13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Wild pollinator activity negatively related to honey bee colony densities in urban context

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          As pollinator decline is increasingly reported in natural and agricultural environments, cities are perceived as shelters for pollinators because of low pesticide exposure and high floral diversity throughout the year. This has led to the development of environmental policies supporting pollinators in urban areas. However, policies are often restricted to the promotion of honey bee colony installations, which resulted in a strong increase in apiary numbers in cities. Recently, competition for floral resources between wild pollinators and honey bees has been highlighted in semi-natural contexts, but whether urban beekeeping could impact wild pollinators remains unknown. Here, we show that in the city of Paris (France), wild pollinator visitation rates are negatively correlated to honey bee colony densities present in the surrounding landscape (500m –slope = -0.614; p = 0.001 –and 1000m –slope = -0.489; p = 0.005). Regarding the morphological groups of wild pollinators, large solitary bee and beetle visitation rates were negatively affected by honey bee colony densities within a 500m buffer (slope = -0.425, p = 0.007 and slope = - 0.671, p = 0.002, respectively) and bumblebee visitation rates were negatively affected by honey bee colony density within a 1000m buffer (slope = - 0.451, p = 0.012). Further, lower interaction evenness in plant-pollinator networks was observed with high honey bee colony density within a 1000m buffer (slope = -0.487, p = 0.008). Finally, honey bees tended to focus their foraging activity on managed rather than wild plant species (student t-test, p = 0.001) whereas wild pollinators equally visited managed and wild species. We advocate responsible practices mitigating the introduction of high density of honey bee colonies in urban environments. Further studies are however needed to deepen our knowledge about the potential negative interactions between wild and domesticated pollinators.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

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

          Foraging ranges of solitary bees

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

            Habitat modification alters the structure of tropical host-parasitoid food webs.

            Global conversion of natural habitats to agriculture has led to marked changes in species diversity and composition. However, it is less clear how habitat modification affects interactions among species. Networks of feeding interactions (food webs) describe the underlying structure of ecological communities, and might be crucially linked to their stability and function. Here, we analyse 48 quantitative food webs for cavity-nesting bees, wasps and their parasitoids across five tropical habitat types. We found marked changes in food-web structure across the modification gradient, despite little variation in species richness. The evenness of interaction frequencies declined with habitat modification, with most energy flowing along one or a few pathways in intensively managed agricultural habitats. In modified habitats there was a higher ratio of parasitoid to host species and increased parasitism rates, with implications for the important ecosystem services, such as pollination and biological control, that are performed by host bees and wasps. The most abundant parasitoid species was more specialized in modified habitats, with reduced attack rates on alternative hosts. Conventional community descriptors failed to discriminate adequately among habitats, indicating that perturbation of the structure and function of ecological communities might be overlooked in studies that do not document and quantify species interactions. Altered interaction structure therefore represents an insidious and functionally important hidden effect of habitat modification by humans.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Conservation of species interaction networks

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: MethodologyRole: ValidationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                12 September 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 9
                : e0222316
                Affiliations
                [1 ] IMBE, Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Université, CNRS, IRD, Marseille, France
                [2 ] Institut d’Ecologie et des Sciences de l’Environnement de Paris (iEES Paris UMR 7618) Equipe Ecologie et Evolution des réseaux d’interactions, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS-SU, Paris, France
                [3 ] Centre d’Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR 7204), CNRS-Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle-SU, Paris, France
                [4 ] Agence Régionale de la Biodiversité en Île-de-France (ARB ÎdF), Paris, France
                [5 ] Laboratoire Image, Ville, Environnement (LIVE UMR 7362), Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
                Universitat Leipzig, GERMANY
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                ‡ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7621-2825
                Article
                PONE-D-18-27216
                10.1371/journal.pone.0222316
                6742366
                31513663
                32ee3105-86a3-485f-b071-32493cd2d101
                © 2019 Ropars et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 18 September 2018
                : 27 August 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 2, Pages: 16
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Hymenoptera
                Bees
                Honey Bees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Animal Behavior
                Foraging
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Animal Behavior
                Foraging
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Zoology
                Animal Behavior
                Foraging
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Hymenoptera
                Bees
                Bumblebees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Beetles
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Flowering Plants
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Mathematical Models
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Plant Science
                Plant Anatomy
                Flowers
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript and Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article