Crop Pollination

Cultivation of pollinator-dependent crops has expanded globally, increasing our reliance on insect pollination. This essential ecosystem service is provided by a wide range of managed and wild pollinators whose abundance and diversity are thought to be in decline, threatening sustainable food production. The Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is amongst the best-monitored insects but the state of other managed pollinators is less well known. Here, we review the status and trends of all managed pollinators based on publicly accessible databases and the published literature. We found that, on a global scale, the number of managed A. mellifera colonies has increased by 85% since 1961, driven mainly by Asia. This contrasts with high reported colony overwinter mortality, especially in North America (average 26% since 2007) and Europe (average 16% since 2007). Increasing agri- cultural dependency on pollinators as well as threats associated with managing non-native pollinators have likely spurred interest in the management of alternative species for pollination, including bumble bees, stingless bees, solitary bees, and flies that have higher efficiency in pollinating specific crops. We identify 66 insect species that have been, or are considered to have the potential to be, managed for crop pollination, including seven bumble bee species and subspecies currently commercially produced mainly for the pollination of greenhouse-grown tomatoes and two species that are trap-nested in New Zealand. Other managed pollinators currently in use include eight solitary bee species (mainly for pollination services in orchards or alfalfa fields) and three fly species (mainly used in enclosures and for seed production). Additional species in each taxonomic category are under consideration for pollinator management. Examples include 15 stingless bee species that are able to buzz- pollinate, will fly in enclosures, and some of which have a history of management for honey production; their use for pollination is not yet established. To ensure sustainable, integrated pollination management in agricultural landscapes, the risks, as well as the benefits of novel managed pollinator species must be considered. We, therefore, urge the prioritization of biodiversity-friendly measures maintaining native pollinator species diversity to provide ecosystem resilience to future environmental changes.

Pollination deficits are widespread in current agriculture, so improving management for crop pollination is critical. Here we review the two most common management approaches to enhance crop pollination, species and habitat management, by providing referenced lists of successful examples. We pinpoint that these approaches have been studied in isolation from each other, with little discussion on potential synergies and trade-offs between them. The potential costs of species management (e.g., loss of biodiversity due to biological invasion), as well as the potential benefits to managed pollinator species from habitat restoration, are rarely quantified. An integrative approach to crop pollination should be implemented, accounting for the cost and benefits (including those beyond crop production) and interactions of species and habitat management.

Mass-flowering crops (MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi-natural habitats (SNHs). Across six European regions and two years, we assessed how landscape-scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator-dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator-supporting practices...

This experiment was carried out to evaluate the effect of the honeybee pollination in the production and quality of soybean seeds (Glycine max L. Merril). Seed production was higher (P=0.0001) in covered areas with honeybee colonies (50.64%) and uncovered areas (57.73%) than in covered areas without honeybee colonies. It could be concluded that honeybees were responsible for 95.5% of the pollination accomplished by insects. The pod number in covered treatment with honeybees was 61.38% higher (P=0.0002) than in the covered treatment without honeybees. The average weight of 100 seeds was larger (P=0.0001) in the area covered without honeybees, and reached 17.8 g. The medium content of crude protein in grains was 36.7% and the average oil content was 20.2%. The germination test did not show differences (P>0.05) among the seeds in different treatments. It was concluded that the honeybee pollination in the soybean increased the seeds production.

Abstract Increasing honey demand and global coverage of pollinator-dependent crops within the context of global pollinator declines have accelerated international trade in managed bees. Bee introductions into agricultural landscapes outside their native ranges have triggered noteworthy invasions, especially of the African honey bee in the Americas and the European bumble bee Bombus terrestris in southern South America, New Zealand, Tasmania, and Japan. Such invasions have displaced native bees via competition, pathogen transmission, and invaders' capacity to exploit anthropogenic landscapes. At high abundance, invasive bees can degrade the mutualistic nature of many of the flower-pollinator interactions they usurp, either directly by affecting flower performance or indirectly by reducing the pollination effectiveness of other flower visitors, with negative consequences for crop pollination and yield. We illustrate such effects with empirical examples, focusing particularly on interactions in the Americas between B. terrestris and raspberry and between the African honey bee and coffee. Despite high bee abundance and flower visitation in crops, theoretical and empirical evidence suggests that agricultural landscapes of pollinator-dependent crops dominated by invasive bees will be less productive than landscapes with more diverse pollinator assemblages. Safeguarding future crop yield and aiding the transition to more sustainable agricultural landscapes and practices require we address this impact of invasive bees. Actions include tighter regulation of the trade in bees to discourage further invasions, reducing invasive bee densities and dominance, and active enhancement of ecological infrastructure from field to landscape scales to promote wild bee abundance and diversity for sustained delivery of crop pollination services.

Pumpkins and winter squash require insect pollination to set fruit, but only three bee species are important pollinators of these crops in the Northeastern US. To determine if natural levels of pollen deposition are sufficient for full fruit production, open pollination was measured by counting pollen grains on stigmas, and open pollination was compared to supplemental hand pollination for fruit set, fruit size, and seed number. A threshold of 2300 pollen grains per stigma was sufficient for full pollination and fruit production. This threshold was met in 79 out of 80 combinations of site and sample date over four years on farms across Connecticut with a wide range of field sizes and pest management practices. Along with stigma collection, bees per flower were counted hourly on 100 flowers along a transect. Counts of bumble bees on female flowers were more closely related to the amount of pollen deposited than counts of bees on all flowers or counts of honey bees or squash bees on female flowers. There was tremendous variation in abundance of the three bee species on female flowers across farms within a year and even among years on a single farm.

Crop pollination is one of Nature's Contributions to People (NCP) that reconciles biodiversity conservation and agricultural production. NCP benefits vary across space, including among distinct political-administrative levels within nations. Moreover, initiatives to restore ecosystems may enhance NCP provision, such as crop pollination delivered by native pollinators. We mapped crop pollination demand (PD), diversity of pollinator-dependent crops, and vegetation deficit (VD) (vis-a-vis Brazilian legal requirements) across all 5570 municipalities in Brazil. Pollinator-dependent crops represented ∼55% of the annual monetary value of agricultural production and ∼15% of the annual crop production. Municipalities with greater crop PD (i.e., higher degree of pollinator dependence of crop production) also had greater VD, associated with large properties and monocultures. In contrast, municipalities with a greater diversity of pollinator-dependent crops and predominantly small properties presented a smaller VD. Our results support that ecological restoration prompted by legal requirements offers great potential to promote crop productivity in larger properties. Moreover, conservation of vegetation remnants could support food security in small properties. We provided the first steps to identify spatial patterns linking biodiversity conservation and pollination service. Using Brazilian legal requirements as an example, we show that land-use management policies may be successfully used to ensure agricultural sustainability and crop production.

Mass-flowering crops (MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi-natural habitats (SNHs). Across six European regions and 2 years, we assessed how landscape-scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were generally unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator-dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator-supporting p...

In the last decades, pollinators have drastically declined as a consequence of anthropogenic activities that have local and global impacts. The food industry has been expanding intensive agriculture crops, many of them dependent on animal pollination, but simultaneously reducing native pollinator habitats. Chile is a good example of this situation. Chile is becoming an agro-alimentary powerhouse in Latin America, where intensive agriculture expansion is performed at the expense of natural lands, posing a major threat to biodiversity. Here, we discussed the drivers responsible for the decline of pollinators (including habitat loss, pesticides, invasive species, and climate change) and its synergistic effects. This is particularly critical considering that Chile is a hotspot of endemic bee species locally adapted to specific habitats (e.g., Mediterranean-type ecosystems). However, there is a lack of data and monitoring programs that can provide evidence of their conservation status and contribution to crop yields. Based on our analysis, we identified information gaps to be filled and key threats to be addressed to reconcile crop production and biodiversity conservation. Addressing the local context is fundamental to undertake management and conservation actions with global impact.