Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: bees, honey and pollen as sentinels for environmental chemical contaminants

Three beehive matrices, sampled in six different apiaries from West France, were analyzed for the presence of four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH4: benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[b]fluoranthene and chrysene). Samples were collected during four different periods in both 2008 and 2009. Honey samples showed the lowest levels of PAH4 contamination (min = 0.03 μg kg⁻¹; max = 5.80 μg kg⁻¹; mean = 0.82 μg kg⁻¹; Sd = 1.17). Bee samples exhibited higher levels of PAH4 contamination (min = 0.32 μg kg⁻¹; max = 73.83 μg kg⁻¹; mean = 7.03 μg kg⁻¹; Sd = 17.83) with a great dispersion of the concentrations due to four main events of high concentrations. Pollen samples showed only one major episode with the highest PAH4 concentration found (min = 0.33 μg kg⁻¹; max = 129.41 μg kg⁻¹; mean = 7.10 μg kg⁻¹; Sd = 22.28). The PAH4 concentrations found were significantly influenced by the landscape context for all beehive samples.     

The habitat saturation hypothesis and sociality in an allodapine bee: cooperative nesting is not “making the best of a bad situation”

Several factors thought to be important for the evolution of cooperative breeding in vertebrates have received little attention in facultatively social insects. One of these, the “habitat saturation hypothesis” of Selander (1964), predicts that colony sizes will be greater in breeding units where dispersal opportunities are limited, suggesting that group living is a secondary option to independent reproduction. The Australian allodapine bee Exoneura bicolor exhibits a number of traits that occur in cooperatively breeding bird species, including long life-span, repeated opportunities for reproduction, and vulnerability to brood predation and parasitism. We experimentally examined the effect of a potentially limiting environmental factor, nesting substrate availability, as an agent influencing sociality in E. bicolor. We manipulated nesting substrate availability in two separate locations during a time when foundress dispersal is common. No significant difference was found between colony sizes in cases where dispersal options were abundant and cases where dispersal options were limited. An increase in opportunities for dispersal did not lead to higher rates of independent nesting, suggesting that cooperative nesting is a preferred strategy regardless of distance-related costs of dispersal. Reproductivity per female and brood survival were examined as factors selecting for group living. Low survival of brood in single-female nests has the potential to select for cooperative nesting in this bee. Received: 29 September 1995/Accepted after revision: 24 June 1996     

Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development

Reductions in global bee populations are threatening the pollination benefits to both the planet and people. Whilst the contribution of bee pollination in promoting sustainable development goals through food security and biodiversity is widely acknowledged, a range of other benefits provided by bees has yet to be fully recognised. We explore the contributions of bees towards achieving the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Our insights suggest that bees potentially contribute towards 15 of the 17 SDGs and a minimum of 30 SDG targets. We identify common themes in which bees play an essential role, and suggest that improved understanding of bee contributions to sustainable development is crucial for ensuring viable bee systems.     

Parental care and sexual size dimorphism in wasps and bees

Sexual size dimorphism, in which one sex is larger than the other, occurs when body size has differential effects on the fitness of males and females. Mammals and birds usually have male-biased size dimorphism, probably because of strong sexual competition among males. Invertebrates usually have female-biased size dimorphism, perhaps because their inflexible exoskeletons limit ovary size, leading to a strong correlation between female body size and fecundity. In this paper, we test whether an additional factor, the type of parental care provided, affects the degree of sexual size dimorphism. Among wasps and bees, there is a contrast between provisioning taxa, in which females must gather and transport heavy loads of provisions to nests they have constructed, and non-provisioning taxa, in which females lay eggs but do not construct nests or transport provisions. Males have no role in parental care in either case. An analysis of British wasps and bees shows that provisioning taxa have significantly more female-biased size dimorphism than non-provisioning taxa. This is true for simple cross‑species comparisons and after controlling for phylogeny. Our data imply that the demands of carrying provision loads are at least part of the explanation for this pattern. Thus, sexual size dimorphism is greatest in pompilid wasps, which carry the heaviest prey items. Bees, which transport minute pollen grains, exhibit the least dimorphism. We also find that cavity‑nesting species, in which nest construction costs may be minimized, exhibit reduced dimorphism, but this was not significant after controlling for phylogeny.     

Foraging scent marks of bumblebees: footprint cues rather than pheromone signals

In their natural habitat foraging bumblebees refuse to land on and probe flowers that have been recently visited (and depleted) by themselves, conspecifics or other bees, which increases their overall rate of nectar intake. This avoidance is often based on recognition of scent marks deposited by previous visitors. While the term 'scent mark' implies active labelling, it is an open question whether the repellent chemicals are pheromones actively and specifically released during flower visits, or mere footprints deposited unspecifically wherever bees walk. To distinguish between the two possibilities, we presented worker bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) with three types of feeders in a laboratory experiment: unvisited control feeders, passive feeders with a corolla that the bee had walked over on its way from the nest (with unspecific footprints), and active feeders, which the bee had just visited and depleted, but which were immediately refilled with sugar-water (potentially with specific scent marks). Bumblebees rejected both active and passive feeders more frequently than unvisited controls. The rate of rejection of passive feeders was only slightly lower than that of active feeders, and this difference vanished completely when passive corollas were walked over repeatedly on the way from the nest. Thus, mere footprints were sufficient to emulate the repellent effect of an actual feeder visit. In confirmation, glass slides on which bumblebees had walked on near the nest entrance accumulated hydrocarbons (alkanes and alkenes, C23 to C31), which had previously been shown to elicit repellency in flower choice experiments. We conclude that repellent scent marks are mere footprints, which foraging bees avoid when they encounter them in a foraging context.     

Endemic pollinator response to organic vs. conventional farming and landscape context in the Cape Floristic Region biodiversity hotspot

The effects of organic management and landscape context on two highly endemic and important pollinator taxa (bees and monkey beetles) were studied in the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) biodiversity hotspot, where a quarter of the land is intensively managed mostly for grape production. This functional group was chosen as there is concern worldwide over pollinator decline, particularly in regions of high levels of endemism of both flora and fauna such as the CFR. Species richness and abundance of bees and monkey beetles were sampled and compared between organic and conventional vineyards, with natural vegetation as reference habitat. Species richness of monkey beetles, but not the species richness of bees, benefited from organic compared to conventional vineyard management. Our findings support the hypothesis that the effects of landscape context and management may be taxon dependent. Monkey beetles have been suggested as strong indicators of disturbance. These beetles are among the most important pollinator guilds in the CFR, as they help to sustain the endemic vegetation of this region. Protection of the remaining natural habitat in close proximity to farmland is an imperative conservation strategy in this region.     

Beehive fences as a multidimensional conflict‐mitigation tool for farmers coexisting with elephants

Increasing habitat fragmentation and human population growth in Africa has resulted in an escalation in human–elephant conflict between small‐scale farmers and free‐ranging African elephants (Loxodonta Africana). In 2012 Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) implemented the national 10‐year Conservation and Management Strategy for the Elephant in Kenya, which includes an action aimed at testing whether beehive fences can be used to mitigate human–elephant conflict. From 2012 to 2015, we field‐tested the efficacy of beehive fences to protect 10 0.4‐ha farms next to Tsavo East National Park from elephants. We hung a series of beehives every 10 m around the boundary of each farm plot. The hives were linked with strong wire. After an initial pilot test with 2 farms, the remaining 8 of 10 beehive fences also contained 2‐dimensional dummy hives between real beehives to help reduce the cost of the fence. Each trial plot had a neighboring control plot of the same size within the same farm. Of the 131 beehives deployed 88% were occupied at least once during the 3.5‐year trial. Two hundred and fifty‐three elephants, predominantly 20–45 years old entered the community farming area, typically during the crop‐ ripening season. Eighty percent of the elephants that approached the trial farms were kept out of the areas protected by the beehive fences, and elephants that broke a fence were in smaller than average groups. Beehive fences not only kept large groups of elephants from invading the farmland plots but the farmers also benefited socially and financially from the sale of 228 kg of elephant‐friendly honey. As news of the success of the trial spread, a further 12 farmers requested to join the project, bringing the number of beehive fence protected farms to 22 and beehives to 297. This demonstrates positive adoption of beehive fences as a community mitigation tool. Understanding the response of elephants to the beehive fences, the seasonality of crop raiding and fence breaking, and the willingness of the community to engage with the mitigation method will help contribute to future management strategies for this high human–elephant conflict hotspot and other similar areas in Kenya.