<i>Bumble</i>‐<scp>BEEHAVE</scp>: A systems model for exploring multifactorial causes of bumblebee decline at individual, colony, population and community level

Becher, Melissa; Twiston-Davies, Grace; Penny, Tim D.; Goulson, Dave; Rotheray, Ellen L.; Osborne, Juliet L.

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.13165

Cited by 66 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since accurately studying bumblebee colony development in a field setting can be difficult (Westphal, Steffan-Dewenter, & Tscharntke, 2009;Wood, Holland, Hughes, & Goulson, 2015), this study uses an in-silico approach to simulate the population dynamics of Bombus terrestris L. in landscapes with and without courgette fields using the agent-based model Bumble-BEEHAVE (Becher et al, 2018). Although other bumblebee models exist (Crone & Williams, 2016;Häussler, Sahlin, Baey, Smith, & Clough, 2017;Olsson, Bolin, Smith, & Lonsdorf, 2015), Bumble-BEEHAVE is uniquely able to simulate the effects of multifactorial stressors on bumblebee survival at individual, colony and population levels on a daily basis, based on nectar and pollen sources which are approximated from real landscape maps of study sites.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the model, queens can nest in all types of seminatural habitat implemented in the model: heathland, species-rich grassland, hedgerow, scrub and woodland(Becher et al, 2018). In the model, queens can nest in all types of seminatural habitat implemented in the model: heathland, species-rich grassland, hedgerow, scrub and woodland(Becher et al, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The default settings for Bumble-BEEHAVE start simulations at the beginning of the year with 500 B. terrestris queens who randomly emerge from hibernation around 1st of April (±28 days SD), following a normal distribution. The number of nests in the landscape is a result of the number of queens emerging from hibernation and their daily probabilities to find a suitable nest site or to die(Becher et al, 2018).Habitat types are defined by the presence and abundance of 44 forage plants which provide nectar and or pollen during specified flowering periods. The number of nests in the landscape is a result of the number of queens emerging from hibernation and their daily probabilities to find a suitable nest site or to die(Becher et al, 2018).Habitat types are defined by the presence and abundance of 44 forage plants which provide nectar and or pollen during specified flowering periods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Simulations were run in BEE-STEWARD (www.beesteward.co.uk), a software tool that combines in a user-friendly way the bumblebee model Bumble-BEEHAVE and the landscape defining features of BEESCOUT(Becher et al, 2016). BEESCOUT was developed as the landscape module for the honeybee model BEEHAVE(Becher et al, 2014) and for Bumble-BEEHAVE(Becher et al, 2018), and creates input files from images of landscape maps. These input files define the number and specification of food sources such as, nectar and pollen, flowering phenology, and therefore, represent landscapes in the BEEHAVE and Bumble-BEEHAVE models.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…BEE-STEWARDS' interface also enables users to simulate the effects that different management options, such as changing crop types will have on bumblebee population dynamics.The default settings for Bumble-BEEHAVE start simulations at the beginning of the year with 500 B. terrestris queens who randomly emerge from hibernation around 1st of April (±28 days SD), following a normal distribution. In the model, queens can nest in all types of seminatural habitat implemented in the model: heathland, species-rich grassland, hedgerow, scrub and woodland(Becher et al, 2018). The number of nests in the landscape is a result of the number of queens emerging from hibernation and their daily probabilities to find a suitable nest site or to die(Becher et al, 2018).Habitat types are defined by the presence and abundance of 44 forage plants which provide nectar and or pollen during specified flowering periods.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Bombus terrestris in a mass‐flowering pollinator‐dependent crop: A mutualistic relationship?

Knapp

Becher

Rankin

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bumblebees (Bombus spp.) rely on an abundant and diverse selection of floral resources to meet their nutritional requirements. In farmed landscapes, mass‐flowering crops can provide an important forage resource for bumblebees, with increased visitation from bumblebees into mass‐flowering crops having an additional benefit to growers who require pollination services. This study explores the mutualistic relationship between Bombus terrestris L. (buff‐tailed bumblebee), a common species in European farmland, and the mass‐flowering crop courgette (Cucurbita pepo L.) to see how effective B. terrestris is at pollinating courgette and in return how courgette may affect B. terrestris colony dynamics. By combining empirical data on nectar and pollen availability with model simulations using the novel bumblebee model Bumble‐BEEHAVE, we were able to quantify and simulate for the first time, the importance of courgette as a mass‐flowering forage resource for bumblebees. Courgette provides vast quantities of nectar to ensure a high visitation rate, which combined with abundant pollen grains, enables B. terrestris to have a high pollination potential. While B. terrestris showed a strong fidelity to courgette flowers for nectar, courgette pollen was not found in any pollen loads from returning foragers. Nonetheless, model simulations showed that early season courgette (nectar) increased the number of hibernating queens, colonies, and adult workers in the modeled landscapes. Synthesis and applications. Courgette has the potential to improve bumblebee population dynamics; however, the lack of evidence of the bees collecting courgette pollen in this study suggests that bees can only benefit from this transient nectar source if alternative floral resources, particularly pollen, are also available to fulfill bees’ nutritional requirements in space and time. Therefore, providing additional forage resources could simultaneously improve pollination services and bumblebee populations.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Bombus terrestris in a mass‐flowering pollinator‐dependent crop: A mutualistic relationship?

Knapp

Becher

Rankin

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

What evidence exists on the use of pollinator tools in agricultural landscapes: A systematic map protocol

Dwyer,

Clough,

Bartholomée

et al. 2023

Ecol Sol and Evidence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The widespread decline of insect pollinators poses a conservation concern and threatens both the pollination of wild plants and crops. Primary drivers of pollinator decline are habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation, which to a large extent result from agricultural intensification. Numerous tools have been developed to aid decision‐making relating to insect pollinators and pollination in agricultural landscapes. These tools provide valuable information for understanding the drivers of insect population changes in agricultural areas and projecting future population trends in response to various actions. However, there is currently no comprehensive list of available tools, and their usability (ease of use and acceptability for conducting tasks) for decision‐making purposes. Therefore, there is an urgent need to understand what tools have been designed, their commonalities and their suitability for different decision context, to ensure the effectiveness of pollinator‐friendly management and conservation actions. In this study, we present a systematic map methodology that will collate and catalogue relevant tools relating to insect pollinators and/or pollination in agricultural landscapes. We will conduct searches in bibliographic databases such as ‘Web of Science Core Collection’ and ‘Scopus’ using a tested search string. Additionally, we will manually search grey literature using web‐based engines (Google Scholar and ProQuest) and websites. After removing duplicates, the search results will be screened sequentially based on predetermined eligibility criteria, including title, abstract, and full text. The extracted data will provide metadata for mapping the usability of the tools, utilising descriptive tables, statistics and figures. Usability will be assessed across three categories: the tool itself, the user and the user‐context. The results from this mapping exercise can support researchers in synthesising progress in terms of pollinator‐related tools, and direct research and development efforts to bridge the identified gaps and shortcomings. It will also have significant implications for managers, stakeholders and policymakers, by providing guidance on existing tools and supporting informed tool choices.

show abstract

Honey bee colony performance affected by crop diversity and farmland structure: a modeling framework

Horn

Becher

Johst

et al. 2020

Ecological Applications

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forage availability has been suggested as one driver of the observed decline in honey bees. However, little is known about the effects of its spatiotemporal variation on colony success. We present a modeling framework for assessing honey bee colony viability in cropping systems. Based on two real farmland structures, we developed a landscape generator to design cropping systems varying in crop species identity, diversity, and relative abundance. The landscape scenarios generated were evaluated using the existing honey bee colony model BEE-HAVE, which links foraging to in-hive dynamics. We thereby explored how different cropping systems determine spatiotemporal forage availability and, in turn, honey bee colony viability (e.g., time to extinction, TTE) and resilience (indicated by, e.g., brood mortality). To assess overall colony viability, we developed metrics, P H and P P, which quantified how much nectar and pollen provided by a cropping system per year was converted into a colony's adult worker population. Both crop species identity and diversity determined the temporal continuity in nectar and pollen supply and thus colony viability. Overall farmland structure and relative crop abundance were less important, but details mattered. For monocultures and for four-crop species systems composed of cereals, oilseed rape, maize, and sunflower, P H and P P were below the viability threshold. Such cropping systems showed frequent, badly timed, and prolonged forage gaps leading to detrimental cascading effects on life stages and in-hive work force, which critically reduced colony resilience. Four-crop systems composed of rye-grass-dandelion pasture, trefoil-grass pasture, sunflower, and phacelia ensured continuous nectar and pollen supply resulting in TTE > 5 yr, and P H (269.5 kg) and P P (108 kg) being above viability thresholds for 5 yr. Overall, trefoil-grass pasture, oilseed rape, buckwheat, and phacelia improved the temporal continuity in forage supply and colony's viability. Our results are hypothetical as they are obtained from simplified landscape settings, but they nevertheless match empirical observations, in particular the viability threshold. Our framework can be used to assess the effects of cropping systems on honey bee viability and to develop land-use strategies that help maintain pollination services by avoiding prolonged and badly timed forage gaps.

show abstract

Bumble‐BEEHAVE: A systems model for exploring multifactorial causes of bumblebee decline at individual, colony, population and community level

Cited by 66 publications

References 38 publications

Bombus terrestris in a mass‐flowering pollinator‐dependent crop: A mutualistic relationship?

Bombus terrestris in a mass‐flowering pollinator‐dependent crop: A mutualistic relationship?

What evidence exists on the use of pollinator tools in agricultural landscapes: A systematic map protocol

Honey bee colony performance affected by crop diversity and farmland structure: a modeling framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About