Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T12:24:50.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Perceptions of wild bees and farm characteristics associated with the uptake of pollinator-supporting land management practices among Canadian apple growers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2020

Rachel A. Nalepa Open the ORCID record for Rachel A. Nalepa [Opens in a new window] ,
Graham Epstein ,
Jeremy Pittman  and
Sheila R. Colla
Rachel A. Nalepa*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Environment and Urban Change, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
Graham Epstein
Affiliation:
School of Politics, Security, and International Affairs and Sustainable Coastal Systems Cluster, National Center for Integrated Coastal Research, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA
Jeremy Pittman
Affiliation:
Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
Sheila R. Colla
Affiliation:
Faculty of Environment and Urban Change, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
*
Author for correspondence: Rachel A. Nalepa, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pollination services are critical for food production. Although domesticated honey bees are important pollinators in agriculture, there is growing interest in supporting naturally occurring wild bees. Diversifying pollination management strategies by encouraging healthy wild bee communities may be especially useful for growers of insect-pollinated crops, such as apples. Although research has identified several land management practices that can enhance local pollinator communities on farms, there are few studies on the factors that influence growers to adopt pollinator-supporting actions on their land. Here, we surveyed 75 Canadian apple growers and used regression models to explore the influence of farm characteristics and perceptions about bees on the likelihood of adopting 15 unique pollinator-supporting practices. We also provide a descriptive analysis of growers' pollination management practices and self-assessed resourcefulness on the ability to improve habitat for wild pollinators on the farm. We found that an increase in three variables: awareness of wild bees, perception of the severity of threats facing wild populations, and the perception of the benefits provided by wild bees is associated with more pollinator-supporting practices on the farm. Overall, growers were less likely to adopt pollinator-friendly practices as the fraction of rented land increased and as the perceived costs of implementing these practices rose. We found ‘low-hanging fruit’ (i.e., pollinator-supporting practices that could be easily and inexpensively implemented) were adopted by less than one-third of growers and that the majority of those surveyed had little to no knowledge on what actions to take if they wanted to improve their farms for wild bees or where to go for that knowledge. Our results suggest that policies and programs that focus on raising grower awareness of wild bees, increasing grower perception of their benefits, and reducing the perceived costs of implementing pollinator-supporting practices may positively affect their uptake. A deeper understanding of grower perceptions will provide essential insight into how growers may contribute to wild pollinator conservation while potentially increasing agricultural production and reducing vulnerability borne of heavy reliance on managed pollinators.

Keywords

ApplesCanadian agricultureperceptions of beespollinationpollinator-friendly farmingwild bees
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 334 - 343
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) (2015) ‘Review of Canadian Apple Market & Trends’ 2015 Mid-Summer Meeting-Canadian Apple Industry, Wolfville, Nova Scotia: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), 4 August. Available at https://www.hortcouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/1-2015-AAFC-Presentation-on-Canadian-Apple-Situation-and-Trends-Midsummer-Apple-Industry-Meeting-Final-Version.pdf.Google Scholar
Aizen, MA and Harder, LD (2009) The global stock of domesticated honey bees is growing slower than agricultural demand for pollination. Current Biology 19, 915–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Banack, SA and Hvenegaard, GT (2010) Motivations of landowners to engage in biodiversity-friendly farming practices in Alberta's central parkland region. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 15, 67–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blitzer, EJ, Gibbs, J, Park, MG and Danforth, BN (2016) Pollination services for apple are dependent on diverse wild bee communities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 221, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, SA and Sadd, BM (2020) Global trends in bumble bee health. Annual Review of Entomology 65, 209–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, AJ, Wilby, A, Sutton, P and Wäckers, F (2017) Getting more power from your flowers: multi-functional flower strips enhance pollinators and pest control agents in apple orchards. Insects 8, 101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Honey Council (2018) Overview of the Canadian Apiculture Industry. Canadian Honey Council. Available at https://honeycouncil.ca/industry-overview/ (accessed 14 August 2019).Google Scholar
CAPA (Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists) (2019) Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists Statement on Honey bee Wintering Losses in Canada (2018–2019). CAPA (Canadian Association of Professional Apiculturists). Available at: http://www.capabees.com/shared/2018-2019-CAPA-Statement-on-Colony-Losses.pdf (accessed 1 January 2020).Google Scholar
Colla, S and MacIvor, JS (2017) Questioning public perception, conservation policy, and recovery actions for honey bees in North America. Conservation Biology 31, 1202–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, AB and Osborne, JW (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10, 1–9.Google Scholar
Danforth, BN, Minckley, RL, Neff, JL and Fawcett, F (2019) The Solitary Bees: Biology, Evolution, Conservation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donkersley, P (2019) Trees for bees. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 270–271, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drake, L, Bergström, P and Svedsäter, H (1999) Farmers' attitude and uptake. In Huylenbroeck, GV and Whitby, M (eds), Countryside Stewardship: Farmers, Policies and Markets. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 89–111.Google Scholar
Drescher, M, Warriner, GK, Farmer, JR and Larson, BMH (2017) Private landowners and environmental conservation: a case study of social-psychological determinants of conservation program participation in Ontario. Ecology and Society 22, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eastburn, DJ, O'Geen, AT, Tate, KW and Roche, LM (2017) Multiple ecosystem services in a working landscape. PLoS One 12, e0166595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, C (2018) ‘Bees needed for blueberry pollination in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows’, 8 April. Maple-Ridge Pitt Meadows News. Available at https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/b-c-blueberry-producers-scrambling-for-bees/ (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Fürst, MA, McMahon, DP, Osborne, JL, Paxton, RJ and Brown, MJF (2014) Disease associations between honey bees and bumblebees as a threat to wild pollinators. Nature 506, 364–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines-Day, HR and Gratton, C (2017) Understanding barriers to participation in cost-share programs for pollinator conservation by Wisconsin (USA) Cranberry Growers. Insects 8, 79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garbach, K and Morgan, GP (2017) Grower networks support adoption of innovations in pollination management: the roles of social learning, technical learning, and personal experience. Journal of Environmental Management 204, 39–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garibaldi, LA, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Winfree, R, Aizen, MA, Bommarco, R, Cunningham, SA, Kremen, C, Carvalheiro, LG, Harder, LD, Afik, O, Bartomeus, I, Benjamin, F, Boreux, V, Cariveau, D, Chacoff, NP, Dudenhöffer, JH, Freitas, BM, Ghazoul, J, Greenleaf, S, Hopólito, J, Holzschuh, A, Howlett, B, Isaacs, R, Javorek, SK, Kennedy, CM, Krewenka, KM, Krishnan, S, Mandelik, Y, Mayfield, MM, Motzke, I, Munyuli, T, Nault, BA, Otieno, M, Petersen, J, Pisanty, G, Potts, SG, Rader, R, Ricketts, TH, Rundlöf, M, Seymour, CL, Schüepp, C, Szentgyörgyi, H, Taki, H, Tscharntke, T, Vergara, CH, Viana, BF, Wanger, TC, Westphal, C, Williams, N and Klein, AM (2013) Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science (New York, N.Y.) 339, 1608–1611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garibaldi, LA, Dondo, M, Hipólito, J, Azzu, N, Viana, BF and Kasina, M (2016) A Quantitative Approach to the Socio-Economic Valuation of Pollinator-Friendly Practices: A Protocol for its use. Rome: FAO, Available at http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5481e.pdf.Google Scholar
Hanes, SP, Collum, KK, Hoshide, AK and Asare, E (2015) Grower perceptions of native pollinators and pollination strategies in the lowbush blueberry industry. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 30, 124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanes, S, Collum, K, Drummond, F and Hoshide, A (2018) Assessing wild pollinators in conventional agriculture: a case study from Maine's blueberry industry. Human Ecology Review 24, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hung, KJ, Kingston, JM, Albrecht, M, Holway, DA and Kohn, JR (2018) The worldwide importance of honey bees as pollinators in natural habitats. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 285, 20172140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) (2016) The assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services on pollinators, pollination and food production. In Potts, SG, Imperatriz-Fonseca, VL and Ngo, HT (eds), Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Bonn, Germany, p. 552.Google Scholar
Isaacs, R, Williams, N, Ellis, J, Pitts-Singer, TL, Bommarco, R and Vaughan, M (2017) Integrated crop pollination: combining strategies to ensure stable and sustainable yields of pollination-dependent crops. Basic and Applied Ecology 22, 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazenwadel, G, Van Der Ploeg, B, Badoux, P and Häring, G (1998) Sociological and economic factors influencing farmers' participation in agri-environmental schemes. In Dabbert, S, Dubgaard, A, Slangen, L and Whitby, M (eds), The Economics of Landscape and Wildlife Conservation. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 187–203.Google Scholar
Klein, AM, Vaissière, BE, Cane, JH, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Cunningham, SA, Kremen, C and Tscharntke, T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274, 303–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallinger, RE and Gratton, C (2015) Species richness of wild bees, but not the use of managed honey bees, increases fruit set of a pollinator-dependent crop. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 323–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinger, RE, Gaines-Day, HR and Gratton, C (2017) Do managed bees have negative effects on wild bees? A systematic review of the literature. PLoS One 12, e0189268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, S (2005) Farm size growth and participation in agri-environmental schemes: a configural frequency analysis of the Swiss case. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56, 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martins, KT, Gonzalez, A and Lechowicz, MJ (2015) Pollination services are mediated by bee functional diversity and landscape context. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 200, 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsumoto, S, Abe, A and Maejima, T (2009) Foraging behavior of Osmia cornifrons in an apple orchard. Scientia Horticulturae 121, 73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, C (2000) The Bees of the World. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Milburn, L, Mulley, S and Kline, C (2010) The end of the beginning and the beginning of the end: the decline of public agricultural extension in Ontario. Journal of Extension 48, 6FEA7, Available at https://joe.org/joe/2010december/a7.php.Google Scholar
Morse, RA (1991) Honey bees forever, letter to the editor. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 6, 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, MG, Joshi, NK, Rajotte, EG, Biddinger, DJ, Losey, JE and Danforth, BN (2018) Apple grower pollination practices and perceptions of alternative pollinators in New York and Pennsylvania. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 35, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavlis, ES, Terkenli, TS, Kristensen, SBP, Busck, AG and Cosor, GL (2016) Patterns of agri-environmental scheme participation in Europe: indicative trends from selected case studies. Land Use Policy 57, 800–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pynn, L (2018) ‘Beekeepers refuse to put thousands of colonies in Fraser Valley blueberry fields’, 3 April. Vancouver Sun. Available at https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/beekeepers-refuse-to-put-thousands-of-colonies-in-fraser-valley-blueberry-fields (accessed 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Rucker, RR, Thurman, WN and Burgett, M (2012) Honey bee pollination markets and the internalization of reciprocal benefits. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94, 956–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, L, Park, MG, Blitzer, EJ and Danforth, BN (2017) Flower handling behavior and abundance determine the relative contribution of pollinators to seed set in apple orchards. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 246, 102–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, RL, Erickson, DL and De Young, R (2003) Farmers' motivations for adopting conservation practices along Riparian zones in a Mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, G, Barasa, Z, Azmona, G, Goldway, M, Shafirc, S, Allouched, A, Sternd, E and Stern, RA (2017) Synergistic effects between bumblebees and honey bees in apple orchards increase cross pollination, seed number and fruit size. Scientia Horticulturae 219, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheper, J, Holzchuh, A, Kuussaari, M, Potts, SG, Rundlöf, M, Smith, HG and Kleijn, D (2013) Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters 16, 912–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siebert, R, Toogood, M and Knierim, A (2006) Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46, 318–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, DM (2016) Local bumble bee decline linked to recovery of honey bees, drought effects on floral resources. Ecology Letters 19, 1247–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US House. Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture (2007) Review Colony Collapse Disorder in Honey bee Colonies Across the United States, Hearing, 29 March. Washington: Government Printing Office. Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg36465/pdf/CHRG-110hhrg36465.pdf.Google Scholar
Valido, A, Rodríguez-Rodríguez, MC and Jordano, P (2019) Honey bees disrupt the structure and functionality of plant-pollinator networks. Scientific Reports 9, 4711.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walford, N (2002) Agricultural adjustment: adoption of and adaptation to policy reform measures by large-scale commercial farmers. Land Use Policy 19, 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winfree, R, Williams, NM, Duschoff, J and Kremen, C (2007) Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. Ecology Letters 10, 1105–1113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, H, Potts, SG, Breeze, TD and Bailey, A (2018) European farmers’ incentives to promote natural pest control service in arable crops. Land Use Policy 78, 682–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Nalepa et al. Supplementary Materials

Nalepa et al. Supplementary Materials

Download Nalepa et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 76.4 KB