Higher bee abundance, but not pest abundance, in landscapes with more agriculture on a late-flowering legume crop in tropical smallholder farms.
African agriculture
Agro-ecology
Ecosystem services
Insect pests
Landscape ecology
Legume crops
Plant-insect interactions
Pollination
Small-holder agriculture
Tropical agriculture
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
07
09
2020
accepted:
17
12
2020
entrez:
1
3
2021
pubmed:
2
3
2021
medline:
2
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Landscape composition is known to affect both beneficial insect and pest communities on crop fields. Landscape composition therefore can impact ecosystem (dis)services provided by insects to crops. Though landscape effects on ecosystem service providers have been studied in large-scale agriculture in temperate regions, there is a lack of representation of tropical smallholder agriculture within this field of study, especially in sub-Sahara Africa. Legume crops can provide important food security and soil improvement benefits to vulnerable agriculturalists. However, legumes are dependent on pollinating insects, particularly bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for production and are vulnerable to pests. We selected 10 pigeon pea (Fabaceae: We performed three, ten-minute, 15 m, transects per field to assess blister beetle abundance and bee abundance and richness. Bees were captured and identified to (morpho)species. We assessed the proportion of flowers damaged by beetles during the flowering period. We performed a pollinator and pest exclusion experiment on 15 plants per field to assess whether fruit set was pollinator limited or constrained by pests. In our study, bee abundance was higher in areas with proportionally more agricultural area surrounding the fields. This effect was mostly driven by an increase in honeybees. Bee richness and beetle abundances were not affected by landscape characteristics, nor was flower damage or fruit set difference between bagged and open flowers. We did not observe a positive effect of bee density or richness, nor a negative effect of florivory, on fruit set difference. In our study area, pigeon pea flowers relatively late-well into the dry season. This could explain why we observe higher densities of bees in areas dominated by agriculture rather than in areas with more semi-natural habitat where resources for bees during this time of the year are scarce. Therefore, late flowering legumes may be an important food resource for bees during a period of scarcity in the seasonal tropics. The differences in patterns between our study and those conducted in temperate regions highlight the need for landscape-scale studies in areas outside the temperate region.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Landscape composition is known to affect both beneficial insect and pest communities on crop fields. Landscape composition therefore can impact ecosystem (dis)services provided by insects to crops. Though landscape effects on ecosystem service providers have been studied in large-scale agriculture in temperate regions, there is a lack of representation of tropical smallholder agriculture within this field of study, especially in sub-Sahara Africa. Legume crops can provide important food security and soil improvement benefits to vulnerable agriculturalists. However, legumes are dependent on pollinating insects, particularly bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for production and are vulnerable to pests. We selected 10 pigeon pea (Fabaceae:
METHODS
METHODS
We performed three, ten-minute, 15 m, transects per field to assess blister beetle abundance and bee abundance and richness. Bees were captured and identified to (morpho)species. We assessed the proportion of flowers damaged by beetles during the flowering period. We performed a pollinator and pest exclusion experiment on 15 plants per field to assess whether fruit set was pollinator limited or constrained by pests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In our study, bee abundance was higher in areas with proportionally more agricultural area surrounding the fields. This effect was mostly driven by an increase in honeybees. Bee richness and beetle abundances were not affected by landscape characteristics, nor was flower damage or fruit set difference between bagged and open flowers. We did not observe a positive effect of bee density or richness, nor a negative effect of florivory, on fruit set difference.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
In our study area, pigeon pea flowers relatively late-well into the dry season. This could explain why we observe higher densities of bees in areas dominated by agriculture rather than in areas with more semi-natural habitat where resources for bees during this time of the year are scarce. Therefore, late flowering legumes may be an important food resource for bees during a period of scarcity in the seasonal tropics. The differences in patterns between our study and those conducted in temperate regions highlight the need for landscape-scale studies in areas outside the temperate region.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33643704
doi: 10.7717/peerj.10732
pii: 10732
pmc: PMC7899018
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e10732Informations de copyright
©2021 Vogel et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare there are no competing interests.
Références
Nature. 2015 Apr 2;520(7545):45-50
pubmed: 25832402
Ecol Lett. 2019 Jul;22(7):1083-1094
pubmed: 30957401
Science. 2016 Jan 22;351(6271):388-91
pubmed: 26798016
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Mar 22;270(1515):569-75
pubmed: 12769455
Ecol Lett. 2013 May;16(5):584-99
pubmed: 23489285
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Dec 26;280(1753):20122243
pubmed: 23269852
Science. 2013 Mar 29;339(6127):1608-11
pubmed: 23449997
Ecol Appl. 2012 Oct;22(7):1936-48
pubmed: 23210310
Sci Adv. 2019 Oct 16;5(10):eaax0121
pubmed: 31663019
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Aug 14;115(33):E7863-E7870
pubmed: 30072434
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Jul 22;273(1595):1715-27
pubmed: 16790403
Trends Ecol Evol. 2019 Sep;34(9):789-798
pubmed: 31072605
Annu Rev Entomol. 2000;45:631-59
pubmed: 10761592
Front Plant Sci. 2016 Nov 17;7:1720
pubmed: 27909444