Supplementing honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) colonies with pollen increases their pollinating activity on nectariferous crops with anthers isolated from stigmas.

The western honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) is the most globally used managed pollinator species, but it can have limited pollinating activity on nectariferous crops displaying anthers isolated from stigmas, i.e., when anthers are spatially or temporally separated from stigma within or between flowers. We supplemented honey bee colonies with pollen in the combs or in paste form laid on top of the hive frames to test if these treatments could reduce their pollen foraging and increase their pollinating activity in a monoecious and nectariferous cultivar of cantaloupe melon (Cucumis melo L.), in comparison with control colonies not supplemented. We recorded the pollen forager density per flower, the number of pollen grains deposited per stigma and their resulting fruit set, seed set and fruit mass, before and after the colony pollen supplementations. The number of pollen grains deposited by honey bees on stigmas increased gradually after pollen supplementation in the combs. But pollen foraging decreased only moderately, and no effect could be observed on any yield component except the seed set. On the other hand, there was no effect of the pollen paste laid on top of the frames either on stigmatic pollen loads, on colony pollen foraging or on any yield component. Supplementing honey bee colonies with pollen in the combs can therefore be an effective means for increasing their pollinating activity in nectariferous crops displaying anthers isolated from stigmas, e.g., Amaryllidaceae, Apiaceae, Cucurbitaceae, avocado, all hybrid seed productions. The context for the potential use of pollen substitutes is discussed.

Temporal Trends in Pollination Deficits and Its Potential Impacts on Chinese Agriculture.

Worldwide, there is increasing evidence that shows a decline in pollinators, limiting crop pollination and production. However, it is unclear to what extent Chinese agriculture could be impacted by pollinator deficits. Data for 84 major crops in China between 1961 and 2018 were analyzed for the temporal trends in crop area and production, agricultural economic contribution of pollination, crop yield deficits, and honey bee pollination demand. We found a rapid increase in agricultural dependence on insect pollinators: both the cultivated area and total production of pollinator-dependent crops increased faster than those of pollinator-independent crops during 1961-2018. The total economic value of pollination amounted to US$ 106.08 billion in 2010, representing 19.12% of the total production value of Chinese agriculture, approximately twice the 9.5% value estimated for global agriculture. Crops with higher pollinator dependence showed greater mean growth in cultivated area than those with lower dependence, but lower mean growth of crop production and yield. Crop yield growth was also more unstable with increasing pollinator dependence. The minimum pollination demand for honey bee colonies was about three times the stock of honey bee colonies available in 2018. Furthermore, we found a decline in crop yield deficit with the increase in honey bee colony pollination service capacity. We considered that the shortage of pollinators resulted in the yield deficits for pollinator-dependent crops. Future increase in the area of pollinator-dependent crops will increase the need for more pollinators, suggesting the importance of implementing measures to protect pollinators to ensure a better-secured future for agricultural production in China.

Possible Spillover of Pathogens between Bee Communities Foraging on the Same Floral Resource.

Viruses are known to contribute to bee population decline. Possible spillover is suspected from the co-occurrence of viruses in wild bees and honey bees. In order to study the risk of virus transmission between wild and managed bee species sharing the same floral resource, we tried to maximize the possible cross-infections using Phacelia tanacetifolia, which is highly attractive to honey bees and a broad range of wild bee species. Virus prevalence was compared over two years in Southern France. A total of 1137 wild bees from 29 wild bee species (based on COI barcoding) and 920 honey bees (Apis mellifera) were checked for the seven most common honey bee RNA viruses. Halictid bees were the most abundant. Co-infections were frequent, and Sacbrood virus (SBV), Black queen cell virus (BQCV), Acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) and Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) were widespread in the hymenopteran pollinator community. Conversely, Deformed wing virus (DWV) was detected at low levels in wild bees, whereas it was highly prevalent in honey bees (78.3% of the samples). Both wild bee and honey bee virus isolates were sequenced to look for possible host-specificity or geographical structuring. ABPV phylogeny suggested a specific cluster for Eucera bees, while isolates of DWV from bumble bees (Bombus spp.) clustered together with honey bee isolates, suggesting a possible spillover.

A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland.

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.

La intensificación agrícola y la consecuente pérdida de hábitats de alta calidad son desencadenantes clave del declive de los insectos polinizadores. Con el objetivo de disminuir el impacto ambiental de la agricultura, la Política Agrícola Común (PAC) de la UE de 2014 definió un conjunto de medidas para hábitats y paisajes (Áreas de Enfoque Ecológico: EFA por sus siglas en inglés) que los agricultores podían seleccionar como requisito para recibir pagos agrícolas básicos. Para informar la reforma de la PAC a partir a 2020, realizamos una evaluación a escala europea para determinar cómo las diferentes opciones de EFA varían en su potencial para asistir a los insectos polinizadores bajo un manejo estándar y amigable con los polinizadores, así como su aceptación por parte de los agricultores.El proceso estructurado de elicitación Delphi para evaluar las opciones de EFA involucró a 22 expertos de 18 países europeos. Se consideraron los requisitos de los diferentes taxones de polinizadores (es decir, abejorros, abejas solitarias y sírfidos) evaluando cada opción por su potencial para proporcionar forraje, sitios de nidificación y recursos para las larvas.Las opciones de EFA variaron sustancialmente en la cantidad de recursos que se percibía que proporcionan y su efectividad vario geográfica y temporalmente. Por ejemplo, los márgenes de cultivos proporcionan un forraje relativamente bueno durante toda la temporada en el sur y el este de Europa, pero carecen de forraje a principios de temporada en el norte y oeste de Europa. Bajo el manejo estándar, ninguna opción de EFA logró puntuaciones altas en todas las categorías de recursos y en general se percibió una escasez de forraje al final de la temporada.Los expertos identificaron oportunidades sustanciales para mejorar la calidad del hábitat mediante la adopción de un manejo amigable con los polinizadores. Sin embargo, mejorar la gestión por sí solo es poco probable que garantice que se cumplan todos los requisitos necesarios para los polinizadores. Nuestro análisis sugiere que una combinación de manejo inadecuado, diferencias de calidad inherentes a los distintos hábitat y el sesgo de aceptación hacia cultivos de cobertura y cultivos que fijan nitrógeno limitan severamente el potencial de los EFA para apoyar a los polinizadores en los paisajes agrícolas europeos. Implicaciones políticas. Para conservar a los polinizadores y ayudar a proteger los servicios de polinización, nuestro estudio destaca la necesidad de crear una variedad de hábitats interconectados y bien administrados que se complementen entre sí en los recursos que ofrecen. Para lograr esto, la PAC post­2020 debe integrar los diferentes vehículos de implementación destinados a proteger la biodiversidad (por ejemplo, condicionalidad mejorada, esquemas ecológicos y medidas agroambientales y climáticas). Para mejorar la calidad del hábitat, recomendamos un marco de monitoreo efectivo con indicadores orientados a objetivos y incentivar la colaboración entre los administradores de las tierras.

L'intensification agricole et la perte associée d'habitats semi­naturels sont les principaux moteurs du déclin des insectes pollinisateurs. Dans l'intention de réduire l'impact environnemental de l'agriculture, la politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'UE de 2014 a défini un ensemble d'habitats et d'éléments paysagers (surfaces d'intérêt écologique: SIE) dans la mise en place ou le respect desquels les agriculteurs pouvaient s'engager comme condition pour bénéficier d'aides économiques européennes (droit au paiement de base). Pour éclairer la PAC post­2020, nous avons évalué à l'échelle européenne et à dire d'expert, d'une part les potentialités des diverses SIE à favoriser les insectes pollinisateurs, via une gestion standard et via une gestion optimisée, et d'autre part l'étendue de l'adoption de ces mesures par les agriculteurs.Un processus structuré d'élaboration et d'agrégation des opinions (méthode Delphi) a fait appel à 22 experts de 18 pays européens pour évaluer les potentialités des diverses SIE. Considérant les traits bioécologiques des principaux taxons pollinisateurs (i.e. bourdons, abeilles solitaires et syrphes), chaque SIE a été évaluée pour son potentiel à fournir des ressources trophiques et des sites de reproduction (sites de nidification pour les bourdons et abeilles, sites de ponte et développement larvaire pour les syrphes).Les SIE différaient considérablement les unes des autres sur les ressources qu'elles étaient censées offrir et leur efficacité variait géographiquement et temporellement. Par exemple, les bords de champ peuvent fournir des ressources trophiques tout au long de l'année en Europe du Sud et de l'Est mais pas en début de saison en Europe du Nord et de l'Ouest. En cas de gestion standard, aucun type de SIE n'atteint de score élevé pour aucun type de ressource, et une période de disette alimentaire survient en fin de saison.Les experts ont mis en évidence de possibles et substantielles améliorations des SIE par le biais de leur gestion optimisée. Cependant, cette seule amélioration ne garantit pas la fourniture de ressources suffisantes aux pollinisateurs des paysages agricoles européens. Pour cela, des habitats spécifiques doivent être favorisés, dont la mise en place ne doit pas être entravée par un choix massif de SIE à base de cultures intermédiaires pièges à nitrates ou fixatrices d'azote. Implications politiques. Pour préserver les pollinisateurs et le service de pollinisation des plantes entomophiles, notre étude souligne la nécessité de créer une diversité d'habitats interconnectés, gérés de façon optimale, qui se complètent mutuellement dans les ressources qu'ils offrent. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la PAC post­2020 doit adopter une vision holistique de la mise en œuvre des différents leviers de protection de la biodiversité (e.g. éco­conditionnalité renforcée, programmes verts ou 'eco­schemes', mesures agro­environnementales et climatiques). Pour réellement améliorer la qualité des habitats, nous recommandons des suivis efficaces de la biodiversité à l'aide d'indicateurs pertinents. Enfin, pour optimiser la disposition spatiale des SIE et leur connectivité, la collaboration entre les différents gestionnaires des espaces agricoles doit être encouragée.

A intensificação agrícola e a perda associada de habitats de elevada qualidade são os principais factores que impulsionam o declínio dos insetos polinizadores. A fim de mitigar o impacto ambiental da agricultura, a Política Agrícola Comum (PAC) da UE, de 2014, definiu um conjunto de atributos ou estruturas do habitat e da paisagem, designadas de Áreas Foco Ecológico (AFEs) que devem ser mantidas pelos agricultores como requisito para obter as ajudas económicas previstas nas medidas agroambientais. No presente trabalho realizamos uma avaliação à escala europeia das diferentes opções destas estruturas, a fim de munir a PAC pós­2020, com informação sobre a importância das AFEs. Estas variam muito quanto ao seu potencial no apoio às populações de polinizadores, de acordo com a extensão da sua aceitação pelos agricultores e das práticas adoptadas por estes na sua gestão, que podem consistir em práticas padrão ou práticas mais amigáveis para os polinizadores.Um processo estruturado, com base na técnica de elicitação de Delphi foi desenvolvido, envolvendo 22 especialistas de 18 países europeus, com o objectivo de avaliar as opções de AFEs previstas na PAC. Esta avaliação levou em consideração os requisitos do ciclo de vida dos taxa dos principais polinizadores, ou seja, as abelhas, as abelhas solitárias e os sirfídeos ou moscas­das­flores. Cada AFE foi avaliada quanto ao seu potencial para fornecer alimento, locais de nidificação, e recursos para as larvas dos sirfídeos.A percepção quanto à eficácia das AFEs como fonte de recursos (alimento) para os polinizadores variou substancialmente, do ponto de vista quer geográfico, quer temporal (época do ano). Por exemplo, a AFE, faixas verdes nas margens do campo são consideradas uma boa fonte de alimento, no sul e leste da Europa, durante todo ano, mas ineficazes, no norte e oeste da Europa, no início do ano. Nenhuma EFA alcançou pontuações elevadas na categoria de recursos (fonte de alimento), quando submetida ao maneio padrão, sendo consideradas ineficientes, na segunda metade do ano.Os especialistas envolvidos identificaram oportunidades de melhoria substancial na qualidade do habitat, através da adopção de práticas de maneio das EFAs mais "amigáveis" para com os polinizadores. No entanto, a melhoria das práticas de maneio das EFAs por si só, dificilmente garantirá todos os requisitos necessários para a manutenção das populações de polinizadores. A nossa avaliação sugere que a combinação de práticas de má gestão (maneio), diferenças inerentes à qualidade do habitat dos polinizadores e o aumento do bias que resulta da utilização de espécies de crescimento rápido ou fixadoras de azoto limitam severamente o papel e potencial destas estruturas na manutenção das populações de polinizadores nas paisagens agrícolas europeias. Implicações políticas. A conservação dos polinizadores ajuda a proteger os serviços de polinização providenciados por estes. O nosso estudo destaca a necessidade de criar uma variedade de habitats interconectados e geridos de forma que se complementem na oferta de recursos (alimento, locais de nidificação e recursos para as larvas) aos polinizadores. Para atingir este objectivo, a PAC pós­2020 deve adoptar uma visão holística na implementação das EFAs, que integre os diferentes programas destinados a protecção da biodiversidade (por exemplo, maior condicionalidade, esquemas ecológicos, e medidas agroambientais e de adaptação climática). Para melhorar a qualidade do habitat, recomendamos uma estrutura de monitorização eficaz suportada por indicadores quantitativos e qualitativos orientados para metas, que permitam facilitar a tomada de decisões direcionadas especificamente para as EFAs, e que a colaboração entre os gestores da terra (agricultores) seja incentivada.

Insect pollination: an ecological process involved in the assembly of the seed microbiota.

The assembly of the seed microbiota involves some early microbial seed colonizers that are transmitted from the maternal plant through the vascular system, while other microbes enter through the stigma. Thus, the seed microbiota consists of microbes not only recruited from the plant vascular tissues, but also from the flower. Flowers are known to be a hub for microbial transmission between plants and insects. This floral-insect exchange opens the possibility for insect-transmitted bacteria to colonize the ovule and, subsequently, the seed to pass then into the next plant generation. In this study, we evaluated the contribution of insect pollination to the seed microbiota through high-throughput sequencing. Oilseed rape (OSR) flowers were exposed to visits and pollination by honey bees (Apis mellifera), red mason bees (Osmia bicornis), hand pollinated or left for autonomous self-pollination (ASP). Sequence analyses revealed that honey bee visitation reduced bacterial richness and diversity in seeds, but increased the variability of seed microbial structure, and introduced bee-associated taxa. In contrast, mason bee pollination had minor effects on the seed microbiota. Our study provides the first evidence that insect pollination is an ecological process involved in the transmission of bacteria from flowers to seeds.

Voltage-gated sodium channels from the bees Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris are differentially modulated by pyrethroid insecticides.

Recent experimental and in-field evidence of the deleterious effects of insecticides on the domestic honey bee Apis mellifera have led to a tightening of the risk assessment requirements of these products, and now more attention is being paid to their sublethal effects on other bee species. In addition to traditional tests, in vitro and in silico approaches may become essential tools for a comprehensive understanding of the impact of insecticides on bee species. Here we present a study in which electrophysiology and a Markovian multi-state modelling of the voltage-gated sodium channel were used to measure the susceptibility of the antennal lobe neurons from Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris, to the pyrethroids tetramethrin and esfenvalerate. Voltage-gated sodium channels from Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris are differentially sensitive to pyrethroids. In both bee species, the level of neuronal activity played an important role in their relative sensitivity to pyrethroids. This work supports the notion that honey bees cannot unequivocally be considered as a surrogate for other bee species in assessing their neuronal susceptibility to insecticides.

Variations in the Availability of Pollen Resources Affect Honey Bee Health.

Intensive agricultural systems often expose honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) to large temporal variations in the availability (quantity, quality and diversity) of nutritional resources. Such nutritional irregularity is expected to affect honey bee health. We therefore tested under laboratory conditions the effect of such variation in pollen availability on honey bee health (survival and nursing physiology-hypopharyngeal gland development and vitellogenin expression). We fed honey bees with different diets composed of pollen pellets collected by honey bees in an agricultural landscape of western France. Slight drops (5-10%) in the availability of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) pollen resulted in significant reductions of all tested variables. Despite some variations in taxonomic diversity and nutritional quality, the pollen mixes harvested over the season had a similar positive influence on honey bee health, except for the one collected in late July that induced poor survival and nursing physiology. This period coincided with the mass-flowering of maize (Zea mays L.), an anemophilous crop which produces poor-quality pollen. Therefore, changes in bee health were not connected to variations in pollen diversity but rather to variations in pollen depletion and quality, such as can be encountered in an intensive agricultural system of western France. Finally, even though pollen can be available ad libitum during the mass-flowering of some crops (e.g. maize), it can fail to provide bees with diet adequate for their development.

Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms.

Ecological intensification, or the improvement of crop yield through enhancement of biodiversity, may be a sustainable pathway toward greater food supplies. Such sustainable increases may be especially important for the 2 billion people reliant on small farms, many of which are undernourished, yet we know little about the efficacy of this approach. Using a coordinated protocol across regions and crops, we quantify to what degree enhancing pollinator density and richness can improve yields on 344 fields from 33 pollinator-dependent crop systems in small and large farms from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For fields less than 2 hectares, we found that yield gaps could be closed by a median of 24% through higher flower-visitor density. For larger fields, such benefits only occurred at high flower-visitor richness. Worldwide, our study demonstrates that ecological intensification can create synchronous biodiversity and yield outcomes.

Managed bumblebees outperform honeybees in increasing peach fruit set in China: different limiting processes with different pollinators.

Peach Prunus persica (L.) Batsch is self-compatible and largely self-fertile, but under greenhouse conditions pollinators must be introduced to achieve good fruit set and quality. Because little work has been done to assess the effectiveness of different pollinators on peach trees under greenhouse conditions, we studied 'Okubo' peach in greenhouse tunnels near Beijing between 2012 and 2014. We measured pollen deposition, pollen-tube growth rates, ovary development, and initial fruit set after the flowers were visited by either of two managed pollinators: bumblebees, Bombus patagiatus Nylander, and honeybees, Apis mellifera L. The results show that B. patagiatus is more effective than A. mellifera as a pollinator of peach in greenhouses because of differences in two processes. First, B. patagiatus deposits more pollen grains on peach stigmas than A. mellifera, both during a single visit and during a whole day of open pollination. Second, there are differences in the fertilization performance of the pollen deposited. Half of the flowers visited by B. patagiatus are fertilized 9-11 days after bee visits, while for flowers visited by A. mellifera, half are fertilized 13-15 days after bee visits. Consequently, fruit development is also accelerated by bumblebees, showing that the different pollinators have not only different pollination efficiency, but also influence the subsequent time course of fertilization and fruit set. Flowers visited by B. patagiatus show faster ovary growth and ultimately these flowers produce more fruit. Our work shows that pollinators may influence fruit production beyond the amount of pollen delivered. We show that managed indigenous bumblebees significantly outperform introduced honeybees in increasing peach initial fruit set under greenhouse conditions.

Decreasing abundance, increasing diversity and changing structure of the wild bee community (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) along an urbanization gradient.

BACKGROUND: Wild bees are important pollinators that have declined in diversity and abundance during the last decades. Habitat destruction and fragmentation associated with urbanization are reported as part of the main causes of this decline. Urbanization involves dramatic changes of the landscape, increasing the proportion of impervious surface while decreasing that of green areas. Few studies have investigated the effects of urbanization on bee communities. We assessed changes in the abundance, species richness, and composition of wild bee community along an urbanization gradient. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over two years and on a monthly basis, bees were sampled with colored pan traps and insect nets at 24 sites located along an urbanization gradient. Landscape structure within three different radii was measured at each study site. We captured 291 wild bee species. The abundance of wild bees was negatively correlated with the proportion of impervious surface, while species richness reached a maximum at an intermediate (50%) proportion of impervious surface. The structure of the community changed along the urbanization gradient with more parasitic species in sites with an intermediate proportion of impervious surface. There were also greater numbers of cavity-nesting species and long-tongued species in sites with intermediate or higher proportion of impervious surface. However, urbanization had no effect on the occurrence of species depending on their social behavior or body size. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We found nearly a third of the wild bee fauna known from France in our study sites. Indeed, urban areas supported a diverse bee community, but sites with an intermediate level of urbanization were the most speciose ones, including greater proportion of parasitic species. The presence of a diverse array of bee species even in the most urbanized area makes these pollinators worthy of being a flagship group to raise the awareness of urban citizens about biodiversity.

Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensification.

Background. Up to 75% of crop species benefit at least to some degree from animal pollination for fruit or seed set and yield. However, basic information on the level of pollinator dependence and pollinator contribution to yield is lacking for many crops. Even less is known about how insect pollination affects crop quality. Given that habitat loss and agricultural intensification are known to decrease pollinator richness and abundance, there is a need to assess the consequences for different components of crop production. Methods. We used pollination exclusion on flowers or inflorescences on a whole plant basis to assess the contribution of insect pollination to crop yield and quality in four flowering crops (spring oilseed rape, field bean, strawberry, and buckwheat) located in four regions of Europe. For each crop, we recorded abundance and species richness of flower visiting insects in ten fields located along a gradient from simple to heterogeneous landscapes. Results. Insect pollination enhanced average crop yield between 18 and 71% depending on the crop. Yield quality was also enhanced in most crops. For instance, oilseed rape had higher oil and lower chlorophyll contents when adequately pollinated, the proportion of empty seeds decreased in buckwheat, and strawberries' commercial grade improved; however, we did not find higher nitrogen content in open pollinated field beans. Complex landscapes had a higher overall species richness of wild pollinators across crops, but visitation rates were only higher in complex landscapes for some crops. On the contrary, the overall yield was consistently enhanced by higher visitation rates, but not by higher pollinator richness. Discussion. For the four crops in this study, there is clear benefit delivered by pollinators on yield quantity and/or quality, but it is not maximized under current agricultural intensification. Honeybees, the most abundant pollinator, might partially compensate the loss of wild pollinators in some areas, but our results suggest the need of landscape-scale actions to enhance wild pollinator populations.

Agricultural policies exacerbate honeybee pollination service supply-demand mismatches across Europe.

Declines in insect pollinators across Europe have raised concerns about the supply of pollination services to agriculture. Simultaneously, EU agricultural and biofuel policies have encouraged substantial growth in the cultivated area of insect pollinated crops across the continent. Using data from 41 European countries, this study demonstrates that the recommended number of honeybees required to provide crop pollination across Europe has risen 4.9 times as fast as honeybee stocks between 2005 and 2010. Consequently, honeybee stocks were insufficient to supply >90% of demands in 22 countries studied. These findings raise concerns about the capacity of many countries to cope with major losses of wild pollinators and highlight numerous critical gaps in current understanding of pollination service supplies and demands, pointing to a pressing need for further research into this issue.

Insect pollination enhances seed yield, quality, and market value in oilseed rape.

The relationships between landscape intensification, the abundance and diversity of pollinating insects, and their contributions to crop yield, quality, and market value are poorly studied, despite observed declines in wild and domesticated pollinators. Abundance and species richness of pollinating insects were estimated in ten fields of spring oilseed rape, Brassica napus var. SW Stratos™, located along a gradient of landscape compositions ranging from simple landscapes dominated by arable land to heterogeneous landscapes with extensive cover of semi-natural habitats. In each field, we assessed the contribution of wind and insect pollination to seed yield, seed quality (individual seed weight and oil and chlorophyll contents), and market value in a block experiment with four replicates and two treatments: (1) all flowers were accessible to insects, self and wind pollination, and (2) flowers enclosed in tulle net bags (mesh: 1 × 1 mm) were accessible only to wind and self pollination. Complex landscapes enhanced the overall abundance of wild insects as well as the abundance and species richness of hoverflies. This did not translate to a higher yield, probably due to consistent pollination by honey bees across all fields. However, the pollination experiment showed that insects increased seed weight per plant by 18% and market value by 20%. Seed quality was enhanced by insect pollination, rendering heavier seeds as well as higher oil and lower chlorophyll contents, clearly showing that insect pollination is required to reach high seed yield and quality in oilseed rape. Our study demonstrates considerable and previously underestimated contributions from pollinating insects to both the yield and the market value of oilseed rape.

Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops.

The extent of our reliance on animal pollination for world crop production for human food has not previously been evaluated and the previous estimates for countries or continents have seldom used primary data. In this review, we expand the previous estimates using novel primary data from 200 countries and found that fruit, vegetable or seed production from 87 of the leading global food crops is dependent upon animal pollination, while 28 crops do not rely upon animal pollination. However, global production volumes give a contrasting perspective, since 60% of global production comes from crops that do not depend on animal pollination, 35% from crops that depend on pollinators, and 5% are unevaluated. Using all crops traded on the world market and setting aside crops that are solely passively self-pollinated, wind-pollinated or parthenocarpic, we then evaluated the level of dependence on animal-mediated pollination for crops that are directly consumed by humans. We found that pollinators are essential for 13 crops, production is highly pollinator dependent for 30, moderately for 27, slightly for 21, unimportant for 7, and is of unknown significance for the remaining 9. We further evaluated whether local and landscape-wide management for natural pollination services could help to sustain crop diversity and production. Case studies for nine crops on four continents revealed that agricultural intensification jeopardizes wild bee communities and their stabilizing effect on pollination services at the landscape scale.

Status of self-pollen in bee pollination efficiency of white clover (Trifolium repens L.).

Flowers of white clover (Trifolium repens L.) are hermaphrodite and self-incompatible; their cross-pollination depends entirely on insect visitors, mainly bees (Apoidea). Because self-pollination of white clover occurs before flower anthesis, we determined whether selfing affected the pollination efficiency of a honeybee visit. We compared pollen deposition in emasculated and intact flowers following (1) a single honeybee visit, (2) open-pollination for a day and (3) enclosure in a cloth bag to prevent insect visits. In emasculated flowers, open-pollination resulted in more pollen deposited than after one visit (+30%) which is consistent with flowers being visited more than once by pollinators during the course of a day. On intact flowers, saturation of the stigma was achieved after the first visit of a honeybee (near 280 grains) because of self-pollination. Additional visits did not increase pollen deposits, but they improved pollen efficiency in terms of numbers of pollen tubes reaching the ovules. In such a context of easily saturated stigmas, self-pollen does not inhibit cross-pollen activity, but represents a constraint for pollination which demands multiple bee visits to each flower to achieve maximum fertilization.