Gradual replacement of wild bees by honeybees in flowers of the Mediterranean Basin over the last 50 years

Evidence of exploitative competition between honey bees and native bees in two California landscapes

Human-mediated species introductions provide real-time experiments in how communities respond to interspecific competition. For example, managed honey bees Apis mellifera (L.) have been widely introduced outside their native range and may compete with native bees for pollen and nectar. Indeed, multiple studies suggest that honey bees and native bees overlap in their use of floral resources. However, for resource overlap to negatively impact resource collection by native bees, resource availability must also decline, and few studies investigate impacts of honey bee competition on native bee floral visits and floral resource availability simultaneously. In this study, we investigate impacts of increasing honey bee abundance on native bee visitation patterns, pollen diets, and nectar and pollen resource availability in two Californian landscapes: wildflower plantings in the Central Valley and montane meadows in the Sierra. We collected data on bee visits to flowers, pollen and nectar availability, and pollen carried on bee bodies across multiple sites in the Sierra and Central Valley. We then constructed plant-pollinator visitation networks to assess how increasing honey bee abundance impacted perceived apparent competition (PAC), a measure of niche overlap, and pollinator specialization (d'). We also compared PAC values against null expectations to address whether observed changes in niche overlap were greater or less than what we would expect given the relative abundances of interacting partners. We find clear evidence of exploitative competition in both ecosystems based on the following results: (1) honey bee competition increased niche overlap between honey bees and native bees, (2) increased honey bee abundance led to decreased pollen and nectar availability in flowers, and (3) native bee communities responded to competition by shifting their floral visits, with some becoming more specialized and others becoming more generalized depending on the ecosystem and bee taxon considered. Although native bees can adapt to honey bee competition by shifting their floral visits, the coexistence of honey bees and native bees is tenuous and will depend on floral resource availability. Preserving and augmenting floral resources is therefore essential in mitigating negative impacts of honey bee competition. In two California ecosystems, honey bee competition decreases pollen and nectar resource availability in flowers and alters native bee diets with potential implications for bee conservation and wildlands management.

Parasites, depredators, and limited resources as potential drivers of winter mortality of feral honeybee colonies in German forests

Wild honeybees (Apis mellifera) are considered extinct in most parts of Europe. The likely causes of their decline include increased parasite burden, lack of high-quality nesting sites and associated depredation pressure, and food scarcity. In Germany, feral honeybees still colonize managed forests, but their survival rate is too low to maintain viable populations. Based on colony observations collected during a monitoring study, data on parasite prevalence, experiments on nest depredation, and analyses of land cover maps, we explored whether parasite pressure, depredation or expected landscape-level food availability explain feral colony winter mortality. Considering the colony-level occurrence of 18 microparasites in the previous summer, colonies that died did not have a higher parasite burden than colonies that survived. Camera traps installed at cavity trees revealed that four woodpecker species, great tits, and pine martens act as nest depredators. In a depredator exclusion experiment, the winter survival rate of colonies in cavities with protected entrances was 50% higher than that of colonies with unmanipulated entrances. Landscapes surrounding surviving colonies contained on average 6.4 percentage points more cropland than landscapes surrounding dying colonies, with cropland being known to disproportionately provide forage for bees in our study system. We conclude that the lack of spacious but well-protected nesting cavities and the shortage of food are currently more important than parasites in limiting populations of wild-living honeybees in German forests. Increasing the density and diversity of large tree cavities and promoting bee forage plants in forests will probably promote wild-living honeybees despite parasite pressure.

The final frontier: ecological and evolutionary dynamics of a global parasite invasion

Studying rapid biological changes accompanying the introduction of alien organisms into native ecosystems can provide insights into fundamental ecological and evolutionary theory. While powerful, this quasi-experimental approach is difficult to implement because the timing of invasions and their consequences are hard to predict, meaning that baseline pre-invasion data are often missing. Exceptionally, the eventual arrival of Varroa destructor (hereafter Varroa) in Australia has been predicted for decades. Varroa is a major driver of honeybee declines worldwide, particularly as vectors of diverse RNA viruses. The detection of Varroa in 2022 at over a hundred sites poses a risk of further spread across the continent. At the same time, careful study of Varroa's spread, if it does become established, can provide a wealth of information that can fill knowledge gaps about its effects worldwide. This includes how Varroa affects honeybee populations and pollination. Even more generally, Varroa invasion can serve as a model for evolution, virology and ecological interactions between the parasite, the host and other organisms.

Honey bee introductions displace native bees and decrease pollination of a native wildflower

Introduced species can have cascading effects on ecological communities, but indirect effects of species introductions are rarely the focus of ecological studies. For example, managed honey bees (Apis mellifera) have been widely introduced outside their native range and are increasingly dominant floral visitors. Multiple studies have documented how honey bees impact native bee communities through floral resource competition, but few have quantified how these competitive interactions indirectly affect pollination and plant reproduction. Such indirect effects are hard to detect because honey bees are themselves pollinators and may directly impact pollination through their own floral visits. The potentially huge but poorly understood impacts that non-native honey bees have on native plant populations combined with increased pressure from beekeepers to place hives in U.S. National Parks and Forests makes exploring impacts of honey bee introductions on native plant pollination of pressing concern. In this study, we used experimental hive additions, field observations, as well as single-visit and multiple-visit pollination effectiveness trials across multiple years to untangle the direct and indirect impacts of increasing honey bee abundance on the pollination of an ecologically important wildflower, Camassia quamash. We found compelling evidence that honey bee introductions indirectly decrease pollination by reducing nectar and pollen availability and competitively excluding visits from more effective native bees. In contrast, the direct impact of honey bee visits on pollination was negligible, and, if anything, negative. Honey bees were ineffective pollinators, and increasing visit quantity could not compensate for inferior visit quality. Indeed, although the effect was not statistically significant, increased honey bee visits had a marginally negative impact on seed production. Thus, honey bee introductions may erode longstanding plant-pollinator mutualisms, with negative consequences for plant reproduction. Our study calls for a more thorough understanding of the indirect effects of species introductions and more careful coordination of hive placements.

Low resource availability drives feeding niche partitioning between wild bees and honeybees in a European city

Cities are socioecological systems that filter and select species, therefore establishing unique species assemblages and biotic interactions. Urban ecosystems can host richer wild bee communities than highly intensified agricultural areas, specifically in resource-rich urban green spaces such as allotments and family gardens. At the same time, urban beekeeping has boomed in many European cities, raising concerns that the fast addition of a large number of managed bees could deplete the existing floral resources, triggering competition between wild bees and honeybees. Here, we studied the interplay between resource availability and the number of honeybees at local and landscape scales and how this relationship influences wild bee diversity. We collected wild bees and honeybees in a pollination experiment using four standardized plant species with distinct floral morphologies. We performed the experiment in 23 urban gardens in the city of Zurich (Switzerland), distributed along gradients of urban and local management intensity, and measured functional traits related to resource use. At each site, we quantified the feeding niche partitioning (calculated as the average distance in the multidimensional trait space) between the wild bee community and the honeybee population. Using multilevel structural equation models (SEM), we tested direct and indirect effects of resource availability, urban beekeeping, and wild bees on the community feeding niche partitioning. We found an increase in feeding niche partitioning with increasing wild bee species richness. Moreover, feeding niche partitioning tended to increase in experimental sites with lower resource availability at the landscape scale, which had lower abundances of honeybees. However, beekeeping intensity at the local and landscape scales did not directly influence community feeding niche partitioning or wild bee species richness. In addition, wild bee species richness was positively influenced by local resource availability, whereas local honeybee abundance was positively affected by landscape resource availability. Overall, these results suggest that direct competition for resources was not a main driver of the wild bee community. Due to the key role of resource availability in maintaining a diverse bee community, our study encourages cities to monitor floral resources to better manage urban beekeeping and help support urban pollinators.

Population demography of feral honeybee colonies in central European forests

European honeybee populations are considered to consist only of managed colonies, but recent censuses have revealed that wild/feral colonies still occur in various countries. To gauge the ecological and evolutionary relevance of wild-living honeybees, information is needed on their population demography. We monitored feral honeybee colonies in German forests for up to 4 years through regular inspections of woodpecker cavity trees and microsatellite genotyping. Each summer, about 10% of the trees were occupied, corresponding to average densities of 0.23 feral colonies km^-2 (an estimated 5% of the regional honeybee populations). Populations decreased moderately until autumn but dropped massively during winter, so that their densities were only about 0.02 colonies km^-2 in early spring. During the reproductive (swarming) season, in May and June, populations recovered, with new swarms preferring nest sites that had been occupied in the previous year. The annual survival rate and the estimated lifespan of feral colonies (n = 112) were 10.6% and 0.6 years, respectively. We conclude that managed forests in Germany do not harbour self-sustaining feral honeybee populations, but they are recolonized every year by swarms escaping from apiaries.

Mounting evidence that managed and introduced bees have negative impacts on wild bees: an updated review

Worldwide, the use of managed bees for crop pollination and honey production has increased dramatically. Concerns about the pressures of these increases on native ecosystems has resulted in a recent expansion in the literature on this subject. To collate and update current knowledge, we performed a systematic review of the literature on the effects of managed and introduced bees on native ecosystems, focusing on the effects on wild bees. To enable comparison over time, we used the same search terms and focused on the same impacts as earlier reviews. This review covers: (a) interference and resource competition between introduced or managed bees and native bees; (b) effects of introduced or managed bees on pollination of native plants and weeds; and (c) transmission and infectivity of pathogens; and classifies effects into positive, negative, or neutral. Compared to a 2017 review, we found that the number of papers on this issue has increased by 47%. The highest increase was seen in papers on pathogen spill-over, but in the last five years considerable additional information about competition between managed and wild bees has also become available. Records of negative effects have increased from 53% of papers reporting negative effects in 2017 to 66% at present. The majority of these studies investigated effects on visitation and foraging behaviour. While only a few studies experimentally assessed impacts on wild bee reproductive output, 78% of these demonstrated negative effects. Plant composition and pollination was negatively affected in 7% of studies, and 79% of studies on pathogens reported potential negative effects of managed or introduced bees on wild bees. Taken together, the evidence increasingly suggests that managed and introduced bees negatively affect wild bees, and this knowledge should inform actions to prevent further harm to native ecosystems.

Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Island Bees: The Aegean Archipelago

Pollinators’ climate change impact assessments focus mainly on mainland regions. Thus, we are unaware how island species might fare in a rapidly changing world. This is even more pressing in the Mediterranean Basin, a global biodiversity hotspot. In Greece, a regional pollinator hotspot, climate change research is in its infancy and the insect Wallacean shortfall still remains unaddressed. In a species distribution modelling framework, we used the most comprehensive occurrence database for bees in Greece to locate the bee species richness hotspots in the Aegean, and investigated whether these might shift in the future due to climate change and assessed the Natura 2000 protected areas network effectiveness. Range contractions are anticipated for most taxa, becoming more prominent over time. Species richness hotspots are currently located in the NE Aegean and in highly disturbed sites. They will shift both altitudinally and latitudinally in the future. A small proportion of these hotspots are currently included in the Natura 2000 protected areas network and this proportion is projected to decrease in the coming decades. There is likely an extinction debt present in the Aegean bee communities that could result to pollination network collapse. There is a substantial conservation gap in Greece regarding bees and a critical re-assessment of the established Greek protected areas network is needed, focusing on areas identified as bee diversity hotspots over time.

A meta-analysis of single visit pollination effectiveness comparing honeybees and other floral visitors

PREMISE

Many animals provide ecosystem services in the form of pollination including honeybees, which have become globally dominant floral visitors. A rich literature documents considerable variation in single visit pollination effectiveness, but this literature has yet to be extensively synthesized to address whether honeybees are effective pollinators.

METHODS

We conducted a hierarchical meta-analysis of 168 studies and extracted 1564 single visit effectiveness (SVE) measures for 240 plant species. We paired SVE data with visitation frequency data for 69 of these studies. We used these data to ask three questions: (1) Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) and other floral visitors differ in their SVE? (2) To what extent do plant and pollinator attributes predict differences in SVE between honeybees and other visitors? (3) Is there a correlation between visitation frequency and SVE?

RESULTS

Honeybees were significantly less effective than the most effective non-honeybee pollinators but were as effective as the average pollinator. The type of pollinator moderated these effects. Honeybees were less effective compared to the most effective and average bird and bee pollinators but were as effective as other taxa. Visitation frequency and SVE were positively correlated, but this trend was largely driven by data from communities where honeybees were absent.

CONCLUSIONS

Although high visitation frequencies make honeybees important pollinators, they were less effective than the average bee and rarely the most effective pollinator of the plants they visit. As such, honeybees may be imperfect substitutes for the loss of wild pollinators, and safeguarding pollination will benefit from conservation of non-honeybee taxa.

Negative impacts of dominance on bee communities: Does the influence of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?

Invasive species can reach high abundances and dominate native environments. One of the most impressive examples of ecological invasions is the spread of the African subspecies of the honey bee throughout the Americas, starting from its introduction in a single locality in Brazil. The invasive honey bee is expected to more negatively impact bee community abundance and diversity than native dominant species, but this has not been tested previously. We developed a comprehensive and systematic bee sampling scheme, using a protocol deploying 11,520 pan traps across regions and crops for three years in Brazil. We found that invasive honey bees are now the single most dominant bee species. Such dominance has not only negative consequences for abundance and species richness of native bees but also for overall bee abundance (i.e., strong "numerical" effects of honey bees). Contrary to expectations, honey bees did not have stronger negative impacts than other native bees achieving similar levels of dominance (i.e., lack of negative "identity" effects of honey bees). These effects were markedly consistent across crop species, seasons and years, and were independent from land-use effects. Dominance could be a proxy of bee community degradation and more generally of the severity of ecological invasions.

Pathogens Spillover from Honey Bees to Other Arthropods

Honey bees, and pollinators in general, play a major role in the health of ecosystems. There is a consensus about the steady decrease in pollinator populations, which raises global ecological concern. Several drivers are implicated in this threat. Among them, honey bee pathogens are transmitted to other arthropods populations, including wild and managed pollinators. The western honey bee, Apis mellifera, is quasi-globally spread. This successful species acted as and, in some cases, became a maintenance host for pathogens. This systematic review collects and summarizes spillover cases having in common Apis mellifera as the mainteinance host and some of its pathogens. The reports are grouped by final host species and condition, year, and geographic area of detection and the co-occurrence in the same host. A total of eighty-one articles in the time frame 1960-2021 were included. The reported spillover cases cover a wide range of hymenopteran host species, generally living in close contact with or sharing the same environmental resources as the honey bees. They also involve non-hymenopteran arthropods, like spiders and roaches, which are either likely or unlikely to live in close proximity to honey bees. Specific studies should consider host-dependent pathogen modifications and effects on involved host species. Both the plasticity of bee pathogens and the ecological consequences of spillover suggest a holistic approach to bee health and the implementation of a One Health approach.

Wild non-eusocial bees learn a colour discrimination task in response to simulated predation events

Despite representing the majority of bee species, non-eusocial bees (e.g. solitary, subsocial, semisocial, and quasisocial species) are comparatively understudied in learning, memory, and cognitive-like behaviour compared to eusocial bees, such as honeybees and bumblebees. Ecologically relevant colour discrimination tasks are well-studied in eusocial bees, and research has shown that a few non-eusocial bee species are also capable of colour learning and long-term memory retention. Australia hosts over 2000 native bee species, most of which are non-eusocial, yet evidence of cognitive-like behaviour and learning abilities under controlled testing conditions is lacking. In the current study, I examine the learning ability of a non-eusocial Australian bee, Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) lanarium, using aversive differential conditioning during a colour discrimination task. L. lanarium learnt to discriminate between salient blue- and yellow-coloured stimuli following training with simulated predation events. This study acts as a bridge between cognitive studies on eusocial and non-social bees and introduces a framework for testing non-eusocial wild bees on elemental visual learning tasks using aversive conditioning. Non-eusocial bee species are far more numerous than eusocial species and contribute to agriculture, economics, and ecosystem services in Australia and across the globe. Thus, it is important to study their capacity to learn flower traits allowing for successful foraging and pollination events, thereby permitting us a better understanding of their role in plant-pollinator interactions.

Impacts of plant invasions in native plant-pollinator networks

The disruption of mutualisms by invasive species has consequences for biodiversity loss and ecosystem function. Although invasive plant effects on the pollination of individual native species has been the subject of much study, their impacts on entire plant-pollinator communities are less understood. Community-level studies on plant invasion have mainly focused on two fronts: understanding the mechanisms that mediate their integration; and their effects on plant-pollinator network structure. Here we briefly review current knowledge and propose a more unified framework for evaluating invasive species integration and their effects on plant-pollinator communities. We further outline gaps in our understanding and propose ways to advance knowledge in this field. Specifically, modeling approaches have so far yielded important predictions regarding the outcome and drivers of invasive species effects on plant communities. However, experimental studies that test these predictions in the field are lacking. We further emphasize the need to understand the link between invasive plant effects on pollination network structure and their consequences for native plant population dynamics (population growth). Integrating demographic studies with those on pollination networks is thus key in order to achieve a more predictive understanding of pollinator-mediated effects of invasive species on the persistence of native plant biodiversity.

Pollination in Agroecosystems: A Review of the Conceptual Framework with a View to Sound Monitoring

The pollination ecology in agroecosystems tackles a landscape in which plants and pollinators need to adjust, or be adjusted, to human intervention. A valid, widely applied approach is to regard pollination as a link between specific plants and their pollinators. However, recent evidence has added landscape features for a wider ecological perspective. Are we going in the right direction? Are existing methods providing pollinator monitoring tools suitable for understanding agroecosystems? In Italy, we needed to address these questions to respond to government pressure to implement pollinator monitoring in agroecosystems. We therefore surveyed the literature, grouped methods and findings, and evaluated approaches. We selected studies that may contain directions and tools directly linked to pollinators and agroecosystems. Our analysis revealed four main paths that must come together at some point: (i) the research question perspective, (ii) the advances of landscape analysis, (iii) the role of vegetation, and (iv) the gaps in our knowledge of pollinators taxonomy and behavior. An important conclusion is that the pollinator scale is alarmingly disregarded. Debate continues about what features to include in pollinator monitoring and the appropriate level of detail: we suggest that the pollinator scale should be the main driver.

Evaluating competition for forage plants between honey bees and wild bees in Denmark

A recurrent concern in nature conservation is the potential competition for forage plants between wild bees and managed honey bees. Specifically, that the highly sophisticated system of recruitment and large perennial colonies of honey bees quickly exhaust forage resources leading to the local extirpation of wild bees. However, different species of bees show different preferences for forage plants. We here summarize known forage plants for honey bees and wild bee species at national scale in Denmark. Our focus is on floral resources shared by honey bees and wild bees, with an emphasis on both threatened wild bee species and foraging specialist species. Across all 292 known bee species from Denmark, a total of 410 plant genera were recorded as forage plants. These included 294 plant genera visited by honey bees and 292 plant genera visited by different species of wild bees. Honey bees and wild bees share 176 plant genera in Denmark. Comparing the pairwise niche overlap for individual bee species, no significant relationship was found between their overlap and forage specialization or conservation status. Network analysis of the bee-plant interactions placed honey bees aside from most other bee species, specifically the module containing the honey bee had fewer links to any other modules, while the remaining modules were more highly inter-connected. Despite the lack of predictive relationship from the pairwise niche overlap, data for individual species could be summarized. Consequently, we have identified a set of operational parameters that, based on a high foraging overlap (>70%) and unfavorable conservation status (Vulnerable+Endangered+Critically Endangered), can guide both conservation actions and land management decisions in proximity to known or suspected populations of these species.

Buzz-Pollinated Crops: A Global Review and Meta-analysis of the Effects of Supplemental Bee Pollination in Tomato

Buzz-pollinated plants require visitation from vibration producing bee species to elicit full pollen release. Several important food crops are buzz-pollinated including tomato, eggplant, kiwi, and blueberry. Although more than half of all bee species can buzz pollinate, the most commonly deployed supplemental pollinator, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae; honey bees), cannot produce vibrations to remove pollen. Here, we provide a list of buzz-pollinated food crops and discuss the extent to which they rely on pollination by vibration-producing bees. We then use the most commonly cultivated of these crops, the tomato, Solanum lycopersicum L. (Solanales: Solanaceae), as a case study to investigate the effect of different pollination treatments on aspects of fruit quality. Following a systematic review of the literature, we statistically analyzed 71 experiments from 24 studies across different geopolitical regions and conducted a meta-analysis on a subset of 21 of these experiments. Our results show that both supplemental pollination by buzz-pollinating bees and open pollination by assemblages of bees, which include buzz pollinators, significantly increase tomato fruit weight compared to a no-pollination control. In contrast, auxin treatment, artificial mechanical vibrations, or supplemental pollination by non-buzz-pollinating bees (including Apis spp.), do not significantly increase fruit weight. Finally, we compare strategies for providing bee pollination in tomato cultivation around the globe and highlight how using buzz-pollinating bees might improve tomato yield, particularly in some geographic regions. We conclude that employing native, wild buzz pollinators can deliver important economic benefits with reduced environmental risks and increased advantages for both developed and emerging economies.

Possible Spillover of Pathogens between Bee Communities Foraging on the Same Floral Resource

Simple Summary

Floral resource availability is one of the keys to preserving the health of bee communities. However, flowers also present a risk of pathogen transmission, as infected pollinators could deposit pathogens while foraging, exposing other pollinators to infection via the consumption of contaminated nectar or pollen. Here, we studied, over time, the prevalence of seven viruses in bee communities that share the same small surface of floral resource in order to assess the risk of virus spillover. In total, 2057 bee specimens from 30 species were caught, identified and checked for the presence of viruses. Specimens from the Halictidae family were the dominant wild bees. The prevalence of viruses was quite high: at least one virus was detected in 78% of the samples, and co-infections were frequent. The genetic diversity of the viruses was also investigated to look for the possible association of geographic origin or host with shared ancestry.

Abstract

Viruses are known to contribute to bee population decline. Possible spillover is suspected from the co-occurrence of viruses in wild bees and honey bees. In order to study the risk of virus transmission between wild and managed bee species sharing the same floral resource, we tried to maximize the possible cross-infections using Phacelia tanacetifolia, which is highly attractive to honey bees and a broad range of wild bee species. Virus prevalence was compared over two years in Southern France. A total of 1137 wild bees from 29 wild bee species (based on COI barcoding) and 920 honey bees (Apis mellifera) were checked for the seven most common honey bee RNA viruses. Halictid bees were the most abundant. Co-infections were frequent, and Sacbrood virus (SBV), Black queen cell virus (BQCV), Acute bee paralysis virus (ABPV) and Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) were widespread in the hymenopteran pollinator community. Conversely, Deformed wing virus (DWV) was detected at low levels in wild bees, whereas it was highly prevalent in honey bees (78.3% of the samples). Both wild bee and honey bee virus isolates were sequenced to look for possible host-specificity or geographical structuring. ABPV phylogeny suggested a specific cluster for Eucera bees, while isolates of DWV from bumble bees (Bombus spp.) clustered together with honey bee isolates, suggesting a possible spillover.

Gradual replacement of wild bees by honeybees in flowers of the Mediterranean Basin over the last 50 years

Evidence for pollinator declines largely originates from mid-latitude regions in North America and Europe. Geographical heterogeneity in pollinator trends combined with geographical biases in pollinator studies can produce distorted extrapolations and limit understanding of pollinator responses to environmental changes. In contrast with the declines experienced in some well-investigated European and North American regions, honeybees seem to have increased recently in some areas of the Mediterranean Basin. Because honeybees can have negative impacts on wild bees, it was hypothesized that a biome-wide alteration in bee pollinator assemblages may be underway in the Mediterranean Basin involving a reduction in the relative number of wild bees. This hypothesis was tested using published quantitative data on bee pollinators of wild and cultivated plants from studies conducted between 1963 and 2017 in 13 countries from the European, African and Asian shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The density of honeybee colonies increased exponentially and wild bees were gradually replaced by honeybees in flowers of wild and cultivated plants. The proportion of wild bees at flowers was four times greater than that of honeybees at the beginning of the period, the proportions of both groups becoming roughly similar 50 years later. The Mediterranean Basin is a world biodiversity hotspot for wild bees and wild bee-pollinated plants, and the ubiquitous rise of honeybees to dominance as pollinators could in the long run undermine the diversity of plants and wild bees in the region.