Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T01:57:23.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of windbreaks and forest borders on abundance and species richness of native pollinators in lowbush blueberry fields in Québec, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2014

Joseph Moisan-DeSerres ,
Madeleine Chagnon  and
Valérie Fournier
Joseph Moisan-DeSerres
Affiliation:
Centre de recherche en horticulture, Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Québec, Canada G1V 0A6
Madeleine Chagnon
Affiliation:
Pavillon des sciences biologiques (SB), C.P. 8888, Succ. Centre-Ville, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada H3C 2P3
Valérie Fournier*
Affiliation:
Centre de recherche en horticulture, Université Laval, Ville de Québec, Québec, Canada G1V 0A6
*
1 Corresponding author (e-mail: valerie.fournier@fsaa.ulaval.ca).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton (Ericaceae)) production is highly dependent on insect pollination to maximise yields. The current losses in honey bee (Apis mellifera Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae)) colonies pose a serious threat to the blueberry industry, raising interest in alternative pollinators. Abundance and diversity of native pollinators usually decreases with distance from natural habitats. In this study, we evaluated the effects of distance from wooded habitats such as windbreaks and forest borders on the presence of native pollinators in blueberry fields in Lac-St-Jean (Québec, Canada). Four treatments were compared: single-row, double-row, natural windbreaks, and forest borders. Pan-traps were placed at 5, 30, and 60 m from the windbreak or forest border. A total of 3878 native pollinators were collected and 81% were ground-nesting bees. The forest border was the only treatment with higher abundance and species richness on the periphery (5 m) of the field than at further distances, supporting the hypothesis that the presence of pollinators is favoured by habitats potentially offering more abundant and diverse nutritional resources. Our overall results reveal that native pollinators are distributed quite homogeneously in blueberry fields, suggesting that windbreaks are beneficial to native pollinator communities.

Type
Biodiversity & Evolution
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 147 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 432 - 442
Copyright
© Entomological Society of Canada 2014 

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.)

Footnotes

Subject editor: David McCorquodale

References

Aras, P., de Oliveira, D., and Savoie, L. 1996. Effect of a honey bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) gradient on the pollination and yield of lowbush blueberry. Journal of Economic Entomology, 89: 1080–1083.Google Scholar
Boulanger, L.W., Wood, G.W., Osgood, E.A., and Dirks, C.O. 1967. Native bees associated with the low-bush blueberry in Maine and eastern Canada. Maine Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, 26: 1–22.Google Scholar
Brittain, C., Bommarco, R., Vighi, M., Barmaz, S., Settele, J., and Potts, S.G. 2010. The impact of an insecticide on insect flower visitation and pollination in an agricultural landscape. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 12: 259–266. doi:10.1111/j.1461-9563.2010.00485.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchmann, S.L. 1983. Buzz pollination in angiosperms. In Handbook of experimental pollination biology. Edited by C.E. Jones and R.J. Little. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, New York, United States of America. Pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Buchmann, S.L. and Nabhan, G.P. 1997. The forgotten pollinators. Island Press, Washington, DC, United States of America.Google Scholar
Cameron, S.A., Lozier, J.D., Strange, J.P., Koch, J.B., Cordes, N., Solter, L.F., et al. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 108: 662–667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, J.W. and Hanula, J.L. 2007. Efficiency of Malaise traps and colored pan traps for collecting flower visiting insects from three forested ecosystems. Journal of Insect Conservation, 11: 399–408. doi:10.1007/s10841-006-9055-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chacoff, N.P. and Aizen, M.A. 2006. Edge effects on flower-visiting insects in grapefruit plantations bordering premontane subtropical forest. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43: 18–27. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01116.x.Google Scholar
Currie, R.W., Pernal, S.F., and Guzmán-Novoa, E. 2010. Honey bee colony losses in Canada. Journal of Apicultural Research, 49: 104–106.Google Scholar
Finnamore, A.T. and Neary, M.E. 1978. Blueberry pollinators of Nova Scotia, with a checklist of the blueberry pollinators in eastern Canada and northwestern United States. Annales de la Société Entomologique du Québec, 23: 168–181.Google Scholar
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S.A., et al. 2011. Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters, 14: 1062–1072. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibbs, J. 2010. Revision of the metallic species of Lasioglossum (Dialictus) of Canada (Hymenoptera, Halictidae, Halictini). Zootaxa, 2591: 1–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goulson, D. 2003. Conserving wild bees for crop pollination. Food, Agriculture and Environment, 1: 142–144.Google Scholar
Goulson, D., Lye, G.C., and Darvill, B. 2008. Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annual Review of Entomology, 53: 191–208.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, S., Williams, N., Winfree, R., and Kremen, C. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationships to body size. Oecologia, 153: 589–596.Google Scholar
Hannon, L.E. and Sisk, T.D. 2009. Hedgerows in an agri-natural landscape: potential habitat value for native bees. Biological Conservation, 142: 2140–2154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, J.L. 2008. The contribution of roadside grassland restorations to native bee conservation. Biological Conservation, 141: 2632–2640. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.026.Google Scholar
Institut de la statistique du Québec. 2012. Statistiques relatives à la location de colonies à des fins de pollinisation selon le type de culture [online]. Available from www.stat.gouv.qc.ca/statistiques/agriculture/apiculture-miel/h7_2011.htm [accessed 7 December 2012].Google Scholar
Javorek, S.K., Mackenzie, K.E., and Vander Kloet, S.P. 2002. Comparative pollination effectiveness among bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on lowbush blueberry (Ericaceae: Vaccinium angustifolium). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 95: 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevan, P.G. 1975. Forest application of the insecticide fenitrothion and its effect on wild bee pollinators (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of lowbush blueberries (Vaccinium spp.) in southern New Brunswick, Canada. Biological Conservation, 7: 301–309. doi:10.1016/0006-3207(75)90045-2.Google Scholar
Kevan, P.G., Greco, C.F., and Belaoussoff, S. 1997. Log-normality of biodiversity and abundance in diagnosis and measuring of ecosystemic health: pesticide stress on pollinators on blueberry heaths. Journal of Applied Ecology, 34: 1122–1136. doi:10.2307/2405226.Google Scholar
Kevan, P.G. and Viana, B.F. 2003. The global decline of pollination services. Biodiversity, 4: 3–8. doi:10.1080/14888386.2003.9712703.Google Scholar
Lewis, T. and Smith, B.D. 1969. The insect faunas of pear and apple orchards and the effect of windbreaks on their distribution. Annals of Applied Biology, 64: 11–20. doi:10.1111/j.1744-7348.1969.tb02850.x.Google Scholar
Ministère de l’Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation. 2011. Monographie de l’industrie du bleuet au Québec. Bibliothèque et Archives nationales du Québec, Ville de Québec, Québec, Canada.Google Scholar
Ministère des Ressources Naturelles. 2003. Vegetation zones and bioclimatic domains in Québec [online]. Available from http://www.mrn.gouv.qc.ca/english/publications/forest/publications/zone-a.pdf [accessed 4 July 2014].Google Scholar
Mitchell, T.B. 1960. Bees of the eastern United States vol. I. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin, 141: 1–538.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T.B. 1962. Bees of the eastern United States. II. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin, 152: 1–557.Google Scholar
Mohr, N.A. and Kevan, P.G. 1987. Pollinators and pollination requirements of lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) and Vaccinium myrtilloides Michx) and cranberry (Vacinium macrocarpon Ait.) in Ontario with notes on highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) and lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis ideae L.). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Ontario, 118: 149–154.Google Scholar
Morrissette, R., Francoeur, A., and Perron, J.M. 1985. Importance des abeilles sauvages (Apoidea) dans la pollinisation des bleuetiers nains (Vaccinium spp.) en Sagamie, Québec. Revue d’Entomologie du Québec, 30: 44–53.Google Scholar
Odoux, J.F., Feuillet, D., Aupinel, P., Loublier, Y., Tasei, J.N., and Mateescu, C. 2012. Territorial biodiversity and consequences on physico-chemical characteristics of pollen collected by honey bee colonies. Apidologie, 43: 561–575.Google Scholar
Pinzauti, M. 1986. The influence of the wind on nectar secretion from the melon and on the flight of bees: the use of an artificial wind-break. Apidologie, 17: 63–71. doi:10.1051/apido:19860106.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. 2012. SAS version 9.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, United States of America.Google Scholar
Shuler, R.E., Roulston, T.H., and Farris, G.E. 2005. Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin. Journal of Economic Entomology, 98: 790–795.Google Scholar
Vander Kloet, S.P. 1988. The genus Vaccinium in North America. Research Branch Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Vockeroth, J.R. 1992. The flower flies of the subfamily Syrphinae of Canada, Alaska, and Greenland (Diptera: Syrphidae). The Insects and Arachnids of Canada, 18: 1–456.Google Scholar
Winfree, R., Aguilar, R., Vazquez, D.P., LeBuhn, G., and Aizen, M.A. 2009. A meta-analysis of bees' responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology, 90: 2068–2076. doi:10.1890/08-1245.1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winfree, R., Williams, N.M., Dushoff, J., and Kremen, C. 2007. Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. Ecology Letters, 10: 1105–1113. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01110.x.Google Scholar