30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      The worldwide importance of honey bees as pollinators in natural habitats

      , , , ,
      Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
      The Royal Society

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <p class="first" id="d996597e190">The western honey bee ( <i>Apis mellifera</i>) is the most frequent floral visitor of crops worldwide, but quantitative knowledge of its role as a pollinator outside of managed habitats is largely lacking. Here we use a global dataset of 80 published plant–pollinator interaction networks as well as pollinator effectiveness measures from 34 plant species to assess the importance of <i>A. mellifera</i> in natural habitats. <i>Apis mellifera</i> is the most frequent floral visitor in natural habitats worldwide, averaging 13% of floral visits across all networks (range 0–85%), with 5% of plant species recorded as being exclusively visited by <i>A. mellifera</i>. For 33% of the networks and 49% of plant species, however, <i>A. mellifera</i> visitation was never observed, illustrating that many flowering plant taxa and assemblages remain dependent on non- <i>A. mellifera</i> visitors for pollination. <i>Apis mellifera</i> visitation was higher in warmer, less variable climates and on mainland rather than island sites, but did not differ between its native and introduced ranges. With respect to single-visit pollination effectiveness, <i>A. mellifera</i> did not differ from the average non- <i>A. mellifera</i> floral visitor, though it was generally less effective than the most effective non- <i>A. mellifera</i> visitor. Our results argue for a deeper understanding of how <i>A. mellifera</i>, and potential future changes in its range and abundance, shape the ecology, evolution, and conservation of plants, pollinators, and their interactions in natural habitats. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Introduced species and their missing parasites.

          Damage caused by introduced species results from the high population densities and large body sizes that they attain in their new location. Escape from the effects of natural enemies is a frequent explanation given for the success of introduced species. Because some parasites can reduce host density and decrease body size, an invader that leaves parasites behind and encounters few new parasites can experience a demographic release and become a pest. To test whether introduced species are less parasitized, we have compared the parasites of exotic species in their native and introduced ranges, using 26 host species of molluscs, crustaceans, fishes, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Here we report that the number of parasite species found in native populations is twice that found in exotic populations. In addition, introduced populations are less heavily parasitized (in terms of percentage infected) than are native populations. Reduced parasitization of introduced species has several causes, including reduced probability of the introduction of parasites with exotic species (or early extinction after host establishment), absence of other required hosts in the new location, and the host-specific limitations of native parasites adapting to new hosts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

            Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              POLLEN LIMITATION OF PLANT REPRODUCTION: ECOLOGICAL AND EVOLUTIONARY CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
                Proc. R. Soc. B
                The Royal Society
                0962-8452
                1471-2954
                January 10 2018
                January 10 2018
                : 285
                : 1870
                : 20172140
                Article
                10.1098/rspb.2017.2140
                5784195
                29321298
                2d901889-1fac-4ba3-a9a7-b34589d11d81
                © 2018

                http://royalsocietypublishing.org/licence

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article