The effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination service delivery

Title
The effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination service delivery
Publication Date
2021-10-01
Author(s)
Kendall, Liam K
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0671-0121
Email: lkendal2@myune.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:lkendal2
Evans, Lisa J
Gee, Megan
Smith, Tobias J
Gagic, Vesna
Lobaton, Juan D
Hall, Mark A
Jones, Jeremy
Kirkland, Lindsey
Saunders, Manu E
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0645-8277
Email: msaund28@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:msaund28
Sonter, Carolyn
Cutting, Brian T
Parks, Sophie
Hogendoorn, Katja
Spurr, Cameron
Gracie, Alistair
Simpson, Melinda
Rader, Romina
( author )
OrcID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9056-9118
Email: rrader@une.edu.au
UNE Id une-id:rrader
Type of document
Journal Article
Language
en
Entity Type
Publication
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Place of publication
Netherlands
DOI
10.1016/j.agee.2021.107556
UNE publication id
une:1959.11/31104
Abstract
Protective covers (i.e., glasshouses, netting enclosures, and polytunnels) are increasingly used in crop production to enhance crop quality, yield, and production efficiency. However, many protected crops require insect pollinators to achieve optimal pollination and there is no consensus about how best to manage pollinators and crop pollination in these environments. We conducted a systematic literature review to synthesise knowledge about the effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination services and identified 290 relevant studies. Bees were the dominant taxon used in protected systems (90%), represented by eusocial bees (e.g., bumble bees (Bombus spp.), honey bees (Apis spp.), stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini)) and solitary bees (e.g., Amegilla spp., Megachile spp., and Osmia spp.). Flies represented 9% of taxa and included Calliphoridae, Muscidae, and Syrphidae. The remaining 1% of taxa was represented by Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Of the studies that assessed pollination services, 96% indicate that pollinators were active on the crop and/or their visits resulted in improved fruit production compared with flowers not visited by insects (i.e., insect visits prevented, or flowers were self- or mechanically pollinated). Only 20% of studies evaluated pollinator health. Some taxa, such as mason or leafcutter bees, and bumble bees can function well in covered environments, but the effect of covers on pollinator health was negative in over 50% of the studies in which health was assessed. Negative effects included decreased reproduction, adult mortality, reduced forager activity, and increased disease prevalence. These effects may have occurred as a result of changes in temperature/humidity, light quality/quantity, pesticide exposure, and/or reduced access to food resources. Strategies reported to successfully enhance pollinator health and efficiency in covered systems include: careful selection of bee hive location to reduce heat stress and improve dispersal through the crop; increased floral diversity; deploying appropriate numbers of pollinators; and manipulation of flower physiology to increase attractiveness to pollinating insects. To improve and safeguard crop yields in pollinator dependent protected cropping systems, practitioners need to ensure that delivery of crop pollination services is compatible with suitable conditions for pollinator health.
Link
Citation
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v.319, p. 1-15
ISSN
1873-2305
0167-8809
Start page
1
End page
15
Rights
Attribution 4.0 International

Files:

NameSizeformatDescriptionLink
openpublished/TheEffectKendallSmithLobatonHallJonesKirklandSaundersSonterRader2021JournalArticle.pdf 5003.962 KB application/pdf Published version View document