Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/31104
Title: | The effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination service delivery | Contributor(s): | Kendall, Liam K (author) ; Evans, Lisa J (author); Gee, Megan (author); Smith, Tobias J (author); Gagic, Vesna (author); Lobaton, Juan D (author); Hall, Mark A (author); Jones, Jeremy (author); Kirkland, Lindsey (author); Saunders, Manu E (author) ; Sonter, Carolyn (author); Cutting, Brian T (author); Parks, Sophie (author); Hogendoorn, Katja (author); Spurr, Cameron (author); Gracie, Alistair (author); Simpson, Melinda (author); Rader, Romina (author) | Publication Date: | 2021-10-01 | Early Online Version: | 2021-07-21 | Open Access: | Yes | DOI: | 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107556 | Handle Link: | https://hdl.handle.net/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. | Publication Type: | Journal Article | Source of Publication: | Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, v.319, p. 1-15 | Publisher: | Elsevier BV | Place of Publication: | Netherlands | ISSN: | 1873-2305 0167-8809 |
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: | 410204 Ecosystem services (incl. pollination) 300804 Horticultural crop protection (incl. pests, diseases and weeds) |
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: | 280101 Expanding knowledge in the agricultural, food and veterinary sciences 260599 Horticultural crops not elsewhere classified |
Peer Reviewed: | Yes | HERDC Category Description: | C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal |
---|---|
Appears in Collections: | Journal Article School of Environmental and Rural Science UNE Business School |
Files in This Item:
File | Description | Size | Format | |
---|---|---|---|---|
openpublished/TheEffectKendallSmithLobatonHallJonesKirklandSaundersSonterRader2021JournalArticle.pdf | Published version | 4.89 MB | Adobe PDF Download Adobe | View/Open |
SCOPUSTM
Citations
32
checked on Jul 20, 2024
Page view(s)
1,658
checked on Jul 23, 2023
Download(s)
322
checked on Jul 23, 2023
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License