Integrated Crop Pollination: Adventures with Bees, Blueberries, and Biofuels

Integrated Crop Pollination: Bees, Blueberries, and Biofuels UW Seminar, November 4 2011

Rufus Isaacs Department of Entomology Michigan State University

Research collaborators & funding

Julianna Tuell

Brett Blaauw

Annie Kirk

Doug Landis, Ben Werling and Scott Swinton - Michigan State University Claudio Gratton, Tim Meehan, Hannah Gaines and Heidi Lieri - University of Wisconsin Cesar Rodriguez-Saona - Rutgers University Andres Quiroz - Universidad de La Frontera Rachael Winfree - Rutgers University Neal Williams - UC Davis Jamie Ellis - University of Florida

Rackham Foundation

Poor pollination reduces crop yield and quality

Long term trends in produc.on of bee pollinated crops Changing crop produc.on and dependence on pollinators Bearing acres of U.S. non-­‐citrus fruit and nut crops 1980-­‐2009

Total global crop produc.on increase of 140%, 1960-­‐2006

Bearing acres x 1000

Produc.on deficit in the absence of pollinators

USDA-­‐ERS 2009

Aizen et al. 2009. How much does agriculture depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-­‐term trends in crop produc>on. Annals of Botany 103.

Value of pollination and trends in bee populations • Pollination is a valuable ecosystem service that supports human food production 1/3 of human food $3 billion in US from native bees $213 billion globally

• Wild bee declines in some regions, some species at risk

Biesmeijer et al. 2006

Declining US honey bee colonies

NRC (2006) Status of Pollinators in North America

Supporting wild pollinators in specialty crop farms •

Management is characterized by high level of inputs – Tillage, herbicides, mowing to reduce weed pressure – Potential for flowering row middles/intercropping?

– Insecticides and fungicides to minimize pest infestation

•

Land use tends to be intensive, but with non-crop habitat nearby – High ratios of crop: non-crop – Growers may not control non-crop habitat

•

Crop dependency drives grower interest in pollination

Integrated Crop Pollination The combined use of different pollinator species, habitat augmentation, and crop management practices to provide reliable and economical pollination of crops

Alterna>ve managed bees

Honey bees Wild bees Pollina>on sampling

Hor>cultural prac>ces Pes>cide stewardship Habitat management

Integrated Crop Pollina.on

Decision support tools Grower educa>on

Economically-important crop pollinators • Honey bee – Apis mellifera • Bumble bees – Bombus spp.

• Mason bees – Osmia spp.

• Andrenid (mining) bees • Halictid (sweat) bees

National Geographic

Native bees and blueberry pollination

• Community composition and stability • Effects of management practices • Risk from pesticides • Habitat for conservation

Dominant native bee species during bloom •

2/3 of all bees collected were honey bees

•

3228 native bees over 3 yrs

•

Total of 120 bee species

•

79.0 ± 5.0 species per year

Andrena carolina Lasioglossum pilosum Lasioglossum leucozonium Augochlorella aurata Lasioglossum cressonii Andrena vicina Lasioglossum imitatum Ceratina calcarata/dupla (♀ only) Andrena carlini Lasioglossum rohweri Lasioglossum coriaceum Andrena miserabilis Nomada spp.

Halictus ligatus Andrena imitatrix or morrisonella Lasioglossum admirandum Augochlora pura Lasioglossum coeruleum Bombus citrinus Colletes inaequalis Andrena rugosa Andrena alleghaniensis Lasioglossum quebecense Andrena nuda Lasioglossum tegulare Lasioglossum pectorale Andrena nasonii Colletes thoracicus Halictus confusus Andrena cressonii Ceratina calcarata (♂ only) Other species (n = 90) present at <1%

0

Halictidae Andrenidae Apidae Colletidae multiple families 0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Proportion of bees collected Tuell et al. 2010, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer.

Factors affecting bee abundance in blueberry farms 1.5

2005 samples

Halic>d bees meadows

other fl crops plant sp

insec>cide program

other na>ve bees soil cult. floral abundance treeline perimeter woods

adj. blueberry

-­‐1.5

ditches

-­‐1.0

Andrenid bees 2.0

Phenology of native bees on blueberry flowers Andrena carlini

No. bees trapped per day

2004

2005

Andrena carolina Andrena vicina Augochlorella aurata Bombus spp.

Ceratina calcarata/dupla Lasioglossum coriaceum Lasioglossum imitatum Lasioglossum pilosum

2006

sample time in relation to blueberry bloom

Temporal overlap of pollinator and pest activity Blueberry bloom Osmia bees andrenid bees halictid bees Bombus queens Bombus workers

April

May June July Aug Sept

Link between pesticide use and wild bee communities?

• Forest pest treatments reduced native bees in adjacent blueberry. Kevan & Plowright 1989 • Negative effects of phosmet on cavity nesting alfalfa leafcutter bees, but no reduction in bee foraging on apple flowers. Alston et al. 2007 • Sometimes higher wild bee populations in organic vs. conventionally managed crops Shuler et al. 2005, Gabriel and Tscharntke 2007 • Indices to quantify pesticide safety with regard to human health and the environment, but less common for bees.

Developing an index of pesticide risk to bees • Grower spray records obtained for each season prior to three seasons of bee monitoring, 2004-6.

• An insecticide program risk (IPR) score for each field and year was calculated: IPR =

∑

amount of active ingredient (kg) / Ha LD 50 for honey bees

• Determined relationship between native bees and IPR scores from the year prior to bee sampling during bloom.

Native bees declined with increasing IPR score

Implications: Season-long pest management is important for wild bees Amount of AI and the toxicity of sprays are important Reducing IPR values is expected to aid wild bee populations Highlights the importance of IPM program development

IPR index calculated from the previous season

Tuell & Isaacs 2010, J. Econ. Entomol.

Example of a changing IPM program Guthion (azinphosmethyl) was the primary insecticide used to prevent blueberry infestation by fruitworms.

A five year EPA phaseout plan will ban Guthion use in blueberries in late 2012.

Comparison of two blueberry fruitworm control programs Timing

Standard

Reduced risk

Bloom

B.t. (Dipel) 1 lb

Petal fall

Guthion 1.5 lb

(0.43*)

Intrepid 8 oz (>100*)

7-10 days later

Guthion 1.5 lb

(0.43*)

Assail 5 oz

*honey bee LD50 in Âľg/bee

Intrepid 8 oz (>100*)

(7.1*)

143 fold lower IPR score

Winfree et al. 2009

Does adding flowering resources into farms increase pollination (and pest control)?

Compare native flowering plants for their attractiveness to native bees Test larger (up to 4 acre) mixed plantings in adjacent to fruit crop fields Evaluate NRCS and FSA plantings for supporting bees

Providing season-long food for wild bees COMMON NAME! Golden Alexanders!

Foxglove Beard-tongue!

Sand Coreopsis!

Black-eyed Susan!

Butterfly milkweed!

Spotted beebalm!

Yellow Coneflower!

Blue Lobelia!

Boneset!

Cup Plant!

SCIENTIFIC NAME!

April!

May!

BLOOM PERIOD! June!

July!

August! September! October!

Zizia aurea!

Penstemon digitalis!

Coreopsis lanceolata!

Rudbeckia hirta!

Asclepias tuberosa!

Monarda punctata!

Ratibida pinnata!

Lobelia siphilitica!

Eupatorium perfoliatum!

Silphium perfoliatum!

Stiff Solidago rigida!

Goldenrod!

New England Aster novaeAster! angliae!

www.nativeplants.msu.edu

Fiedler and Landis 2007, Tuell et al. 2008

May 2009"

Flower plot establishment

June 2009"

May 2010"

June 2010"

May 2011"

June 2011"

August 2011"

Do wildflower plantings increase bees and crop yield?

Wildflower plantings at blueberry (cherry and apple) farms Paired design 1. Adjacent to crop – 15 native wildflower species – 3 native grass species

2. Mown grass field perimeters Control

Flower

Na.ve bees per 15 minutes

More native bees adjacent to wildflower plantings 8 7 6

Control Edge Control Interior Flower Edge Flower Interior

a ab

5 4

b b

3 2 1 0

2009

2010

2011

Calculated increase in % fruit set, mature seeds, and berry weight between enclosed and open treatments.

Increase in mature seeds !

30 pairs adjacent to flower and control fields

Increase in berry weight (g) !

Enclosed and open crop flowers

Increase in percent fruit set !

Increased pollination adjacent to wildflower plantings 50"

Fruit set

40" 30" 20" 10" 0" 25"

Mature seeds

20" 15" 10" 5" 0" 0.75"

Berry weight

0.60" 0.45" 0.30" 0.15" 0.00"

Control

Flower

Sustainability of biofuel crops

GLBRC Area 4.4

GLBRC Goal: to obtain the knowledge needed to deploy biofuel cropping systems that are profitable and environmentally sustainable

Foraging and nesting resources for bees Factors affecting wild bee communities: - Flower abundance Banaszak 1996 - Floral resource distribution Williams & Kremen 2007 - Nesting resource distribution Potts et al. 2005 Landscape-level distribution of these resources can be used to predict bee activity at crop flowers. Lonsdorf et al. 2009 Land use changes from biofuels may alter landscape suitability for pollinators.

Augochlorella aurata

Cera>na calcarata

Hopli>s pilosifrons Agapostemon virescens

Gardiner et al. 2010 BioEnergy Research

Bee nesting success

Wild bee abundance a F2,27 = 7.01 P = 0.004

a

b

Corn

Switchgrass

Prairie

21 genera of bees found in bioenergy crop fields

Filled holesholes per per binbin Number of filled

Number of bees in 12 pan traps

Bee abundance and nesting in biofuel crops

a

a

b

Corn

Switchgrass

Prairie

90% of nesting bees used mud to seal nest cells

Gardiner et al. 2010 BioEnergy Research

Bee performance in biofuel landscapes How do landscape composi@on and biofuel crop diversity affect bee performance?

Site selection based on crop type and surrounding landscape composition.

Bumble bees 20 sites (12 MI, 8 WI) 10 corn 10 mixed prairie

Stem-nesting Hymenoptera 36 sites (18 MI, 18 WI) 12 corn 12 mixed prairie 12 switchgrass

Methods for sampling bee performance

3 Bombus impatiens colonies per site in field margins, with queen excluders.

Colonies weighed through summer.

Then frozen and sampled.

Nesting boxes in field margins, May-Oct. After emergence, each emerged insect Identified and counted.

Nests split open to examine contents.

Bumble bee colony productivity Queens

300

35

250

30

No. of queens per colony

Elaine Evans, U. MN

Colony weight gain (g)

Colony weight

200 150 100 50 0

Michigan Wisconsin

25 20 15 10 5 0

corn

prairie

corn

prairie

Elaine Evans, U. MN

Colony weight gain (g)

Bumble bee performance and landscape composition

400

400

350

350

300

300

R² = 0.30

250

250

200

200

150 100

100

50

50

0

0 20

40

60

% grassland within 1.5 km

R² = 0.06

150

R² = 0.33

0

Corn Prairie

80

R² = 0.29

0

20

40

60

80

% forest within 1.5 km

100

Delivery of pollination ecosystem services

Number of seeds per head ± S.E.

25 20

Corn Prairie

15 10 5 0 Low propor>on

High propor>on

Proportion of semi-natural habitat in the landscape

Summary & conclusions • Crop fields have diverse communities of bees.

• Farm management practices can support wild bees and crop pollination.

• Diverse biofuel plantings can interact with landscape composition to support pollinators and their ecosystem services

Alterna>ve managed bees

Honey bees Wild bees Pollina>on sampling

Hor>cultural prac>ces

Pes>cide stewardship Habitat management

Integrated Crop Pollina.on

Decision support tools

Grower educa>on

Future directions • Predictive model of blueberry pollination and yield

• Cost-benefit analysis of pollinator habitats

• Effects of harvest regimes on pollinator communities

• Empirical modeling of pollinators and pollination under different biofuel scenarios

Yield contribution of honey bees and native bees small native bees

large

honey bees

Small

Large

Field Size

Estimating yield Bush spacing Flowers per bush % fruit set Avg. berry weight (open - closed) Acreage of large and small fields (NASS)

Yield supported by beesâ&#x20AC;Ś Honey bees small fields 43 T 88% large fields 65,252 T Native bees small fields large fields

150 T 12% 8,601 T Isaacs & Kirk 2010, J. Appl. Ecol.

Selecting & evaluating flowering plants for bee conservation Plant material Regionally relevant Seed available Cost effec>ve Perennial/annual Reliable growth Bloom period Pest neutral

Pollinator response AUrac>ve Rewarding Abundance Diversity Species of interest

Technology transfer Demonstra>on sites Early adopters Economics Agronomic exper>se Cost-­‐sharing op>ons Success stories

Site suitability

Improved yields Higher crop quality More stable yields

Bee habitat establishment by farmers