View
216
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Isaacs discussed integrated crop pollination and how it relates to biofuels.
Citation preview
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