Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:06:18.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPACT OF AERIAL FENITROTHION SPRAYING UPON THE POPULATION BIOLOGY OF BUMBLE BEES (BOMBUS LATR.: HYM.) IN SOUTH-WESTERN NEW BRUNSWICK

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

R. C. Plowright ,
B. A. Pendrel  and
I. A. McLaren
R. C. Plowright
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1
B. A. Pendrel
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1Al
I. A. McLaren
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4J1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Aerially sprayed fenitrothion (0.21 kg/ha) caused mortalities from 100% among experimentally caged bees in exposed habitats to 47% in cages placed under dense forest canopy. Bumble bees found foraging in sprayed areas during the days immediately following the spray suffered significantly higher subsequent mortality than those in unsprayed areas.

Long-term effects were investigated by comparing late summer Bombus population densities among sites representing various spray histories. For all species combined, abundances in unsprayed areas averaged 3 times higher than in fenitrothion treated areas. Population recovery appeared to be complete within a few years after discontinuation of spraying.

Foraging performance by laboratory reared colonies was significantly higher in sprayed areas with reduced bee populations than in a control area, possibly because of relaxation of competitive stress. The diversity of plant species used for pollen collection was nearly twice as great in the control as compared with sprayed areas, suggesting that the effect of fenitrothion spraying on cross-pollination may be greatest for plants which are subdominant in the hierarchy of bee preference In one such plant, red clover, reduced seed-set was demonstrated.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 110 , Issue 11 , November 1978 , pp. 1145 - 1156
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkins, L. E., Anderson, L. D., Nakakihara, H., and Greywood, E. A.. 1970. Toxicity of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals to honey bees. Univ. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn & Agric. Extn Serv. (July 1970).Google Scholar
Brian, M. V. 1965. Social insect populations. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Buckner, C. H. 1975. Supporting document supplied to the Expert Panel on Fenitrothion. Publ. NRCC 14104, Environmental Secretariat, NRC, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Hairston, N. G., Smith, F. E., and Slobodkin, L. B.. 1960. Community structure, population control, and competition. Am. Nat. 94: 421–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartling, L. K. 1977. The foraging behavior of bumble bees (Apidae: Bombus Latr.) in south-west New Brunswick. Honours B.Sc. Thesis, Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
Inouye, D. W. 1976. Resource partitioning and community structure: a study of bumblebees in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Ph.D. Thesis, University of North Carolina.Google Scholar
Kettela, E. G. 1975. Aerial spraying for protection of forests infested by spruce budworm. For. Chron. 41(4): 7–8.Google Scholar
Kevan, P. G. 1975. Forest application of the insecticide fenitrothion and its effect on wild bee pollinators (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of low-bush blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) in southern New Brunswick, Canada. Biol. Conser. 7: 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevan, P. G. and Collins, M.. 1974. Bees, blueberries, birds, and budworms. Osprey (Nflnd. Nat. Hist. Soc. Newsl.) 5: 54–62.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M., Inger, R. F., and King, F. W.. 1968. On the diversity of reptile and amphibian species in a Bornean rain forest. Am. Nat. 102: 497–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1975. Ecological diversity. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Plowright, R. C. 1967. On the distribution of bumblebees in Norfolk. Trans. Nor. and Norwich Nat. Soc. 21: 48–88.Google Scholar
Plowright, R. C. 1977. The effect of fenitrothion on forest pollinators in New Brunswick. Proc. N.R.C. Symp. on Fenitrothion, (Ottawa), NRCC/CNRC 16073. pp. 335–341.Google Scholar
Plowright, R. C. and Jay, S. C.. 1966. Rearing bumblebee colonies in captivity. J. Apic. Res. 5: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plowright, R. C. and Paloheimo, J. E.. The evolution of foraging strategies in bumble bees. Proc. Conf. on Game Theory & Evolution (University of Toronto), in press.Google Scholar
Schoener, T. W. 1971. Theory of feeding strategies. A. Rev. ecol. Syst. 2: 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J.. 1969. Biometry. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Varty, I. W. and Carter, N. E.. 1974. A baseline inventory of litter dwelling arthropods and airborne insects including pollinators in two fir-spruce stands with dissimilar histories of insecticide treatment. Can. For. Serv., Marit. For. Res. Centre Info. Rep. M–X–48.Google Scholar