Competition between honey bees and wild bees and the role of nesting resources in a nature reserve
The European honey bee exploits floral resources efficiently and may therefore compete with solitary wild bees. Hence, conservationists and bee keepers are debating about the consequences of beekeeping for the conservation of wild bees in nature reserves. We observed flower-visiting bees on flowers of Calluna vulgaris in sites differing in the distance to the next honey-bee hive and in sites with hives present and absent in the Lüneburger Heath, Germany. Additionally, we counted wild bee ground nests in sites that differ in their distance to the next hive and wild bee stem nests and stem-nesting bee species in sites with hives present and absent. We did not observe fewer honey bees or higher wild bee flower visits in sites with different distances to the next hive (up to 1,229 m). However, wild bees visited fewer flowers and honey bee visits increased in sites containing honey-bee hives and in sites containing honey-bee hives we found fewer stem-nesting bee species. The reproductive success, measured as number of nests, was not affected by distance to honey-bee hives or their presence but by availability and characteristics of nesting resources. Our results suggest that beekeeping in the Lüneburg Heath can affect the conservation of stem-nesting bee species richness but not the overall reproduction either of stem-nesting or of ground-nesting bees. Future experiments need control sites with larger distances than 500 m to hives. Until more information is available, conservation efforts should forgo to enhance honey bee stocking rates but enhance the availability of nesting resources.
KeywordsAndrena fuscipes Colletes succinctus Apis mellifera Heriades truncorum Heath
We acknowledge the “VNP Lüneburger Heide” for providing maps with honey-bee hive distribution and the LK Heidekreis for the permission to conduct our study in the nature reserve. We thank T. Bräutigam and Y. Wagner for help with data collection and M. Pereira Peixoto and T. Niemeyer are greatly acknowledged for the help with the construction of the trap nests. C. Brittain is acknowledged for language corrections and C. Schüepp and I. Steffan-Dewenter for helpful comments. A.H. is supported by the German Federal Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt).
- Bates D, Maechler M (2010) Package lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html
- Crane E (1990) Bees and beekeeping: science, practice and world resources. Heinemann Newnes, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Dray S, Dufour A-B (2007) The ade4 package: implementing the duality diagram for ecologists. J Stat Softw 22(4):1–20Google Scholar
- ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Environmental Systems Research Institute, RedlandsGoogle Scholar
- Evertz S (1995) Interspezifische konkurrenz zwischen honigbienen (Apis mellifera) und solitären wildbienen (hymenoptera aculeata). Natur und Landschaft 70:165–172Google Scholar
- Minckley RL, Roulston T (2006) Incidental mutualisms and pollen specialization among bees. In: plant-pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, pp 69–98Google Scholar
- Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MHH, Oksanen MJ, Suggests M (2007) The vegan package. Community ecology package. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/vegan/index.html
- R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- Von Frisch K (1967) The dance language and orientation of bees. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar