What Is the Value of Wild Bee Pollination for Wild Blueberries and Cranberries, and Who Values It?

Prioritizing pollinators over pests: wild bees are more important than beetle damage for watermelon yield

Insect pests and pollinators can interact directly and indirectly to affect crop production; however, impacts of these interactions on marketable yield are little known. Thus, the evaluation of interactions between pests and pollinators are needed to best prioritize management efforts. Over 2 years, we evaluated the impact of pollinator visitation and/or beetle (Acalymma vittatum) infestation on fruit set and yield in seedless watermelon production. In 2020, we tested the main effect of pollinator visitation: two or eight honeybee visits, two wild bee visits, hand pollinated and open pollinated. In 2021, we crossed wild and managed pollinator visitation (two or four honeybee visits, two or four wild bee visits, hand pollinated and open pollinated) with varying beetle infestation levels (0, 3, 6 and 9 beetles/plant). In both years, wild bees contributed significantly to high fruit yields, and exclusive visitation from wild bees increased yield by a factor of 1.5-3 compared to honeybees. In 2021, pollination was the only significant factor for fruit set and marketable yield even when compared to the varying beetle infestation levels. These data advocate for a reprioritization of management, to conserve and protect wild bee pollination, which could be more critical than avoiding pest damage for ensuring high yields.

Socioecological Factors and Farmer Perceptions Impacting Pesticide Use and Pollinator Conservation on Cucurbit Farms

While research suggests that pollinator decline is linked with agricultural practices, it is unclear whether farmers share this view and adapt management to promote pollinators based on their understanding of these threats. To address these issues, we surveyed farmers of pollinator-dependent cucurbit crops across four states in the Midwest, USA. We grouped farmers by their perceptions of pollinator declines and routes of pesticide exposure and used statistical models to evaluate if farmers manage pests and pollinators based on these perceptions. Out of 93 completed surveys, 39% of farmers believed pollinators were in decline. When grouped, 17% of farmers were classified as proponents, ranking (on a 1–5 Likert scale) the factors mediating pesticide exposure and pollinator declines as important or highly important. For comparison, 44 and 39% of farmers were classified as neutral or skeptical, respectively, of these same factors. Compared to the neutral and skeptic groups, proponents were on average younger, had fewer years farming but more years in family farming, and were more dependent on income from outside the farming system. Proponents also on average reported smaller farms, higher pest richness, more land in cucurbit production, and greater richness of crops that are not pollinator dependent, when compared to the neutrals and skeptics. We did not find pest and pollinator management to be related to farmer perceptions of pollinator decline or routes of pesticide exposure, but farmers classified as pollinator “proponents” were more likely to indicate participation in future pollinator habitat restoration programs. Rather, management strategies were better explained by on-farm environmental conditions (e.g., pest richness, farm size, number of pollinator dependent crops) and economic factors (e.g., sources of income). Generally, our research shows that farmers who perceive pollinator threats may not be using pollinator supportive practices. Thus, while some farmers believe in pollinator declines, there remains a need to connect this knowledge with on-farm practices.

Investigating combined toxicity of binary mixtures in bees: Meta-analysis of laboratory tests, modelling, mechanistic basis and implications for risk assessment

Bees are exposed to a wide range of multiple chemicals "chemical mixtures" from anthropogenic (e.g. plant protection products or veterinary products) or natural origin (e.g. mycotoxins, plant toxins). Quantifying the relative impact of multiple chemicals on bee health compared with other environmental stressors (e.g. varroa, viruses, and nutrition) has been identified as a priority to support the development of holistic risk assessment methods. Here, extensive literature searches and data collection of available laboratory studies on combined toxicity data for binary mixtures of pesticides and non-chemical stressors has been performed for honey bees (Apis mellifera), wild bees (Bombus spp.) and solitary bee species (Osmia spp.). From 957 screened publications, 14 publications provided 218 binary mixture toxicity data mostly for acute mortality (lethal dose: LD₅₀) after contact exposure (61%), with fewer studies reporting chronic oral toxicity (20%) and acute oral LC₅₀ values (19%). From the data collection, available dose response data for 92 binary mixtures were modelled using a Toxic Unit (TU) approach and the MIXTOX modelling tool to test assumptions of combined toxicity i.e. concentration addition (CA), and interactions (i.e. synergism, antagonism). The magnitude of interactions was quantified as the Model Deviation Ratio (MDR). The CA model applied to 17% of cases while synergism and antagonism were observed for 72% (MDR > 1.25) and 11% (MDR < 0.83) respectively. Most synergistic effects (55%) were observed as interactions between sterol-biosynthesis-inhibiting (SBI) fungicides and insecticide/acaricide. The mechanisms behind such synergistic effects of binary mixtures in bees are known to involve direct cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition, resulting in an increase in internal dose and toxicity of the binary mixture. Moreover, bees are known to have the lowest number of CYP copies and other detoxification enzymes in the insect kingdom. In the light of these findings, occurrence of these binary mixtures in relevant crops (frequency and concentrations) would need to be investigated. Addressing this exposure dimension remains critical to characterise the likelihood and plausibility of such interactions to occur under field realistic conditions. Finally, data gaps and further work for the development of risk assessment methods to assess multiple stressors in bees including chemicals and non-chemical stressors in bees are discussed.

A Review of Native Wild Bee Nutritional Health

Declines in wild and managed bee species richness and abundances have been observed throughout Europe and North America in recent decades. These declines have led to questions regarding pollination of wild and cultivated plants. In response to these concerns, efforts towards the conservation of pollinators have been initiated. Part of this conservation effort should be to provide the basic nutritional needs for bees. Nutrition plays one of the most important roles in bee growth, development, and reproduction. There is a large body of information regarding honey bee nutrition, whereas we lack nutritional information on native wild bees. Our knowledge of bumble bee nutritional needs has increased since the introduction of commercial rearing and sale of certain bumble bee species; however, there is still a lack of basic nutritional guidelines such as minimum dietary needs of proteins, amino acids, lipids, and sterols. The large difference in physiology and life history between honey bees and North American wild bees suggests that their nutritional requirements could be quite different.