Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?

Pollination by bees and other animals increases the size, quality, or stability of harvests for 70% of leading global crops. Because native species pollinate many of these crops effectively, conserving habitats for wild pollinators within agricultural landscapes can help maintain pollination services. Using hierarchical Bayesian techniques, we synthesize the results of 23 studies – representing 16 crops on five continents – to estimate the general relationship between pollination services and distance from natural or semi-natural habitats. We find strong exponential declines in both pollinator richness and native visitation rate. Visitation rate declines more steeply, dropping to half of its maximum at 0.6 km from natural habitat, compared to 1.5 km for richness. Evidence of general decline in fruit and seed set – variables that directly affect yields – is less clear. Visitation rate drops more steeply in tropical compared with temperate regions, and slightly more steeply for social compared with solitary bees. Tropical crops pollinated primarily by social bees may therefore be most susceptible to pollination failure from habitat loss. Quantifying these general relationships can help predict consequences of land use change on pollinator communities and crop productivity, and can inform landscape conservation efforts that balance the needs of native species and people.     

Bee Species Diversity Enhances Productivity and Stability in a Perennial Crop

Wild bees provide important pollination services to agroecoystems, but the mechanisms which underlie their contribution to ecosystem functioning—and, therefore, their importance in maintaining and enhancing these services—remain unclear. We evaluated several mechanisms through which wild bees contribute to crop productivity, the stability of pollinator visitation, and the efficiency of individual pollinators in a highly bee-pollination dependent plant, highbush blueberry. We surveyed the bee community (through transect sampling and pan trapping) and measured pollination of both open- and singly-visited flowers. We found that the abundance of managed honey bees, Apis mellifera, and wild-bee richness were equally important in describing resulting open pollination. Wild-bee richness was a better predictor of pollination than wild-bee abundance. We also found evidence suggesting pollinator visitation (and subsequent pollination) are stabilized through the differential response of bee taxa to weather (i.e., response diversity). Variation in the individual visit efficiency of A. mellifera and the southeastern blueberry bee, Habropoda laboriosa, a wild specialist, was not associated with changes in the pollinator community. Our findings add to a growing literature that diverse pollinator communities provide more stable and productive ecosystem services.     

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.     

Co-flowering plants support diverse pollinator populations and facilitate pollinator visitation to sweet cherry crops

Many food crops depend on animal pollination to set fruit. In light of pollinator declines there is growing recognition of the need for agro-ecosystems that can sustain wild pollinator populations, ensuring fruit production and pollinator conservation into the future. One method of supporting resident wild pollinator populations within agricultural landscapes is to encourage and maintain floral diversity. However, pollinator visitation to crop plants can be affected either positively (facilitation) or negatively (competition) by the presence of co-flowering plants. The strength and direction of the facilitative/competitive relationship is driven by multiple factors, including floral abundance and the degree of overlap in pollinator visitation networks. We sought to determine how plant-pollinator networks, within and surrounding sweet cherry (Prunus avium) orchards, change across key time points during the cherry flowering season, in three growing regions in Australia. We found significant overlap in the suite of flower visitors, with seven taxa (including native bees, flies, hoverflies and introduced honey bees, Apis mellifera) observed visiting cherry and other co-flowering species within the orchard and/or the wider surrounding matrix. We found evidence of pollinator facilitation with significantly more total cherry flower visits with increasing percent cover of co-flowering plants within the wider landscape matrix and increased visitation to cherry by honey bees with increasing co-flowering plant richness within the orchard. During the cherry flowering period there was a significant positive relationship between pollinator richness on cherry and pollinator richness on co-flowering plants within the orchard and the area of native vegetation surrounding orchards. Outside of the crop flowering season, co-flowering plants within the orchard and wider landscape matrix supported the same pollinator taxa that were recorded visiting cherry when the crop was flowering. This shows wild plants help support the pollinators important to crop pollination, outside of the crop flowering season, highlighting the role of co-flowering plants within pollinator-dependent cropping systems.     

Diverse pollinator communities enhance plant reproductive success

Understanding the functional consequences of biodiversity loss is a major goal of ecology. Animal-mediated pollination is an essential ecosystem function and service provided to mankind. However, little is known how pollinator diversity could affect pollination services. Using a substitutive design, we experimentally manipulated functional group (FG) and species richness of pollinator communities to investigate their consequences on the reproductive success of an obligate out-crossing model plant species, Raphanus sativus. Both fruit and seed set increased with pollinator FG richness. Furthermore, seed set increased with species richness in pollinator communities composed of a single FG. However, in multiple-FG communities, highest species richness resulted in slightly reduced pollination services compared with intermediate species richness. Our analysis indicates that the presence of social bees, which showed roughly four times higher visitation rates than solitary bees or hoverflies, was an important factor contributing to the positive pollinator diversity–pollination service relationship, in particular, for fruit set. Visitation rate at different daytimes, and less so among flower heights, varied among social bees, solitary bees and hoverflies, indicating a niche complementarity among these pollinator groups. Our study demonstrates enhanced pollination services of diverse pollinator communities at the plant population level and suggests that both the niche complementarity and the presence of specific taxa in a pollinator community drive this positive relationship.     

Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta‐analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops

To manage agroecosystems for multiple ecosystem services, we need to know whether the management of one service has positive, negative, or no effects on other services. We do not yet have data on the interactions between pollination and pest‐control services. However, we do have data on the distributions of pollinators and natural enemies in agroecosystems. Therefore, we compared these two groups of ecosystem service providers, to see if the management of farms and agricultural landscapes might have similar effects on the abundance and richness of both. In a meta‐analysis, we compared 46 studies that sampled bees, predatory beetles, parasitic wasps, and spiders in fields, orchards, or vineyards of food crops. These studies used the proximity or proportion of non‐crop or natural habitats in the landscapes surrounding these crops (a measure of landscape complexity), or the proximity or diversity of non‐crop plants in the margins of these crops (a measure of local complexity), to explain the abundance or richness of these beneficial arthropods. Compositional complexity at both landscape and local scales had positive effects on both pollinators and natural enemies, but different effects on different taxa. Effects on bees and spiders were significantly positive, but effects on parasitoids and predatory beetles (mostly Carabidae and Staphylinidae) were inconclusive. Landscape complexity had significantly stronger effects on bees than it did on predatory beetles and significantly stronger effects in non‐woody rather than in woody crops. Effects on richness were significantly stronger than effects on abundance, but possibly only for spiders. This abundance‐richness difference might be caused by differences between generalists and specialists, or between arthropods that depend on non‐crop habitats (ecotone species and dispersers) and those that do not (cultural species). We call this the ‘specialist‐generalist’ or ‘cultural difference’ mechanism. If complexity has stronger effects on richness than abundance, it might have stronger effects on the stability than the magnitude of these arthropod‐mediated ecosystem services. We conclude that some pollinators and natural enemies seem to have compatible responses to complexity, and it might be possible to manage agroecosystems for the benefit of both. However, too few studies have compared the two, and so we cannot yet conclude that there are no negative interactions between pollinators and natural enemies, and no trade‐offs between pollination and pest‐control services. Therefore, we suggest a framework for future research to bridge these gaps in our knowledge.     

Annual flower strips support pollinators and potentially enhance red clover seed yield

Ecological intensification provides opportunity to increase agricultural productivity while minimizing negative environmental impacts, by supporting ecosystem services such as crop pollination and biological pest control. For this we need to develop targeted management solutions that provide critical resources to service‐providing organisms at the right time and place. We tested whether annual strips of early flowering phacelia Phacelia tanacetifolia support pollinators and natural enemies of seed weevils Protapion spp., by attracting and offering nectar and pollen before the crop flowers. This was expected to increase yield of red clover Trifolium pratense seed. We monitored insect pollinators, pests, natural enemies and seed yields in a total of 50 clover fields along a landscape heterogeneity gradient, over 2 years and across two regions in southern Sweden. About half of the fields were sown with flower strips of 125–2,000 m². The clover fields were pollinated by 60% bumble bees Bombus spp. and 40% honey bees Apis mellifera. The clover seed yield was negatively associated with weevil density, but was unrelated to bee species richness and density. Flower strips enhanced bumble bees species richness in the clover fields, with the strongest influence in heterogeneous landscapes. There were few detectable differences between crop fields with and without flower strips. However, long‐tongued bumble bees were redistributed toward field interiors and during phacelia bloom honey bees toward field edges. Clover seed yield also increased with increasing size of the flower strip. We conclude that annual flower strips of early flower resources can support bumble bee species richness and, if sufficiently large, possibly also increase crop yields. However, clover seed yield was mainly limited by weevil infestation, which was not influenced by the annual flower strips. A future goal should be to design targeted measures for pest control.     

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.     

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.     

Disentangling multiple drivers of pollination in a landscape-scale experiment

Animal pollination is essential for the reproductive success of many wild and crop plants. Loss and isolation of (semi-)natural habitats in agricultural landscapes can cause declines of plants and pollinators and endanger pollination services. We investigated the independent effects of these drivers on pollination of young cherry trees in a landscape-scale experiment. We included (i) isolation of study trees from other cherry trees (up to 350 m), (ii) the amount of cherry trees in the landscape, (iii) the isolation from other woody habitats (up to 200 m) and (iv) the amount of woody habitats providing nesting and floral resources for pollinators. At the local scale, we considered effects of (v) cherry flower density and (vi) heterospecific flower density. Pollinators visited flowers more often in landscapes with high amount of woody habitat and at sites with lower isolation from the next cherry tree. Fruit set was reduced by isolation from the next cherry tree and by a high local density of heterospecific flowers but did not directly depend on pollinator visitation. These results reveal the importance of considering the plant''s need for conspecific pollen and its pollen competition with co-flowering species rather than focusing only on pollinators’ habitat requirements and flower visitation. It proved to be important to disentangle habitat isolation from habitat loss, local from landscape-scale effects, and direct effects of pollen availability on fruit set from indirect effects via pollinator visitation to understand the delivery of an agriculturally important ecosystem service.     

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.     

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.

     

Orchard pollination in Capitol Reef National Park,Utah, USA. Honey bees or native bees?

Capitol Reef National Park in central Utah, USA surrounds 22 managed fruit orchards started over a century ago by Mormon pioneers. Honey bees are imported for pollination, although the area in which the Park is embedded has over 700 species of native bees, many of which are potential orchard pollinators. We studied the visitation of native bees to apple, pear, apricot, and sweet cherry over 2 years. Thirty species of bees visited the flowers but, except for pear flowers, most were uncommon compared to honey bees. Evidence that honey bees prevented native bees from foraging on orchard crop flowers was equivocal: generally, honey bee and native bee visitation rates to the flowers were not negatively correlated, nor were native bee visitation rates positively correlated with distance of orchards from honey bee hives. Conversely, competition was tentatively suggested by much larger numbers of honey bees than natives on the flowers of apples, apricots and cherry; and by the large increase of native bees on pears, where honey bee numbers were low. At least one-third of the native bee species visiting the flowers are potential pollinators, including cavity-nesting species such as Osmia lignaria propinqua, currently managed for small orchard pollination in the US, plus several fossorial species, including one rosaceous flower specialist (Andrena milwaukiensis). We suggest that gradual withdrawal of honey bees from the Park would help conserve native bee populations without decreasing orchard crop productivity, and would serve as a demonstration of the commercial value of native pollinators.     

Pollinator Interactions with Yellow Starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) across Urban,Agricultural, and Natural Landscapes

Pollinator-plant relationships are found to be particularly vulnerable to land use change. Yet despite extensive research in agricultural and natural systems, less attention has focused on these interactions in neighboring urban areas and its impact on pollination services. We investigated pollinator-plant interactions in a peri-urban landscape on the outskirts of the San Francisco Bay Area, California, where urban, agricultural, and natural land use types interface. We made standardized observations of floral visitation and measured seed set of yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), a common grassland invasive, to test the hypotheses that increasing urbanization decreases 1) rates of bee visitation, 2) viable seed set, and 3) the efficiency of pollination (relationship between bee visitation and seed set). We unexpectedly found that bee visitation was highest in urban and agricultural land use contexts, but in contrast, seed set rates in these human-altered landscapes were lower than in natural sites. An explanation for the discrepancy between floral visitation and seed set is that higher plant diversity in urban and agricultural areas, as a result of more introduced species, decreases pollinator efficiency. If these patterns are consistent across other plant species, the novel plant communities created in these managed landscapes and the generalist bee species that are favored by human-altered environments will reduce pollination services.     

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.     

Influence of habitat complexity and landscape configuration on pollination and seed-dispersal interactions of wild cherry trees

Land-use intensification is a major cause for the decline in species diversity in human-modified landscapes. The loss of functionally important species can reduce a variety of ecosystem functions, such as pollination and seed dispersal, but the intricate relationships between land-use intensity, biodiversity and ecosystem functioning are still contentious. Along a gradient from forest to intensively used farmland, we quantified bee species richness, visitation rates of bees and pollination success of wild cherry trees (Prunus avium). We analysed the effects of structural habitat diversity at a local scale and of the proportion of suitable habitat around each tree at a landscape scale. We compared these findings with those from previous studies of seed-dispersing birds and mammals in the same model system and along the same land-use gradient. Bee species richness and visitation rates were found to be highest in structurally simple habitats, whereas bird species richness—but not their visitation rates—were highest in structurally complex habitats. Mammal visitation rates were only influenced at the landscape scale. These results show that different functional groups of animals respond idiosyncratically to gradients in habitat and landscape structure. Despite strong effects on bees and birds, pollination success and bird seed removal did not differ along the land-use gradient at both spatial scales. These results suggest that mobile organisms, such as bees and birds, move over long distances in intensively used landscapes and thereby buffer pollination and seed-dispersal interactions. We conclude that measures of species richness and interaction frequencies are not sufficient on their own to understand the ultimate consequences of land-use intensification on ecosystem functioning.     

Invasive ant (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Anoplolepis gracilipes</Emphasis>) disrupts pollination in pumpkin

Yellow crazy ant (Anoplolepis gracilipes (F. Smith); “YCA”) is known for its aggressive predatory ability and ability to exert exploitation competition on both native and other invasive ants via floral nectar. We argue that YCA invasion can exert both interference and exploitation competition on legitimate pollinators. In pumpkin fields (Cucurbita maxima L.) of south India, YCA infested the flowers, particularly the pistillate flowers, for nectar foraging. Pumpkin is a honey bee-mediated cross-pollinated monoecious plant that produces disproportionately very few pistillate flowers. We hypothesize that YCA presence in the flowers can affect the visitation rate and foraging time of honey bees in the flowers, the fruit set in pumpkins, and can exert predatory pressure on the honey bees if the bees linger in ant-colonized flowers. Both YCA and honey bees preferred to forage on the limited pistillate flowers in the plants. After colonizing the flowers, YCA did not retreat for hours, even upon disturbance by competitors, such as honey bees. Both the visitation frequency and the foraging time of honey bees were drastically reduced in ant-colonized flowers, and none of the ant-colonized flowers developed into fruits, suggesting that the YCA exert both an ecological and evolutionary pressure on pumpkin. The ants preyed upon about 17% of the honey bees that lingered in ant-colonized flowers, and the time the bees spent foraging predicted the fate of the bees. Exploitation competition exerted by the YCA on pumpkin may have far-reaching consequences for the pollination and productivity of this cash crop.     

Relationships between wild bees,hoverflies and pollination success in apple orchards with different landscape contexts

相似文献   

Red mason bees cannot compete with honey bees for floral resources in a cage experiment

Intensive beekeeping to mitigate crop pollination deficits and habitat loss may cause interspecific competition between bees. Studies show negative correlations between flower visitation of honey bees (Apis mellifera) and wild bees, but effects on the reproduction of wild bees were not proven. Likely reasons are that honey bees can hardly be excluded from controls and wild bee nests are generally difficult to detect in field experiments. The goal of this study was to investigate whether red mason bees (Osmia bicornis) compete with honey bees in cages in order to compare the reproduction of red mason bees under different honey bee densities. Three treatments were applied, each replicated in four cages of 18 m³ with 38 red mason bees in all treatments and 0, 100, and 300 honey bees per treatment with 10–20% being foragers. Within the cages, the flower visitation and interspecific displacements from flowers were observed. Niche breadths and resource overlaps of both bee species were calculated, and the reproduction of red mason bees was measured. Red mason bees visited fewer flowers when honey bees were present. Niche breadth of red mason bees decreased with increasing honey bee density while resource overlaps remained constant. The reproduction of red mason bees decreased in cages with honey bees. In conclusion, our experimental results show that in small and isolated flower patches, wild bees can temporarily suffer from competition with honey bees. Further research should aim to test for competition on small and isolated flower patches in real landscapes.     

The effects of landscape on bumblebees to ensure crop pollination in the highland agricultural ecosystems in China

Honey bees and wild bees provide critical pollination services to agricultural ecosystems; however, the relative contributions of different bee taxa are not well understood. The natural habitats surrounding farmland support food and nesting resources for wild bees and therefore play an important role in the maintenance of crop pollination. In this study, we selected Cucurbita pepo L. (squash) as a model crop to investigate the relative importance of honey bees and bumblebees in pollinating the crop. Thirteen fields, which were surrounded by a gradient of natural habitat, were investigated on the Yunnan‐Guizhou Plateau in China. We measured the visit densities of honey bees and bumblebees, the number of pollen grains deposited in a single visit by the two bee taxa, as well as the overall pollen grains deposited on stigmas during a flowering day, and then used Bayesian inference to decouple the pollen grains deposited by either the honey bees or the bumblebees. Compared with honey bees, bumblebees deposited a higher number of pollen grains on stigmas in a single visit, but had a lower visit density than honey bees. Meanwhile, the bumblebee visit density increased along the proportion of natural habitat, while the honey bee visit density was not affected by the surrounding natural habitat. Data simulations using Bayesian inference showed that on a flowering day, the number of pollen grains deposited by bumblebees increased with the proportion of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape, but the number of pollen grains deposited by honey bees did not. Moreover, the total numbers of pollen grains deposited by honey bees or bumblebees alone were all below 2000 (the critical level to satisfy the pollination requirement of this crop). Pollen calculations demonstrated that the number of pollen grains deposited by the two bee taxa was greater than 2000 in fields surrounded by more than 13% natural habitat (grasslands and forests). The results revealed that bumblebees ensured C. pepo pollination in combination with honey bees in the highland agricultural ecosystems.