Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

A meta-analysis of single visit pollination effectiveness comparing honeybees and other floral visitors

Page, Maureen L. ; Nicholson, Charlie C. LU orcid ; Brennan, Ross M. ; Britzman, Anna T. ; Greer, Jessica ; Hemberger, Jeremy ; Kahl, Hanna ; Müller, Uta ; Peng, Youhong and Rosenberger, Nick M. , et al. (2021) In American Journal of Botany 108(11). p.2196-2207
Abstract

Premise: Many animals provide ecosystem services in the form of pollination including honeybees, which have become globally dominant floral visitors. A rich literature documents considerable variation in single visit pollination effectiveness, but this literature has yet to be extensively synthesized to address whether honeybees are effective pollinators. Methods: We conducted a hierarchical meta-analysis of 168 studies and extracted 1564 single visit effectiveness (SVE) measures for 240 plant species. We paired SVE data with visitation frequency data for 69 of these studies. We used these data to ask three questions: (1) Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) and other floral visitors differ in their SVE? (2) To what extent do plant and... (More)

Premise: Many animals provide ecosystem services in the form of pollination including honeybees, which have become globally dominant floral visitors. A rich literature documents considerable variation in single visit pollination effectiveness, but this literature has yet to be extensively synthesized to address whether honeybees are effective pollinators. Methods: We conducted a hierarchical meta-analysis of 168 studies and extracted 1564 single visit effectiveness (SVE) measures for 240 plant species. We paired SVE data with visitation frequency data for 69 of these studies. We used these data to ask three questions: (1) Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) and other floral visitors differ in their SVE? (2) To what extent do plant and pollinator attributes predict differences in SVE between honeybees and other visitors? (3) Is there a correlation between visitation frequency and SVE?. Results: Honeybees were significantly less effective than the most effective non-honeybee pollinators but were as effective as the average pollinator. The type of pollinator moderated these effects. Honeybees were less effective compared to the most effective and average bird and bee pollinators but were as effective as other taxa. Visitation frequency and SVE were positively correlated, but this trend was largely driven by data from communities where honeybees were absent. Conclusions: Although high visitation frequencies make honeybees important pollinators, they were less effective than the average bee and rarely the most effective pollinator of the plants they visit. As such, honeybees may be imperfect substitutes for the loss of wild pollinators, and safeguarding pollination will benefit from conservation of non-honeybee taxa.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
keywords
Apis mellifera, bee, crop pollination, honeybee, pollen deposition, pollination efficiency, pollinator importance, visitation frequency, wild pollinator
in
American Journal of Botany
volume
108
issue
11
pages
2196 - 2207
publisher
Botanical Society of America
external identifiers
  • scopus:85119854397
  • pmid:34622948
ISSN
0002-9122
DOI
10.1002/ajb2.1764
language
English
LU publication?
no
additional info
Funding Information: The authors thank Priya Shukla who helped with data collection and provided thoughtful feedback during a graduate seminar in which this meta‐analysis was first proposed. The quality of this manuscript benefited greatly thanks to comments from Elizabeth Crone and two anonymous reviewers. M.L.P. was supported by a U.S. Department of Defense National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship. C.C.N. was supported by a USDA‐ARS Non‐Assistance Cooperative Agreement No. 58‐2030‐8‐031 awarded to N.M.W. J.G., H.K., and C.S. were supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowships. N.M.W. was partially funded by NSF DEB 1556885. We declare no conflict of interest. Funding Information: The authors thank Priya Shukla who helped with data collection and provided thoughtful feedback during a graduate seminar in which this meta-analysis was first proposed. The quality of this manuscript benefited greatly thanks to comments from Elizabeth Crone and two anonymous reviewers. M.L.P. was supported by a U.S. Department of Defense National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship. C.C.N. was supported by a USDA-ARS Non-Assistance Cooperative Agreement No. 58-2030-8-031 awarded to N.M.W. J.G., H.K., and C.S. were supported by National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowships. N.M.W. was partially funded by NSF DEB 1556885. We declare no conflict of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Botanical Society of America.
id
dbc9767e-e56d-40e2-bd1b-b6df3a174c4b
date added to LUP
2023-02-09 16:48:16
date last changed
2024-06-26 17:26:08
@article{dbc9767e-e56d-40e2-bd1b-b6df3a174c4b,
  abstract     = {{<p>Premise: Many animals provide ecosystem services in the form of pollination including honeybees, which have become globally dominant floral visitors. A rich literature documents considerable variation in single visit pollination effectiveness, but this literature has yet to be extensively synthesized to address whether honeybees are effective pollinators. Methods: We conducted a hierarchical meta-analysis of 168 studies and extracted 1564 single visit effectiveness (SVE) measures for 240 plant species. We paired SVE data with visitation frequency data for 69 of these studies. We used these data to ask three questions: (1) Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) and other floral visitors differ in their SVE? (2) To what extent do plant and pollinator attributes predict differences in SVE between honeybees and other visitors? (3) Is there a correlation between visitation frequency and SVE?. Results: Honeybees were significantly less effective than the most effective non-honeybee pollinators but were as effective as the average pollinator. The type of pollinator moderated these effects. Honeybees were less effective compared to the most effective and average bird and bee pollinators but were as effective as other taxa. Visitation frequency and SVE were positively correlated, but this trend was largely driven by data from communities where honeybees were absent. Conclusions: Although high visitation frequencies make honeybees important pollinators, they were less effective than the average bee and rarely the most effective pollinator of the plants they visit. As such, honeybees may be imperfect substitutes for the loss of wild pollinators, and safeguarding pollination will benefit from conservation of non-honeybee taxa.</p>}},
  author       = {{Page, Maureen L. and Nicholson, Charlie C. and Brennan, Ross M. and Britzman, Anna T. and Greer, Jessica and Hemberger, Jeremy and Kahl, Hanna and Müller, Uta and Peng, Youhong and Rosenberger, Nick M. and Stuligross, Clara and Wang, Li and Yang, Louie H. and Williams, Neal M.}},
  issn         = {{0002-9122}},
  keywords     = {{Apis mellifera; bee; crop pollination; honeybee; pollen deposition; pollination efficiency; pollinator importance; visitation frequency; wild pollinator}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  number       = {{11}},
  pages        = {{2196--2207}},
  publisher    = {{Botanical Society of America}},
  series       = {{American Journal of Botany}},
  title        = {{A meta-analysis of single visit pollination effectiveness comparing honeybees and other floral visitors}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.1764}},
  doi          = {{10.1002/ajb2.1764}},
  volume       = {{108}},
  year         = {{2021}},
}