Managed bumble bees increase flower visitation but not fruit weight in polytunnel strawberry crops

Animal-mediated pollination is essential for the production and quality of fruits and seeds of many crops consumed by humans. However, crop pollination services might be compromised when wild pollinators are scarce. Managed pollinators are commonly used in crops to supplement such services with the assumption that they will enhance crop yield. However, information on the spatiotemporal pollinator-dependence of crops is still limited. We assessed the contribution of commercial bumble bee colonies compared to the available pollinator community on strawberry (‘Fortuna’ variety) flower visitation and strawberry quality across a landscape gradient of agricultural intensification (i.e. polytunnel berry crop cover). We used colonies of bumble bees in winter and in spring, i.e. when few and most wild pollinators are in their flight period, respectively. The placement of colonies increased visits of bumble bees to strawberry flowers, especially in winter. The use of bumble bee colonies did not affect flower visitation by other insects, mainly honey bees, hoverflies and other Diptera. Flower visitation by both honey bees and wild insects did not vary between seasons and was unrelated to the landscape gradient of berry crop cover. Strawberries were of the highest quality (i.e. weight) when insect-mediated pollination was allowed, and their quality was positively related to wild flower visitors in winter but not in spring. However, increased visits to strawberry flowers by managed bumble bees and honey bees had no effect on strawberry weight. Our results suggest that the pollination services producing high quality strawberry fruits are provided by the flower visitor community present in the study region without the need to use managed bumble bees.     

Bumble bee abundance and richness improves honey bee pollination behaviour in sweet cherry

Pollination service in agricultural crops increases significantly with pollinator diversity and wild pollinator abundance. Differences in the foraging behaviour of pollinating insects are one of the reasons why pollinator diversity and abundance enhances crop pollination. Here, we focused on the foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumble bees in sweet cherry orchards. In addition, we studied the influence of bee diversity and abundance on the foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumble bees. Honey bees were found to visit fewer flowers than bumble bees. Bumble bees also showed a higher probability of changing trees between rows than honey bees. Both visitation rate and probability of row changes of honey bees increased with bumble bee diversity and with bumble bee abundance. We also found that the probability of row changes of honey bees increased with increasing bumble bee abundance. These effects of bumble bee richness and abundance on the pollination behaviour of honey bees can improve the pollination performance of honey bees in crops that depend on cross pollination. Our results highlight the higher pollination performance of bumble bees and the facilitative effect of wild pollinators to crop pollination.     

Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin

Recent declines in managed honey bee, Apis mellifera L., colonies have increased interest in the current and potential contribution of wild bee populations to the pollination of agricultural crops. Because wild bees often live in agricultural fields, their population density and contribution to crop pollination may be influenced by farming practices, especially those used to reduce the populations of other insects. We took a census of pollinators of squash and pumpkin at 25 farms in Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland to see whether pollinator abundance was related to farming practices. The main pollinators were Peponapis pruinosa Say; honey bees, and bumble bees (Bombus spp.). The squash bee was the most abundant pollinator on squash and pumpkin, occurring at 23 of 25 farms in population densities that were commonly several times higher than that of other pollinators. Squash bee density was related to tillage practices: no-tillage farms hosted three times as great a density of squash bees as tilled farms. Pollinator density was not related to pesticide use. Honey bee density on squash and pumpkin was not related to the presence of managed honey bee colonies on farms. Farms with colonies did not have more honey bees per flower than farms that did not keep honey bees, probably reflecting the lack of affinity of honey bees for these crops. Future research should examine the economic impacts of managing farms in ways that promote pollinators, particularly pollinators of crops that are not well served by managed honey bee colonies.     

Floral resource pulse decreases bumble bee foraging trip duration in central Wisconsin agroecosystem

1. Resource pulses, narrow periods of high resource availability, can elicit strong behavioural responses across diverse taxa. Mass‐flowering agricultural crops are an example of a resource pulse that insect pollinators exploit. However, the underlying mechanism behind changes in pollinator behaviour associated with mass‐flowering crops is still relatively unexplored. 2. The present study quantified the behavioural response of bumble bees, an important wild pollinator, to commercial cranberry bloom, an important mass‐flowering crop in Wisconsin, U.S.A. Over a 2‐year period, foraging trip duration was measured using radio frequency identification at 14 farms situated across landscape contexts, ranging from high to low natural area (woodland amount). Using transect surveys, floral resource abundance at a landscape scale was estimated. 3. It was found that bumble bees were highly sensitive to temporal changes in landscape‐level resource abundance associated with the onset of cranberry bloom, during which they decreased foraging trip duration by 22% and increased the number of foraging trips during bloom by 24% on average relative to the period before and after bloom. This phenomenon was consistent across colonies, individual bees, and landscape contexts, despite a higher abundance of flowers in low woodland landscapes. Bumble bee colonies growing in low‐ and high‐woodland landscapes exhibited a similar performance. 4. As mass‐flowering crops are probably a factor influencing bumble bee foraging behaviour in agricultural regions, investigations should continue into how variable resource landscapes, particularly those offering resource pulses, affect wild pollinators and the pollination services they provide.     

Seasonal complementary in pollinators of soft-fruit crops

Understanding the relative contributions of wild and managed pollinators, and the functional contributions made by a diverse pollinator community, is essential to the maintenance of yields in the 75% of our crops that benefit from insect pollination. We describe a field study and pollinator exclusion experiments conducted on two soft-fruit crops in a system with both wild and managed pollinators. We test whether fruit quality and quantity is limited by pollination, and whether different pollinating insects respond differently to varying weather conditions. Both strawberries and raspberries produced fewer marketable fruits when insects were excluded, demonstrating dependence on insect pollinators. Raspberries had a short flowering season which coincided with peak abundance of bees, and attracted many bees per flower. In contrast, strawberries had a much longer flowering season and appeared to be much less attractive to pollinators, so that ensuring adequate pollination is likely to be more challenging. The proportion of high-quality strawberries was positively related to pollinator abundance, suggesting that yield was limited by inadequate pollination on some farms. The relative abundance of different pollinator taxa visiting strawberries changed markedly through the season, demonstrating seasonal complementarity. Insect visitors responded differently to changing weather conditions suggesting that diversity can reduce the risk of pollination service shortfalls. For example, flies visited the crop flowers in poor weather and at the end of the flowering season when other pollinators were scarce, and so may provide a unique functional contribution. Understanding how differences between pollinator groups can enhance pollination services to crops strengthens the case for multiple species management. We provide evidence for the link between increased diversity and function in real crop systems, highlighting the risks of replacing all pollinators with managed alternatives.     

Improvement of almond production using Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Mediterranean conditions

Almond trees are one of the most important crops in the Balearic Islands. The pollination of almonds is limited to the activity of insects, and cross‐pollination is necessary for fruit development. Currently, honey bees and wild bee populations are declining considerably due to multiple causes, such as the use of pesticides, diseases and habitat loss. An alternative to increase the almond production is the use of commercial pollinators. In this long‐term (3 years) study, the effect of the introduction of Bombus terrestris colonies on almond production was evaluated in two orchards. Two experimental designs were carried out to study the best management of this pollinator. For 2 years, all bumble bee colonies were placed in the middle of the plot and during the last year, the bumble bee colonies were distributed homogenously in the plot. Fruit set and the foraging behaviour of bumble bees during the blossoming period was determined, and the effect of different environmental variables on the visitation rate of bumble bees was assessed by means of a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM). Moreover, for the first time, the spatial distribution of fruit set was evaluated. Our results show that fruit set was significantly higher in the fields where B. terrestris had been introduced than in the control plots. This increased production resulted in a positive economic balance for the farmer. Moreover, bumble bees showed to prefer trees in a southwest orientation that were close to their colony. The activity of bumble bees showed to be significantly influenced by wind speed (the higher the speed the more flowers are visited by B. terrestris) and time after flowering (visitation rate decreased with days after flowering). In order to improve its management and obtain the highest possible almond production, it is important to understand the activity and behaviour of this pollinator.     

Honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) distribution and potential for supplementary pollination in commercial tomato greenhouses during winter

This study examined the use of honey bees, Apis mellifera L., to supplement bumble bee, Bombus spp., pollination in commercial tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Miller, greenhouses in Western Canada. Honey bee colonies were brought into greenhouses already containing bumble bees and left for 1 wk to acclimatize. The following week, counts of honey and bumble bees foraging and flying throughout the greenhouse were conducted three times per day, and tomato flowers open during honey bee pollination were marked for later fruit harvest. The same counts and flower-marking also were done before and after the presence of honey bees to determine the background level of bumble bee pollination. Overall, tomato size was not affected by the addition of honey bees, but in one greenhouse significantly larger tomatoes were produced with honey bees present compared with bumble bees alone. In that greenhouse, honey bee foraging was greater than in the other greenhouses. Honey bees generally foraged within 100 m of their colony in all greenhouses. Our study invites further research to examine the use of honey bees with reduced levels of bumble bees, or as sole pollinators of greenhouse tomatoes. We also make specific recommendations for how honey bees can best be managed in greenhouses.     

The Potential Influence of Bumble Bee Visitation on Foraging Behaviors and Assemblages of Honey Bees on Squash Flowers in Highland Agricultural Ecosystems

Bee species interactions can benefit plant pollination through synergistic effects and complementary effects, or can be of detriment to plant pollination through competition effects by reducing visitation by effective pollinators. Since specific bee interactions influence the foraging performance of bees on flowers, they also act as drivers to regulate the assemblage of flower visitors. We selected squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) and its pollinators as a model system to study the foraging response of honey bees to the occurrence of bumble bees at two types of sites surrounded by a high amount of natural habitats (≥ 58% of land cover) and a low amount of natural habitats (≤ 12% of land cover) in a highland agricultural ecosystem in China. At the individual level, we measured the elapsed time from the departure of prior pollinator(s) to the arrival of another pollinator, the selection of honey bees for flowers occupied by bumble bees, and the length of time used by honey bees to explore floral resources at the two types of sites. At the community level, we explored the effect of bumble bee visitation on the distribution patterns of honey bees on squash flowers. Conclusively, bumble bee visitation caused an increase in elapsed time before flowers were visited again by a honey bee, a behavioral avoidance by a newly-arriving honey bee to select flowers occupied by bumble bees, and a shortened length of time the honey bee takes to examine and collect floral resources. The number of overall bumble bees on squash flowers was the most important factor explaining the difference in the distribution patterns of honey bees at the community level. Furthermore, decline in the number of overall bumble bees on the squash flowers resulted in an increase in the number of overall honey bees. Therefore, our study suggests that bee interactions provide an opportunity to enhance the resilience of ecosystem pollination services against the decline in pollinator diversity.     

Population genetics of wild and managed pollinators: implications for crop pollination and the genetic integrity of wild bees

Loss of habitat and chemical use associated with agriculture can cause population declines of wild pollinators. Less is known about the evolutionary consequences of interactions between species used in commercial agriculture and wild pollinators. Given population declines of many wild bee species, it is crucial to understand if commercial queens become established in natural areas, if wild bees visit agricultural fields and have the potential to interact with commercial bees, and if gene flow occurs between commercial and wild bees. We drew on a long-term data set that documents commercial bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) use in New England, and we conducted genetic analyses of foraging B. impatiens from areas with varying intensities of commercial bee use. In agricultural areas with a history of commercial bee use we also sampled bees directly from commercial hives. We found significant genetic differences among foraging B. impatiens and B. impatiens sampled directly from hives (average pairwise F′_ST = 0.14), but not among samples of foraging bees from natural areas (average F′_ST among foraging bees?=?0.002). Furthermore, Bayesian analysis of population structure revealed that foraging bees caught in areas with a history of commercial bee use grouped with samples from natural areas. These results document an agricultural setting where there was no widespread introgression of alleles from commercial bumble bees to wild bumble bees, commercial bumble bees did not become established in natural areas, and wild bees were providing pollination services to crops.     

Influence of brood, vent screening, and time of year on honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollination and fruit quality of greenhouse tomatoes

Greenhouse tomatoes, Lycopersicon esculentum Miller (Solanaceae), are autogamous, but facilitated pollination results in increased fruit size and set. Previous research examining honey bee pollination in greenhouse tomato crops established that fruit quality resulting from honey bee visitation is often comparable to bumble bees (Bombus spp.) and significantly better than in flowers that receive no facilitated pollination. However, management alternatives have not been studied to improve tomato fruit quality when honey bees are the only pollination option available for the high-value greenhouse industry. We investigated whether the quantity of brood (eggs, larvae, and pupae) in a honey bee colony in the winter and screening on greenhouse vents in the summer would encourage honey bee foraging on tomato flowers. We also established the influence of time of year on the potential for honey bees to be effective pollinating agents. We constructed small honey bee colonies full of naive forager bees with either two frames of brood ("brood colonies") or two empty frames ("no-brood") and compared total fruit set and the number of tomato seeds resulting from fruit potentially visited by honey bees in each of these treatments to bagged flowers that received no facilitated pollination. There was no significant difference in the quality of fruit resulting from honey bees from "brood" and "no-brood" colonies. However, these fruits produced significantly more seeds than bagged flowers restricted from facilitated pollination. Honey bees from brood and no-brood colonies also resulted in 98% fruit set compared with 80% fruit set in bagged flowers that received no facilitated pollination. During the summer, the number of seeds per fruit did not differ significantly between unbagged flowers potentially visited by honey bees in screened greenhouses and unscreened greenhouses and bagged flowers that received no facilitated pollination. However, time of year did have a significant influence on the quality of fruit produced by honey bees compared with flowers that received no facilitated pollination, because no difference in seed number was observed between the treatments after mid-April. The results from this study demonstrate that the management of brood levels and vent screening cannot be used to improve the quality of fruit resulting from honey bee pollination and that honey bees can be a feasible greenhouse pollination alternative only during the winter.     

Proximity to wildflower strips did not boost crop pollination on small,diversified farms harboring diverse wild bees

The yield of many agricultural crops depends on pollination services provided by wild and managed bees, many of which are experiencing declines due to factors such as reductions in floral resources. Thus, improving pollinator habitat on farmlands using management strategies like planting wildflower strips is vital for wild bee conservation and sustainable crop pollination. Yet, few studies have examined whether and at what spatial scales wildflower strips enhance crop pollination and yields, and most research has been conducted in large-scale commercial agriculture. Therefore, we investigated the effects of wildflower strips on crop pollination on small, diversified farms (i.e., those growing a variety of crop species) where wild bee diversity and abundance is predicted to be comparatively high. Over three years, on four diversified farms in Montana USA, we tested the hypothesis that distance (20, 60, and 180 m) of crops from native perennial wildflower strips planted alongside crop fields affected wild bee visitation, pollination, and yields of squash and sunflower crop plants. We found that distance to wildflower strips did not affect bee visitation or pollination in crops. Squash yield was pollen-limited in the growing season prior to wildflower strip establishment, and in one of the two years after wildflower strip establishment, but proximity to wildflower strips did not influence the magnitude of pollen limitation. Sunflower seed production was not pollen-limited in any year. Our findings demonstrate that even on diverse farms with wildflower strips and a demonstrated high diversity of bees, some crops do not necessarily receive maximum pollination, regardless of distance from the wildflower strips. However, the value of wildflower strips for supporting wild bee diversity, and other ecological or economic benefits, needs consideration for a full understanding of this pollinator habitat management strategy.     

Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses

One of the values of biodiversity is that it may provide 'biological insurance' for services currently rendered by domesticated species or technology. We used crop pollination as a model system, and investigated whether the loss of a domesticated pollinator (the honey bee) could be compensated for by native, wild bee species. We measured pollination provided to watermelon crops at 23 farms in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA, and used a simulation model to separate the pollen provided by honey bees and native bees. Simulation results predict that native bees alone provide sufficient pollination at > 90% of the farms studied. Furthermore, empirical total pollen deposition at flowers was strongly, significantly correlated with native bee visitation but not with honey bee visitation. The honey bee is currently undergoing extensive die-offs because of Colony Collapse Disorder. We predict that in our region native bees will buffer potential declines in agricultural production because of honey bee losses.     

Variation in composition of two bumble bee species across communities affects nectar robbing but maintains pollinator visitation rate to an alpine plant,Salvia przewalskii

1. In many flowering plants, bumble bees may forage as both pollinators and nectar robbers. This mixed foraging behaviour may be influenced by community context and consequently, potentially affect pollination of the focal plant. 2. Salvia przewalskii is both pollinated and robbed exclusively by bumble bees. In the present study area, it was legitimately visited by two species of bumble bees with different tongue length, Bombus friseanus and Bombus religiosus, but it was only robbed by Bombus friseanus, the shorter‐tongued bumble bee. The intensity of nectar robbing and pollinator visitation rate to the plant were investigated across 26 communities in the Hengduan Mountains in East Himalaya during a 2‐year project. For each of these communities, the floral diversity, and the population size and floral resource of S. przewalskii were quantified. The abundances of the two bumble bee species were also recorded. 3. Both nectar robbing and pollinator visitation rate were influenced by floral diversity. However, pollinator visitation rate was not affected by nectar robbing. The results revealed that relative abundance of the two bumble bee species significantly influenced the incidence of nectar robbing but not the pollinator visitation rate. Increased abundance of B. religiosus, the legitimate visitors, exacerbated nectar robbing, possibly by causing B. friseanus to shift to robbing; however, pollinator visitation remained at a relatively high level. 4. The results may help to explain the persistence of both nectar robbing and pollination, and suggest that, in comparison to pollination, nectar robbing is a more unstable event in a community.     

Managing honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) for greenhouse tomato pollination

Although commercially reared colonies of bumble bees (Bombus sp.) are the primary pollinator world-wide for greenhouse tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) previous research indicates that honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) might be a feasible alternative or supplement to bumble bee pollination. However, management methods for honey bee greenhouse tomato pollination scarcely have been explored. We 1) tested the effect of initial amounts of brood on colony population size and flight activity in screened greenhouses during the winter, and 2) compared foraging from colonies with brood used within screened and unscreened greenhouses during the summer. Brood rearing was maintained at low levels in both brood and no-brood colonies after 21 d during the winter, and emerging honey bees from both treatments had significantly lower weights than bees from outdoor colonies. Honey bee flight activity throughout the day and over the 21 d in the greenhouse was not influenced by initial brood level. In our summer experiment, brood production in screened greenhouses neared zero after 21 d but higher levels of brood were reared in unscreened greenhouses with access to outside forage. Flower visitation measured throughout the day and over the 21 d the colonies were in the greenhouse was not influenced by screening treatment. An economic analysis indicated that managing honey bees for greenhouse tomato pollination would be financially viable for both beekeepers and growers. We conclude that honey bees can be successfully managed for greenhouse tomato pollination in both screened and unscreened greenhouses if the foraging force is maintained by replacing colonies every 3 wk.     

Diurnal effectiveness of pollination by bees and flies in agricultural Brassica rapa: Implications for ecosystem resilience

Bees are known to provide pollination services to a wide range of crops, yet flies are rarely included in estimates of function. As bees and flies differ markedly in their life history characteristics and resource needs, they may be active and hence provide pollination services at different times of the day. Here, we explore the differences in bee and fly diurnal activity patterns and how this may impact upon pollination services provided to Brassica rapa, a mass-flowering crop. We observed pollinators at two-hourly intervals from 6:00 to 20:00 h in twelve fields in New Zealand in 2004–2005. Overall, bees were most active in the middle of the day and were more effective pollinators than flies, driven primarily by the high pollinator efficiency of Apis mellifera and Bombus terrestris. Some fly taxa however, visited flowers early and late in the day when there were few bees. The results of this study demonstrate that fine-scale temporal dynamics and the spatial distribution of crop pollinators may directly affect the quantity of pollination services. The maintenance of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems may therefore be critical to ensure pollinator taxa are available under a range of environmental conditions.     

Does Pathogen Spillover from Commercially Reared Bumble Bees Threaten Wild Pollinators?

The conservation of insect pollinators is drawing attention because of reported declines in bee species and the 'ecosystem services' they provide. This issue has been brought to a head by recent devastating losses of honey bees throughout North America (so called, 'Colony Collapse Disorder'); yet, we still have little understanding of the cause(s) of bee declines. Wild bumble bees (Bombus spp.) have also suffered serious declines and circumstantial evidence suggests that pathogen 'spillover' from commercially reared bumble bees, which are used extensively to pollinate greenhouse crops, is a possible cause. We constructed a spatially explicit model of pathogen spillover in bumble bees and, using laboratory experiments and the literature, estimated parameter values for the spillover of Crithidia bombi, a destructive pathogen commonly found in commercial Bombus. We also monitored wild bumble bee populations near greenhouses for evidence of pathogen spillover, and compared the fit of our model to patterns of C. bombi infection observed in the field. Our model predicts that, during the first three months of spillover, transmission from commercial hives would infect up to 20% of wild bumble bees within 2 km of the greenhouse. However, a travelling wave of disease is predicted to form suddenly, infecting up to 35-100% of wild Bombus, and spread away from the greenhouse at a rate of 2 km/wk. In the field, although we did not observe a large epizootic wave of infection, the prevalences of C. bombi near greenhouses were consistent with our model. Indeed, we found that spillover has allowed C. bombi to invade several wild bumble bee species near greenhouses. Given the available evidence, it is likely that pathogen spillover from commercial bees is contributing to the ongoing decline of wild Bombus in North America. Improved management of domestic bees, for example by reducing their parasite loads and their overlap with wild congeners, could diminish or even eliminate pathogen spillover.     

Differential sensitivity of honey bees and bumble bees to a dietary insecticide (imidacloprid)

Currently, there is concern about declining bee populations and the sustainability of pollination services. One potential threat to bees is the unintended impact of systemic insecticides, which are ingested by bees in the nectar and pollen from flowers of treated crops. To establish whether imidacloprid, a systemic neonicotinoid and insect neurotoxin, harms individual bees when ingested at environmentally realistic levels, we exposed adult worker bumble bees, Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), and honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), to dietary imidacloprid in feeder syrup at dosages between 0.08 and 125 μg l^?1. Honey bees showed no response to dietary imidacloprid on any variable that we measured (feeding, locomotion and longevity). In contrast, bumble bees progressively developed over time a dose-dependent reduction in feeding rate with declines of 10–30% in the environmentally relevant range of up to 10 μg l^?1, but neither their locomotory activity nor longevity varied with diet. To explain their differential sensitivity, we speculate that honey bees are better pre-adapted than bumble bees to feed on nectars containing synthetic alkaloids, such as imidacloprid, by virtue of their ancestral adaptation to tropical nectars in which natural alkaloids are prevalent. We emphasise that our study does not suggest that honey bee colonies are invulnerable to dietary imidacloprid under field conditions, but our findings do raise new concern about the impact of agricultural neonicotinoids on wild bumble bee populations.     

Reduced abundance and earlier collection of bumble bee workers under intensive cultivation of a mass‐flowering prairie crop

One of the most commonly seeded crops in Canada is canola, a cultivar of oilseed rape (Brassica napus). As a mass‐flowering crop grown intensively throughout the Canadian Prairies, canola has the potential to influence pollinator success across tens of thousands of square kilometers of cropland. Bumble bees (Bombus sp.) are efficient pollinators of many types of native and crop plants. We measured the influence of this mass‐flowering crop on the abundance and phenology of bumble bees, and on another species of social bee (a sweat bee; Halictus rubicundus), by continuously deploying traps at different levels of canola cultivation intensity, spanning the start and end of canola bloom. Queen bumble bees were more abundant in areas with more canola cover, indicating that this crop is attractive to queens. However, bumble bee workers were significantly fewer in these locations later in the season, suggesting reduced colony success. The median collection dates of workers of three bumble bee species were earlier near canola fields, suggesting a dynamic response of colonies to the increased floral resources. Different species experienced this shift to different extents. The sweat bee was not affected by canola cultivation intensity. Our findings suggest that mass‐flowering crops such as canola are attractive to bumble bee queens and therefore may lead to higher rates of colony establishment, but also that colonies established near this crop may be less successful. We propose that the effect on bumble bees can be mitigated by spacing the crop more evenly with respect to alternate floral resources.     

Pollination efficiency and foraging behaviour of honey bees and non‐Apis bees to sweet cherry

1. Crop pollination generally increases with pollinator diversity and wild pollinator visitation. To optimize crop pollination, it is necessary to investigate the pollination contribution of different pollinator species. In the present study, we examined this contribution of honey bees and non‐Apis bees (bumble bees, mason bees and other solitary bees) in sweet cherry.
2. We assessed the pollination efficiency (fruit set of flowers receiving only one visit) and foraging behaviour (flower visitation rate, probability of tree change, probability of row change and contact with the stigma) of honey bees and different types of non‐Apis bees.
3. Single visit pollination efficiency on sweet cherry was higher for both mason bees and solitary bees compared with bumble bees and honey bees. The different measures of foraging behaviour were variable among non‐Apis bees and honey bees. Adding to their high single visit efficiency, mason bees also visited significantly more flower per minute, and they had a high probability of tree change and a high probability to contact the stigma.
4. The results of the present study highlight the higher pollination performance of solitary bees and especially mason bees compared with bumble bees and honey bees. Management to support species with high pollination efficiency and effective foraging behaviour will promote crop pollination.

     

Supporting crop pollinators with floral resources: network‐based phenological matching

The production of diverse and affordable agricultural crop species depends on pollination services provided by bees. Indeed, the proportion of pollinator‐dependent crops is increasing globally. Agriculture relies heavily on the domesticated honeybee; the services provided by this single species are under threat and becoming increasingly costly. Importantly, the free pollination services provided by diverse wild bee communities have been shown to be sufficient for high agricultural yields in some systems. However, stable, functional wild bee communities require floral resources, such as pollen and nectar, throughout their active season, not just when crop species are in flower. To target floral provisioning efforts to conserve and support native and managed bee species, we apply network theoretical methods incorporating plant and pollinator phenologies. Using a two‐year dataset comprising interactions between bees (superfamily Apoidea, Anthophila) and 25 native perennial plant species in floral provisioning habitat, we identify plant and bee species that provide a key and central role to the stability of the structure of this community. We also examine three specific case studies: how provisioning habitat can provide temporally continuous support for honeybees (Apis mellifera) and bumblebees (Bombus impatiens), and how resource supplementation strategies might be designed for a single genus of important orchard pollinators (Osmia). This framework could be used to provide native bee communities with additional, well‐targeted floral resources to ensure that they not only survive, but also thrive.