scholarly journals Differences of floral resource use between honey bees and wild bees in an intensive farming system

2013 ◽  
Vol 179 ◽  
pp. 78-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Orianne Rollin ◽  
Vincent Bretagnolle ◽  
Axel Decourtye ◽  
Jean Aptel ◽  
Nadia Michel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Resource Use ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Farming System ◽  
Wild Bees ◽  
Intensive Farming ◽  
Floral Resource

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.

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

Insects ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 122
Author(s):  
Anne Dalmon ◽  
Virgine Diévart ◽  
Maxime Thomasson ◽  
Romain Fouque ◽  
Bernard E. Vaissière ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bee ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Population Decline ◽  
Virus Transmission ◽  
Wild Bees ◽  
Deformed Wing Virus ◽  
Wild Bee ◽  
Pollinator Community ◽  
Floral Resource ◽  
Paralysis Virus

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.

Floral Resource Competition Between Honey Bees and Wild Bees: Is There Clear Evidence and Can We Guide Management and Conservation?

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 822-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria A Wojcik ◽  
Lora A Morandin ◽  
Laurie Davies Adams ◽  
Kelly E Rourke
Keyword(s):  
Honey Bees ◽  
Resource Competition ◽  
Wild Bees ◽  
Floral Resource ◽  
Management And Conservation

Comparsion Of Efficency Of Cucumber Production In Poly-House

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 22-30
Author(s):  
SONIA HOODA
Keyword(s):  
Open Field ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Farming System ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Statistical Tools ◽  
Average Percentage ◽  
Net Returns ◽  
Douglas Production Function

The study has made an attempt on resource use and economic efficiency of cucumber production under poly-house farming and open field farming. Primary data collected by using purposive sampling technique from selected districts. Sample of 50 farmers (25 Poly-house farmers and 25 Open field farmers) was taken from each district on the basis of availability. Secondary data was collected from Horticulture Department. For data analysis statistical tools average, percentage and Linear Cobb-Douglas Production Function was used. The study found that the yield of cucumber was more under poly-house farming as compare to open field farming system. The reason behind this was long harvesting period and more number of fruits per plant under poly-house farming conditions. The data specifies higher net returns per acre of cucumber under poly-house farming over open field farming, which implicit poly-house farming not only highly profitable but also economically viable as compared to open field farming in study area.

scholarly journals Landscape structure affects the sunflower visiting frequency of insect pollinators

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Károly Lajos ◽  
Ferenc Samu ◽  
Áron Domonkos Bihaly ◽  
Dávid Fülöp ◽  
Miklós Sárospataki
Keyword(s):  
Landscape Structure ◽  
Honey Bees ◽  
Agricultural Landscape ◽  
Edge Density ◽  
Wild Bees ◽  
Natural Habitats ◽  
Mass Flowering ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Pollinator Community ◽  
Foraging Ranges

AbstractMass-flowering crop monocultures, like sunflower, cannot harbour a permanent pollinator community. Their pollination is best secured if both managed honey bees and wild pollinators are present in the agricultural landscape. Semi-natural habitats are known to be the main foraging and nesting areas of wild pollinators, thus benefiting their populations, whereas crops flowering simultaneously may competitively dilute pollinator densities. In our study we asked how landscape structure affects major pollinator groups’ visiting frequency on 36 focal sunflower fields, hypothesising that herbaceous semi-natural (hSNH) and sunflower patches in the landscape neighbourhood will have a scale-dependent effect. We found that an increasing area and/or dispersion of hSNH areas enhanced the visitation of all pollinator groups. These positive effects were scale-dependent and corresponded well with the foraging ranges of the observed bee pollinators. In contrast, an increasing edge density of neighbouring sunflower fields resulted in considerably lower visiting frequencies of wild bees. Our results clearly indicate that the pollination of sunflower is dependent on the composition and configuration of the agricultural landscape. We conclude that an optimization of the pollination can be achieved if sufficient amount of hSNH areas with good dispersion are provided and mass flowering crops do not over-dominate the agricultural landscape.

scholarly journals Biochar and zeolites did not improve phosphorus uptake or crop productivity in a field trial performed in an irrigated intensive farming system

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margarida Arrobas ◽  
João V. Decker ◽  
Bruna L. Feix ◽  
Wilson I. Godoy ◽  
Carlos A. Casali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Field Trial ◽  
Phosphorus Uptake ◽  
Farming System ◽  
Crop Productivity ◽  
Intensive Farming

Assessment of the environmental sustainability of organic farming: Definitions, indicators and the major challenges

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (6) ◽  
pp. 981-996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Halberg
Keyword(s):  
Organic Farming ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Organic Agriculture ◽  
Environmental Sustainability ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Agricultural Sustainability ◽  
Functional Integrity ◽  
Intensive Farming ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Improved Performance

Halberg, N. 2012. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of organic farming: Definitions, indicators and the major challenges. Can. J. Plant Sci. 92: 981–996. The debate over agricultural sustainability continues due to the challenges of reducing externalities of intensive farming methods and preserving vital natural capital, but many definitions of sustainability are too wide to allow for a prioritized assessment. This paper uses a more narrow definition of agricultural sustainability focusing on the functional integrity of a system to highlight specific aspects of vital importance for the long-term resilience and reproducibility of agricultural systems. Key areas of resource sufficiency are also identified. Based on a review of scientific literature the relative sustainability of organic agriculture is assessed with a focus on environmental impact and resource use in Europe and North America. While there are many examples of organic agriculture with improved performance in terms of soil fertility and preservation of biodiversity, in other aspects – such as resource use per kilogram product – the difference to conventional farming is less important. The paper presents a framework for selection of indicators based on the principles of organic agriculture which may be used to monitor and improve the performance of organic agriculture with respect to functional integrity and resource sufficiency. The differences between comparable organic farms may be used for improving farm practices through a benchmarking process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document