Tag Archives: Bees

Scale matters when analysing plant-pollinator networks: a new research paper out today

It’s long been recognised that the scale at which we study the natural world – over long or short time periods, or across small areas or whole regions – affects the conclusions that we draw about ecological patterns and processes. This is certainly true of plant-pollinator interactions. For example, a widely distributed plant can have very different pollinators at the extremes of its range, and pollinators like bees may vary their focus on nectar and pollen sources from year to year.

The analysis of these interactions as networks of actors has become increasingly popular in the last couple of decades. However there is no consensus about how frequent sampling should be, or the geographical scale over which networks should be studied. In fact all scales (from regional “meta-networks” down to single-season, single-site, single taxon observations) are relevant, depending on the questions being asked or the hypotheses posed.

But it’s important that we acknowledge that conclusions drawn at one scale may not apply at other scales.

That’s the take home message from a paper published this week which is the latest output from the PhD work of Australian bee expert Kit Prendergast. We have collaborated on several papers based on her data and this is actually my 100th peer-reviewed publication: a proud milestone for me and one which I’m glad to share with a wonderful early career researcher like Kit!

Here’s the reference with a link to a read-only version of the paper:

Prendergast, K.S. & Ollerton, J. (2022) Spatial and temporal scale of analysis alters conclusions about the effects of urbanisation on plant-pollinator networks. Arthropod-Plant Interactions https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01290-z

And here’s the abstract:

Bipartite networks of flowering plants and their visitors (potential pollinators) are increasingly being used in studies of the structure and function of these ecological interactions. Whilst they hold much promise in understanding the ecology of plant– pollinator networks and how this may be altered by environmental perturbations, like land-use change and invasive species, there is no consensus about the scale at which such networks should be constructed and analysed. Ecologists, however, have emphasised that many processes are scale dependent. Here, we compare network- and species-level properties of ecological networks analysed at the level of a site, pooling across sites within a given habitat for each month of surveys, and pooling across all sites and months to create a single network per habitat type. We additionally considered how these three scales of resolution influenced conclusions regarding differences between networks according to two contrasting habitat types (urban bushland remnants and residential gardens) and the influence of honey bee abundance on network properties. We found that most network properties varied markedly depending on the scale of analysis, as did the significance, or lack thereof, of habitat type and honey bee abundance on network properties. We caution against pooling across sites and months as this can create unrealistic links, invalidating conclusions on network structure. In conclusion, consideration of scale of analysis is also important when conducting and interpreting plant–pollinator networks.

Plant–bee interactions and resource utilisation in an urban landscape: a new study just published

1 Reply

Within the last decade there’s been a growing awareness of the importance of urban environments for supporting populations of pollinators, especially bees. Indeed, I devoted a whole chapter of my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society to the topic, though even then I was only able to scratch the surface of the research that’s been done. Since then there’s been some important studies published and this 2020 review by Kath Baldock provides a good starting point for the topic, whilst a recent pre-print by Pietro Maruyama and colleagues emphasises how little we know about pollinators in tropical cities.

One of the most detailed studies of urban solitary bees in a British town was conducted by Muzafar Sirohi when he was a PhD researcher in my department in Northampton. The first paper from that work, documenting the diversity and abundance of bees, came out in 2015, but since then commitments to other projects, plus Muzafar’s return to his university in Pakistan, have meant that we’ve struggled to find the time to publish more. Hopefully that’s changing and the second publication from Muzafar’s thesis is now out, with a third in progress.

This new paper uses a network approach to study the use of flowers by these bees; here’s the reference with a link to a read-only copy of the paper, followed by the abstract.

Sirohi, M.H., Jackson, J. & Ollerton, J. (2022) Plant–bee interactions and resource utilisation in an urban landscape. Urban Ecosystems https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01290-z

Abstract:

Biodiversity is declining through human activities and urbanisation is often seen as a particular concern. Urban settings, however, provide diverse microclimatic conditions for plants and pollinating insects, and therefore may be significant habitats for the conservation of solitary and primitively eusocial bees, a major group of pollinators. This study analysed the interactions between these bees and the plants on which they forage, using a network approach. We compared urban habitats (gardens, roadsides, and open vegetation) in a large British town with nearby nature reserves. One native plant Taraxacum officinale (dandelion) was a core generalist species visited in all habitat types. Other core plant species restricted to particular habitats include species of Geranium, Bellis, Crepis, and Ranunculus. Two generalist bee species, Anthophora plumipes and Osmia bicornis were the core visitor species within the networks. The networks were comparatively more nested in urban habitat types than nature areas, suggesting more frequent interactions between generalist and specialist species in urban areas. Network connectance, network level specialisation (H2’ index), and plant generality (network level) were not significantly different in urban and nature areas. However, visitor generality was found to be significantly higher in urban gardens than in nature areas. Careful management of common urban vegetation would be beneficial for supporting urban wild pollinators.

Pollinator-flower interactions in gardens during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of 2020: the data paper has just been published!

8 Replies

During the lockdown period of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, many pollination ecologists were stuck at home: universities and research institutes were closed and restrictions on travel meant that it was not possible to get out and do field work. In order to keep active and motivated, and to turn adversity into an opportunity, an ad hoc network of more than 70 researchers from 15 different countries (see the map above) decided to collect standardised data on the plant-pollinator networks in their own gardens and nearby public spaces.

When combined with information about location, size of garden, floral diversity, how the garden is managed, and so forth, this would provide some useful data about how gardens support pollinators. For those with kids at home it could also be a good way of getting them out into fresh air and giving them something to do!

Following discussions, several different protocols were instigated which depended upon the time available to the researchers, including one that mirrored the UK Pollinator Monitoring Scheme’s FIT (Flower-Insect Timed) counts.

The resulting data set of almost 47,000 visits by insects and birds to flowers, as well as information about flowers that were never visited, is freely available and will be an invaluable resource for pollination ecologists. For example, analysing the links between ornamental flowers that share pollinators with fruits and vegetables such as apples and beans, will allow us to make recommendations for the best plants to grow in home gardens that can increase yields of crops.

There’s an old saying about turning adversity into a positive outcome: “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade”, and the researchers were pleased to find that there’s one record of Citrus limon in the data set!

The paper describing the data set has just been published in the Journal of Pollination Ecology and you can download a PDF of the paper and the associated data for free by following this link.

Sincere thanks to all of my co-authors for their commitment to the project!

Which honeybees are declining and which are not?

3 Replies

Over the weekend there was a discussion on Twitter about “beewashing” that was spun out of this tweet by London beekeeper Richard Glassborow. Richard and his colleagues are some of the most responsible beekeepers that I know and they are getting increasingly frustrated by claims from irresponsible companies that keeping a hive of bees in your garden will help to “save the bees”, backed up by spurious claims that “honeybee colonies are dying out”.

The Twitter exchange prompted me to produce the Condescending Wonka meme that you see above because, as I discussed in my recent book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society, pollinator conservation is a really complex area. But there’s no doubt that beekeeping as it’s being widely promoted is not the answer to bee conservation. Let me explain why.

The word “honeybee” does not refer to just one species. It’s most often* applied to bees in the genus Apis, especially the Western Honeybee Apis mellifera, but there are another seven or so Apis species to which the word can be applied. Of those other Apis species, most have never been domesticated and they live as free-living colonies is the various parts of Asia where they evolved. Only Apis cerana is kept in hives, as far as I am aware. The conservation status of most of these other Apis species is unclear but given that they are predominantly forest species, and deforestation is a chronic problem in Asia, we can surmise that some species may be declining. If you want to know more about them the Wikipedia page is a good starting point.

In this short post I just want to consider the Western Honeybee (Apis mellifera). This is a really knotty species to get to grips with because there are multiple subspecies and within subspecies there are various genetic lineages. In addition, the Western Honeybee has been subject to artificial selection for desirable qualities, such as docility, amount of honey produced per hive, and disease resistance, as well as cross-breeding between different subspecies**. The best recent summary of our current understanding of Western Honeybee genetics and conservation is this 2019 review by Fabrice Requier and colleagues, from which I’ve drawn quite a bit of information.

For the purposes of this explaining what’s going on, it’s easiest to think about the species as comprising three “megapopulations”:

Western Honeybees that are managed in hives: For the most part these are not endangered. Britain has as many hives now as it did in the mid-1950s and indeed globally we have more hives than ever (about 90 million hives at the last count). They are found far beyond their natural range and have been introduced into places where they are not native such as the Americas, parts of Asia, and Australia. STATUS: doing just fine.

Western Honeybees that have founded “feral” colonies: These have escaped from hives in countries where they have been introduced and become naturalised. They are doing well, too well in fact: they are a significant conservation issue in places like Australia. STATUS: doing just fine.

Western Honeybees that are living wild in their native range: This is where things become a little muddier. The African populations of the various subspecies seem to be doing well, but more studies are needed to confirm this. In Europe, actually defining what constitutes “wild” honeybees across a region where a lot of selection and hybridization has gone on, probably for thousands of years, is tricky. However there’s no doubt that wild colonies of Apis mellifera are not uncommon in suitable woodland: see this paper about free-living colonies in Ireland by Keith Browne and colleagues, for instance. Note their statement that genetic evidence shows that “the free-living population sampled is largely comprised of pure A. m. mellifera“, i.e. the European Black Honeybee. STATUS: probably doing quite well though more data is needed.

Conclusion: as I said, it’s really complicated and I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, no one does. But what IS clear is that managed Western Honeybees are not declining and keeping yet more hives of them is not going to help us to “Save the Bees”. I’ll leave the last word to Requier et al., whose review I really do recommend: “We argue for the redirection of attention from managed honey bees to the neglected conservation of wild honey bees.” Amen to that.

———————————————————————————————

*The term “honeybee” is sometimes also used for other social bees that produce honey, for example stingless honeybees in the genus Trigona, but there’s no real consensus on what “honey” actually is, and as I’ve argued in another post, bumblebees (Bombus spp.) also produce honey.

**You may be horrified (but perhaps not surprised) to learn that in the 1930s the Nazis enacted policies to ensure that German beekeepers kept only European Black Honeybees (Apis mellifera mellifera), in line with their views on racial “purity”. Then in the early 1940s, German beekeepers suffered a huge number of colony losses due to disease. The restrictions were lifted to allow beekeepers to cross their bees with disease-resistant A. mellifera carnica. Go figure.

Do bumblebees make honey? Yes and no…and…maybe [UPDATED]

9 Replies

As kids, my friends and I did a lot of digging. We always seemed to be burrowing into slopes or excavating trenches, pretending to be archaeologists or treasure hunters. Indeed, there was a lot of ground treasure to be found in the part of Sunderland where I grew up. The area has a long history of pottery and glass making, and ship building, and the remnants of these industries could be uncovered every time we stuck a spade in the earth. Over time I developed my own small museum of interesting, unearthed fragments, including bits of hand-painted ceramics, glass bottles, and unidentifiable metal shards, alongside various animal bones I’d excavated. My parents quietly indulged this interest, and my muck-streaked face and clothes, even if they didn’t quite understand what I was doing.

Aged about 10, my first encounter with a bumblebee nest was during one such dig. On the waste ground behind a large advertising hoarding, we began digging into a low, grass-covered mound and accidentally excavated what was probably a small nest of Buff-tailed Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). I can recall being fascinated by the waxy, odd shaped cells and by the sticky fluid that some of them were leaking. Being an adventurous sort of child I tasted the liquid: it was sweet and sticky, and that was my first encounter with bumblebee “honey”.

I’m going to leave those quotation marks in place because if you do an online search for “do bumblebees make honey?” you generally find that the answer is “no, only honey bees make honey”.

Now, defining honey as something made by honey bee strikes me as a circular argument at best. And it also neglects the “honey” made by meliponine bees that is central to the culture of stingless bee keeping by indigenous groups in Central and South America, and the long tradition pre-colonial tradition of honey hunting by Aboriginal Australians. So if we widen our definition of “honey” as being the nectar*-derived fluid stored in the nests of social bees, then Apis honey bees, stingless bees and bumblebees must all, by logic, make honey. And likewise there’s wasps in the genus Brachygastra from Central and South America that are referred to as “honey wasps” because, well, I’m sure you can work it out!

But this is where things become a little trickier, because turning nectar* into honey involves some complex evaporation and enzymatic activity, so that the resulting fluid is more concentrated and dominated by the sugars glucose and fructose. Although analysis of honey bee honey is commonplace, and there’s been some research conducted on the honey of stingless bees, I don’t know of any studies that have compared Bombus honey with that of other bees, or with what is stored in the nests of honey wasps**. If I’ve missed anything, please do comment and let me know, but this strikes me as an area of research demanding some attention.

So do bumblebees make honey? That very much depends on our definitions, but I’m happy to accept that they do because “honey” is not a single thing: it’s an insect-derived substance that can take a range of forms but serves the same broad purpose of feeding the colony. And although insects have probably been producing it for millions of years, I think I’ve known the answer to the question for almost 50 of them…

UPDATE: A couple of people have commented on social media that there are legal definitions of “honey” as a foodstuff. Here’s the definition according to UK law***:

“the natural sweet substance produced by Apis mellifera bees from the nectar of plants or from secretions of living parts of plants or excretions of plant-sucking insects on the living parts of plants which the bees collect, transform by combining with specific substances of their own, deposit, dehydrate, store and leave in honeycombs to ripen and mature”

So, legally, we can’t call anything that isn’t made by Apis mellifera “honey”, at least from a foodstuffs regulation perspective. But that’s clearly different to what we have been discussing above, which is about a biological definition of honey.

It’s also interesting to look at the compositional requirements of honey as a foodstuff (presented in Schedule one of that document, if you follow the link above). The lower limit for moisture content is 20%. Now if you consider that most nectar in flowers has a sugar content of between about 20% and 50%, clearly there’s been a lot of evaporative work done by the bees to reduce the amount of water in the honey. I would love to know how bumblebee (and other insect) “honey” compares to this: do they put the same kind of effort into evaporating the water from the stored nectar? Given that the purpose of reducing the water content is to prevent fermentation by yeasts when it’s stored for a long time, and that there are bumblebee species which have colonies that are active for more than one year, I imagine that at least some species in some parts of their range may employ similar tactics.

Thanks to everyone who has been commenting and discussing the topic. It never ceases to amaze me how much we still do not understand about some fundamental aspects of the natural history of familiar species!

*And honeydew to a greater or lesser extent.

**I’m going to ignore honey pot ants for now as this is complex enough as it is and they don’t store the “honey” in nest cells.

***From what I can gather definitions in other countries are similar.

Ivy binds the landscape and bridges the seasons: a new article just published

Pollinators and COP26: new article out soon

1 Reply

Watch out for my article in Bees and Other Pollinators Quarterly Magazine about what the forthcoming COP26 climate change meeting has in store for pollinators, including why commitments to developing countries are important and the Grasslands+ initiative.

The magazine is in the shops on October 12th or you can subscribe by following this link: https://bq-mag.store/

Claims that only 10% – and not 75% – of crops are pollinator dependent are misleading and dishonest

6 Replies

Earlier this week the Genetic Literacy Project site posted an essay entitled ‘10% — not 75% — of crops pollinator-dependent: Our World in Data debunks claims that global food supply is imminently endangered by ‘disappearing’ insects‘. That click-bait title is hugely misleading, some of the purported ‘facts’ are incorrect, and indeed the whole thing reeks of dishonesty and bad faith.

First the misleading title. This ‘debunks’ claim actually compares two different things: 75% of CROPS being dependent on pollinators versus 10% of crop YIELD. However, even if we focus on the 10% claim, a small increase in yield can be the difference between profit and bankruptcy for small-scale farmers. And most of the world’s farmers are small-scale and living on the borderline between loss and break-even. In addition, there’s no acknowledgement of the food production from home gardens, allotments, and community gardens, which is significant but largely unquantified.

Next, by focusing on yield and comparing, say, wind-pollinated wheat with insect-pollinated apples, the article takes no account of the fact that many of these crops that depend to some extent on pollinators mainly provide essential vitamins and minerals – not calories – to diets. When I tweeted about this earlier in the week, one person commented that they describe the insect-pollinated foods as ‘an important source of flavour and colour in our diets, rice and wheat are all well and good, but you do kinda need something more than grey slop to live’. Another said: ‘I’m so glad you mentioned this. I’m sick of reading articles that praise innovations to increase calories, when what we need is better nutrition from vitamins, minerals & fibres’.

Both great points, and well made.

That essay was also factually incorrect when it described roots crops such as carrots or some of the leafy cabbages and lettuces as not requiring pollinators. Many varieties of these crops ARE pollinator dependent: how do they think we get the seed for the next year’s crop?! And there are many crops and varieties that have not been evaluated for their dependency on pollinators: the 75% figure actually refers to the 115 most productive crop plants (Klein et al. 2007).

When I tweeted about the essay I commented that I was very disappointed by ‘Our World in Data’ – they are usually better than this when it comes to the facts. What I hadn’t appreciated at the time was that in fact the Genetic Literacy Project had highjacked the original piece by Hannah Ritchie and reworked it to give it a very different slant*.

This is where it starts to get dishonest and in fact the Genetic Literacy Project (GLP) has form in this area. The Sourcewatch site describes the GLP as ‘a corporate front group that was formerly funded by Monsanto’ with a remit to ‘shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers’. In other words it’s heavily tied to Big Agriculture which, of course, would like us to believe that there’s not an issue with declining pollinators, that pesticides and agricultural intensification are our friends, and that Everything Is OK. Read the full account here.

Frankly, the GLP is so tainted that I’d not believe anything that they publish.

Pollinator decline and the role of pollinators in agriculture are complex issues. If you’d like to know more about the importance of pollinators to agriculture, complete with some accurate and objective facts, then there’s a whole chapter devoted to the topic in my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society.

*Note that I’ve been communicating with Hannah about the root and leaf crop issue and she accepts that this needs to change in the original. She’s also asked the Genetic Literacy Project to take down their version as it contravenes copyright.

Reference

Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H. et al. (2007) Importance of pollinators in
changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B
274: 303–313.

Impacts of the introduced European honey bee on Australian bee-flower networks – a new study just published

For World Bee Day 2021: an update of the coffee-bee visits figure from my book

3 Replies

Today is World Bee Day 2021! To celebrate it, here’s an update of a figure that appears in my book Pollinators & Pollination: Nature and Society. It’s reminder of just how important bees are as the main pollinators of coffee, one of the world’s major crops. The new figure adds another two years of data and also improves the accuracy of some of the statistics for the previous decade. The coffee production data are from the International Coffee Organization.

Bottom line is that the global coffee production in 2019/20 was the result of 24 TRILLION flower visits by bees! That’s down a little from the previous year, but it’s still a LOT of visits by a HELL of a lot bees!

If you want to know more about how this was calculated and what it means for both coffee production and bee conservation, I discuss it with Dr Kirsten Traynor in this recent podcast for the magazine 2 Million Blossoms.

Happy World Bee Day everyone!