Premise
Many animals provide ecosystem services in the form of pollination including honeybees, which have become globally dominant floral visitors. A rich literature documents considerable variation in single visit pollination effectiveness, but this literature has yet to be extensively synthesized to address whether honeybees are effective pollinators.
Methods
We conducted a hierarchical meta‐analysis of 168 studies and extracted 1564 single visit effectiveness (SVE) measures for 240 plant species. We paired SVE data with visitation frequency data for 69 of these studies. We used these data to ask three questions: (1) Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) and other floral visitors differ in their SVE? (2) To what extent do plant and pollinator attributes predict differences in SVE between honeybees and other visitors? (3) Is there a correlation between visitation frequency and SVE?
Results
Honeybees were significantly less effective than the most effective non‐honeybee pollinators but were as effective as the average pollinator. The type of pollinator moderated these effects. Honeybees were less effective compared to the most effective and average bird and bee pollinators but were as effective as other taxa. Visitation frequency and SVE were positively correlated, but this trend was largely driven by data from communities where honeybees were absent.
Conclusions
Although high visitation frequencies make honeybees important pollinators, they were less effective than the average bee and rarely the most effective pollinator of the plants they visit. As such, honeybees may be imperfect substitutes for the loss of wild pollinators, and safeguarding pollination will benefit from conservation of non‐honeybee taxa.
Premise
Variation in pollinator effectiveness may contribute to pollen limitation in fragmented plant populations. In plants with multiovulate ovaries, the number of conspecific pollen grains per stigma often predicts seed set and is used to quantify pollinator effectiveness. In the Asteraceae, however, florets are uniovulate, which suggests that the total amount of pollen deposited per floret may not measure pollinator effectiveness. We examined two aspects of pollinator effectiveness—effective pollen deposition and effective pollen movement—for insects visiting Echinacea angustifolia, a composite that is pollen limited in small, isolated populations.
Methods
We filmed insect visits to Echinacea in two prairie restorations and used these videos to quantify behavior that might predict effectiveness. To quantify effective pollen deposition, we used the number of styles shriveled per visit. To quantify effective pollen movement, we conducted paternity analysis on a subset of offspring and measured the pollen movement distance between mates.
Results
Effective pollen deposition varied among taxa. Andrena helianthiformis, a Heliantheae oligolege, was the most effective taxon, shriveling more than twice the proportion of styles as all other visitors. Differences in visitor behavior on a flowering head did not explain variation in effective pollen deposition, nor did flowering phenology. On average, visitors moved pollen 16 m between plants, and this distance did not vary among taxa.
Conclusions
Andrena helianthiformis is an important pollinator of Echinacea. Variation in reproductive fitness of Echinacea in fragmented habitat may result, in part, from the abundance of this species.
Introduced species can have cascading effects on ecological communities, but indirect effects of species introductions are rarely the focus of ecological studies. For example, managed honey bees (Apis mellifera) have been widely introduced outside their native range and are increasingly dominant floral
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.