Display options
Share it on

R Soc Open Sci. 2017 May 31;4(5):170102. doi: 10.1098/rsos.170102. eCollection 2017 May.

Sensitivity of commercial pumpkin yield to potential decline among different groups of pollinating bees.

Royal Society open science

Sonja C Pfister, Philipp W Eckerter, Jens Schirmel, James E Cresswell, Martin H Entling

Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Sciences, University of Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau, Germany.
  2. Biosciences, University of Exeter, Hatherly Laboratories, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter EX4 4PS, UK.

PMID: 28573019 PMCID: PMC5451820 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.170102

Abstract

The yield of animal-pollinated crops is threatened by bee declines, but its precise sensitivity is poorly known. We therefore determined the yield dependence of Hokkaido pumpkin in Germany on insect pollination by quantifying: (i) the relationship between pollen receipt and fruit set and (ii) the cumulative pollen deposition of each pollinator group. We found that approximately 2500 pollen grains per flower were needed to maximize fruit set. At the measured rates of flower visitation, we estimated that bumblebees (21 visits/flower lifetime, 864 grains/visit) or honeybees (123 visits, 260 grains) could individually achieve maximum crop yield, whereas halictid bees are ineffective (11 visits, 16 grains). The pollinator fauna was capable of delivering 20 times the necessary amount of pollen. We therefore estimate that pumpkin yield was not pollination-limited in our study region and that it is currently fairly resilient to single declines of honeybees or wild bumblebees.

Keywords: Apis; Bombus; Cucurbita; Halictidae; ecosystem services; pollination effectiveness

Conflict of interest statement

We declare we have no competing interests.

References

  1. Am J Bot. 2000 Apr;87(4):527-32 - PubMed
  2. Proc Biol Sci. 2004 Dec 22;271(1557):2605-11 - PubMed
  3. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Sep 12;103(37):13890-5 - PubMed
  4. Proc Biol Sci. 2007 Feb 7;274(1608):303-13 - PubMed
  5. J Theor Biol. 2007 Sep 7;248(1):154-63 - PubMed
  6. Annu Rev Entomol. 2008;53:191-208 - PubMed
  7. Ecol Lett. 2007 Nov;10(11):1105-13 - PubMed
  8. Proc Biol Sci. 2008 Oct 7;275(1648):2283-91 - PubMed
  9. Curr Biol. 2008 Oct 28;18(20):R968-9 - PubMed
  10. Ann Bot. 2009 Jun;103(9):1579-88 - PubMed
  11. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2010 Aug;85(3):435-51 - PubMed
  12. PLoS One. 2010 Mar 29;5(3):e9788 - PubMed
  13. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Apr 5;108(14):5909-14 - PubMed
  14. Am J Bot. 2003 Oct;90(10):1425-32 - PubMed
  15. Ecol Lett. 2011 Oct;14(10):1062-72 - PubMed
  16. J Econ Entomol. 2011 Aug;104(4):1153-61 - PubMed
  17. Science. 2013 Mar 29;339(6127):1608-11 - PubMed
  18. Nat Commun. 2015 Jun 16;6:7414 - PubMed
  19. PeerJ. 2015 Nov 05;3:e1342 - PubMed
  20. Science. 2016 Jan 22;351(6271):388-91 - PubMed
  21. Nature. 2016 Dec 8;540(7632):220-229 - PubMed
  22. PeerJ. 2016 Dec 21;4:e2779 - PubMed
  23. Nature. 2017 Mar 23;543(7646):547-549 - PubMed
  24. Evolution. 1971 Mar;25(1):218-234 - PubMed

Publication Types