Juliet L. Osborne

Insect pollinator abundance, in particular that of bees, has been shown to be high where there is a super-abundance of floral resources; for example in association with mass-flowering crops and also in gardens where flowering plants are often densely planted. Since land management affects pollinator numbers, it is also likely to affect the resultant pollination of plants growing in these habitats. We hypothesised that the seed or fruit set of two plant species, typically pollinated by bumblebees and/or honeybees might respond in one of two ways: 1) pollination success could be reduced when growing in a floriferous environment, via competition for pollinators, or 2) pollination success could be enhanced because of increased pollinator abundance in the vicinity. We compared the pollination success of experimental plants of Glechoma hederacea L. and Lotus corniculatus L. growing in gardens and arable farmland. On the farms, the plants were placed either next to a mass-flowering crop (oilseed rape, Brassica napus L. or field beans, Vicia faba L.) or next to a cereal crop (wheat, Triticum spp.). Seed set of G. hederacea and fruit set of L. corniculatus were significantly higher in gardens compared to arable farmland. There was no significant difference in pollination success of G. hederacea when grown next to different crops, but for L. corniculatus, fruit set was higher in the plants growing next to oilseed rape when the crop was in flower. The results show that pollination services can limit fruit set of wild plants in arable farmland, but there is some evidence that the presence of a flowering crop can facilitate their pollination (depending on species and season). We have also demonstrated that gardens are not only beneficial to pollinators, but also to the process of pollination.

1 Foraging range is a key aspect of the ecology of ‘central place foragers’. Estimating how far bees fly under different circumstances is essential for predicting colony success, and for estimating bee-mediated gene flow between plant populations. It is likely to be strongly influenced by forage distribution, something that is hard to quantify in all but the simplest landscapes; and theories of foraging distance tend to assume a homogeneous forage distribution. 2 We quantified the distribution of bumblebee Bombus terrestris L. foragers away from experimentally positioned colonies, in an agricultural landscape, using two methods. We mass-marked foragers as they left the colony, and analysed pollen from foragers returning to the colonies. The data were set within the context of the ‘forage landscape’: a map of the spatial distribution of forage as determined from remote-sensed data. To our knowledge, this is the first time that empirical data on foraging distances and forage availability, at this resolution and scale, have been collected and combined for bumblebees. 3 The bees foraged at least 1·5 km from their colonies, and the proportion of foragers flying to one field declined, approximately linearly, with radial distance. In this landscape there was great variation in forage availability within 500 m of colonies but little variation beyond 1 km, regardless of colony location. 4 The scale of B. terrestris foraging was large enough to buffer against effects of forage patch and flowering crop heterogeneity, but bee species with shorter foraging ranges may experience highly variable colony success according to location.

Summary: Bumblebees provide an important pollination service to both crops and wild plants. Many species have declined in the UK, particularly in arable regions. While bumblebee forage requirements have been widely studied, there has been less consideration of whether availability of nesting sites is limiting. It is important to know which habitats contain the most bumblebee nests per unit area in order to guide conservation and management options; particularly in the light of current emphasis on environmental stewardship schemes for farmed landscapes. However, it is extremely difficult to map the distribution of bumblebee nests. We describe the findings of the National Bumblebee Nest Survey, a structured survey carried out by 719 volunteers in the UK during early summer 2004. The surveyors used a defined protocol to record the presence or absence of bumblebee nests in prescribed areas of gardens, short grassland, long grassland and woodland, and along woodland edge, hedgerows and fence lines. The records allowed us to estimate the density of bumblebee nests in each of these habitats for the first time. Nest densities were high in gardens (36 nests ha⁻¹), and linear countryside habitats (fence lines, hedgerows, woodland edge: 20–37 nests ha⁻¹), and lower in non‐linear countryside habitats (woodland and grassland: 11–15 nests ha⁻¹). Findings on nest location characteristics corroborate those of an earlier survey carried out in the UK (Fussell & Corbet 1992). Synthesis and applications. Gardens provide an important nesting habitat for bumblebees in the UK. In the countryside, the area occupied by linear features is small compared with that of non‐linear features. However, as linear features contain high densities of nests, management options affecting such features may have a disproportionately large effect on bumblebee nesting opportunities. Current farm stewardship schemes in the UK are therefore likely to facilitate bumblebee nesting, because they provide clear guidance and support for ‘sympathetic’ hedgerow and field margin management.

ICPBR is thriving. Membership is increasing and its Working Groups have been very active, proof that ICPBR still has an important role to play in networking scientists involved in plant-bee relationships and in organising meetings and other activities for them. ICPBR produce a regular Newsletter for members, and extracts of the latest one are reproduced here. If you would like more information about ICPBR, please contact Juliet Osborne, Secretary.

Summary: 1. Bumble bees play a vital role in the pollination of many crops and wild flowers, and plans for their conservation require a knowledge of the dynamics and spatial scale of their foraging flights, which are, at present, poorly understood. 2. We investigated the foraging range and constancy of two colonies of bumble bees Bombus terrestris L. on a mixed arable farm using harmonic radar, which has a unique capability to record the trajectories of insects flying at low altitude in the field. 3. Foraging bees were fitted with lightweight radar transponders and tracked as they flew to and from the nest to forage. The resulting tracks gave information on length, direction and straightness of foraging routes. Superimposition onto a map of the foraging landscape allowed interpretation of the bees’ destinations in relation to the spatial distribution of forage. 4. Outward tracks had a mean length of 275·3 ± 18·5 m (n = 65) and a range of 70–631 m, and were often to forage destinations beyond the nearest available forage. Most bees were constant to compass bearing and destination over successive trips, although one bee was tracked apparently switching between forage patches. Both outward and return tracks had a mean straightness ratio of 0·93 ± 0·01 (n = 99). The bees’ ground speeds ranged from 3·0 m s^–1 to 15·7 m s^–1 (n = 100) in a variety of wind conditions. 5. The results support the hypothesis that bumble bees do not necessarily forage close to their nest, and illustrate that studies on a landscape scale are required if we are to evaluate bee foraging ranges fully with respect to resource availability. Such evaluations are required to underpin assessments of gene flow in bee‐pollinated crops and wild flowers. They are also required when making decisions about the management of bees as pollinators and the conservation of bee and plant biodiversity.