Integrated Crop Pollination: Bees, Blueberries, and Biofuels UW Seminar, November 4 2011
Rufus Isaacs Department of Entomology Michigan State University
Research collaborators & funding
Julianna Tuell
Brett Blaauw
Annie Kirk
Doug Landis, Ben Werling and Scott Swinton - Michigan State University Claudio Gratton, Tim Meehan, Hannah Gaines and Heidi Lieri - University of Wisconsin Cesar Rodriguez-Saona - Rutgers University Andres Quiroz - Universidad de La Frontera Rachael Winfree - Rutgers University Neal Williams - UC Davis Jamie Ellis - University of Florida
Rackham Foundation
Poor pollination reduces crop yield and quality
Long term trends in produc.on of bee pollinated crops Changing crop produc.on and dependence on pollinators Bearing acres of U.S. non-‐citrus fruit and nut crops 1980-‐2009
Total global crop produc.on increase of 140%, 1960-‐2006
Bearing acres x 1000
Produc.on deficit in the absence of pollinators
USDA-‐ERS 2009
Aizen et al. 2009. How much does agriculture depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-‐term trends in crop produc>on. Annals of Botany 103.
Value of pollination and trends in bee populations • Pollination is a valuable ecosystem service that supports human food production 1/3 of human food $3 billion in US from native bees $213 billion globally
• Wild bee declines in some regions, some species at risk
Biesmeijer et al. 2006
Declining US honey bee colonies
NRC (2006) Status of Pollinators in North America
Supporting wild pollinators in specialty crop farms •
Management is characterized by high level of inputs – Tillage, herbicides, mowing to reduce weed pressure – Potential for flowering row middles/intercropping? – Insecticides and fungicides to minimize pest infestation
•
Land use tends to be intensive, but with non-crop habitat nearby – High ratios of crop: non-crop – Growers may not control non-crop habitat
•
Crop dependency drives grower interest in pollination
Integrated Crop Pollination The combined use of different pollinator species, habitat augmentation, and crop management practices to provide reliable and economical pollination of crops
Alterna>ve managed bees
Honey bees Wild bees Pollina>on sampling
Hor>cultural prac>ces Pes>cide stewardship Habitat management
Integrated Crop Pollina.on
Decision support tools Grower educa>on
Economically-important crop pollinators • Honey bee – Apis mellifera • Bumble bees – Bombus spp. • Mason bees – Osmia spp. • Andrenid (mining) bees • Halictid (sweat) bees
National Geographic
Native bees and blueberry pollination
• Community composition and stability • Effects of management practices • Risk from pesticides • Habitat for conservation
Dominant native bee species during bloom •
2/3 of all bees collected were honey bees
•
3228 native bees over 3 yrs
•
Total of 120 bee species
•
79.0 ± 5.0 species per year
Andrena carolina Lasioglossum pilosum Lasioglossum leucozonium Augochlorella aurata Lasioglossum cressonii Andrena vicina Lasioglossum imitatum Ceratina calcarata/dupla (♀ only) Andrena carlini Lasioglossum rohweri Lasioglossum coriaceum Andrena miserabilis Nomada spp. Halictus ligatus Andrena imitatrix or morrisonella Lasioglossum admirandum Augochlora pura Lasioglossum coeruleum Bombus citrinus Colletes inaequalis Andrena rugosa Andrena alleghaniensis Lasioglossum quebecense Andrena nuda Lasioglossum tegulare Lasioglossum pectorale Andrena nasonii Colletes thoracicus Halictus confusus Andrena cressonii Ceratina calcarata (♂ only) Other species (n = 90) present at <1%
0
Halictidae Andrenidae Apidae Colletidae multiple families 0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Proportion of bees collected Tuell et al. 2010, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer.
Factors affecting bee abundance in blueberry farms 1.5
2005 samples
Halic>d bees meadows
other fl crops plant sp
insec>cide program
other na>ve bees soil cult. floral abundance treeline perimeter woods
adj. blueberry
-‐1.5
ditches
-‐1.0
Andrenid bees 2.0
Phenology of native bees on blueberry flowers Andrena carlini
No. bees trapped per day
2004
2005
Andrena carolina Andrena vicina Augochlorella aurata Bombus spp. Ceratina calcarata/dupla Lasioglossum coriaceum Lasioglossum imitatum Lasioglossum pilosum
2006
sample time in relation to blueberry bloom
Temporal overlap of pollinator and pest activity Blueberry bloom Osmia bees andrenid bees halictid bees Bombus queens Bombus workers
April
May June July Aug Sept
Link between pesticide use and wild bee communities? • Forest pest treatments reduced native bees in adjacent blueberry. Kevan & Plowright 1989 • Negative effects of phosmet on cavity nesting alfalfa leafcutter bees, but no reduction in bee foraging on apple flowers. Alston et al. 2007 • Sometimes higher wild bee populations in organic vs. conventionally managed crops Shuler et al. 2005, Gabriel and Tscharntke 2007 • Indices to quantify pesticide safety with regard to human health and the environment, but less common for bees.
Developing an index of pesticide risk to bees • Grower spray records obtained for each season prior to three seasons of bee monitoring, 2004-6. • An insecticide program risk (IPR) score for each field and year was calculated: IPR =
∑
amount of active ingredient (kg) / Ha LD 50 for honey bees
• Determined relationship between native bees and IPR scores from the year prior to bee sampling during bloom.
Native bees declined with increasing IPR score
Implications: Season-long pest management is important for wild bees Amount of AI and the toxicity of sprays are important Reducing IPR values is expected to aid wild bee populations Highlights the importance of IPM program development
IPR index calculated from the previous season
Tuell & Isaacs 2010, J. Econ. Entomol.
Example of a changing IPM program Guthion (azinphosmethyl) was the primary insecticide used to prevent blueberry infestation by fruitworms. A five year EPA phaseout plan will ban Guthion use in blueberries in late 2012.
Comparison of two blueberry fruitworm control programs Timing
Standard
Reduced risk
Bloom
B.t. (Dipel) 1 lb
Petal fall
Guthion 1.5 lb
(0.43*)
Intrepid 8 oz (>100*)
7-10 days later
Guthion 1.5 lb
(0.43*)
Assail 5 oz
*honey bee LD50 in Âľg/bee
Intrepid 8 oz (>100*)
(7.1*)
143 fold lower IPR score
Winfree et al. 2009
Does adding flowering resources into farms increase pollination (and pest control)? Compare native flowering plants for their attractiveness to native bees Test larger (up to 4 acre) mixed plantings in adjacent to fruit crop fields Evaluate NRCS and FSA plantings for supporting bees
Providing season-long food for wild bees COMMON NAME! Golden Alexanders! Foxglove Beard-tongue! Sand Coreopsis! Black-eyed Susan! Butterfly milkweed! Spotted beebalm! Yellow Coneflower! Blue Lobelia! Boneset! Cup Plant!
SCIENTIFIC NAME!
April!
May!
BLOOM PERIOD! June! July! August! September! October!
Zizia aurea! Penstemon digitalis! Coreopsis lanceolata! Rudbeckia hirta! Asclepias tuberosa! Monarda punctata! Ratibida pinnata! Lobelia siphilitica! Eupatorium perfoliatum! Silphium perfoliatum!
Stiff Solidago rigida! Goldenrod! New England Aster novaeAster! angliae!
www.nativeplants.msu.edu
Fiedler and Landis 2007, Tuell et al. 2008
May 2009"
Flower plot establishment
June 2009"
May 2010"
June 2010"
May 2011"
June 2011"
August 2011"
Do wildflower plantings increase bees and crop yield? Wildflower plantings at blueberry (cherry and apple) farms Paired design 1. Adjacent to crop – 15 native wildflower species – 3 native grass species
2. Mown grass field perimeters Control
Flower
Na.ve bees per 15 minutes
More native bees adjacent to wildflower plantings 8 7 6
Control Edge Control Interior Flower Edge Flower Interior
a ab
5 4
b b
3 2 1 0
2009
2010
2011
Calculated increase in % fruit set, mature seeds, and berry weight between enclosed and open treatments.
Increase in mature seeds !
30 pairs adjacent to flower and control fields
Increase in berry weight (g) !
Enclosed and open crop flowers
Increase in percent fruit set !
Increased pollination adjacent to wildflower plantings 50"
Fruit set
40" 30" 20" 10" 0" 25"
Mature seeds
20" 15" 10" 5" 0" 0.75"
Berry weight
0.60" 0.45" 0.30" 0.15" 0.00"
Control
Flower
Sustainability of biofuel crops
GLBRC Area 4.4
GLBRC Goal: to obtain the knowledge needed to deploy biofuel cropping systems that are profitable and environmentally sustainable
Foraging and nesting resources for bees Factors affecting wild bee communities: - Flower abundance Banaszak 1996 - Floral resource distribution Williams & Kremen 2007 - Nesting resource distribution Potts et al. 2005 Landscape-level distribution of these resources can be used to predict bee activity at crop flowers. Lonsdorf et al. 2009 Land use changes from biofuels may alter landscape suitability for pollinators.
Augochlorella aurata
Cera>na calcarata
Hopli>s pilosifrons Agapostemon virescens
Gardiner et al. 2010 BioEnergy Research
Bee nesting success
Wild bee abundance a F2,27 = 7.01 P = 0.004
a
b
Corn
Switchgrass
Prairie
21 genera of bees found in bioenergy crop fields
Filled holesholes per per binbin Number of filled
Number of bees in 12 pan traps
Bee abundance and nesting in biofuel crops
a
a
b
Corn
Switchgrass
Prairie
90% of nesting bees used mud to seal nest cells
Gardiner et al. 2010 BioEnergy Research
Bee performance in biofuel landscapes How do landscape composi@on and biofuel crop diversity affect bee performance? Site selection based on crop type and surrounding landscape composition. Bumble bees 20 sites (12 MI, 8 WI) 10 corn 10 mixed prairie
Stem-nesting Hymenoptera 36 sites (18 MI, 18 WI) 12 corn 12 mixed prairie 12 switchgrass
Methods for sampling bee performance
3 Bombus impatiens colonies per site in field margins, with queen excluders. Colonies weighed through summer. Then frozen and sampled.
Nesting boxes in field margins, May-Oct. After emergence, each emerged insect Identified and counted. Nests split open to examine contents.
Bumble bee colony productivity Queens
300
35
250
30
No. of queens per colony
Elaine Evans, U. MN
Colony weight gain (g)
Colony weight
200 150 100 50 0
Michigan Wisconsin
25 20 15 10 5 0
corn
prairie
corn
prairie
Elaine Evans, U. MN
Colony weight gain (g)
Bumble bee performance and landscape composition
400
400
350
350
300
300
R² = 0.30
250
250
200
200
150 100
100
50
50
0
0 20
40
60
% grassland within 1.5 km
R² = 0.06
150
R² = 0.33
0
Corn Prairie
80
R² = 0.29
0
20
40
60
80
% forest within 1.5 km
100
Delivery of pollination ecosystem services
Number of seeds per head ± S.E.
25 20
Corn Prairie
15 10 5 0 Low propor>on
High propor>on
Proportion of semi-natural habitat in the landscape
Summary & conclusions • Crop fields have diverse communities of bees.
• Farm management practices can support wild bees and crop pollination.
• Diverse biofuel plantings can interact with landscape composition to support pollinators and their ecosystem services
Alterna>ve managed bees
Honey bees Wild bees Pollina>on sampling
Hor>cultural prac>ces
Pes>cide stewardship Habitat management
Integrated Crop Pollina.on
Decision support tools
Grower educa>on
Future directions • Predictive model of blueberry pollination and yield
• Cost-benefit analysis of pollinator habitats
• Effects of harvest regimes on pollinator communities
• Empirical modeling of pollinators and pollination under different biofuel scenarios
Yield contribution of honey bees and native bees small native bees
large
honey bees
Small
Large
Field Size
Estimating yield Bush spacing Flowers per bush % fruit set Avg. berry weight (open - closed) Acreage of large and small fields (NASS)
Yield supported by beesâ&#x20AC;Ś Honey bees small fields 43 T 88% large fields 65,252 T Native bees small fields large fields
150 T 12% 8,601 T Isaacs & Kirk 2010, J. Appl. Ecol.
Selecting & evaluating flowering plants for bee conservation Plant material Regionally relevant Seed available Cost effec>ve Perennial/annual Reliable growth Bloom period Pest neutral
Pollinator response AUrac>ve Rewarding Abundance Diversity Species of interest
Technology transfer Demonstra>on sites Early adopters Economics Agronomic exper>se Cost-‐sharing op>ons Success stories
Site suitability
Improved yields Higher crop quality More stable yields
Bee habitat establishment by farmers