Integrated Crop Pollination: Adventures with Bees, Blueberries, and Biofuels

Integrated Crop Pollination: Bees, Blueberries, and Biofuels

Rufus Isaacs Department of Entomology

Michigan State University

UW Seminar, November 4 2011

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

Julianna Tuell Brett Blaauw Annie Kirk

Research collaborators & funding

Rackham Foundation

Poor pollination reduces crop yield and quality

Total  global  crop  produc.on  increase  of  140%,  1960-­‐2006  

Produc.on  deficit  in  the  absence  of  pollinators  

Long  term  trends  in  produc.on  of  bee  pollinated  crops  

Aizen  et  al.  2009.  How  much  does  agriculture  depend  on  pollinators?  Lessons  from  long-­‐term  trends  in  crop  produc>on.  Annals  of  Botany  103.  

Changing  crop  produc.on  and  dependence  on  pollinators  

Bearing  acres  of  U.S.  non-­‐citrus  fruit  and  nut  crops  1980-­‐2009    

USDA-­‐ERS  2009  

Bea

ring

acre

s x

1000

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

Integrated  Crop  

Pollina.on  

Honey  bees  Alterna>ve  

managed  bees   Wild  bees  

Pes>cide  stewardship  

Habitat  management  

Pollina>on  sampling  

Hor>cultural  prac>ces  

Decision  support  tools  

Grower  educa>on  

The combined use of different pollinator species, habitat augmentation, and crop management practices to provide reliable and economical pollination of crops

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

Halictidae Andrenidae Apidae Colletidae multiple families

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Proportion of bees collected

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%

•  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

Dominant native bee species during bloom

Tuell et al. 2010, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer.

-­‐1.0   2.0  

-­‐1.5  

1.5  

Andrenid  bees  

Halic>d  bees  

other  na>ve  bees  insec>cide  program  

soil  cult.  perimeter   woods  

treeline  ditches  

other  fl  crops  

adj.  blueberry  

meadows  

floral  abundance  

plant  sp  

2005 samples

Factors affecting bee abundance in blueberry farms

Andrena carlini Andrena carolina Andrena vicina Augochlorella aurata Bombus spp. Ceratina calcarata/dupla Lasioglossum coriaceum Lasioglossum imitatum Lasioglossum pilosum

2004

2005

2006

No.

bee

s tr

appe

d pe

r day

sample time in relation to blueberry bloom

Phenology of native bees on blueberry flowers

Temporal overlap of pollinator and pest activity

April May June July Aug Sept

Osmia bees andrenid bees

halictid bees Bombus queens Bombus workers

Blueberry bloom

•  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.

Link between pesticide use and wild bee communities?

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:

•  Determined relationship between native bees and IPR scores from the year prior to bee sampling during bloom.

IPR = ∑ amount of active ingredient (kg) / Ha LD 50 for honey bees 50 50

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

Comparison of two blueberry fruitworm control programs

Timing Standard Reduced risk Bloom B.t. (Dipel) 1 lb Intrepid 8 oz (>100*)

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 (7.1*)

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.

143 fold lower IPR score *honey bee LD50 in µg/bee

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!

SCIENTIFIC NAME!

BLOOM PERIOD!April! May! June! July! August! September! October!

Golden Alexanders! Zizia aurea!

Foxglove Beard-tongue!

Penstemon digitalis!

Sand Coreopsis!

Coreopsis lanceolata!

Black-eyed Susan!

Rudbeckia hirta!

Butterfly milkweed!

Asclepias tuberosa!

Spotted beebalm!

Monarda punctata!

Yellow Coneflower!

Ratibida pinnata!

Blue Lobelia! Lobelia siphilitica!

Boneset! Eupatorium perfoliatum!

Cup Plant! Silphium perfoliatum!

Stiff Goldenrod! Solidago rigida!

New England Aster!

Aster novae-angliae!

Fiedler  and  Landis  2007,  Tuell  et  al.  2008  www.nativeplants.msu.edu  

Flower  plot  establishment  May 2009"

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

More native bees adjacent to wildflower plantings

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2009   2010   2011  

Na.

ve  bees  pe

r  15  m

inutes     Control Edge

Control Interior Flower Edge Flower Interior

a

ab

b b

0"5"

10"15"20"25"

Incr

ease

in

mat

ure

seed

s !

0.00"0.15"0.30"0.45"0.60"0.75"

Incr

ease

in b

erry

w

eigh

t (g)

!

Increased pollination adjacent to wildflower plantings

0"10"20"30"40"50"

Incr

ease

in

perc

ent f

ruit

set !

Berry weight

Mature seeds

Fruit set

Control Flower

Enclosed and open crop flowers

30 pairs adjacent to flower and control fields

Calculated increase in % fruit set, mature seeds, and berry weight between enclosed and open treatments.

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  

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.

Foraging and nesting resources for bees

Cera>na  calcarata  

Agapostemon  virescens  

Hopli>s  pilosifrons  

Augochlorella  aurata  

Gardiner et al. 2010 BioEnergy Research

a

a

b

Corn Switchgrass Prairie

Wild bee abundance

Num

ber o

f fill

ed h

oles

per

bin

Bee nesting success

F2,27 = 7.01 P = 0.004

90% of nesting bees used mud to seal nest cells

Bee abundance and nesting in biofuel crops N

umbe

r of b

ees

in 1

2 pa

n tr

aps

Fi

lled

hole

s pe

r bin

Gardiner et al. 2010 BioEnergy Research

21 genera of bees found in bioenergy crop fields

a a

b

Corn Switchgrass Prairie

Bee performance in biofuel landscapes

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

How  do  landscape  composi@on  and  biofuel  crop  diversity  affect  bee  performance?    

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

0  

50  

100  

150  

200  

250  

300  

corn   prairie  

Colony  weight  g

ain  (g)  

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

corn   prairie  

No.  of  q

ueen

s  pe

r  colony  

Michigan  Wisconsin  

Elaine Evans, U. MN

Colony weight Queens

Bumble bee performance and landscape composition

R²  =  0.30  

R²  =  0.33  

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 20 40 60 80

Col

ony

wei

ght g

ain

(g)

R²  =  0.29  

R²  =  0.06  

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0 20 40 60 80 100

Corn Prairie

% forest within 1.5 km % grassland within 1.5 km

Elaine Evans, U. MN

Delivery of pollination ecosystem services

0

5

10

15

20

25

Low  propor>on   High  propor>on  

Corn Prairie

Num

ber o

f see

ds p

er h

ead

± S.

E.

Proportion of semi-natural habitat in the landscape

•  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

Summary & conclusions

Integrated  Crop  

Pollina.on  

Honey  bees  Alterna>ve  

managed  bees  Wild  bees  

Pes>cide  stewardship  

Habitat  management  

Pollina>on  sampling  

Hor>cultural  prac>ces  

Decision  support  tools  

Grower  educa>on  

Future directions

•  Effects of harvest regimes on pollinator communities

•  Empirical modeling of pollinators and pollination under different biofuel scenarios

•  Predictive model of blueberry pollination and yield

•  Cost-benefit analysis of pollinator habitats

Yield contribution of honey bees and native bees

Yield supported by bees… Honey bees small fields 43 T large fields 65,252 T

Native bees small fields 150 T large fields 8,601 T

Isaacs & Kirk 2010, J. Appl. Ecol.

Small Large Field Size

honey bees

native bees

small

large

Estimating yield Bush spacing Flowers per bush % fruit set Avg. berry weight (open - closed) Acreage of large and small fields (NASS)

88%

12%

Selecting & evaluating flowering plants for bee conservation

Plant  material  

Regionally  relevant  

Seed  available  

Cost  effec>ve  

Perennial/annual  

Reliable  growth  

Bloom  period  

Pest  neutral  

Site  suitability  

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  

Bee  habitat  establishment  by  farmers  

Improved  yields  Higher  crop  quality  More  stable  yields