Small but critical: semi-natural habitat fragments promote bee abundance in cotton agroecosystems across both Brazil and the United States
Bees are the most important pollinators of crops worldwide. For most bees, patches of semi-natural habitat within or adjacent to crops can provide important nesting and food resources. Despite this, land cover change is rapidly reducing the abundance of semi-natural habitat within agroecological landscapes, with potentially negative consequences for bee communities and the services they provide.
Identify how the availability of semi-natural habitat impacts bee communities across biogeographic regions, which may reveal commonalities and key governing principles that transcend a single region or taxa.
We analyze and compare the drivers of bee community composition in cotton fields within Brazil and the U.S. to reveal how land cover and land cover change impact bee community composition across these two regions.
We show that the most critical factors impacting bee communities in cotton agroecosystems are the same in Brazil and the U.S.: bee abundance increases with cotton bloom density and the abundance of semi-natural habitat. Further, the loss of semi-natural habitat over a 5-year period negatively impacts bee abundance in both agroecosystems.
Given the importance of bee abundance for the provision of pollination service in cotton plants, our findings highlight the significance of small semi-natural habitat fragments in supporting key ecosystem service providers for both tropical and temperate cotton agroecological systems. We underscore the important role that local land managers play in biodiversity conservation, and the potential contribution they can make to pollination provision by supporting agricultural landscapes that conserve fragments of semi-natural habitat.
KeywordsGossypium hirsutum Agroecology Mato Grosso, Brazil Texas, U.S.
Special thanks to the growers and landowners that allowed us to sample on their lands; without them none of this work would have been possible. For sampling and research permits in Brazil, we thank Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio). This research was supported by the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP—2014/50738-9), The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq—310446/2015-5), and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel CAPES- Programa Biologia Computacional (CAPES-1572813). In the U.S., the help of Texas Agricultural & Mining extension agents, crop consultants, and The Welder Wildlife Foundation, including Roy Parker, Stephen Biles, Lee Hutchins Jr., Kenneth Hanslik, and Terry Blankenship, was invaluable. Thanks to the Jha lab for helpful feedback and support, as well as help in the field from Nicole Vojnovich, Alan Ritchie Jr., Sarah Cunningham, and Rebecca Ruppel. Funding in Texas was provided by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Army Research Office, and the National Science Foundation.
- Alvarez EC, Plocheck R (2014) Texas Almanac 2014–2015. Texas State Historical Association. http://www.estremolembo.com/texas-almanac-2012-150-2013-english.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2017
- Anderson MJ (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 26:32–46Google Scholar
- Arino O, Perez JJR, Kalogirou V, Bontemps S, Defourny P, Van Bogaert E (2012) Global land cover map for 2009. ESA & UCLGoogle Scholar
- Barton K (2016) multi-model inference. R package version 1.15. 6. 2016Google Scholar
- Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S (2014) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823
- Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2003) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, Fort CollinsGoogle Scholar
- Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kremen C, Morales JM, Bommarco R, Cunningham SA, Carvalheiro LG, Chacoff NP, Dudenhöffer JH, Greenleaf SS, Holzschuh A (2011) Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol Lett 14:1062–1072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Helm A, Hanski I, Partel M (2006) Slow response of plant species richness to habitat loss and fragmentation. Ecol Lett 9:72–77Google Scholar
- Mato Grosso Institute of Agricultural Economics (2014). http://www.imea.com.br/imea-site/. Accessed in 12 Oct 2017
- McGregor SE (1976) Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants. Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Michener CD (2007) The bees of the world. JHU Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
- Nabhan GP, Buchmann SL (1997) Services provided by pollinators. In: Daily GC (ed) Nature’s Services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp 133–150Google Scholar
- Naimi B (2013) usdm: Uncertainty analysis for species distribution models. R package version 1.1-12Google Scholar
- Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MHH, Oksanen MJ (2007) The vegan package. Commun Ecol Package 10:631–637Google Scholar
- Pires VCP, Silveira FA, Sujii ER, Torezani KR, Rodrigues WA, de Albuquerque FA, Rodrigues SM, Salomão AN, Pires CS (2014) Importance of bee pollination for cotton production in conventional and organic farms in Brazil. J Poll Ecol 13:151–160Google Scholar
- QGIS Development Team (2017) QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org
- Scialabba NH, Williamson D (2004) The scope of organic agriculture, sustainable forest management and ecoforestry in protected area management. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar