Alaux demonstrated measuring the physiology of a few bees to determine the whole population’s health. They linked bee physiology with landscape patterns, specifically suggesting that bee health is better under semi-natural habitats as opposed to landscapes that are enriched with catch crops (environmentally friendly practices to promote bee forage).
¶
Understanding how anthropogenic landscape alteration a ects populations of ecologically- and economically-important insect pollinators has never been more pressing. In this context, the assessment of landscape quality typically relies on spatial distribution studies, but, whether habitat- restoration techniques actually improve the health of targeted pollinator populations remains obscure.
We found that bee physiology (i.e. fat body mass and level of vitellogenin) was significantly improved by the presence of flowering catch crops. Catch crop presence was associated with a significant increase in pollen diet diversity. The influence of semi-natural habitats on bee health was even stronger. Vitellogenin level was in turn significantly linked to higher overwintering survival.
Therefore, our experimental study, combining landscape ecology and bee physiology, offers an exciting proof-of-concept for directly identifying stressful or suitable landscapes and promoting efficient pollinator conservation.
Alaux, Cédric, et al. A Landscape physiology approach for assessing bee health highlights the benefits of floral landscape enrichment and semi-natural habitats. Scientific reports 7 (2017).
¶
If you are still reading, here is evidence of exactly the opposite, that bees do better in AG environments:
Sixteen honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) colonies were placed in four different agricultural landscapes to study the
effects of agricultural landscape and exposure to pesticides on honey bee health. Colonies were located in three
different agricultural areas with varying levels of agricultural intensity (AG areas) and one nonagricultural area
(NAG area). Colonies were monitored for their performance and productivity for one year.
In conclusion, honey bee colonies foraging in moderate and high
AG areas were clearly able to grow faster and to a larger size as a result
of better access to sustainable nutrition sources than bees foraging
in NAG area and a low AG area with urban activity. However,
only the low AG environment with urban activity showed positive
effects on brood production when all variables are accounted.
Although negative effects of pesticide on colony health were not detected,
sublethal doses of insecticides and fungicides were identified
in trapped pollen. Better nutrition sources and nectar yields in AG
areas helped to develop greater population size, which in turn
enabled better colony thermoregulation. NAG areas may provide a
less-toxic environment for honey bees but might not provide sustainable
foraging resources, leading to colony starvation. Thus, there appears
to be a trade-off between increased food resources and the
potential for exposure to pesticides in agricultural systems.
Alburaki, Mohamed, et al. "Agricultural Landscape and Pesticide Effects on Honey Bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Biological Traits." Journal of Economic Entomology 110.3 (2017): 835-847.
***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
