scholarly journals Current Pesticide Risk Assessment Protocols Do Not Adequately Address Differences between Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) and Bumble Bees (Bombus spp.)

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Stoner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Bumble Bees ◽  
Pesticide Risk Assessment

scholarly journals Busy Bees: Variation in Insect Flower-Visiting Rates across Multiple Plant Species

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret J. Couvillon ◽  
Chandra M. Walter ◽  
Eluned M. Blows ◽  
Tomer J. Czaczkes ◽  
Karin L. Alton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bee ◽  
Plant Species ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Bumble Bees ◽  
The Other ◽  
Insect Diversity ◽  
Visitation Rates ◽  
Insect Visitation ◽  
Flower Visiting

We quantified insect visitation rates by counting how many flowers/inflorescences were probed per unit time for five plant species (four native and one garden: California lilac, bramble, ragwort, wild marjoram, and ivy) growing in Sussex, United Kingdom, by following individual insects (n=2987) from nine functional groups (honey bees (Apis mellifera), bumble bees (Bombusspp.), hoverflies, flies, butterflies, beetles, wasps, non-Apidae bees, and moths). Additionally, we made a census of the insect diversity on the studied plant species. Overall we found that insect groups differed greatly in their rate of flower visits (P<2.2e-16), with bumble bees and honey bees visiting significantly more flowers per time (11.5 and 9.2 flowers/minute, resp.) than the other insect groups. Additionally, we report on a within-group difference in the non-Apidae bees, where the genusOsmia, which is often suggested as an alternative to honey bees as a managed pollinator, was very speedy (13.4 flowers/minute) compared to the other non-Apidae bees (4.3 flowers/minute). Our census showed that the plants attracted a range of insects, with the honey bee as the most abundant visitor (34%). Therefore, rate differences cannot be explained by particular specializations. Lastly, we discuss potential implications of our conclusions for pollination.

scholarly journals The factors influencing the pollinators visitation of the oilseed rape cultivars

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (No. 12) ◽  
pp. 574-580
Author(s):  
Jan Kazda ◽  
Aneta Bokšová ◽  
Martina Stejskalová ◽  
Tomáš Šubrt ◽  
Jan Bartoška ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Oilseed Rape ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Bumble Bees ◽  
Major Influence ◽  
Winter Oilseed Rape ◽  
Pollinator Visitation ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Visitation Rates ◽  
The Individual

Currently, the hybrid cultivars are predominant in the cultivation of winter oilseed rape in Europe. Cultivation of hybrid cultivars instead of the traditional line can affect the visitation of pollinators. Beekeepers and farmers claim that hybrid cultivars are not visited by pollinators as much as the line. Ten yellow and one white flowering oilseed rape cultivars were used to compare the visitation rates of pollinators (Apis mellifera L. and Bombus sp.) during flowering in the years 2015–2017. At the same time, the visitation of hybrid and line cultivars by pollinators was evaluated. Visitation of pollinators on each cultivar was calculated from observed visitations to flowering oilseed rape plants in an area 2.1 m<sup>2</sup> from the edge of single plots for 20 s. The results from this study clearly show that the individual cultivars, whether hybrids or lines, did not have a major influence on the pollinators’ visitation, either by honey bees or bumble bees. It is thus proved that hybrid cultivars do not affect the pollinator visitation and there is no need to worry about the prevalence of these cultivars in the Czech fields. However, a more significant effect for both pollinator groups appears to have been the color of the flower.

scholarly journals Co-occurrence of RNA viruses in Tasmanian-introduced bumble bees (Bombus terrestris) and honey bees (Apis mellifera)

Apidologie ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-251
Author(s):  
Elisabeth Fung ◽  
Kelly Hill ◽  
Katja Hogendoorn ◽  
Andrew B. Hingston ◽  
Richard V. Glatz
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Rna Viruses ◽  
Bombus Terrestris ◽  
Bumble Bees

scholarly journals Native bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) pollinators vary in floral resource use across an invasion gradient

2017 ◽  
Vol 149 (2) ◽  
pp. 204-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.D. Gillespie ◽  
J. Bayley ◽  
E. Elle
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Bumble Bees ◽  
Bumble Bee ◽  
Direct And Indirect Effects ◽  
Native Range ◽  
Local Plant ◽  
Local Plants ◽  
Floral Resource

AbstractIntegration of pollinator-dependent invasive plants into native pollination networks can have direct and indirect effects on local plant and pollinator communities. Impacts on local plants are well documented; however effects on native pollinators have gained less attention. We examine these issues in habitat fragments of the endangered oak-savannah ecosystem in British Columbia, Canada. We measured pollen collection by native bumble bees (Bombus Latreille; Hymenoptera: Apidae) and the introduced honey bee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus; Hymenoptera: Apidae) foraging on two common native plants in habitat fragments with varying invasive (Cytisus scoparius (Linnaeus) Link; Fabaceae) density. The Bombus species with the largest workers had higher proportions of invasive pollen on their bodies and in their corbiculae than smaller workers. Honey bees rarely collected C. scoparius pollen. While some native bumble bees species collect an increasing proportion of C. scoparius pollen with increasing C. scoparius density, this did not translate into an increased potential for pollination. Rather, measures of effective pollination decline with C. scoparius density. Overall, our results suggest that some bee species may be better at finding resources at highly invaded sites. Apis mellifera is likely not playing a major role in facilitating the spread of C. scoparius in our region. Rather C. scoparius is visited by a complement of native bumble bees that are similar to pollinators in the native range of this plant.

Longer tongues and swifter handling: why do more bumble bees (Bombusspp.) than honey bees (Apis mellifera) forage on lavender (Lavandulaspp.)?

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICHOLAS J. BALFOUR ◽  
MIHAIL GARBUZOV ◽  
FRANCIS L.W. RATNIEKS
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Bumble Bees

scholarly journals Overview of the testing and assessment of effects of microbial pesticides on bees: strengths, challenges and perspectives

Apidologie ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon Borges ◽  
Abdulrahim T. Alkassab ◽  
Elizabeth Collison ◽  
Silvia Hinarejos ◽  
Ben Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Plant Protection ◽  
Risk Profile ◽  
Testing Methods ◽  
Regulatory Requirements ◽  
Microbial Pesticides ◽  
Chemical Pesticides

AbstractCurrently, there is a growing interest in developing biopesticides and increasing their share in the plant protection market as sustainable tools in integrated pest management (IPM). Therefore, it is important that regulatory requirements are consistent and thorough in consideration of biopesticides’ unique properties. While microbial pesticides generally have a lower risk profile, they present special challenges in non-target organism testing and risk assessment since, in contrast to chemical pesticides, their modes of action include infectivity and pathogenicity rather than toxicity alone. For this reason, non-target organism testing guidelines designed for conventional chemical pesticides are not necessarily directly applicable to microbial pesticides. Many stakeholders have recognised the need for improvements in the guidance available for testing microbial pesticides with honey bees, particularly given the increasing interest in development and registration of microbial pesticides and concerns over risks to pollinators. This paper provides an overview of the challenges with testing and assessment of the effects of microbial pesticides on honey bees (Apis mellifera), which have served as a surrogate for both Apis and non-Apis bees, and provides a foundation toward developing improved testing methods.

scholarly journals Diurnal insect visitation patterns to ‘Hayward’ kiwifruit flowers in New Zealand

2017 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 52-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.G. Howlett ◽  
S.F.J. Read ◽  
L.K. Jesson ◽  
A. Benoist ◽  
L.E. Evans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Apis Mellifera ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Temporal Pattern ◽  
Bombus Terrestris ◽  
Bumble Bees ◽  
Native Bees ◽  
Flower Visitation ◽  
Longhorn Beetles ◽  
Insect Visitation ◽  
Hover Flies

Different pollinators may vary in their temporal flower-visitation patterns within crops, potentially extending the period pollination may occur. To assess whether this could be the case in kiwifruit, we conducted standardised observational surveys of insects visiting kiwifruit flowers within 31 orchards at three times: 10:00—11:00, 12:00—13:00 and 14:00—15:00 hr. Honey bees (Apis mellifera) represented 92% of visitations (n=5474), but temporal abundances were uneven (predicted abundances were lower at 14:00—15:00 hr). Predatory hover flies (Melangyna, Melonostoma, Allograpta spp.) also showed an uneven temporal pattern. There were no significant differences in the temporal abundances for buff-tailed bumble bees (Bombus terrestris), rat- tailed hover flies (Eristalis, Helophilus spp.), March flies (Dilophis nigrostigma), flower longhorn beetles (Zorion guttigerum) or the native bees (Leioproctus and Lasioglossum spp.) although, in some cases, low numbers may have masked potential unevenness trends. Variation in diurnal flower-visitation patterns among insects suggests the potential for complementarity between different pollinators.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document