitats planted with wildflowers, but there were species-specific responses to local and landscape factors. Three less common species (B. fervidus, B. vagans, and B. perplexus) were more likely to be found in forested landscapes, particularly in the northeastern portion of the state. Bombus perplexus was also affiliated with planted urban wildflower patches. These results provide a strong starting point for future monitoring and conservation intervention that targets less common species. A quantitative synthesis of detailed state-level and regional datasets would allow additional insight into broad scale patterns of diversity in bumble bee communities and species conservation trajectories.

show abstract

Land cover composition, local plant community composition and honeybee colony density affect wild bee species assemblages in a Mediterranean biodiversity hot-spot

Cited by 36 publications

References 60 publications

The state of the world’s urban ecosystems: What can we learn from trees, fungi, and bees?

The state of the world’s urban ecosystems: What can we learn from trees, fungi, and bees?

Impacts of beekeeping on wild bee diversity and pollination networks in the Aegean Archipelago

Bumble bee species distributions and habitat associations in the Midwestern USA, a region of declining diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About