wild pollinator communities of commercial almond ...flowering seasons in late winter of 2010 and...
TRANSCRIPT
Wild pollinator communities of native woodlands and commercial almond plantations in a semi-arid Australian landscape:
Implications for conservation of insects and ecosystem services
Manu E Saunders B Arts; B Env Sc (Ecology) Hons, University of Queensland
July 2014
This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Charles Sturt University
Faculty of Science School of Environmental Sciences
Supervisors: Professor Gary W Luck Professor Geoff M Gurr
Dr Margaret M Mayfield (UQ)
ii
iii
iv
v
Table of Contents Page
Preface viii
Acknowledgements ix
Abstract xi
List of Figures xiii
List of Tables xiv
PART I: GENERAL BACKGROUND 1
Chapter 1: Introduction and Scope 3
1.1 Agroecosystem function 3
1.2 Insects as purveyors of ecosystem functions 4
1.3 Aims and Scope 6
1.4 Justification of terms used in this work 8
Chapter 2: Study system and sampling protocol 11
2.1 Study area 11
2.2 Mallee woodlands and shrublands 12
2.3 Almond cultivation in the Mallee 15
2.4 Sampling protocol 16
PART II: ANALYSIS 19
Chapter 3: Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild
pollinators
23
3.1 Introduction 24
3.2 Methods 27
3.3 Results 37
3.4 Discussion 44
Chapter 4: Wild pollinators in flowering almond orchards and
proximity to unmanaged vegetation
49
4.1 Introduction 50
4.2 Methods 52
4.3 Results 59
4.4 Discussion 65
Chapter 5: The influence of a semi-arid woodland—almond
plantation edge on wild pollinator communities
71
5.1 Introduction 72
vi
5.2 Methods 75
5.3 Results 81
5.4 Discussion 88
Chapter 6: Food and habitat resources available to wild pollinators in
a late winter flowering crop
95
6.1 Introduction 96
6.2 Methods 99
6.3 Results 104
6.4 Discussion 114
PART III: SYNTHESIS 121
Chapter 7: Synthesis and Conclusions 123
7.1 Synthesis and general discussion 123
7.2 Conclusions 126
PART IV: REFERENCE MATERIAL 129
Literature Cited 130
Appendix 1: Pan trap catches of pollinator insects vary with habitat
(published manuscript)
163
Appendix 2: Taxonomic lists of flower visitor observations and trap
samples
183
Appendix 3: Full set of models for analyses of ground cover vegetation—
pollinator relationships (Chapter 3)
197
Appendix 4: Location attributes and pollinator occurrence along ecotone
gradients (Chapter 5)
202
Appendix 5: Physical attributes and full candidate sets of models for
analysis of habitat structure relationships (Chapter 6)
211
vii
Certificate of Authorship
I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my
knowledge and belief, understand that it contains no material previously published
or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been
accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at Charles Sturt University
or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made
in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by colleagues with whom I
have worked at Charles Sturt University or elsewhere during my candidature is
fully acknowledged. I agree that this thesis be accessible for the purpose of study
and research in accordance with normal conditions established by the Executive
Director, Library Services, Charles Sturt University or nominee, for the care, loan
and reproduction of thesis, subject to confidentiality provisions as approved by the
University.
Name:
Signature:
Date:
viii
Preface
This thesis includes five individual manuscripts that have been published in academic journals. Consequently, there will be some repetition across chapters, especially within discussions of background material and methodological details. Chapter 2 provides a brief summary of the study area and an overview of the general sampling approach but specific methodological and analytical procedures for each individual study are detailed in each chapter. A single reference list is provided at the end of the thesis to avoid unnecessary duplication. I am personally responsible for conceptualising the project, all data collection and analysis, and the majority of written text. Gary Luck, Margie Mayfield and Geoff Gurr contributed to the planning and sampling design stages and to the papers they have co-authored with me.
Peer-reviewed publications from this work:
Chapter 3: Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect pollinators. (Saunders ME, Luck GW, Mayfield MM (2013) Journal of Insect Conservation 17:1011-1025).
Chapter 5: Spatial and temporal variation in pollinator community structure relative to a woodland—almond plantation boundary. (Saunders ME, Luck GW (2014) Agricultural and Forest Entomology, doi:10.1111/afe.12067).
Chapter 6: Keystone resources available to wild pollinators in a winter-flowering tree crop plantation. (Saunders ME, Luck GW, Gurr GG (in press) Agricultural and Forest Entomology).
Appendix 1: Pan trap catches of pollinator insects vary with habitat. (Saunders ME, Luck GW (2013) Australian Journal of Entomology52:106-113).
Conference presentations from this work:
Saunders ME, Luck GW, Mayfield MM (2012) Living ground cover influences native pollinator abundance in commercial almond orchards. 1st
Apimondia ApiEcoFlora Symposium, San Marino, Republic of San Marino, 4-6 October 2012, poster presentation. (Chapter 3)
Saunders ME, Luck GW (2013) Pan trap catches of pollinator insects vary with habitat context. VII Southern Connection Congress, Dunedin, New Zealand, 21-25 January 2013, poster presentation. (Appendix 1)
ix
Acknowledgements
Submission of this thesis is a beginning for me, not an end. I am especially
grateful to my principal supervisor, Gary Luck, who provided the precise relative
proportions of humour, guidance, encouragement and patience that I needed. He
gave me freedom to learn to be the ecologist I am, and direction when tangents
knocked at my door. I could not have asked for a better supervisor. My co-
supervisor, Margie Mayfield, has been an equally inspirational force, before I
even knew I was going to undertake a PhD. I cannot thank her enough for giving
me the opportunity as an undergraduate student to develop my interest in
pollination ecology and for being part of this project. I also sincerely thank Geoff
Gurr, for project advice and intellectual contributions; the Institute for Land Water
and Society and the School of Environmental Sciences, for financial,
administrative and logistic support; Simon McDonald, Deanna Duffy and Gail
Fuller, for technical support, patience with all my ignorant questions about GIS
and GPS and swiftness in delivering top-quality conference posters; the
indispensable lab staff, particularly Lauren Sheather, who helped with equipment,
field work preparation, and assistance during the long days I spent staring down a
microscope; Ken Walker for voluntary identification of my (very poorly-
mounted) native bee specimens; Select Harvests and Manna Farms, for kindly
providing access to their almond trees; and the Department of Sustainability and
Environment, Victoria, for research access to mallee national parks. Many other
people have contributed, either directly or indirectly, to me reaching this point (in
no particular order): Alison Matthews, Lisa Smallbone, Paul Humphries, Nicole
McCasker, Ian Lunt, Gill Earl, Janet Cohn, Katrina Lumb, Tobias Smith, Peter
Spooner, Wayne Robinson, Antonio Castro, Simon Watson, Saul Cunningham,
Alan Yen, Michael Batley, Peter Lillywhite, Gimme Walter and Barbara
Gemmill-Herren. James, you and Sarge have kept me afloat over the last 3.5
years, and there would have been more tears than smiles without you and the
music. Most importantly, I thank my mother for teaching me to believe in what
truly matters.
x
xi
Abstract
Understanding how monocultures of introduced crop species interact with native
ecosystems and wildlife in the surrounding landscape is vital for the ecological
management of agroecosystems, and can have far-reaching benefits for
biodiversity conservation and crop yields. Insects make essential contributions to
ecosystem functions in all types of ecosystems and many functions are
synergistically linked, like pollination and biological pest control. Thus, the
conservation of invertebrate communities in agricultural landscapes is paramount.
Although many studies have investigated pollinator communities using field crops
(e.g. canola), more information is needed on how plantations of deciduous tree
crops influence local insect communities, as these agroecosystems can create
permanent spatial and temporal homogeneity across agricultural landscapes.
I sampled potential wild pollinators in commercial almond plantations and
native mallee vegetation in northwest Victoria, Australia, over two almond
flowering seasons in late winter of 2010 and 2011. The aim of the study was to
provide information on the abundance, richness and composition of insect
pollinator communities at this time, which is the critical life stage for both almond
trees (reproduction) and insects (emergence and reproduction). In particular, I
focused on comparing patterns of insect community distribution relative to
environmental attributes of mallee vegetation and almond plantations, with the
goal of identifying how plantations might influence the conservation of wild
insect communities, and thus enhance ecosystem service provision in commercial
plantations.
Overall, I found that potential wild pollinators were using almond
plantations in the Victorian mallee during the almond flowering season. However,
their movement into plantation interiors was limited by homogeneous vegetation
structure and a lack of essential resources, such as temporal continuity of food
resources and the availability of nesting sites. Wild pollinators, particularly native
bees, were more abundant in small almond orchards with weedy ground cover
across orchard floors, compared to both monoculture plantations and native
mallee vegetation. In small orchards surrounded by a heterogeneous agricultural
mosaic landscape, abundance and richness of pollinator groups were negatively
associated with the proximity of native vegetation. However, in broadacre
xii
monoculture plantations, most pollinator taxa were limited to edges near native
mallee vegetation, or within remnant patches of mallee in the plantation interior.
In particular, native bees were only collected in remnant mallee patches inside the
plantations, rather than in blocks of almond trees. Before and after almond
flowering, when resources inside plantations were limited, pollinator groups were
mostly associated with sites that provided alternative foraging and nesting
resources, such as leaf litter, ground cover vegetation or the presence of
herbivorous insect prey.
The work presented in this thesis has two-fold significance. My results
provide valuable information on potential wild pollinators using Australian
almond plantations, which has the capacity to motivate the adoption of ecological
management goals among growers and enhance awareness of the essential
contribution of wild insects to ecosystem functions. I also highlight important
knowledge gaps in our understanding of the diverse invertebrate fauna of the
Victorian mallee regions, an area of high conservation value, which can inform
future research and conservation goals.
xiii
List of Figures
Figure Caption Page2.1 Map of the study region and sampling localities 112.2 Wild insect pollinators of the Victorian mallee 132.3 Typical mallee plant communities of the study region 143.1 Representative photographs of the three sampled vegetation
types: plant-diverse orchards, monoculture orchards, native mallee vegetation
30
3.2 Species accumulation curves for insect pollinator groups in each sampled vegetation type
39
3.3 Diversity profiles for insect pollinator groups 413.4 Dendrograms showing pollinator community similarity between
each site group43
4.1 Representative images of landscape composition in Complex and Simple landscapes
53
4.2 Ordination plot showing overall pollinator community composition between landscape types
58
4.3 Ordination plots showing pollinator community similarity between sites of difference resource profiles in each landscape type
60
4.4 Proportional abundance and richness of each pollinator group in each landscape type
61
4.5 Proportional abundance of pollinator groups collected in almond blocks and interior mallee patches in Simple landscape
64
5.1 Map showing the almond/mallee edges sampled for ecotone study
76
5.2 Representative photographs showing phenological changes occurring across plantations during the flowering season
77
5.3 Distance-decay graph for decline in pollinator community similarity with distance
82
5.4 Average pollinator group abundance and richness for each month at mallee and almond sites
84
5.5 Monthly turnover of wasp and fly abundance and richness along the ecotone gradients
85
6.1 Pollinator community similarity between mallee and almond sites 106A1.1 Map of the study area 166A1.2 Proportional abundance of total insects collected in each pan trap
colour172
A1.3 Proportional abundance of total native Hymenoptera collected in each pan trap colour
172
A2.1 Representative photographs of insect pollinators observed visiting flowers in mallee vegetation and almond plantations
184
xiv
List of Tables
Table Caption Page3.1 Almond orchards and mallee sites used for sampling 283.2 Average abundance and richness of insect pollinators in each
vegetation type38
3.3 Parameter estimates for relationships between pollinators and ground cover attributes
42
4.1 Abundance and richness of pollinator groups and proportion of land use types around sites in each landscape type
57
4.2 Relationships between pollinator groups and proportion of unmanaged vegetation types around sites
64
5.1 SHE analysis: comparison of physical and taxonomic boundaries along ecotone gradient
87
6.1 Average pollinator abundance and richness and resource attributes at mallee and almond sites
105
6.2 Relationships between pollinator groups and overall site heterogeneity
108
6.3 Relationships between pollinator groups and resource attributes 1096.4 Summed Akaike weights for each predictor variable (resource
attributes)113
A1.1 Total abundance of pollinator groups collected in each colour pan trap
170
A1.2 Results of Marascuilo procedure comparing proportion of pollinators collected in each colour pan trap
171
A2.1 Observations of flower visitors visiting almond and native flowers 183A2.2 Taxonomic list of samples 2010 185A2.3 Taxonomic list of samples 2011 192A3.1 Full candidate model set for relationships between pollinator
insects and ground cover vegetation197
A4.1 Physical attributes of sampled patches in ecotone study 202A4.2 Occurrence of Diptera and Hymenoptera family groups along
ecotone gradients203
A5.1 Physical attributes of almond plantations in resource study 211A5.2 Full list of candidate models for pollinator relationships with
resource attributes212
1
PART I: GENERAL BACKGROUND
2
3
Chapter 1: Introduction and scope
1.1 Agroecosystem function
Agroecosystems provide a foundation for human civilisation and incorporating
knowledge of ecosystem functions and services into their management is
essential. Any system that is structured around living organisms will respond to
natural cycles and processes in the absence of human inputs. Thus, ensuring the
long-term productivity of agroecosystems depends on understanding how they
function as a system and how they interact with the natural ecosystems and
landscapes in which they are embedded (Pimentel et al. 1989). A useful way to
investigate the ecology of agroecosystems is to examine communities of
ecosystem service providers, such as pollinating insects. Land use change often
impacts processes of community assembly more than individual species per se
(Mayfield et al. 2010; Cadotte et al. 2011) and the delivery of most ecosystem
services is synergistically linked across multiple species and interactions (Luck et
al. 2009; Macfadyen et al. 2012; Lundin et al. 2013).
Every process or exchange of energy that occurs between an ecosystem’s
components is a ‘function’ of that ecosystem (Şekercioğlu 2010) and the
ecological outcomes of these functions generally provide beneficial ‘services’ to
humans (Vogt 1948; Ehrlich & Mooney 1983; Daily 1997). A greater diversity of
species, community patterns and natural processes allows for greater availability
of ecosystem services (Altieri 1999; Loreau et al. 2001; Symstad et al. 2003;
Mayfield et al. 2010; Maestre et al. 2012). However, biotic diversity is often
lacking in agroecosystems. Most modern agroecosystems aim to ‘standardise’
production by disconnecting from ecological cycles through the segregation of
animals and plants, isolation from local ecological knowledge, and cultivation of
plant monocultures (Weis 2010; Woodhouse 2010). In some parts of the world,
landscape-scale heterogeneity and ecological complexity are being rapidly
replaced by extensive vegetation homogeneity in the form of broadacre crop
monocultures (Hartemink 2005; Plourde et al. 2013). Yet, natural systems are
never wholly autonomous or static, either in configuration or function (Odum
1969; Ulanowicz 1990; Bejan & Lorente 2010), so intensively-managed
homogeneous agroecosystems contravene the principles of natural systems and
4
can disrupt local availability of ecosystem services. Thus, there is a need for more
studies that identify ecological and structural differences between crop
monocultures and local native vegetation, and relate these differences to the
distribution of ecological communities (e.g. Ramirez & Simonetti 2011;
Dąbrowska-Prot & Wasiłowska 2012; Meng et al. 2012; Pryke & Samways
2012). Results from such studies would provide valuable information for
biodiversity conservation and the ecological management of agroecosystems,
which can assist managers to balance long-term productivity with a reduction in
input costs.
1.2 Insects as purveyors of ecosystem services
Many ecosystem services that are beneficial to humans are a result of processes or
interactions to which invertebrates are key contributors. These include pollination,
biological control, soil formation and nutrient cycling. Mutualisms, such as plant-
pollinator interactions, are particularly critical to ecosystems and there are far-
reaching consequences if these interactions are lost (Kiers et al. 2010). Pollinators
indirectly affect many other parts of ecosystems and their loss could result in
significant changes to both the physical appearance of the ecosystem and its
biogeochemical structure through changes in plant community composition
(Ashman et al. 2004; Knight et al. 2005; Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Pauw 2007; Pauw
& Hawkins 2011) and, subsequently, soil structure and the hydrologic cycle
(D’Odorico et al. 2010). All ecosystem services are interdependent (Daily 1997;
Kremen et al. 2007; Bennett et al. 2009) and recent evidence has shown that other
services important to agroecosystems, such as biological pest control, can be
synergistically linked to the provision of pollination services (Bos et al. 2007;
Lundin et al. 2013). Thus, pollinator communities are an ideal focal group to
study how agroecosystems influence local ecological communities.
Plantations of perennial tree crops, such as orchard fruits, may have
particular influence over native pollinator communities in agricultural landscapes.
Many deciduous fruit trees are pollinator-dependent (Kevan 1999), but if they are
managed as intensive monoculture plantations they create large areas of spatial
and temporal homogeneity (in vegetation structure and resource availability) that
are inhospitable to pollinators before and after the brief flowering period
5
(Sheffield et al. 2008; Marini et al. 2012). Compared to field crops, which are
most commonly grown in broadacre monocultures, tree crop plantations can have
a very different ecological influence over the surrounding ecosystems. Field
crops, such as wheat, canola or maize, are grown in short rotation cycles and
alternated with other field crop varieties, which may contribute temporal
heterogeneity to the landscape that could counteract the spatial homogeneity
(Vasseur et al. 2013). In contrast, tree crop plantations are embedded in the
landscape, often for decades, creating an ecologically stable, semi-permanent
ecosystem (Tedders 1983; Altieri 1999). This could potentially influence the
structure of local invertebrate communities in the long-term (Harding et al. 1998;
Tscharntke et al. 2002). The conservation value of tree crop agriculture has long
been recognised (Smith 1916; Altieri et al. 1983; Ryszkowski & Kędziora 1987)
but the environmental influence of tree plantations in agricultural landscapes has
historically received less attention in the scientific literature than annual crops
(Hartemink 2005). In particular, most of the published studies investigating the
influence of crop monocultures on pollinator taxa or communities have focused
on field crops, such as canola, legumes or vegetables (e.g. Westphal et al. 2003;
Gemmill-Herren & Ochieng 2008; Arthur et al. 2010; Rader et al. 2012). These
studies provide valuable insight into how agricultural land uses affect pollinators,
but tree monocultures are very different in structure and phenology to
monocultures of herbaceous or shrubby species and are likely to influence
pollinator communities, and the surrounding environment, in different ways.
Some important pollinator taxa, particularly bees and hoverflies, often
prefer foraging in relatively open areas dominated by early successional
vegetation (Winfree et al. 2011; Robinson & Lundholm 2012) compared to dense
forest systems (Gittings et al. 2006; Hoehn et al. 2010; Proctor et al. 2012).
Intensively-managed tree crop plantations can be structurally similar to dense
forests, and this could affect the availability of pollinator communities for tree
crop varieties that rely on pollinators to set fruit. Although some studies have
provided valuable information on the effects of tree plantations on local insect
communities, these have largely been relevant to plantation forests managed for
timber production (e.g. Humphrey et al. 1999; Gittings et al. 2006; Campbell et al.
2011; Pryke & Samways 2012). Pollinator-dependent orchard fruit plantations
(e.g. apple, almond, stone fruit) are managed very differently to timber forests,
6
particularly with regard to orchard floor vegetation and disturbance cycles. Given
the recent increase in global demand for orchard fruit production (McKenna &
Murray 2002; Jackson et al. 2011), understanding how these systems influence
local flora and fauna is paramount, particularly in Australia where the majority of
orchard crop varieties are exotic species (Cunningham et al. 2002). Previous work
on pollinators in Australian tree plantations has been conducted in plantations of
native macadamia or Eucalyptus species (e.g. Heard & Exley 1994; Barbour et al.
2008) and evergreen tropical tree crops like cashew or longan (e.g. Heard et al.
1990; Blanche et al. 2006). This thesis aims to address some important knowledge
gaps by presenting the first study of wild pollinator insects using monoculture
plantations of introduced almond trees, a pollinator-dependent deciduous tree
crop, in a semi-arid region of southern Australia.
1.3 Aims and scope
The research presented here compares abundance, richness and distribution of
potential wild pollinator insects in almond plantations of north-west Victoria with
pollinator communities in native mallee vegetation. Furthermore, it intends to
provide insight into how intensive monoculture plantations of orchard fruit trees
interact with the landscape, ecosystems and biotic communities around them. To
do this, I asked the following questions:
1. Are wild pollinator communities influenced by the presence of living
ground cover under almond trees? (Chapter 3)
2. Is there a relationship between wild pollinator abundance and diversity in
almond orchards and the proportion of remnant native vegetation in the
surrounding matrix? (Chapter 4)
3. How does wild pollinator abundance and diversity change across habitat
boundaries between almond monocultures and adjacent native mallee
vegetation? (Chapter 5)
4. Do winter-flowering monoculture plantations provide food and nesting
resources for overwintering and emerging wild pollinator taxa? (Chapter
6)
My underlying hypothesis is that wild pollinator communities will be more
species rich and abundant, and therefore more available to pollinate almond
7
flowers, at sites with a greater diversity of food and habitat resources. My
sampling approach focused on the late winter flowering season, as this is a critical
life stage for almond trees (flowering and nut formation) and pollinator insects
(emergence and reproduction). Hence, supporting the conservation of wild
pollinator communities in the long-term will depend on matching habitat and
resource requirements of pollinators with the structural and phenological
attributes of the plantation at this time. The structure of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter 2 presents a brief summary of the ecological significance of the
study area and discusses the general sampling protocol;
Chapter 3 investigates relationships between pollinator groups and weedy
ground cover vegetation on almond orchard floors. This provides
important information for almond growers in Australia, many of whom
actively remove vegetation on plantation floors to increase management
efficiency, despite the important benefits ground cover provides, such as
erosion control, improved soil structure and habitat for beneficial insects
(Eilers & Klein 2009; Ramos et al. 2010);
Chapter 4 investigates whether the composition of pollinator communities
in orchards during flowering is associated with the presence of natural or
semi-natural vegetation near sites. This knowledge has implications for
almond management and local biodiversity conservation, because a matrix
composed of a diverse array of food and habitat resources is essential to
support pollinators in agricultural landscapes dominated by perennial
crops that flower for a brief period once a year (Williams & Kremen 2007;
Sheffield et al. 2008);
Chapter 5 examines how the physical habitat boundary between mallee
woodlands and almond plantations influences the distribution of pollinator
communities before, during and after the brief almond flowering event.
This contributes to ecological knowledge of how insects might respond to
abrupt changes in spatial and temporal distribution of resources in
agroecosystems;
Chapter 6 examines the potential for late-winter flowering monoculture
plantations to support overwintering or emerging pollinator insects. This
has rarely been considered in studies of agroecosystem impacts on
pollinator species, and provides valuable insights into how pollinator
8
communities use plantations of almond trees during their emergence and
reproductive stages, which coincides with the almond reproductive stage;
Chapter 7 provides a brief synthesis and discussion of the overall results.
In particular, I link results from individual studies to highlight the overall
significance and contribution of this thesis, and provide recommendations
for future research and management goals.
Finally, the Appendices provide additional information relevant to the
overall thesis. In particular, Appendix 1 presents the manuscript of an
original publication based on data collected during my PhD research,
which contributes to the methodological literature by discussing important
considerations for designing ecologically meaningful pan trap studies; and
Appendix 2 lists the total abundance of bee species and wasp and fly
family groups collected across both sampling seasons.
1.4 Justification of terms used in this work
‘Pollinator’ refers to individuals in the taxonomic orders Diptera (flies)
and Hymenoptera (bees, wasps). Other insect groups are also common
pollinators, like Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), Thysanoptera
(thrips), and Coleoptera (beetles), however my sampling method (see
Chapter 2) was designed to target Hymenoptera and Diptera individuals,
as these are the most commonly-recorded visitors to open blossoms of
almond trees and related species (Rosaceae: Prunus spp.) in other parts of
the world (e.g. Abrol 1988; Jordano 1993; Bosch & Blas 1994). Although
I did not quantify pollination efficiency in this study, I use the term
pollinator to maintain consistency with the crop pollination literature
because one of the main aims of my research was to document wild insect
species using almond orchards that had the potential to provide pollination
services to growers. Flies and wasps are important, but understudied,
pollinators in a variety of natural and agricultural systems (Kevan & Baker
1983; Larson et al. 2001; Ssymank et al. 2008), particularly in native
Australian ecosystems (Armstrong 1979; Pickering & Stock 2003). Many
pollinating Diptera and non-bee Hymenoptera are also economically-
important predators and parasitoids of herbivorous pests. Because
9
ecosystem service provision often involves multiple species and their
interactions (Luck et al. 2009; Lundin et al. 2013), studies of ecosystem
services benefit from concentrating on groups of taxa that provide the
same services (Bennett et al. 2009; Macfadyen et al. 2012), rather than on
a single, well-known taxon (e.g. bees).
‘Broadacre monoculture’ refers to large-scale, intensive cultivations of a
single crop species covering more than 100 hectares of land. This type of
agroecosystem is more common in developed countries with substantial
areas of rangeland, like Australia, Canada, and the United States of
America and is mostly used to cultivate fast-growing, high-yielding crop
varieties that require high chemical usage and seed purchase for each
planting (Mason 2003; Plourde et al. 2013). More recently, this practice
has become common in commercially-grown perennial tree crop or
plantation crop systems, such as oil palm, orchard crops and agroforestry
schemes (Hartemink 2005).
‘Orchard’ and ‘plantation’ are used interchangeably in this work to refer to
a commercial almond cultivation system. The term ‘orchard’ has mainly
been used when comparing small plant-diverse orchard systems with
broadacre monoculture plantations (Chapters 3-4), as the most descriptive
term relevant to both types of cultivation system was chosen to maintain
consistency throughout individual papers. However, the goal of this thesis
was to investigate and discuss the ecological role of monoculture
plantations, using intensive almond plantations as a study system; hence,
the term ‘plantation’ is used elsewhere.
10
11
Chapter 2: Study system and sampling protocol
2.1 Study area
The study area is in north-west Victoria, Australia, within the Murray Mallee
bioregion (Department of Sustainability and Environment 2013). Sampling sites
for all studies were within native mallee vegetation and commercial almond
plantations located in the districts of Wemen, Liparoo, Colignan and Nangiloc
(Figure 2.1). The region is semi-arid with a Mediterranean climate. Annual
rainfall varies widely with an average of around 300 mm per year. The region was
wetter than average during the sampling years, with approximately 528 mm
falling in 2010 and approximately 566 mm falling in 2011 (Bureau of
Meteorology 2013). Average temperatures for the months of sampling (July—
September) ranged from minima of about 5o C to maxima of about 20o C.
Figure 2.1 Map of the study region showing localities of sampled almond plantations.
12
2.2 Mallee woodlands and shrublands
The term ‘mallee’ was originally used to describe the open scrub growing on
sandy plains of north-west Victoria and eastern South Australia, which was
dominated by Eucalyptus dumosa, or white mallee (Westgarth 1848). Today,
‘mallee’ refers to semi-arid open heath and woodlands native to Mediterranean
climate zones in southern Australia, specifically the southern coast of Western
Australia, parts of South Australia, north-west Victoria and western New South
Wales. Mallee ecosystems occur in regions receiving between 250 and 500 mm of
average annual rainfall and are characterised by sandy dune systems and
predominantly alkaline soils, often with a shallow surface layer overlying
limestone bedrock (Noble & Bradstock 1989). Open woodlands are dominated by
Eucalyptus species growing in the coppiced ‘mallee’ habit of shorter trees with
multiple stems of similar age developing from a large subterranean lignotuber, as
well as Acacia, Callitris and Casuarina species (Wood 1929). The understorey is
open and highly variable, with patchy shrub and ground cover vegetation typically
composed of saltbush and other halophytic plants, Triodia hummock grass,
cryptogams, grasses and flowering forbs, and including a high number of rare
species (Whittaker et al. 1979; Blakers & Macmillan 1988; Cheal et al. 2013). In
addition, the mallee ground layer is characterised by mosaics of bare ground and
dense mats of leaf litter and decaying wood (Holland 1969; Whittaker et al. 1979).
Knowledge of pollinator insect species (Figure 2.2) and plant-pollinator
relationships in the study region is limited (A.L. Yen, pers. comm., 6 July 2011).
A search of the peer-reviewed literature (ISI Web of Knowledge, 1 May 2014)
produced 11 published ecological studies on invertebrate fauna in the Victorian
mallee – two of these were from the current thesis (Saunders & Luck 2013;
Saunders et al. 2013; Chapter 2 and Appendix 1), five studied ant communities
(e.g. Andersen 1983; Andersen & Yen 1992), and three studied introduced
European honeybees (e.g. Oldroyd et al. 1994; Horskins & Turner 1999). Yen et
al. (2006) provide an observational account of native bees, and suggest that native
bee abundance in the Victorian mallee was high and estimating that the area could
support about 10 % of Australian bee species, which concurs with Michener’s
(1979) conclusion that bees are most abundant in warm, temperate, xeric areas,
such as the semi-arid mallee regions. A number of empirical and observational
13
studies have included accounts of various species of native Diptera and non-ant
Hymenoptera visiting mallee flowers (e.g. Ford & Forde 1976; Alcock 1981;
Hawkeswood 1982; Horskins & Turner 1999; Yen et al. 2006). Stephens et al.
(2006) also found that a high proportion of wasp species collected in a South
Australian mallee ecosystem were only collected on a single plant species. Like
most semi-arid ecosystems, the mallee is highly influenced by fire and rainfall
events, although little information is available on how these events affect
pollinator communities in the mallee. Mallee ecosystems support a high
proportion of leaf litter and dead wood, which are important habitats for many
invertebrate species (Austin et al. 2005; New et al. 2010). Hence, intense wildfires
could severely diminish local insect communities (New et al. 2010), or the
characteristic mosaic distribution of these attributes could increase the availability
of unburned refuge sites during patchy fire events (Majer et al. 1997; Andrew et
al. 2000). Andersen & Yen (1985) found that wildfire had immediate effects on
ant communities in the Victorian mallee, including a shift toward greater
compositional evenness; however, Friend & Williams (1996) studied the long-
term effects of fire in a Western Australian mallee ecosystem and found that
variation in native bee, wasp and fly communities appeared to be more influenced
by general seasonal effects than fire-related trends.
Figure 2.2 Wild insect pollinators of the Victorian mallee: (left) A hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) resting on weedy Brassicaceae spp. in a Wemen mallee remnant; (middle) A bee fly (Diptera: Bombyliidae) resting on leaf litter, Murray-Kulkyne National Park; (right) Tiphiid wasps (Hymenoptera: Tiphiidae) in copula on a Leptospermum coriaceum flower, Hattah-Kulkyne National Park (see also Appendix 2).
Australian mallee regions provide ideal habitat for many pollinator insect species
(Figure 2.3). Most pollinator taxa, particularly solitary and eusocial bees, rely on
14
multiple proximate habitats that provide different, but complementary food and
habitat resources needed throughout their life cycle – this has been called
‘landscape complementation’ by Dunning et al. (1992), the problem of ‘partial
habitats’ by Westrich (1996) and ‘functional connectivity’ by Williams & Kremen
(2007). Mild winters, low mallee tree canopies (Andersen & Yen 1992), diverse
floral resources, particularly in the herb and shrub layers (Yen et al. 2006), and
open vegetation structure create an optimal foraging environment for pollinator
insects (Kremen et al. 2007; Winfree et al. 2011). In addition, the patchy
distribution of bare, sandy soil and leaf litter banks are preferred substrates for
many species of overwintering and ground-nesting bees, flies and wasps (Knerer
& Schwarz 1976; Leather et al. 1993; Potts et al. 2005; Houston & Maynard
2012).
Figure 2.3 Typical mallee plant communities of the study region: (top) mallee woodland interior and (bottom) mallee heath and shrubland, Annuello State Flora and Fauna Reserve.
15
2.3 Almond Cultivation in the Mallee
Large-scale clearing and cultivation began in the Victorian mallee in the early
1900s after failed attempts to establish a pastoral industry, and the region has
subsequently developed into one of Australia’s main irrigated agricultural regions,
the Sunraysia district, relying on intensive water extraction from the Murray River
(Duncan & Dorrough 2009). Agriculture in the mallee region is environmentally
risky (Sadras et al. 2003) because the highly erratic rainfall, poor soil fertility, and
fast evaporation and infiltration rates mean that surface water is rare (Blakers &
Macmillan 1988). Since European settlement, native mallee flora and fauna
communities have been severely affected by clearing and fragmentation
(Cunningham 2000; Driscoll & Weir 2005), rabbit and mouse plagues (Onans &
Parsons 1980; Singleton et al. 2001), and increased soil salinity and groundwater
salt leakage (Cole et al. 1989).
Almond (Rosaceae: Prunus dulcis Mill.) production has been particularly
successful in the Victorian mallee, with the region supporting 64 % of the
country’s almond plantings (Almond Board of Australia 2013). Almond
originated in the foothills and desert areas of central and southwest Asia Minor,
and is adapted to mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers (Kester & Ross 1996;
Ladizinsky 1999), typical of Australia’s mallee regions. The first small-scale
commercial almond plantings were in South Australia in the late 1800s
(Wilkinson 2012) and Australia is now the second-largest almond producer in the
world, with almonds contributing more to the total annual nut production than the
native macadamia (Almond Board of Australia 2013). Almond trees require 100%
cross-pollination to set fruit (Hill et al. 1985; Weinbaum 1985), which means that
managed European honeybee (Apis mellifera) hives have become an essential, and
expensive, part of production for commercial almond growers (vanEngelsdorp et
al. 2008). This reliance on commercial honeybees raises serious concerns for
Australian almond production as impacts such as Varroa mite, climate change,
and agricultural intensification increasingly affect the global honeybee industry
(vanEngelsdorp et al. 2008; Spivak et al. 2011; Henry et al. 2012). Yet, only a
handful of studies have investigated almond pollination in Australia (Hill et al.
1985; Rattigan & Hill 1987; Vezvaei 1994; Vezvaei & Jackson 1995; Jackson
16
1996), and these have looked at the reproductive biology, gene flow or phenology
of the flowers and make little reference to pollinating organisms.
A particular challenge in managing almond pollination services is that
individual flowers are receptive to pollination for an extremely brief period
(approximately 4-5 days) in late winter (Griggs & Iwakiri 1975; Hill et al. 1985),
when most insect activity is limited. Because of this, it is likely that many growers
have assumed European honeybees are the only pollinator option (Klein et al.
2012). However, Mediterranean plant communities in other parts of the world
typically support a high number of insect-pollinated species, and pollinator taxa
and flowering plants are both common (although less abundant) during cooler
months (Petanidou & Vokou 1990; Dafni 1996; Bosch et al. 1997). In fact, despite
many individual plant species having specific flowering periods, the
complementarity of each one’s phenology can provide the temporal resource
connectivity needed to sustain some pollinator taxa, particularly Diptera,
throughout the year (Petanidou & Lamborn 2005).
2.4 Sampling Protocol
Potential wild pollinators were sampled in almond plantations and native mallee
vegetation during the almond flowering seasons between July and September,
2010 and 2011. In 2010, sites were located in broadacre monoculture plantations
at Wemen and Liparoo (n = 30), small, plant-diverse orchards at Colignan and
Nangiloc (n = 27) and native mallee vegetation (n = 45) (Chapters 3 and 4). In
2011, sampling focused on broadacre monoculture plantations (n = 50) and
adjacent native mallee vegetation (n = 18) at Wemen and Liparoo (Chapters 5 and
6). Site selection on the 2010 sampling trip was limited by access to farms in the
region that maintained living ground cover across orchard floors. New South
Wales government extension advice recommends that growers maintain bare soil
orchard floors to minimise frost damage and competition for soil moisture (NSW
Agriculture 2002; Wilkinson 2012). Hence, most commercial almond growers in
the study region use intensive mowing and herbicide application to control
herbaceous ground cover throughout plantations. Monoculture plantations and
plant-diverse orchards were selected to maximise the similarity between sites of
each management type. All plant-diverse orchards at Colignan and Nangiloc were
17
owned and managed by the same family-owned company (Manna Farms). Two of
these orchards were biodynamically-managed (a type of intensive organic
management) and one was managed as a low-intensity conventional farm with no
chemical use (see Chapter 3 for details). The two monoculture plantations were
owned and managed by the same corporation (Select Harvests) and management
practices were identical at both plantations. No insecticides were used in these
plantations, but limited application of herbicide or fungicide was used at specific
times of the year (see Chapter 3). Chemical applications did not occur during
sampling. In both years, site selection was also limited by logistics and weather
conditions, due to widespread flooding and above-average rainfall across much of
the study region during the sampling years. Low-lying areas of plantations were
flooded and access to some parts of the national parks used for native vegetation
sites was also limited, particularly during the 2011 sampling trips. Native
vegetation sites were located in the Annuello State Flora and Fauna Reserve, the
Murray-Kulkyne National Park (Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Victoria: Research Permit Number 10005774) and various ungazetted patches of
remnant mallee near almond blocks.
Insects were collected at each site using sets of pan traps (2010: blue,
yellow and white; 2011: yellow and white). Traps were made from plastic picnic
bowls (Woolworths Home Brand, Bella Vista NSW) painted with UV-bright
fluorescent paint (White Knight Paints, Lansvale NSW) or left white (dimensions:
18 cm diameter, 3 cm depth). Pan traps can underestimate the full composition of
insect assemblages; however this method was used because the priority was to
maximise sampling time per site and minimise collector bias (Westphal et al.
2008). To increase the likelihood that traps provide ecologically meaningful
results, trap colour and placement should be designed to suit the context of the
study system and research questions (Tuell & Isaacs 2009; Vrdoljak & Samways
2012; Saunders & Luck 2013; see Appendix 1). Hence, yellow and white were
chosen because these were the most common flower colours at my sites (in mallee
and almond respectively). In 2010, blue traps were also included as this colour is
commonly thought to attract bees (usually European honeybees), although blue
traps have not been widely tested for attracting native bees in Australia (see
Appendix 1 for discussion of this). In 2011, only yellow and white were used,
based on the results from 2010 sampling that indicated the target insects (non-Apis
18
bees, wasps and flies) were captured more frequently in yellow and white traps
(Appendix 1).
At each site, pan traps were placed together on the ground about 1 m from
a flowering tree to ensure maximum visibility to flying insects. Ground placement
was also chosen because the late winter sampling period meant that some insects
would be emerging from pupae or overwintering sites, and many of my target
species overwinter or nest in the ground or in leaf litter and ground cover
vegetation (see Chapter 6). Each site was sampled once per sampling trip; traps
were set out for 8-10 hours during the warmest part of the day to capture
maximum insect activity and were collected in the sequence they were set out. In
2010, flower visitors on open flowers were also recorded as baseline observations,
but these data have not been used in analyses due to the low individual counts.
Visual surveys were conducted at almond and mallee trap sites by random walks
within 10 metres of trap locations for a 10 minute period. All insects seen visiting
open flowers were counted and identified to the highest possible taxonomic level
(see Appendix 2 for data and photographs).
Upon collection from pan traps, insects were stored in 70 % ethanol and
counted and sorted in the Charles Sturt University Ecology laboratory using an
Olympus SZ51 microscope. The full collection, including voucher specimens, was
stored at Charles Sturt University laboratory. Because of the limited ecological
and taxonomic information available on invertebrate fauna in the Victorian
mallee, my aim was to inform future work by providing a broad inventory of
Diptera and Hymenoptera in my study system, as these groups are the most
commonly recognised insect providers of ecosystem services, i.e. pollinators and
biological control agents. The focus of my work is on Diptera and Hymenoptera
that could provide critical pollination services to almond growers; however,
because of lack of knowledge on almond pollinators in Australia, I have sampled
the two orders generally and have included other families in my data that are not
commonly categorised as pollinators (e.g. parasitic or predatory flies and wasps),
as species from these families can pollinate flowers in some contexts (Armstrong
1979; Larson et al. 2001; Wäckers et al. 2005; Ssymank et al. 2008) and recent
evidence suggests that pollination and biological control services provided by
insects are synergistically linked (e.g. Bos et al. 2007; Lundin et al. 2013).
19
European honeybees (Apis mellifera) were removed from samples prior to
analysis because my focus was on non-honeybee potential pollinators. Evidence
from previous studies suggests that honeybees and non-honeybee pollinator
insects often show spatial complementarity in nesting and foraging locations,
especially when resources are abundant, as was the case in my system (Markwell
et al. 1993; Roubik & Wolda 2001; Paini et al. 2005; Brittain et al. 2013; Rollin et
al. 2013). Thus, the presence of honeybees in my system was unlikely to have had
a major impact on the abundance and richness of wild bees, wasps and flies found
at each site. After sorting insect samples into taxonomic orders, non-Apis bees
were identified to species or subgenus by a taxonomic expert (K. Walker,
Museum Victoria) and I identified wasp and fly individuals to family using taxon-
specific identification keys (Hamilton et al. 2006; Stevens et al. 2006). Family-
level analyses may provide coarser estimates of richness than species-level
approaches (Krell 2004; Lovell et al. 2007). However, given the largely
undescribed Australian insect fauna and the lack of taxonomic expertise or
knowledge on these groups (Austin et al. 2004; Raven & Yeates 2007; Batley &
Hogendoorn 2009; Cardoso et al. 2011), employing taxonomic surrogacy (i.e.
analysing orders, families, genera or morphospecies instead of species) is useful
in studies that aim to provide broad inventories or comparisons between
communities of insect fauna (Oliver & Beattie 1996; Pik et al. 1999; Obrist &
Duelli 2010).
20
21
PART II: ANALYSIS
22
23
Chapter 3: Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect
pollinators
Abstract
Wild pollinators are becoming more valuable to global agriculture as the
commercial honeybee industry is increasingly affected by disease and other
stressors. Perennial tree crops are particularly reliant on insect pollination, and are
often pollen limited. Research on how different tree crop production systems
influence the richness and abundance of wild pollinators is, however, limited. I
investigated, for the first time, the richness and abundance of potential wild
pollinators in commercial temperate almond orchards in Australia, and compared
them to potential pollinator communities in proximate native vegetation. I
quantified ground cover variables at each site, and assessed the value of ground
cover on the richness and abundance of potential wild pollinators in commercial
almond systems focussing on three common taxa: bees, wasps and flies. More
insects were caught in orchards with living ground cover than in native vegetation
or orchards without ground cover, although overall species richness was highest in
native vegetation. Percent ground cover was positively associated with wasp
richness and abundance, and native bee richness, but flies showed no association
with ground cover. The strongest positive relationship was between native bee
abundance and the richness of ground cover plants. My results suggest that
maintaining living ground cover within commercial almond orchards could
provide habitat and resources for potential wild pollinators, particularly native
bees. These insects have the potential to provide a valuable ecosystem service to
pollinator-dependent crops such as almond.
*This chapter has been published as Saunders ME, Luck GW, Mayfield MM
(2013) Journal of Insect Conservation 17:1011-1025.
24
3.1 Introduction
The importance of plant diversity to insect pollinators has been discussed broadly
in the literature (e.g. Carreck & Williams 2002; Potts et al. 2003; Kremen et al.
2007; Hagan & Kraemer 2010; Ebeling et al. 2011; Pywell et al. 2011). In natural
environments, the spatial and temporal diversity of floral resources is often
positively correlated with the richness and abundance of wild insect pollinators
(Potts et al. 2003; Ebeling et al. 2008; Fründ et al. 2010; Grundel et al. 2010).
Evidence from agricultural systems also shows that insect pollinator abundance
increases in response to greater plant diversity in the landscape, such as proximate
remnants of native vegetation (see Ricketts et al. 2008; also Blanche et al. 2006;
Chacoff & Aizen 2006; Gámez-Virués et al. 2009; Carvalheiro et al. 2010;
Kennedy et al. 2013), managed intercropping (Altieri 2004; Thevathasan &
Gordon 2004; Letourneau et al. 2011), or management practices dedicated to
maintaining weeds/wildflowers in field margins (Carreck & Williams 2002;
Haaland et al. 2011).
Living ground cover is not common in conventional agricultural systems,
but is often an integral part of organic, multicropped or traditional farming
systems (Altieri 2004; Gomiero et al. 2011). The environmental benefits of
ground cover in agricultural ecosystems are numerous and include improving the
physical, chemical and biotic quality of the soil (Sharley et al. 2008; Grasswitz &
James 2009; Ramos et al. 2010), minimising erosion and excessive runoff (Gómez
et al. 2011; Kremer & Kussman 2011; Ruiz-Colmenero et al. 2011), and
increasing the number of beneficial insects and decreasing herbivorous pests
(Hooks & Johnson 2004; Gámez-Virués et al. 2009; Walton & Isaacs 2011). Yet
there are few studies linking wild insect pollinators in agricultural crop systems
with ground cover floral resource diversity, particularly in perennial tree crop
systems. Historically, studies of ground cover in orchard crops have focused on
natural enemies of crop pests rather than potential crop pollinators (e.g. Colloff et
al. 2003; Horton et al. 2003; Brown 2012).
Perennial tree crop systems are becoming more dominant in the global
agricultural landscape, with plantations of oil palm, rubber, coffee, cocoa and tree
nuts (e.g. almond, macadamia, cashew etc.) expanding rapidly, particularly
throughout tropical regions (Hartemink 2005) and in Australia specifically
25
(Australian Nut Industry Council n.d.). The area under commercial tree nut
cultivation in Australia was nearly 55,000 hectares in 2011 and future expansion
of this industry is likely, given current industry development efforts (Australian
Nut Industry Council n.d.). In particular, almond (Prunus dulcis Mill.) is
becoming increasingly important to Australia’s agricultural economy. The crop
contributes more to Australian nut production than the native macadamia and had
a farm-gate value of more than AU$300 million in 2012 (Almond Board of
Australia 2013).
Almond is one of the few crops that require 100% cross-pollination for
fruit production (Hill et al. 1985; Weinbaum 1985; Cunningham et al. 2002),
which means that managed European honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) hives have
become an essential part of production for commercial almond growers
(vanEngelsdorp et al. 2008). In addition, many of the other tree crops grown in
Australia on a commercial scale are reliant on pollinators for at least 50 % of their
production value (Cunningham et al. 2002). Yet there is a dearth of scientific
research into ecological and management issues associated with Australian tree
crop production, especially pollination ecology and the potential for wild
pollinators to benefit commercial systems. The reliance on honeybees in Australia
raises serious concerns for the future of pollinator-dependent crops, as impacts
such as the Varroa destructor mite, climate change, agricultural intensification,
and colony collapse disorder (CCD) increasingly affect the global honeybee
industry (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2008; Spivak et al. 2011; Henry et al. 2012) and are
likely to worsen in Australia in coming decades. Also, a recent meta-analysis has
shown that maximal fruit yields are not generally possible without the combined
services provided by managed honey bees and diverse wild pollinators (Garibaldi
et al. 2013).
Despite increased global interest in wild pollinators (Klein et al. 2012;
Garibaldi et al. 2013; Lebuhn et al. 2013) and the burgeoning research on
pollination as an essential ecosystem service (e.g. Klein et al. 2007; Kremen et al.
2007; Potts et al. 2010; Kennedy et al. 2013), current ecological knowledge of
almond pollination is dominated by research conducted in the United States,
particularly involving European honeybees (Degrandi-Hoffman 2001; Thomson
& Goodell 2001; Klein et al. 2012; Yong et al. 2012; Brittain et al. 2013). Non-
honeybee pollinators have proven successful in commercial almond orchards in
26
the United States, Japan and Spain (Bosch & Blas 1994), yet only a handful of
studies have investigated almond pollination in Australia (Hill et al. 1985;
Rattigan & Hill 1987; Vezvaei 1994; Vezvaei & Jackson 1995; Jackson 1996) and
these focus on the reproductive biology, gene flow or phenology of the flowers,
rather than non-Apis sources of pollination services. Australia has a unique and
endemic-rich insect fauna (Michener 1979; Austin et al. 2004; Batley &
Hogendoorn 2009), including many species important for the pollination of a
variety of crops (Heard 1999; Blanche et al. 2006; Gaffney et al. 2011; Lentini et
al. 2012). The dynamics of Australian almond systems are likely to differ
substantially from other major growing regions in California and Spain, because
of different local climates and ecological communities, and also from other semi-
arid locations where the almond is a native species (e.g. Israel; Mandelik & Roll
2009). Considering the economic value of the crop to Australia's economy, and
the possibility of disruption to managed pollination services if Varroa reaches
Australia, knowledge of potential wild pollinators in Australian almond
production systems is needed. Research into the links between management
activities and pollinator communities is particularly vital for the ecologically
sustainable management of almond crops, and will increase understanding of the
importance of wild pollinators to crop production worldwide (Potts et al. 2010;
Garibaldi et al. 2011; Mayer et al. 2011).
To my knowledge, this study is the first to sample wild pollinators in
commercial almond orchards in Australia, and one of the first to investigate the
relationship between wild pollinators and living ground cover in tree crop systems
anywhere in the world. Specifically, I asked the following questions: (1) How
does the richness and abundance of insect pollinators in commercial almond
orchards compare to wild pollinator communities present in proximate native
vegetation? (2) Is there a relationship between living ground cover and insect
pollinator richness and abundance within commercial almond orchards? I refer to
native bees, wasps and flies as potential pollinators (hereafter, pollinators).
Although I did not quantify pollination efficiency in this study, my target species
are the most recognised and frequent flower visitors and pollinators in a variety of
ecosystems (Kevan & Baker 1983; Kearns 2001; Larson et al. 2001) and I
observed flies and wasps visiting almond flowers during sampling.
27
3.2 Methods
In this paper, the following terms are used: ‘broadacre monoculture’ refers to a
cultivation system in which a crop is grown in a continuous, strict monoculture
(i.e. no other crop or managed plants within the physical boundaries of the
system) across an area of land greater than 100 hectares; ‘living ground cover’
refers to a carpet of living native and/or non-native herbs and grasses that is sown
or naturally-seeded, and is maintained within a cultivated orchard system.
3.2.1 Study area and system
This study was conducted in 2010 in northwest Victoria, Australia, in the
Victorian Murray Mallee Bioregion, specifically in the neighbouring Wemen—
Liparoo and the Colignan—Nangiloc districts (34° S 142° E). The study area is
semi-arid and is dominated by irrigated agriculture and areas of native mallee
vegetation on sandy, calcareous soils. During the sampling year, the region
recorded wetter than average rainfall – approximately 528 mm fell near Wemen—
Liparoo in 2010 (station 76000, long-term average = 314.9 mm p.a.), while
Colignan—Nangiloc received approximately 427 mm (station 76052, long-term
average = 290.4 mm p.a.). Average temperatures across both districts in the
months of sampling (August-September 2010) ranged from minimums of 5-7oC to
maximums of 15-20oC (Bureau of Meteorology 2013). Sampling sites were
located within five commercial almond orchards and proximate native mallee
vegetation, which is the dominant native vegetation type in this region (Figure
3.1). Orchards were managed as either broadacre monoculture orchards with bare-
ground floors (hereafter MONO) or plant-diverse orchards with living ground
cover throughout (hereafter GRASS) (Table 3.1). Native mallee sites were located
within patches of remnant mallee vegetation greater than 50 metres across and
within 500 m of an almond orchard (hereafter Native Liparoo (NL), Native
Wemen (NV) and Native Colignan (NC)). All mallee patches were either adjacent
to one of the sampled almond orchards or separated from an orchard by a
roadway, field headland or barren area. The three GRASS orchards were all
within 3 km of each other and the two MONO orchards were 7.5 km apart. All
orchards were located within the Sunraysia agricultural region, which is a mosaic
28
Table 3.1 Almond orchards and mallee sites used for sampling. ‘Mixed farm’ means that almond blocks were part of larger farms that cultivated multiple crops within their boundaries (e.g. citrus, other nuts or vegetables). Area, management, and matrix information are not given for Native sites, as sites were in native vegetation patches with varying locations. Ground cover and plant richness values are averages across all sampling sites within the relevant sampling location (see Methods for details of sampling). Sampling
location
Vegetation Type Area
(ha)
Management Surrounding
Landscape Matrix
Ground
cover
No. of
sampling
sites
% ground
cover
Absolute plant
richness
Liparoo Broadacre
monoculture
(MONO)
1002 Conventional (no
pesticide or
insecticide)
Native vegetation,
agricultural
None 15 0.007 (0.01) 0.3 (0.33)
Wemen Broadacre
monoculture
(MONO)
165 Conventional (no
pesticide or
insecticide)
Native vegetation,
agricultural
None 15 0.02 (0.03) 0.4 (0.43)
Colignan B Small, mixed farm
(GRASS)
76 Biodynamic Native vegetation,
agricultural
Complete 9 76.4 (11.01) 3.9 (0.65)
Nangiloc Small, mixed farm
(GRASS)
57 Biodynamic Agricultural Complete 8 92.0 (6.8) 3.6 (1.38)
29
Colignan C Small, mixed
farm
(GRASS)
160 Conventional
(low-intensity)
Agricultural Inter-row 10 63.4 (13.11) 3.0 (0.56)
Native
Liparoo (NL)
Native mallee
(Native)
- - - - 15 46.3 (43.4) 2.1 (1.84)
Native
Wemen (NV)
Native mallee
(Native)
- - - - 15 57.4 (22.8) 3.2 (1.14)
Native
Colignan
(NC)
Native mallee
(Native)
- - - - 13 60.1 (14.7) 3.0 (0.58)
30
landscape of irrigated crop systems and remnant areas of native mallee woodland,
black box (Eucalyptus largiflorens) woodland and river red gum (E.
camaldulensis) forests. The average proportion of natural vegetation within a 1
km radius around GRASS sites was 0.21 ± SD 0.08, and the average proportion
around MONO sites was 0.36 ± SD 0.17. The minimum distance between a
GRASS orchard and a MONO orchard was 35.1 km. Study locations were limited
by the availability of almond orchards maintaining ground cover – most
conventional almond growers maintain bare orchard floors, as this has historically
been advocated to prevent frost damage and competition for soil moisture (NSW
Agriculture, 2002; Wilkinson, 2012). A total of 30 MONO sites, 27 GRASS sites,
and 43 Native sites were successfully sampled during my study. All sampling
sites were chosen a priori, to ensure site independence, and all were at least 200
m apart. Sampling sites within orchards were spaced as broadly as possible so that
the entire area of each orchard was represented in the samples.
Figure 3.1 Representative photographs of the three vegetation types sampled in this study: (top left) broadacre monoculture almond orchards (MONO); (top right) plant-diverse orchards with permanent living ground cover (GRASS); and (bottom) native mallee vegetation (Native).
31
Liparoo and Wemen farms were owned and operated by a multinational company,
and were broadacre, conventional monoculture plantations that were
representative of commercial almond orchards common to the region. Herbicides
were applied (Glyphosate, Spray.Seed and occasionally Striker®) at label rates as
required by seasonal management regimes (Richmond, M. 2011, pers. comm., 10
June). No pesticides or insecticides were used. Bare compact soil was maintained
across the orchard floors in both these farms (Figure 3.1). The Colignan and
Nangiloc farms were owned and operated by a local family-run farm business.
Nangiloc and Colignan B were small, multifunctional biodynamic farms (a type of
holistic organic agriculture). Permanent living ground cover was consistent
throughout these orchards (Figure 3.1) and was managed by mowing when
necessary for access, usually before harvest (January-March). Colignan C was a
small, multifunctional conventional (low-intensity) orchard. Bare soil was
maintained along almond tree lines, comprising a strip approximately 1 m wide
surrounding the tree trunks, and permanent inter-row ground cover was managed
with mowing. No herbicides or pesticides were used in these orchards (Keens, I.
2010, pers. comm., 19 August). Mowing schedules were not recorded in this
study, but ground cover plants were well-established and flowered along tree lines
and throughout inter-row sections during sampling, as detailed below.
I did not include a biodynamic-conventional management comparison in
this study, as the sampled GRASS orchards were all small-scale farms operated
by the same family, with similar management strategies and in the same
geographical area, and the sampled MONO orchards were managed with very low
chemical usage. Some low-impact or small-scale farms operate under similar
principles and exhibit similar ecological characteristics to organic farms (e.g.
maintenance of in situ plant diversity; Francis & Porter 2011), but cannot be
labelled as ‘organic’ due to policy and certification systems. Hence, I focus my
investigation on the relationships between ecological characteristics in the crop
systems (Letourneau & Bothwell 2008; Winqvist et al. 2012), rather than the
anthropocentric label of ‘management type’.
32
3.2.2 Insect Sampling
Insects were sampled during the almond flowering period (August-September)
over 10 days in 2010. Almond flowers for a very short time (typically 2-3 weeks
per tree) in response to weather cues (Hill et al. 1985), restricting the most
suitable sampling time. Each sampling site was sampled once for approximately
8-10 daylight hours (depending on seasonal conditions) using a set of three pan
traps – one blue, one yellow and one white bowl. Traps were made from plastic
picnic bowls (Woolworths Home Brand, Bella Vista NSW) painted with UV-
bright fluorescent blue or yellow paint (White Knight Paints, Lansvale NSW) or
left white, and filled with 200 mL of water and a drop of dishwashing detergent to
break surface tension. Because of the cool winter temperatures during sampling, I
set traps out soon after sunrise (8-10 am) and collected them just before nightfall
(3.30-6 pm) in the order they were set, to capture maximum insect activity during
the warmest part of the day. All sampling days were fine, sunny or partly cloudy,
with light or no breeze. Pan trapping may not provide full representation of the
sampled pollinator community, as the effectiveness of the traps can be influenced
by trap placement, surrounding habitat structure, proximate resource availability
or even insect colour vision (Cane et al. 2000; Baum & Wallen 2011; Saunders &
Luck 2013; see Appendix 1). However, the method can be more useful than other
insect collection methods, such as on-site visual identification, as it does not
suffer from ‘collector bias’ (Westphal et al. 2008) and is efficient for establishing
baseline data for previously unstudied ecosystems. To increase the likelihood that
pan trap data are ecologically meaningful, it is important to ensure that bowl
colour and field placement are consistent and relevant to the context of the study
and research questions (Tuell & Isaacs 2009; Vrdoljak & Samways 2012;
Saunders & Luck 2013). I chose white, yellow and blue traps, as white was the
predominant flower colour in orchards and yellow was the most common flower
colour in local mallee woodlands. I also included blue traps, because this colour
has been recommended for attracting bees in some environments, but has not been
widely used to collect native bees in Australia (see Appendix 1). At each site, a
set of traps (one of each colour) was placed in a triangular array on open ground 1
m from a flowering tree, to provide maximum visibility.
33
Upon collection of the traps, insects were removed from the water and
placed into 70% ethanol, before being transported to the laboratory. I pooled
catches from each set of traps (blue, yellow, white) to count individuals per site.
Native bees were identified to species by a taxonomic expert (K. Walker, Museum
Victoria) and Iidentified wasps and flies to family level using specialised
Hymenoptera and Diptera identification keys (Hamilton et al. 2006; Stevens et al.
2007). Australia's invertebrate fauna is one of the most under-described in the
world and many insect orders require critical taxonomic revision, including the
Diptera (Austin et al. 2004; Raven & Yeates 2007). Family-level identification is
an appropriate taxonomic surrogate when research goals include comparing broad
estimates of ecosystem service providers (Oliver & Beattie 1996; Obrist & Duelli
2010), and I considered this a suitable level of identification for this study, given
the challenges of identifying Australian wasp and fly taxa to the species level and
the uncertainty about the taxonomy of these groups.
3.2.3 Ground cover sampling
Compositional differences in herbaceous plant species were not quantified in this
study; however, many of the exotic (introduced to Australia) ground cover species
within GRASS orchards were flowering during the study (e.g. Persian speedwell
(Veronica persica), Capeweed (Arctotheca calendula), dog violet (Viola spp.),
Oxalis spp.). In MONO orchards, the few ground cover species present were non-
flowering seedlings (e.g. self-propagated almonds, stinging nettle (Urtica dioica),
wild lettuce (Lactuca spp.) and radish (Raphanus spp.)). At native mallee sites,
most available flowers were in middle- or upper-storey trees and shrubs.
Percentage ground cover and plant species richness were quantified at each
sampling site once on the same day that insects were collected. At each site, I
used four 0.5 metre x 0.5 metre quadrats placed randomly 1-5 m from the centre
of each set of pan traps, in each cardinal direction (N, S, E, W). Percentage
ground cover (hereafter ground cover) and absolute plant species richness
(hereafter plant richness) values from the four quadrats (N, S, E, W) in each site
were averaged to obtain mean percentage ground cover and mean plant richness at
each site (Table 1).
34
3.2.4 Data analysis
Analyses were conducted on combined Hymenoptera and Diptera samples
(response variable: Total Insects), and each separate pollinator group (response
variables: flies; native bees; wasps). I used PAST 2.17 (Hammer et al. 2001) for
statistical analyses, unless indicated otherwise. Abundance data were
overdispersed ecological count data with a non-normal distribution. Hence, I used
nonparametric analysis where applicable rather than transforming the data to suit
parametric analyses, as this approach is increasingly recommended (McArdle &
Anderson 2004; O’Hara & Kotze 2010; Warton & Hui 2011). For each vegetation
type, I calculated the interquartile range for each insect group’s abundance (as a
measure of statistical dispersion) and the number of taxa per group found in each
vegetation type, as a proportion of the total number of taxa of each group
collected across the study area. I tested for differences in insect abundance (total
counts of individuals) between vegetation types with Mann-Whitney (U) pairwise
comparisons. To see how wild pollinator communities in native vegetation
compared with communities in almond orchards, I calculated Whittaker’s measure
of shared richness (βw) between vegetation types, where 0 means site pairs have
the same species composition and 1 means site pairs have completely different
communities. Because sampling effort was limited and sample sizes differed
between vegetation types, I computed extrapolated species accumulation curves
(EstimateS version 9.1; Colwell 2013) to compare estimated total richness of each
insect group between vegetation types (Colwell & Coddington 1994; Gotelli &
Colwell 2001; Colwell et al. 2004). Native sites had the largest reference sample
(n = 43), so richness estimates for GRASS and MONO sites were extrapolated to
a sample size of 43, which is less than the maximum recommended extrapolation
limit (Melo et al. 2003; Colwell et al. 2012). Extrapolation curves were calculated
using the Chao1 target richness estimator (Colwell et al. 2012). Using these
estimates, I plotted estimated total family richness for flies and wasps and
estimated total species richness for native bees (based on 100 randomisations) by
vegetation type, as a function of the number of sampled individuals. This
approach is suitable for analysing any taxonomic level and is recommended for
sample-based abundance data, and for evaluating theoretical predictions or models
(Gotelli & Colwell 2001; Colwell et al. 2012).
35
In addition to estimating pollinator richness, I also created diversity
profiles for pollinator groups in each vegetation type using PAST 2.17 (Hammer
et al. 2001). Flies and wasps were analysed as family groups, and bee species
were combined into genera, as there is the potential for taxonomic similarity at the
species-level to affect the results of diversity profiles (Leinster & Cobbold 2012).
Diversity ordering (or 'profiling') measures and compares taxonomic richness
between communities using multidimensional families of diversity indices rather
than a single index (Patil & Taillie 1982; Tóthmérész 1995; Liu et al. 2007;
Leinster & Cobbold 2012). Calculations based on one index can show much less
complexity than is truly present in a study system (Magurran 2004; Gattone & Di
Battista 2009), which can result in inconsistencies in analyses and interpretations.
Diversity ordering reduces this effect and provides a more realistic comparison of
community diversity by measuring a series of related indices and constructing a
diversity ‘profile’ of the community (Tóthmérész 1995; Liu et al. 2007; Leinster
& Cobbold 2012). I used the exponential of Rényi's diversity ordering index,
which plots the community’s diversity order against a continuous sensitivity
parameter (α) (Tóthmérész 1995; Hammer et al. 2001). The parameter is based on
true diversities (Hill numbers) and represents how sensitive the diversity order is
to the number of species (Jost 2006). The left side of the graph (α = 0) represents
the absolute richness of the community and the number of rare species, while the
right side of the graph (α = 4) represents dominance and the number of common
species (Hill 1973; Leinster & Cobbold 2012). Where a sample's profile sits
completely above any other plotted lines, the higher sample is unequivocally more
diverse than other samples. Where two lines intersect, the relevant samples cannot
be explicitly separated from one another in terms of overall diversity. However,
the intersection point of the two lines, when interpreted relative to α, shows how
the communities differ in terms of dominance or richness (Leinster & Cobbold
2012).
To explore the overall relationship between ground cover in almond
orchards and abundance and richness of each insect group, I conducted
generalised linear modelling in IBM SPSS 20 (IBM Corporation 2011). For
pollinator richness, I calculated Menhinick’s diversity index for fly and wasp
families and bee species at each site, as this index takes individuals per
species/family into account and is suitable for unequal sample sizes (Menhinick
36
1964). For abundance data, I used negative binomial regression due to the nature
of the overdispersed count data (Seavy et al. 2005; Sileshi 2006; O’Hara & Kotze
2010). Richness data were analysed with linear models, as these data were
normally distributed. The maximum number of parameters I could include in any
model (to avoid over-fitting) was five, because of the small sample size:
n[GRASS+MONO] = 57 (Burnham & Anderson 2002). Based on my research
questions, the focal predictors were ‘ground cover’ and ‘plant richness’; however,
as these two variables were strongly correlated (r = 0.90, p < 0.0001) they were
not included in the same model. Orchard sites were distributed at different
distances to natural vegetation, so I also included ‘distance to natural vegetation’
as a predictor to determine if landscape context influenced pollinator responses to
ground cover. However, I do not consider landscape context further, as the goal
was to identify the extent of the relationship between potential pollinators and
ground cover vegetation on orchard floors in my study system. I computed models
for each predictor alone, an additive and an interaction model for each ground
cover variable with the landscape variable, and an intercept-only model for a
baseline comparison, and used an information-theoretic approach (Burnham &
Anderson 2002) to identify the best explanatory model for each insect group
based on the research questions. For richness models, I calculated the second-
order Akaike’s Information Criterion for small samples (AICc) and for abundance
models, I modified this criterion for overdispersed count data (QAICc); hereafter,
both IC values are referred to as AICc. I also calculated Akaike weights (wi) for
each model, which represent the probability that the model is the best model for
the data. Within each model set, I compared differences between AICc values (Δ
AICc) to determine the explanatory model that provided the best fit for each insect
data set and any other models with substantial support (Δ AICc ≤ 2; Burnham &
Anderson 2002).
To determine how pollinator assemblages compared within vegetation
types, I calculated the following similarity/distance matrices, based on the 28
pairs of study locations (individual orchard or mallee patch; e.g. Wemen/Colignan
B; Wemen/Nangiloc; Wemen/NC etc.): (i) Bray-Curtis (SBC) similarities for
pollinator abundance data sets (bee species, fly and wasp families) (Faith et al.
1987; Clarke & Ainsworth 1993); and (ii) Euclidean distances for average percent
ground cover and average plant richness (Clarke & Ainsworth 1993). I tested for
37
correlations between these indices with a Spearman's rank test, to determine if
between-site similarity in ground cover was related to similarity of pollinator
communities (Clarke & Ainsworth 1993). I also used hierarchical cluster analysis
(Bray-Curtis similarity and unweighted paired-group linkages) to create
dendrograms comparing taxonomic similarity between bee, fly and wasp
assemblages at each study area.
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Comparison of wild potential pollinator communities between vegetation
types
Across all sites, I collected 3251 fly individuals from 25 families, 144 wasp
individuals from 19 families, and 90 native bee individuals from 12 species.
Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) globosum (Smith, 1853) was the most common bee
species overall (25 individuals) and was collected in both GRASS orchards and
mallee vegetation. No native bees were collected in MONO orchards. Tachinidae
and Calliphoridae were the most abundant fly families, and were collected in all
vegetation types (Appendix 2 Table A2.2). The most abundant wasp families
(Diapriidae and Braconidae) were also collected in all vegetation types, while six
bee species and five wasp families collected in mallee vegetation were not present
in almond orchards (Appendix 2 Table A2.2). The interquartile range for each
pollinator insect group was highest in GRASS orchards: Flies – GRASS (104)
MONO (9.75) Native (10.88); Wasps – GRASS (3) MONO (1) Native (1); Native
bees – GRASS (2) Native (1). Based on the total number of taxa (family or
species) collected across the study area, Native sites had the highest proportion of
recorded taxa for each insect group, but the number of fly families at GRASS sites
was equal to Native sites: Flies – GRASS (0.80) MONO (0.64) Native (0.80);
Wasps – GRASS (0.63) MONO (0.37) Native (0.79); Native bees – GRASS
(0.50) Native (0.92).
On average, GRASS sites had higher total pollinator abundance (mean
92.3 ± 82.2) than either Native (mean 14.4 ± 12.2; p = 0.02) or MONO sites
(mean 12.5 ± 8.6; p < 0.001). Average abundances for all insect groups were
significantly higher in GRASS sites than in Native or MONO sites (Table 3.2).
38
Pairwise comparisons showed that the abundance of Total Insects in mallee
vegetation was most similar to MONO orchards (U = 620.5, z = -0.27, P = 0.788),
as was wasp (U = 587, z = -7.03, P = 0.482) and fly abundance (U = 638, z = -
0.07, p = 0.94). Native bee abundance was significantly different between all three
vegetation types (GRASS ≠ MONO U = 165, z = -4.84, P < 0.0001; GRASS ≠
Native U = 408, z = -2.33, P = 0.019; MONO ≠ Native U = 450, z = -3.27, P =
0.001). Wasp communities at Native sites were most similar to GRASS sites (βw =
0.33) and least similar to MONO sites (βw = 0.45). Wasp community similarity
between GRASS and MONO sites was βw = 0.37. Fly communities at Native sites
were more similar to MONO sites (βw = 0.22) than GRASS sites (βw = 0.25), and
very similar between GRASS and MONO sites (βw = 0.17). Native bee
community similarity between GRASS and Native sites was βw = 0.41.
Table 3.2 Average abundance and richness of potential wild pollinator insects collected per site, in native mallee vegetation (Native), broadacre monoculture almond plantations (MONO), and plant-diverse almond orchards (GRASS) in the Murray Mallee region of north-west Victoria. Richness values are based on the Menhinick diversity index (these were not used to compare richness between vegetation types, but are given here for reference). Asterisks denote where abundance was significantly higher than the other two vegetation types.
Abundance, mean (± SD) Richness, mean (± SD)
Fly Wasp Native bee Fly Wasp Native bee
Native 12.8 (11.81) 0.9 (1.74) 0.7 (1.2) 1.4 (0.5) 0.5 (0.7) 0.4 (0.6)
MONO 11.5 (8.5) 1.0 (1.35) 0 1.4 (0.6) 0.6 (0.6) 0
GRASS 87.2 (83.3)* 2.8 (2.1)* 2.3 (4.2)* 1.3 (0.6) 1.1 (0.8) 0.7 (0.6)
* p < 0.05
Comparison of extrapolated richness curves suggested that my sampling effort
may not have captured all taxa present in my study system, as only the curves for
native bees at GRASS sites and flies at Native sites approached an asymptote.
Native mallee sites had more unique bee species and fly and wasp families than
either orchard type, and GRASS sites had consistently higher abundance across all
insect groups (Figure 3.2). There was no significant differences in wasp richness
between vegetation types (Figure 3.2a), but fly and bee richness were significantly
higher at Native than at GRASS sites (Figure 3.2b-c).
39
Figure 3.2 Accumulation curves showing the number of (a) wasp families (b) fly families and (c) native bee species per number of individuals collected in each vegetation type. Broken lines indicate the 95% confidence intervals for each curve.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No.
of w
asp
fam
ilies
(a)
Native
GRASS
MONO
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
No.
of f
ly fa
mili
es
(b)
GRASS
MONO
Native
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
No.
of n
ativ
e be
e sp
ecie
s
No. of collected individuals
(c)
Native
GRASS
40
Community diversity profiles were mostly consistent with these patterns
(Figure 3.3). Wasp and bee communities were more diverse in native mallee
vegetation than in almond orchards (Figure 3.3a,c). Fly diversity profiles from all
three vegetation types overlapped, but Native sites had slightly higher richness of
rare families (Figure 3.3b). Between orchard types, wasp and fly diversity were
similar, but GRASS orchards had higher richness (more rare families) while
MONO orchards had slightly higher dominance of common families (Figure 3.3a-
b).
3.3.2 Insect pollinator and ground cover association
The predictor ‘distance to natural vegetation’ was present in highly-ranked models
for fly abundance, wasp abundance and richness, and native bee richness, but
there was no evidence that this predictor had a strong influence over pollinator
relationships with ground cover in almond orchards (Table 3.3). Fly richness and
abundance were not associated with either percent ground cover or plant richness.
Percent ground cover was positively associated with bee and wasp richness and
wasp abundance. Native bee abundance had a strong positive association with
plant richness, and this predictor also had some influence on variation in wasp
richness (Table 3.3).
Taxonomic similarity between bee communities increased with similarity
in percent ground cover (rs = 0.67, P < 0.001) and plant richness (rs = 0.71, P <
0.001) between sites. Between-site correlations of differences in ground cover
with wasp and fly community similarity were weak (rs < 0.3) and not significant
(p > 0.1). Wasp communities in the monoculture Wemen orchard were more
similar to GRASS orchards (SBC: Wemen/Nangiloc = 0.74; Wemen/Colignan B =
0.51; Wemen/Colignan C = 0.59), than to the other MONO orchard, Liparoo (SBC
= 0.41). Fly communities at the two biodynamic orchards (Colignan B and
Nangiloc) were more similar to each other (SBC = 0.68) than to communities at
any other location (average between-site SBC = 0.25). Bee communities at
Colignan C were significantly different to bee communities at any other location
(maximum between-site SBC = 0.18) (see Figure 3.4).
41
Figure 3.3 Diversity profiles for (a) wasp families (b) fly families and (c) native bee genera collected in each vegetation type. The left hand side of the plotted line (α = 0) represents absolute richness and relative number of rare species in the community and the right hand side (α = 4) represents dominance and relative number of common species.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Was
p di
vers
ity
(a)Native
GRASS
MONO
0
5
10
15
20
25
Fly
dive
rsity
(b)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 1 2 3 4
Nat
ive
bee
dive
rsity
Sensitivity paramater (α)Richness Dominance
(c)
42
Table 3.3 Parameter estimates with confidence intervals from negative binomial regression (abundance) and linear regression (richness) analysis testing the relationship between insect groups and ground cover variables. R2 coefficients are given for linear models only. The highest-ranked models (Δ AICc ≤ 2) are presented for each insect response variable. Where the ‘constant only’ model was the highest-ranked model, only the second-highest ranked model has been given for comparison. Akaike weights (wi) for each model indicate the probability that the given model is the best fit for the data. Insect response Model AICc Δ AICc wiFly Abundance Constant only (-0.11, -0.14 to -0.09)
D (0, 0 to 0)
325.5
327.1
0
1.5
0.37
0.17
Richness GC (-0.003, -0.007 to 0.001); R2 = 0.04
Constant only (1.33, 1.18 to 1.49)
107.9
108.1
0
0.2
0.25
0.23
Wasp Abundance GC (0.006, 0.003 to 0.01)
GC (0.007, 0.003 to 0.01) + D (0.001, 0 to 0.002)
201.9
202.3
0
0.4
0.43
0.34
Richness GC (0.006, 0.001 to 0.01); R2 = 0.10
GC (0.006, 0.002 to 0.01) + D (0.001, 0 to 0.002); R2 = 0.13
PR (0.12, 0.008 to 0.22); R2 = 0.07
127.9
128.3
129.7
0
0.4
1.8
0.31
0.26
0.13
Native bee Abundance PR (1.18, 0.52 to 1.8) 88.0 0 0.60
Richness GC (0.007, 0.004 to 0.01); R2 = 0.31
GC (0.007, 0.005 to 0.01) + D (0, 0 to 0.001); R2 = 0.32
72.2
73.6
0
1.4
0.54
0.27
GC = percent ground cover; PR = plant richness; D = distance to natural or semi-natural vegetation. All models include the constant as a parameter.
43
Figure 3.4 Bray-Curtis similarities between (left) wasp families (middle) fly families and (right) native bee species per site group. Native sites: NL, NV, NC; MONO sites: WEM, LIP; GRASS sites: CC, COL, NAN.
44
3.4 Discussion
I found that overall richness of all three potential pollinator groups was highest in
native mallee vegetation. However, almond orchards with permanent living
ground cover throughout the orchard supported greater wild pollinator richness
and abundance than orchards without ground cover. Total insect abundance, wasp
abundance and fly richness and abundance at mallee vegetation sites were more
similar to MONO orchards than GRASS orchards, but no native bees were caught
in MONO orchards during the sampling period. Mallee wasp families were more
similar to wasp families in GRASS orchards than to those in MONO orchards.
Flies were not influenced by ground cover in almond orchards, but ground cover
did have a positive association with wasp and native bee abundance and richness.
The strongest positive relationship was between native bee abundance and
richness of herbaceous ground cover plants. Native bee community similarity
between sites was strongly correlated with similarity in ground cover attributes,
but wasp and fly community similarity were not correlated with ground cover
similarity between sites. Cluster analysis (Figure 3.4) showed variation in
pollinator assemblages within vegetation types. Wasp assemblages at the
monoculture Wemen orchard were more similar to GRASS orchards than the
other monoculture orchard, while bee abundance in one GRASS orchard was
higher than in any other study area. In addition, no native bees were caught at any
MONO site, despite bees being present in proximate native vegetation. I tested for
the influence of broader landscape factors on insect response but this did not
override pollinator relationships with ground cover in my system. However, the
uncertainty of some pollinator—ground cover relationships, the lack of
association between ground cover and fly communities, and the pollinator
community differences between orchards, indicate that other factors may be
influencing some pollinator groups in this system.
Wild insect pollinators often prefer open, heterogeneous, ‘moderately’
anthropogenic habitats, such as grasslands, fallow agricultural fields, meadows or
cultivated gardens over more dense forests (Hagan & Kraemer 2010; Samnegård
et al. 2011; Winfree et al. 2011). In particular, most solitary bee species require
access to multiple heterogeneous habitats throughout the year (Mandelik et al.
2012), as they prefer herbaceous floral diversity for food sources and fallen wood,
45
bare soil or other structures for nesting (Hoehn et al. 2010; Gruber et al. 2011).
Most modern conventional agricultural systems do not offer this heterogeneity of
food and nesting resources, providing only one species of flower with a short
blooming season, homogeneous soil conditions and trees pruned of any dead
wood that may provide nesting substrate. This is especially true for perennial tree
crop systems, such as fruit and nut orchards, when they are managed intensively
as strict monocultures with no ground cover or intercropped vegetation. Despite
intensive management, orchard systems are still structurally similar to some types
of dense forests (such as temperate deciduous forests), which also generally
harbour low bee abundance (Winfree et al. 2007; Hoehn et al. 2010; Proctor et al.
2012). Unlike orchard crops in North America and Europe, which are often
structurally similar to native deciduous forest systems, Australian almond
orchards are very different to surrounding evergreen mallee woodlands. These
differences could potentially influence the extent of pollinator services that may
come from insects living in mallee and are worth exploring further in the future.
The monoculture orchards I sampled had bare orchard floors, which could
provide suitable nesting substrate for some wasp and bee species, but had no floral
resource diversity. In contrast, the biodynamic orchards had a carpet of
floral/herbaceous diversity, but few areas of bare ground. Only one GRASS
orchard, Colignan C, had inter-row herbaceous ground cover and bare ground
along the tree line. Interestingly, I caught more wasps and native bees in Colignan
C than at the other GRASS sites, even though Colignan C had less consistent
ground cover than the other plant-diverse orchards. Pan traps were more visible at
this orchard than in the other two GRASS orchards, which could have increased
catch rates (Laubertie et al. 2006). However, it is unlikely that my results were
unduly influenced by trap visibility, as traps were more visible in MONO
orchards where ground cover and understorey vegetation were sparse and overall
heterogeneity was very low, yet I caught no bees at any MONO site. These results
more likely indicate that herbaceous ground cover can support many wild insect
pollinators in commercial orchards and that a diverse array of within-orchard
habitat elements may interact with the presence of ground cover to sustain insect
communities in the long-term; however, more sites with similar attributes would
need to be sampled to validate this possibility.
46
Although living ground cover in Australian almond orchards has
historically been considered to have a negative influence on moisture availability,
orchard microclimates and harvest efficiency (Wilkinson 2012), finding a balance
between maintaining understorey vegetation and management efficiency could
have positive implications for overall ecosystem function and productivity.
Ground cover in almond orchards can improve soil quality and biological activity
(Ramos et al. 2010), which is particularly important in arid ecosystems (Whitford
1996), and it can also support important natural control agents for almond pests
like the navel orange worm (Eilers & Klein 2009). There has been very little
research into direct links between permanent living ground cover in commercial
orchards and pollinator richness and abundance; however, my results correlate
with current knowledge of similar study systems. The only directly comparative
study I am aware of found greater wild bee abundance in a weedy section of an
almond orchard in Israel compared to a non-weedy part of the orchard, although
the authors do not provide further details on how vegetation composition differed
between the two sections of orchard (Mandelik & Roll 2009). Studies from other
fruit or nut orchard systems have also shown that ‘natural enemy’ insect
abundance (including wasps) increased as within-orchard plant diversity (cover
crops or weedy ground cover) was enhanced or left to grow unmanaged (Tedders
1983; Horton et al. 2003; Brown 2012). Evidence from European agroecosystems
showed that wild bee abundance in apple orchards responded positively to
increased extent of fallow areas (unmanaged, grassy or weedy) surrounding
orchards (Gruber et al. 2011) and that wasps were more abundant in abandoned
(weedy) orchards than in managed orchards (Steffan-Dewenter & Leschke 2003).
Crop pollinator abundance and diversity within vegetable or seed crop systems
also responds positively to non-crop plant diversity within the field area (e.g.
Jones & Gillett 2005; Gemmill-Herren & Ochieng 2008; Carvalheiro et al. 2011).
Many studies have shown the positive effect of nearby native vegetation
on pollinator richness or abundance in agricultural systems (e.g. Ricketts et al.
2008; Watson et al. 2011; Lentini et al. 2012; Lowenstein et al. 2012), including
in North American almond orchards (Klein et al. 2012). However, very few of
these studies provide comparative analysis of pollinator abundance in native
vegetation relative to abundances within the crop system. A notable exception is
Kehinde & Samways’ (2012) recent study from South Africa, which investigated
47
insect pollinators in organic and conventional vineyards as well as proximate
natural vegetation. They showed higher pollinator abundance in both organic
farms and natural vegetation than in conventional farms. Although their analysis
focussed on the ‘organic vs. conventional’ responses of wild pollinators, the
authors note that organic vineyards contained flowering cover crops, which were
not present in conventional vineyards, and they suggest this may have been the
cause of higher insect abundance in organic vineyards (Kehinde & Samways
2012). It is clear that plant-diverse crop systems harbour higher pollinator
abundance, yet, historically, relevant studies have focused on the correlation of
plant and insect diversity isolated within the crop system itself. Some authors
have hypothesised that ‘weedy’ crop systems (compared to intensive or
monoculture systems) may have enormous conservation potential for local insect
pollinators (Gemmill-Herren & Ochieng 2008; Hyvönen & Huusela-Veistola
2008; Pinke & Pal 2009), but there is scope for further detailed investigation into
how plant-diverse crop systems actually compare to local native vegetation as
suitable pollinator habitat.
In conclusion, maintaining permanent living ground cover as part of
commercial orchard management practices has the potential to support higher
wild pollinator abundance, particularly native bees, which has important
conservation implications and could also supplement pollination services for
pollinator-dependent almond crops. The significance of my findings would be
augmented by further investigation of pollinator visitation rates and pollen
transfer potential. In addition, further research in a variety of orchard systems
would determine whether certain insect pollinator species benefit more from
living ground cover than others. It is also important to consider that a suite of
interrelated environmental variables may be of combined benefit to pollinator
communities, rather than one single variable on its own. There is abundant scope
for further research, in both my study system and other agroecosystems, linking
wild insect pollinator communities with combinations of related environmental
variables (e.g. ground cover presence/diversity and habitat structure) in
agroecosystems. Nonetheless, this study has shown that there is substantial
conservation potential for orchards with permanent ground cover, as unmanaged
potential insect pollinators, especially native bees, were more abundant in plant-
diverse orchards than in native mallee vegetation. Long-term studies in multiple
48
types of plant-diverse orchard systems will be useful for determining whether this
trend could motivate valuable pollinator conservation initiatives within the
orchard industry.
49
Chapter 4: Relationships between wild pollinators in flowering almond
orchards and proximate unmanaged vegetation
Abstract
Resource heterogeneity and connectivity is critical for maintaining diverse
pollinator communities in landscapes dominated by tree crop plantations, which
create large areas of spatial and temporal homogeneity. I collected potential wild
pollinators (native bees, wasps, and flies) in flowering almond orchards within a
heterogeneous (Complex) and homogeneous (Simple) agricultural landscape in
southern Australia. I examined relationships between wild pollinators and
vegetation types immediately surrounding each site, particularly natural
vegetation that provided permanent floral resources. Abundance and richness of
most individual pollinator groups were negatively associated with the proportion
of natural vegetation near sites in the Complex landscape and positively
associated with natural vegetation near sites in the Simple landscape, although the
strength and significance of the relationships varied. In the Simple landscape,
most individuals of the key pollinator taxa (native bees and hoverflies) were
collected in patches of natural vegetation inside the almond plantation, rather than
within blocks of almond trees. These results suggest that wild pollinators visiting
crops in homogeneous landscapes are more dependent on proximity to permanent,
unmanaged resources than wild pollinators using heterogeneous landscapes. More
research is needed into how landscapes dominated by tree crop monocultures
influence biodiversity and the provision of essential ecosystem services.
50
4.1 Introduction
Large-scale intensification of agricultural landscapes severely impacts ecological
processes and farmland biodiversity (Matson et al. 1997; Tilman 1999) and can
have widespread effects on community composition (e.g. Ekroos et al. 2010) and
the provision of ecosystem services (e.g. Marino & Landis 1996). To address
these effects, agricultural landscapes can be managed to increase vegetation
complexity and diversity, which can enhance biodiversity levels and ecosystem
function (Benton et al. 2003; Tscharntke et al. 2005). Vegetation heterogeneity is
particularly important for wild insect pollinators in agricultural landscapes and,
although some pollinators may be attracted to the temporary surplus of flowers in
crop fields (Holzschuh et al. 2013), the long-term establishment of a diverse
pollinator community depends on multiple foraging and nesting sites being
available throughout the year (Kremen et al. 2007). Numerous studies have
examined relationships between pollinator communities and the amount of
particular habitat types within agricultural mosaics, such as semi-natural
grasslands (Öckinger & Smith 2007), natural forest (Garibaldi et al. 2011 and
references therein) or sown wildflower strips around crop fields (Haaland et al.
2010 and references therein) and retention of unfarmed habitat is considered
essential for maintaining diverse pollinator communities around farmland.
However, a matrix that provides multiple types of habitat with different, but
complementary, levels of spatial and/or temporal heterogeneity is often more
important for the long-term establishment of wildlife communities than a single
permanent habitat type (Westrich 1996; Williams & Kremen 2007; Vasseur et al.
2013).
This type of matrix, providing resource heterogeneity and functional
connectivity, is particularly important in landscapes dominated by perennial tree
crop plantations, such as orchard fruits, because most fruit varieties depend on
insect pollination to set fruit (Kevan 1999); therefore, the presence of a diverse
pollinator community during crop flowering can be essential for some growers
(Garibaldi et al. 2013). Yet, unlike arable crop mosaics under short rotation that
can provide temporal heterogeneity in the absence of spatial variation (Vasseur et
al. 2013), tree crop plantations are generally embedded in the landscape for more
than 15 years, creating a comparatively ecologically stable, semi-permanent
51
ecosystem (Tedders 1983; Altieri 1999). If plantations are managed as intensive
monocultures, they create areas of permanent spatial and temporal homogeneity in
the landscape that are inhospitable to pollinators for most of the year (Sheffield et
al. 2008; Marini et al. 2012) and could potentially influence the structure of
invertebrate communities in the long-term (Harding et al. 1998; Tscharntke et al.
2002). Although the conservation value of tree crop agriculture has long been
recognised (Smith 1916; Altieri et al. 1983; Ryszkowski & Kędziora 1987), the
ecological role of tree crop plantations in agricultural landscapes has received less
attention in the scientific literature than annual crops (Hartemink 2005).
Historically, studies of orchard crop systems have focused on within-orchard
management practices to support beneficial ecosystem services like biological
pest control (e.g. Bugg & Waddington 1994; Brown 1999; Horton et al. 2003). To
inform biodiversity conservation and ecological management goals, there is a
need for more studies that investigate how established orchard crop plantations
influence communities of ecosystem service providers through interactions with
the surrounding landscape and ecosystems, particularly local pollinator
communities present during the tree crop’s brief flowering period (sensu Watson
et al. 2011; Marini et al. 2013).
Here, I focus on plantations of almond (Prunus dulcis Mill.) trees in a
semi-arid region of southern Australia. Almond production contributes to more
than half of Australia’s annual nut production and the country is the second-
largest almond producer in the world, with broadacre plantations expanding
across Australia’s major agricultural regions in the last few decades (Wilkinson
2012; Almond Board of Australia 2013). Cultivated almond trees flower
synchronously for 3-4 weeks at the end of winter (Hill et al. 1985) and are totally
dependent on insect pollination to set fruit, yet there is little published information
on wild pollinators of almond flowers in Australia or how communities of these
insects are influenced by almond plantation management (but see Saunders et al.
2013). Over 60 % of Australian commercial plantings are established in the semi-
arid mallee region of northwest Victoria (Almond Board of Australia 2013), an
area of high conservation value (Mallee Catchment Management Authority 2008).
Semi-arid landscapes are naturally dynamic and heterogeneous (Sala &
Lauenroth 1982; Aguiar & Sala 1999), especially in Australia (Ludwig &
Tongway 1995; Morton et al. 1995) where they are being increasingly impacted
52
by agricultural intensification. Yet, despite much discussion of how agricultural
fragmentation impacts natural ecosystems in other parts of Australia (e.g.
Lindenmayer & Hobbs 2004; Haslem & Bennett 2008; Smith et al. 2013), there is
very little published research into how wildlife communities in dynamic,
heterogeneous semi-arid ecosystems like the mallee are influenced by large areas
of homogeneous crop plantations (e.g. Driscoll & Weir 2005; Luck et al. 2013).
This study aims to contribute to some of these knowledge gaps and is part of the
first investigation of potential wild pollinators available to almond crops in
Australia’s main almond growing region, the Victorian Murray Mallee. In this
chapter, I examine whether the abundance and richness of potential wild
pollinators found in almond plantations during flowering are associated with
different vegetation types in immediate proximity to sites. Due to the lack of
ecological information available on my study system, I sampled flowering
orchards in two different types of agricultural landscape (heterogeneous and
homogeneous) and concentrated on documenting patterns of association between
potential wild pollinators collected in flowering orchards and the presence of
unmanaged vegetation immediately surrounding sites. Specifically, I asked two
questions: (i) is pollinator community composition different at sites surrounded
only by crops, compared to sites surrounded by a combination of crops and
unmanaged vegetation? and (ii) is there a relationship between abundance or
richness (species or family) of individual pollinator groups and proximity to either
native mallee vegetation or semi-natural grassland?
4.2 Methods
The study area was located in the Sunraysia agricultural region of northwest
Victoria, Australia (approximately -34.47° to -34.83° S; 142.35° to 142.71° E).
The region is dominated by irrigated horticulture and large remnant areas of
native mallee vegetation. Sampling was conducted over 10 days in late August–
early September 2010 during the brief almond flowering period, which lasts
approximately 2-3 weeks per tree. A total of 72 sites within commercial almond
orchards were sampled in two distinct landscapes. One landscape was a
heterogeneous agricultural mosaic (hereafter ‘Complex’) in which I sampled 27
sites within a landscape diameter of 5.3 km. This landscape was characterised by
53
small blocks of diverse organic and conventional farms (mostly tree fruits and
vineyards) and semi-natural grassland, as well as large patches of natural
vegetation (Figure 1a). The other landscape was a homogeneous landscape
(hereafter ‘Simple’) dominated by broadacre monoculture almond plantations,
large patches of natural vegetation, and occasional smaller patches of semi-natural
grassland or other crops (Figure 1b). I sampled 45 sites in this landscape within a
landscape diameter of 14.6 km. Sites in the Complex landscape were all within
blocks of almond trees and sites in the Simple landscape were located in either
blocks of almond trees or in remnant patches of mallee vegetation within almond
orchard interiors or along orchard boundaries (all patch sites within 15 m of an
almond block). The two landscapes were approximately 36 km apart, and the
minimum distance between any two sites within a landscape was 200 m. Complex
landscape orchards were managed by the same family-owned company and had a
living ground cover of herbaceous vegetation. Simple landscape orchards were
managed by the same corporation and had predominantly bare soil throughout
(see Chapter 3). All orchards were managed without insecticide use.
(a) (b)
Figure 4.1 Representative images showing landscape composition in the (a) Complex (diameter = 5.3 km) and (b) Simple (diameter = 14.6 km) landscapes. Natural vegetation is recognisable as patches of speckled grey, such as the right of image (a) and the bottom left of image (b). In the Complex landscape, crop fields are a diverse array of mostly citrus, avocado, almond, walnut, and table grape vineyards. In the Simple landscape, almond crops cover the bottom half of the circle, as well as the top right corner.
Vegetation types around each site were identified during sampling and the
proportional area of each vegetation type within 100 m of each site was calculated
in ArcMap 10 using spatial data of agricultural land uses in the study region
(SunRISE 21 Inc. 2008). There was no physical overlap in 100 m radii around
54
each site. I focused on a small spatial scale, as mounting evidence suggests that
small-scale attributes related to farm-specific management practices can have
more influence over local insect populations than landscape-scale heterogeneity or
diversity (e.g. Collinge et al. 2006; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al. 2011; Paredes et al.
2013). Pollinators may also travel much shorter distances in agroecosystems when
floral resources are plentiful (Zurbuchen et al. 2010; Lander et al. 2011;
Holzschuh et al. 2013), as they were in my study system. I did not calculate
generalised heterogeneity indices, which often mask the influence of vegetation
structure or resource availability (Cale & Hobbs 1994; Tews et al. 2004); instead,
I documented the proportional availability of specific resources and vegetation
types that were ecologically meaningful to pollinator communities.
4.2.1 Insect sampling and identification
To identify potential wild pollinators in my study system, I focused on individuals
from the taxonomic orders Hymenoptera (non-Apis bees, wasps) and Diptera, as
these taxa are common pollinators in many natural and agricultural systems
(Armstrong 1979; Kevan & Baker 1983; Ssymank et al. 2008). Information on
wild pollinator species in the study region is limited, but wasps and flies are
known to pollinate native flowers in the area (e.g. Ford & Forde 1976; Horskins &
Turner 1999) and individuals of these taxa were seen visiting almond and native
flowers during sampling. I collected potential wild pollinators at each site using
sets of pan traps and design and placement of traps was standardised across all
sites. Each set consisted of one yellow, one white and one blue bowl filled with
water and a drop of detergent to break surface tension. Bowls were made from
white plastic picnic bowls (Woolworths Home Brand) that were either left white
or painted with UV-bright fluorescent yellow or blue paint (White Knight Paints).
Data collected from each coloured bowl per site were pooled for analysis, so the
effect of trap colour is not considered further in this study. Although pan traps
may underestimate the full composition of pollinator insect assemblages, I used
this method to minimise collector bias (Westphal et al. 2008) and I selected trap
colour and placement to increase the chance that the traps would provide
ecologically meaningful results. Yellow and white were the most common flower
colours at sites (in mallee and almond respectively) and blue traps are commonly
55
thought to attract bees, although this colour has not been widely used for native
bees in Australia (see Appendix 1). At each site, the three bowls were placed
together on open ground in a triangular array, adjacent to a flowering tree and
away from fully shaded areas for the duration of the sampling period. Because
many of my target species overwinter or nest in the ground, leaf litter or ground
cover vegetation (Leather et al. 1993), this protocol was designed to ensure
maximum visibility during the late winter sampling time, when many of these
insects would be in the process of emerging or building nests. Each site was
sampled once during the almond flowering period and traps were set out after
sunrise (7.30-9.30 am) and collected before sunset (4.00-6.00 pm) in the sequence
they were set out, so as to capture maximum insect activity during the warmest
part of the day. Insect collection was carried out on days that were fine, calm, and
sunny or partly cloudy with maximum daytime temperatures between 15 and 20°
C. This sampling protocol was not intended to provide a comprehensive survey of
all insect pollinators in this locality; rather, it was designed to provide a
comparative sample of potential wild pollinators across a very large region, in
particular those using almond orchards in different types of mosaic during the
flowering period (Bennett et al. 2006).
Upon collection, insects were stored in 70 % ethanol and counted and
sorted in the laboratory. Native bees were identified to species or subgenus by a
taxonomic expert (K. Walker, Museum Victoria) and I identified wasp and fly
individuals to family level using taxon specific keys (Hamilton et al. 2006;
Stevens et al. 2006). Managed honey bees (Apis mellifera) were present in both
landscapes during sampling, but were not included in the data as the purpose of
this study was to document wild potential pollinator insects available to almond
crops. Wasp and fly individuals were further sorted into small (0-0.49 cm) and
large (>0.5 cm) bodied family groups for analysis, based on the average thorax-
abdomen length of the individuals in each family group. These size categories
were chosen to identify the most likely candidates for almond pollination, based
on the size of an almond blossom (3-5 cm) and position of its stamens; hence,
individuals over 0.5 cm in length were considered more likely to transfer pollen
while visiting blossoms than smaller bodied individuals. The fly family Syrphidae
(hoverflies) was isolated as a separate taxonomic unit from other fly groups, as
this dipteran family is known to be a common pollinator in agroecosystems
56
(Ssymank et al. 2008). All collected native bee and hoverfly individuals were of
the same size class, so each taxon was analysed as a single group.
4.2.2 Data Analysis
Response variables were abundance counts of each insect group (native bee, small
wasp, large wasp, small fly, large fly, hoverfly) and overall species (native bee)
and family (wasp, fly) richness per site (Table 4.1). All data were analysed
untransformed (O’Hara & Kotze 2010). Richness was represented by the bias-
corrected Chao 1 abundance-based estimator. Because of the differences in
orchard management practices and the lack of landscape-scale replication between
the two landscapes (Complex and Simple), I used a non-metric multidimensional
scaling (NMDS) ordination on the entire data set to identify if there was a
difference in pollinator community composition between the two landscapes. Data
were highly aggregated by landscape type (Figure 4.2), and because I was unable
to determine if differences in insect diversity between the two landscapes were
due to specific landscape structural factors rather than management approaches, I
focused on examining relationships within, rather than across, landscapes. Hence,
data were pooled by landscape type (Complex, Simple) for the remaining
analyses.
First, I assessed if overall pollinator community composition differed
between sites surrounded by crops only and sites surrounded by crops and natural
vegetation. I grouped sites based on their floral resource profile, which was
determined by the combination of vegetation types within 100 m of each site:
temporary – only perennial fruit crops with a single brief flowering period each
year; or permanent – crops plus native vegetation or semi-natural grassland. For
each landscape, I used NMDS plots with Bray-Curtis distances to identify
similarity among sites based on their resource profiles. I then used one-way non-
parametric multivariate analysis of variance with Bray-Curtis similarities
(NPMANOVA; Anderson 2001) to test for differences in overall pollinator
community composition between groups of ‘permanent’ and ‘temporary’ sites in
each landscape. I performed this analysis separately for Hymenoptera and Diptera
groups, as previous studies have shown that flies and wasps can respond
57
differently to landscape or floral characteristics (e.g. Jauker et al. 2009; Robson
2013).
Table 4.1 Average abundance and richness of pollinator insect groups per site and average proportion of each vegetation type within 100 m of each site (± SE), in Complex and Simple landscapes. Asterisks signify in which landscape each variable was significantly greater; no asterisk means there was no difference between landscapes.
Complex
(n = 27)
Simple
(n = 45)
Pollinator
abundance
Native bee 2.26 ± 4.2** 0.33 ± 0.9
Large wasp 0.89 ± 1.2* 0.53 ± 1.6
Small wasp 1.93 ± 1.6** 0.58 ± 1.0
Large fly 57.04 ± 79.1** 7.71 ± 7.2
Small fly 29.96 ± 21.3** 4.49 ± 3.0
Hoverfly 0.15 ± 0.4 0.18 ± 0.7
Pollinator
richness
Native bee (species) 1.2 ± 1.4** 0.36 ± 1.0
Wasp (family) 2.89 ± 4.4** 0.86 ± 1.2
Fly (family) 11.43 ± 6.5** 7.36 ± 4.3
Vegetation
Type
Almond 0.66 ± 0.2 0.55 ± 0.4
Mallee 0.09 ± 0.2 0.23 ± 0.3^
Grass 0.08 ± 0.1 0.04 ± 0.1
Grape 0.10 ± 0.2 0.08+
Fruit 0.10 ± 0.1 0
^ p < 0.09; * p = 0.05; ** p < 0.001 + proportion of ‘grape’ for the Simple landscape is based on one site
I then focused on relationships between individual insect groups and the
proportion of native vegetation or semi-natural grassland around each site, as
these were the most undisturbed of the recorded vegetation types and also
represented the most permanent resource availability throughout the year. I
identified the nature of the relationship (positive, negative or neutral) between
richness and abundance of each insect group and each of the two focal vegetation
types using negative binomial generalised linear models (GLMs). Native bee data
from the Simple landscape, and hoverfly abundances from both landscapes, were
not included in these analyses, due to the very low number of individuals caught
in these groups. I did not employ a model selection procedure to rank multiple
58
different models, because the small sample sizes limited the number of parameters
that could be fit to each model and my goal was to identify the nature of the
relationship with the focal vegetation types, rather than to search for potential
relationships among a suite of predictors. Because some sites in the Simple
landscape were located within small mallee vegetation patches inside almond
plantations, I also examined whether the presence of these patches inside the
plantation influenced the overall composition of pollinator assemblages in the
Simple landscape. To do this, I used a bootstrapping procedure to compare the
Shannon diversity indices of Hymenoptera and Diptera families between almond
block sites and within-plantation mallee sites in the Simple landscape. GLMs
were conducted in IBM SPSS 20 (IBM Corporation 2011) and all other analyses
were conducted in PAST 2.17 (Hammer et al. 2001).
Figure 4.2 Overall pollinator community composition in almond orchards located in Complex (black) and Simple (grey) landscapes within the study region. Different symbols denote individual orchards sampled within each landscape. Stress value for the non-metric multidimensional scaling (based on Bray-Curtis similarities) was 0.12, indicating the ordination was a suitable representation of community composition.
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3
59
4.3 Results
4.3.1 Overall landscape and wild pollinator community patterns
The average proportion of almond trees or semi-natural grassland within 100 m of
each site was similar in both Complex and Simple landscapes, but the average
proportion of native mallee vegetation surrounding sites was higher in the Simple
landscape (Table 4.1). Complex landscape sites were surrounded by a small
proportion of other fruit trees and vineyards, but in the Simple landscape there
were no other fruit trees and only one site had grape vines within 100 m (Table
4.1). Across the whole region, I caught a total of 3117 potential wild pollinator
individuals, including 76 native bees, 126 wasps, and 2915 flies (Appendix A2.2).
Average abundance and richness per site of every pollinator group except
hoverflies was highest in the Complex landscape (Table 4.1).
4.3.2 Relationships between wild pollinator communities and site resource
profiles
NMDS ordination of pollinator communities within each landscape showed that
overall pollinator community composition at sites surrounded by ‘temporary’
floral resource profiles (crops only) was very similar to community composition
at sites surrounded by ‘permanent’ resources (crops + natural vegetation) (Figure
4.3). Results of the NPMANOVA tests for differences in the composition of
Hymenoptera and Diptera communities between the two resource profiles
reflected the overall community similarity. In the Complex landscape, there were
no significant differences in community composition between ‘temporary’ and
‘permanent’ sites for either taxonomic group: Diptera, Total Sum of Squares (SS)
= 4.51, Within-group SS = 4.34, F = 1.00, p = 0.36; Hymenoptera, Total SS =
6.58, Within-group SS = 6.35, F = 0.93, p = 0.46 (Figure 4.4a). In the Simple
landscape, there was no significant difference in the composition of Diptera
communities between sites of each resource profile (Total SS = 4.61, Within-
group SS = 4.50, F = 1.08, p = 0.36), but the composition of Hymenoptera
communities showed a difference between groups of sites (Total SS = 15.43,
Within-group SS = 14.55, F = 2.61, p = 0.05) (Figure 4.4b).
60
Figure 4.3 Ordination of pollinator communities at almond sites within (a) Complex and (b) Simple landscapes based on the availability of temporary (perennial fruit crops only) or permanent (crops plus native vegetation and/or semi-natural grassland) resources within 100 m of the site. Stress values for the ordination are Complex = 0.08, Simple = 0.14.
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(a)
Perm
Temp
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(b)
Perm
Temp
61
Figure 4.4. (a) In the Complex landscape, community composition of Hymenoptera (top) and Diptera (bottom) groups was similar between sites surrounded by temporary floral resources and sites surrounded by permanent resources.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Prop
ortio
nal a
bund
ance
(a) SmWasp
LgWas
Bee
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Permanent Temporary
Prop
ortio
nal a
bund
ance
Hov
SmFly
LgFly
62
Figure 4.4. (b) In the Simple landscape, only Diptera (bottom) community composition was similar between sites with permanent and temporary resources.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45Pr
opor
tiona
l abu
ndan
ce(b) SmWasp
LgWasp
Bee
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Permanent Temporary
Prop
ortio
nal a
bund
ance
Hov
SmFly
LgFly
63
4.3.3 Relationships between wild pollinator groups and proximate unmanaged
vegetation
Richness and abundance of individual pollinator groups in each landscape showed
contrasting relationships with the proportion of the two focal vegetation types,
native vegetation or semi-natural grassland, around each site (Table 4.2). In the
Complex landscape, none of the relationships were significant and most pollinator
groups were negatively associated with both vegetation types. The exceptions
were large fly abundance, which had a weak positive relationship with both
vegetation types, and small wasp abundance, which had a weak positive
relationship with semi-natural grassland. In the Simple landscape, small wasp
abundance and richness showed a significant negative association with the
proportion of native vegetation near sites and small wasp abundance and fly
richness were negatively associated with the proportion of grassland around sites.
Richness and abundance of all other groups were positively associated with native
vegetation and grassland, but the only significant relationships were between fly
richness and native vegetation and large wasp abundance and grassland.
In the Simple landscape, 88% of hoverflies (7 out of 8 individuals) and all native
bees were collected within mallee patches inside almond orchards, rather than
within blocks of almond trees (Figure 4.5). Diptera family diversity was higher in
the mallee patches inside almond orchards (H = 2.25) than in almond block sites
(H = 1.99; p = 0.02) but there was no difference in Hymenoptera family diversity
between the two site types (mallee H = 1.47, almond H = 1.67, p = 0.37).
64
Table 4.2 Relationships between pollinator groups and the proportion of unmanaged vegetation within 100 m of each site (parameter estimates with standard error in parentheses). Chi-square goodness-of-fit test (χ2) indicates whether the model is a better fit to the data than the constant-only model. Landscape Response NV χ2 GS χ2
Complex A Bee -0.34 (0.53) 0.53 -0.15 (0.47) 0.11
Lge wasp -2.84 (2.23) 2.71 -0.23 (1.10) 0.04
Sml wasp -1.38 (1.13) 1.94 0.03 (0.89) 0.001
Lge fly 0.01 (0.01) 0.13 0.02 (0.01) 1.65
Sml fly -0.13 (0.10) 2.38 -0.02 (0.07) 0.07
R Bee -0.72 (1.29) 0.37 -1.22 (1.59) 0.71
Wasp -0.53 (0.58) 1.15 -1.57 (1.20) 2.96*
Fly -0.15 (0.26) 0.37 -0.46 (0.52) 1.04
Simple A Lge wasp 1.10 (1.50) 0.57 7.50 (3.97)* 3.78**
Sml wasp -1.86 (1.02)* 3.63** -5.97 (4.37) 2.50
Lge fly 0.10 (0.44) 0.05 1.53 (1.15) 1.90
Sml fly 0.63 (0.40) 2.42 0.99 (1.20) 0.68
R Wasp 0.10 (0.71) 0.02 0.21 (2.25) 0.01
Fly 0.82 (0.42)** 3.58* -1.06 (1.94) 0.29
*p < 0.09; **p = 0.05 NV = native vegetation; GS = semi-natural grassland
Figure 4.5 Abundance of each pollinator group in Simple landscape almond blocks (grey) and native mallee vegetation patches inside orchards (black), as a proportion of the total abundance collected across all sites in the Simple landscape (n = 45).
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Bee Large Wasp Small Wasp Hoverfly Small Fly Large Fly
Prop
ortio
nal a
bund
ance
Almond Block Mallee Patch
65
4.4 Discussion
All pollinator groups, except hoverflies, had higher average abundance and
richness in Complex landscape orchards than Simple landscape orchards. This
result was likely influenced by the different orchard floor management practices
in orchards of each landscape type (Chapter 3) as well as the overall structural
differences between the two landscape types. I was not able to separate the
relative influence of these factors on the pattern seen here; however, weedy
ground cover in crop fields and orchards is often considered to be an important
component of landscape complexity (Roschewitz et al. 2005; Pal et al. 2013;
Paredes et al. 2013). Similar differences in pollinator assemblages have been
found in other studies comparing pollinators between simple and complex
agricultural landscapes (e.g. Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2001; Haenke et al. 2009;
Concepción et al. 2012; Persson & Smith 2013) and further sampling across my
study region would enable a more robust comparison between these two
landscape types.
4.4.1 Complex landscape
None of the potential wild pollinator groups in Complex landscape almond
orchards showed significant relationships with the vegetation types surrounding
sites. This could have been a result of the small sample size, or it could indicate
that environmental factors other than these attributes were having greater
influence over pollinator communities. Large flies were the only pollinator group
that were more abundant at sites located near native vegetation or semi-natural
grassland (Figure 4.4a), although this result was largely driven by the extremely
high abundance of the most common fly family, Tachinidae, at a few sites that
were surrounded by more established grassy/weedy ground cover compared to
other sites. This concurs with other studies that have found a strong association
between increased tachinid abundance and perennial or weedy vegetation cover in
farmland (e.g. Abate 1991; Letourneau et al. 2012). Examination of the raw data
showed that abundance and richness of bees and wasps were generally higher at
sites that were only surrounded by temporary resources, i.e. almond, citrus,
avocado trees and table grape vines. This reflected the negative relationships I
66
identified between individual pollinator groups and the proportion of unmanaged
habitats (native vegetation and semi-natural grassland) surrounding sites. Some of
the other fruit crops were flowering during sampling (although not as abundantly
as almond trees), but diverse native floral resources were also available in native
vegetation. These results suggest that hymenopteran pollinators may have been
more attracted to the abundant and diverse floral resources available in the
Complex landscape farrmland, compared to the patchy flowers available in mallee
vegetation, and other studies have also found bee communities to have a stronger
positive association with flowering crop landscapes than with nearby natural or
semi-natural vegetation (e.g. Westphal et al. 2003; Winfree et al. 2008). Most fruit
crops flower in late winter-early spring when wild pollinator species are still
emerging or in their reproductive stage, so agricultural landscapes dominated by
these mass-flowering crop varieties may have a greater opportunity to support the
resource needs of pollinators during this time (Westphal et al. 2009; Jauker et al.
2012). However, functional connectivity of complementary resources within the
matrix around crop fields is also necessary to sustain beneficial insect
communities in the long-term (Jules & Shahani 2003; Williams & Kremen 2007)
and further sampling of sites in the Complex landscape across larger spatial and
temporal scales would provide more information on how wild pollinators use the
heterogeneous landscape around almond orchards after almond trees cease
flowering.
4.4.2 Simple landscape
In the Simple landscape, most pollinator groups showed positive relationships
with the two unmanaged vegetation types, native mallee vegetation or semi-
natural grassland, surrounding sites. Small wasp abundance had a negative
relationship with both these vegetation types, but both unmanaged vegetation
types were negatively correlated with the proportion of almond trees around sites
in the Simple landscape (almond/mallee, r = -0.95, p < 0.001; almond/grassland, r
= -0.55, p < 0.001), so the negative relationship seen here was most likely a
reflection of the high small wasp abundances collected at interior almond sites
more than 100 m from unmanaged vegetation. This result is surprising, due to the
very low plant diversity and structural complexity throughout orchards, which
67
wasps are often strongly associated with (Stephens et al. 2006; Arnan et al. 2011;
Batista Matos et al. 2013). My results could have been influenced by placing pan
traps at ground level, as samples could have been dominated by wasp species that
inhabit leaf litter around tree bases, many of which are small parasitic species
(Austin et al. 2005; Pucci 2008); however, the most common parasitic family
groups I collected (e.g. Diapriidae, Pteromalidae) were more abundant inside
almond orchards than in the within-orchard mallee patches, despite identical
sampling protocols, indicating that these species might prefer the resources
available in almond blocks. These species are unlikely to be useful for almond
blossom pollination, due to their small body size, but they could be important
post-pollination control agents for almond pests (Freeman Long et al. 1998; Eilers
& Klein 2009) and there is scope for further investigation into the distribution of
these wasps in Australian orchards. The relationship between large wasp
abundance and the proportion of semi-natural grassland around sites was the
strongest significant relationship identified in the Simple landscape. Some large
wasp species may use grassland areas for nesting, and other studies have also
found positive relationships between wasp assemblages and areas of grassland
(e.g. Krewenka et al. 2011). However, in my study the majority of sites within
100 m of grassland were also sites located in remnant mallee patches within
plantations and more sampling is necessary to isolate the relative influence of
these two vegetation types.
Interestingly, all bee individuals and all but one hoverfly individual caught
in the Simple landscape were collected within the mallee patches inside orchard
boundaries, rather than in almond blocks themselves. This shows that these key
wild pollinator taxa are present in the landscape, but environmental factors within
the plantations could be limiting their dispersal into the homogeneous interiors. It
is possible that catches of potential pollinators within orchards were low because
the abundant floral resources diminished the effectiveness of the pan traps (Baum
& Wallen 2011); however, the sampling method used in the Simple landscape was
identical to that used in the Complex landscapes, where numerous individuals
were caught within almond blocks, so the low pollinator abundance inside
monoculture plantations was more likely to be influenced by habitat attributes
common to these plantations. Although some studies have found pollinator
abundance to increase in mass-flowering monoculture crop fields, most of these
68
study systems were ground-level or mid-height crops like canola or arable
crops/pasture (e.g. Westphal et al. 2003; Jauker et al. 2009; Holzschuh et al.
2013). In contrast, studies of wild pollinators in intensively-managed tree crops
have found lower pollinator abundance or richness in homogeneous orchard
interiors (e.g. Klein et al. 2012; Marini et al. 2012). Many pollinator species often
prefer to forage in open areas dominated by early successional vegetation
(Kremen et al. 2007; Robinson & Lundholm 2012) and this could explain why
pollinators respond positively to field crop monocultures and negatively to tree
monocultures. Hoverflies and wild bees can also show strong positive
relationships with natural or unmanaged vegetation in intensively-managed
monoculture agriculture landscapes because resource richness is relative to the
local context; therefore, natural vegetation in homogeneous landscapes functions
as resource-rich patches that provide a more obvious contrast with adjacent
broadacre monoculture crop fields than they would with the crop diversity present
in heterogeneous landscapes (Kohler et al. 2008; Haenke et al. 2009). In
particular, Kohler et al. (2008) found that wild bees may not move more than 25-
50 m from favourable habitat patches if the surrounding matrix does not provide
necessary resources. Hence, the establishment of natural vegetation ‘reservoirs’
within farm boundaries to support pollinator communities (Brosi et al. 2008) may
not have much success in increasing the provision of essential unmanaged
pollination services if the farm itself remains an inhospitable environment to
pollinators.
4.4.3 Conclusions and management implications
The results presented here suggest that more intensive management across
agricultural landscapes increases the need for unmanaged habitats providing
resource refuges for potential wild pollinators and other beneficial insects. This
study was limited by the number of suitable replicate orchards available in the
study region, and by the short sampling time, but the findings agree with other
studies that have found patch-scale attributes, like farm management intensity and
proximity of suitable resources, influence within-field pollinator communities
with greater magnitude in homogeneous landscapes compared to complex,
heterogeneous landscapes (e.g. Kleijn & van Langevelde 2006; Kohler et al. 2008;
69
Rundlöf et al. 2008; Persson & Smith 2013). Similar studies of tree fruit crops
have found that generalist wild pollinators are often frequent visitors to orchards
in the United States and Europe, but their presence is mostly limited to parts of the
orchard with proximity to natural or semi-natural habitat patches that can sustain
insect resource needs before and after orchard trees are in flower (Watson et al.
2011; Klein et al. 2012; Marini et al. 2012). Thus, agricultural landscapes
dominated by tree crop plantations have the potential to support diverse wild
pollinator assemblages, but less intensive management practices adopted at the
landscape or regional scale are necessary to provide permanent spatial and
temporary resources that are essential for wild pollinator communities to persist
(Williams & Kremen 2007; Holzschuh et al. 2008). These findings have
implications for conservation and agricultural production. Irrigated agricultural
areas in arid landscapes, like the almond plantations in my study system, have the
ability to support diverse wild insect communities, potentially providing essential
resources during extended dry periods. However, intensive management of these
areas reduces their conservation potential, as many wild pollinators and other
beneficial insects may be unable to persist inside monoculture fields and orchards.
This could affect the long-term composition of local insect assemblages and,
therefore, the availability of insects that provide essential pollination services to
pollinator-dependent crops and native flowering plants. Functional diversity has
more influence over community assembly and ecosystem functions than
abundance or richness of a particular species group (Mayfield et al. 2010; Cadotte
et al. 2011; Lavorel et al. 2011); hence, studies like mine that focus on functional
groups of beneficial insects in broadacre monoculture landscapes, rather than only
commonly-recognised taxa like wild bees, are necessary to identify how structural
homogeneity in agroecosystems can influence the provision of ecosystem
services.
70
71
Chapter 5: The influence of a semi-arid woodland—almond plantation edge
on wild pollinator communities
Abstract
Agricultural landscape elements, such as field edges, are not always a barrier to
insect movement but can influence their distribution and dispersal behaviour. I
investigated spatial and temporal patterns in wild pollinator (fly, wasp and native
bee) distribution across an ecotone between natural mallee woodland and
monoculture almond plantations in southern Australia, during the critical almond
flowering period. This is the first study of variation in pollinator community
distribution on both sides of the habitat boundary between natural woodlands and
flowering tree crop plantations. I also use SHE analysis (species richness,
diversity and evenness) to identify how the edge influenced pollinator community
structure across the flowering season. I show that the spatial distribution and
structure of pollinator communities can vary across a habitat boundary with
temporal changes in resources. The physical habitat boundary was not a barrier to
wild pollinators, but appeared to be influencing their movement into plantation
interiors. Results suggest that pollinator communities were more likely influenced
by vegetation heterogeneity and phenological changes in resources, than by the
physical presence of the edge. My findings contribute to knowledge of edge
responses by insects in managed landscapes and may also encourage the adoption
of ecological management practices in commercial plantations of pollinator-
dependent crops.
*This chapter has been published as Saunders ME, Luck GW (2014) Spatial and
temporal variation in pollinator community structure relative to a woodland—
almond plantation boundary. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, doi:
10.1111/afe.12067.
72
5.1 Introduction
Wild insect pollinators are keystone organisms and, globally, are being
increasingly affected by the intensification of agriculture and the modification of
natural habitats and landscapes (Winfree et al. 2011; Wratten et al. 2012).
Landscape structure strongly moderates biodiversity patterns and ecological
processes (Tscharntke et al. 2012) and boundaries between farmland and natural
vegetation can be dynamic ecosystems themselves, influencing insect populations
and trophic interactions across time and space (Hunter 2002). The terms
‘boundary’, ‘ecotone’, and ‘edge’ may be defined in different ways (van der
Maarel 1990; Cadenasso et al. 2003; Yarrow & Marín 2007); in this paper, I use
the terms ‘boundary’ or ‘edge’ to refer to a physical point of change between two
adjacent vegetation types, and the term ‘ecotone’ to refer to a diffuse zone
surrounding the boundary on both sides, where the potential for ecological
influence from edge processes exists. Anthropogenically-created edges can have
different dynamics to natural edges – they have a sharp gradient, little or no
transition zone between the plant communities sharing the edge (Farina 1998),
and are regularly influenced by human activities (Dutoit et al. 2007; José-María et
al. 2010). These types of edges are characteristic of agroecosystems, where each
field, paddock or plantation is often delineated by fence lines or roadways, and
they are becoming more common worldwide as intensively cultivated landscapes
expand (Blitzer et al. 2012). Therefore, understanding how wild pollinators are
influenced by physical boundaries in agroecosystems contributes valuable
information to pollinator conservation programs and the ecological management
of agroecosystems.
Although anthropogenic edges in agroecosystems can affect the movement
of birds and mammals (e.g. Yahner 1988; Luck et al. 1999; King et al. 2011), they
may not always be a physical barrier to insect movement (Forman & Godron
1986). However, they can still affect insect life cycles, ecological interactions,
and, ultimately, the distribution and dispersal of insect communities across the
landscape (Fagan et al. 1999; Haslett 2001; Hunter 2002). Many studies that have
investigated wild pollinators near natural/agricultural boundaries have focused on
pollinator communities within particular crops, and therefore have only sampled
on the farmland side of the boundary (e.g. Chacoff & Aizen 2006; Jauker et al.
73
2009; Carvalheiro et al. 2010). However, the ecological effects of edges are not
one-sided and, because ecological processes in the surrounding matrix can
influence edge responses in conjunction with processes occurring in the focal
patch, ‘two-sided’ sampling provides a more rigorous estimate of how an edge
might influence adjacent ecosystems (Ries et al. 2004; Ewers & Didham 2006;
Fonseca & Joner 2007). Many insects found in farmland will travel there, often
temporarily, from nearby native vegetation (Blitzer et al. 2012) and, as in some
natural ecosystems, may rarely be confined to one side of a landscape boundary
(Dangerfield et al. 2003). More studies that specifically quantify insect abundance
or diversity on both sides of farmland/natural vegetation edges will improve
understanding of how these edge types influence insect communities (sensu
Forister 2009; Campbell et al. 2011; Lucey & Hill 2012).
Empirical studies of natural edges suggest that a species' edge response is
often related to the specific ecological and landscape context (Campbell et al.
2011; Macfadyen & Muller 2013). Insect movements at boundaries may be
influenced by patch size or shape (With & Pavuk 2011), boundary permeability or
complexity (Haslett 2001; Stasek et al. 2008), or an interaction between these
variables (Collinge & Palmer 2002), and different insect taxa can show
contrasting responses to the same edge (Olson & Andow 2008; Pryke & Samways
2012). For example, Jauker et al. (2009) found that wild bee abundance declined
while hoverfly abundance increased along field margins as the distance to natural
habitat increased, because of the differences in dispersal behaviour and resource
requirements between the two taxa. Individual species responses ultimately affect
community composition at the edge, although very few studies have considered
community-level responses to habitat edges (Ries et al. 2004; Pryke & Samways
2012).
Spatial patterns are often linked to temporal variation within the system,
although these relationships are also contextual (Preston 1960; MacArthur &
Wilson 1963; Adler & Lauenroth 2003; Soininen 2010). The interaction between
spatial and temporal variation of species distributions is especially pertinent when
considering ecosystem service provision in agroecosystems (Kremen 2005;
Bianchi et al. 2010; Holland et al. 2011), where temporal changes in relevant
farmland attributes, such as floral resources, often happen abruptly and with
greater magnitude than in natural ecosystems. For example, floral resources in a
74
large monoculture crop field will be spatially homogeneous, available only for a
very short time period, and saturate a large area of land, compared to a natural
ecosystem that may support diverse and patchy floral resources throughout the
year with constant spatial variation of flower location. Transient, large-scale
mass-flowering events common to farmland have the potential to lure wild
pollinators away from natural habitats (the ‘Circe Principle’, Bartomeus &
Winfree 2011; Lander et al. 2011) and this can have negative impacts on native
plant pollination as well as insect reproduction, especially for those species that
rely on permanent, abundant floral resources (Westphal et al. 2009; Holzschuh et
al. 2011). Thus, examining the distribution patterns of ecosystem service
providers (e.g. pollinators) in agroecosystems will benefit from considering both
spatial and temporal variation of species patterns, especially in relation to the
relevant life-stage of the crop (e.g. flowering period; sensu Mesa et al. 2013;
Peters et al. 2013).
Here, I investigate spatial and temporal patterns of wild pollinator
abundance and diversity across an ecotone between two vegetation types in
southern Australia: natural mallee woodland and monoculture almond plantations
(Prunus dulcis, Mill.). Almond is a 100 % pollinator-dependent crop, yet there is
currently no available information on potential wild pollinators available to
almond crops in Australia (but see Saunders et al. 2013). I did not quantify
pollination efficiency in this study, but I use the term 'pollinator' to refer to insects
in the orders Hymenoptera and Diptera to maintain consistency with the
pollination literature. Wasps and flies are important but understudied pollinators
in a number of natural and agricultural systems (Kevan & Baker 1983; Larson et
al. 2001; Ssymank et al. 2008), particularly in Australia (Armstrong 1979;
Pickering & Stock 2003) and individuals of these orders were seen visiting
flowers during sampling. Because of the limited information on pollinator taxa in
my study system, I focus on documenting spatial and temporal patterns to initiate
future research and hypothesis generation (e.g. exploring the drivers behind these
patterns), as these patterns are fundamental to understanding ecological processes
and ecosystem function (Turner 1989; Levin 1992). I also use SHE analysis
(Buzas & Hayek 1996) to examine how the habitat edge influenced pollinator
communities by identifying changes in community structure along the physical
75
woodland—plantation gradient and comparing these taxonomic boundaries with
the location of the habitat boundary.
5.2 Methods
5.2.1 Study area and sampling
The study area is located in the Victorian Murray Mallee Bioregion, in the
neighbouring districts of Wemen and Liparoo, northwest Victoria, Australia (34°
S 142° E). The Murray Mallee Bioregion is semi-arid and average annual rainfall
in the study area is approximately 315 mm (Bureau of Meteorology 2013).
Vegetation is dominated by Eucalyptus, Acacia, Callitris and Casuarina short
trees (approx. 3-12 m) and tall shrubs, while the understorey is highly variable,
with patchy ground cover vegetation typically including hummocks of Triodia,
halophytic plants, and a range of herbs and annual species (Wood 1929; Cheal &
Parkes 1989).
I sampled within two conventional monoculture almond plantations
(Liparoo, Wemen) and two mallee woodlands. To minimise the effects of
different edge orientations or contrasts (Ries et al. 2004) I chose plantations in the
same geographical region with large patches of adjacent native mallee vegetation
that had similar orientation and structure (Figure 5.1). Both mallee—almond
boundaries were aligned east-west, with mallee vegetation on the southern side of
the edge and almond plantation on the northern side, and both were delineated by
a fence line and a two lane road approximately 5 m wide (an unpaved farm road at
Liparoo and a paved municipal road at Wemen). Liparoo is adjacent to the
Annuello Flora and Fauna Reserve (hereafter Annuello) and Wemen is adjacent to
an unnamed patch of remnant mallee vegetation (hereafter Collins). Both
plantations are broadacre monocultures, intensively managed by the same
company, using the same practices. The linear distance between the two
plantations is approximately 7.5 km. Plantations differed in their age and size, and
mallee patches differed in their size and management history (Appendix 4 Table
A4.1).
76
Figure 5.1 The study area in northwest Victoria, Australia, showing the sampled mallee/almond edges at Liparoo (left) and Wemen (right) plantations – mallee vegetation patches are on the south side of each edge and almond plantations are on the north side of the edge.
Insects were collected on three occasions in 2011, coinciding with the flowering
of the almond crop in late winter – before (July), during (August) and after
(September) almond flowering, which lasts approximately 3-4 weeks. July is
typically the coldest month of the year in my study region, and deciduous almond
trees were completely bare at this time (Figure 5.2). Almond flowering occurred
across the entire plantation in August, with each tree still predominantly leafless,
but completely covered in blossom (approx. 50,000 individual flowers per tree).
In September, the first month of spring, the majority of almond blossoms had
dropped and trees were fully leaved. In mallee woodlands, phenological changes
were much less obvious, with evergreen plants and trees and diverse, patchy floral
resources available in all months (Figure 5.2). Hence, I present a novel assessment
of temporal changes in pollinator communities across a mallee—almond ecotone,
in the context of a very brief, but substantial, resource pulse with the potential to
77
influence pollinator distribution, i.e. landscape-scale mass-flowering of
monoculture almond plantations.
Figure 5.2 Representative photographs of (top left) almond plantations in July; (top right) plantations in August; (bottom left) plantations in September; (bottom right) mallee woodlands.
Ries et al. (2004) suggested that the depth of an edge's influence on invertebrates
can be up to 100 m; hence, we considered 300 m from the edge to be an
acceptable distance for interior sites, given average pollinator foraging ranges,
which can be highly variable among taxa and under different environmental
conditions (Nielsen et al. 2012; Essenberg 2013; Jha & Kremen 2013). Non-Apis
bees also exhibit small-scale responses to floral resources, especially when
resources are at higher densities (Greenleaf et al. 2007; Jha & Vandermeer 2009;
Essenberg 2013). To account for this, I sampled more sites in plantations than in
mallee woodlands, because we predicted that changes in pollinator communities
might occur more rapidly on the almond side of the edge. On each sampling
occasion, I sampled 50 almond sites (25 in each plantation) and 18 mallee sites
(nine in each mallee patch) along parallel transects perpendicular to the edge. The
number and location of transects were chosen a priori from satellite maps and
were limited by access and cadastral boundaries. Sites were located at 10 m
(edge), 40 m (intermediate) and 300 m (interior) on both sides of the edge. On the
plantation side of the edge only, I sampled additional intermediate distance classes
78
at 70 m and 100 m. Thus, each plantation transect consisted of five sites and each
woodland transect consisted of three sites. All transects were at least 200 m apart
and the transect was considered the replicate in time and space.
Pan traps may underestimate some taxa, but I used this method to
minimise collector bias that can arise from other direct sampling methods
(Westphal et al. 2008; Popic et al. 2013) and designed bowl colour and placement
to increase the likelihood that data would be ecologically meaningful (see
Appendix 1). I used UV-bright yellow and white bowls, as white was the
predominant flower colour in plantations and yellow the most common in
woodlands. Because of the winter sampling time, traps at each site were open for
8-10 hours in each month to capture maximum insect activity during the warmest
part of the day. Traps were placed on the ground next to a flowering tree for
maximum visibility and were set just after sunrise and collected just before
nightfall in the order they were placed. Insects were stored in 70% ethanol and
transported to the laboratory, where they were counted and sorted into taxonomic
order (Diptera (flies) and Hymenoptera (native bees and wasps)). I identified
native bees to species (where possible, although most Lasioglossum individuals
could only be classified to subgenus) and flies and wasps to family level using
specialised identification keys (Hamilton et al. 2006; Stevens et al. 2007) along
with a reference collection provided by a taxonomic expert (K. Walker, Museum
Victoria).
5.2.2 Data analysis
I analysed differences in monthly pollinator abundance and richness between
vegetation types, and compared how insect community structure changed relative
to the edge. The insect abundance data were overdispersed ecological counts and
were analysed untransformed, as recommended for these type of data (McArdle &
Anderson 2004; O’Hara & Kotze 2010; Warton & Hui 2011). All statistical
analyses were conducted in PAST 2.17 (Hammer et al. 2001) using raw
abundance counts, a species richness index (hereafter simply 'richness'), or other
diversity measures as described below. I calculated richness with the Menhinick
index, which takes the number of individuals per species into account and is
robust to unequal sample sizes (Menhinick 1964). Analyses on the native bee data
79
were conducted on September counts only as I caught zero individuals in July and
4 individuals in August.
I first looked at overall distribution patterns of potential wild pollinators
across the whole study area, regardless of month, and then examined spatial and
temporal trends in more detail, specifically how monthly populations changed in
each vegetation type and how spatial distribution changed across time. To
examine overall distribution patterns relative to the sampled distance gradient, I
compared community similarity between distance classes, as this approach is
recommended for comparing site diversity relative to a distance gradient
(Tuomisto & Ruokolainen 2006; Soininen 2010). I calculated average Bray-Curtis
similarity coefficients for overall community similarity (total Diptera and total
Hymenoptera) at each possible pair of distance classes, using all combinations of
individual sites. I used linear regression (ordinary least squares) to test whether
community similarity declined as geographic distance between distance classes
increased along the transect (the 'distance-decay' phenomenon; Nekola & White
1999; Soininen 2010). The fit of the model was verified by examining residuals
for autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity. I then tested whether heterogeneity of
vegetation type contributed to heterogeneity of pollinator communities by
grouping similarity coefficients based on the three possible combinations of
vegetation pairs (mallee/mallee, almond/almond, and mallee/almond) and
comparing the mean similarity between each group using a standard t-test. I then
examined monthly turnover in abundance and richness of each pollinator group
per site, relative to the distance gradient. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to
look for significant differences in fly and wasp richness and abundance between
sequential months (July-August, August-September) at each distance class, within
each vegetation type (native bees were not included in this analysis because nearly
all individuals were caught in September).
To identify whether the physical edge was influencing pollinator
community composition, I separated data from each woodland/plantation pair
(Annuello—Liparoo and Collins—Wemen) to account for differences in patch
area (see Appendix 4 Table A4.1). I tested whether changes in Hymenoptera and
Diptera community composition along each ecotone gradient coincided with the
physical boundary between vegetation types using SHE analysis (Buzas & Hayek
1996; Hayek & Buzas 1997). Interior (300 m) mallee sites were designated as the
80
starting point of the ecotone, under the assumption that mallee woodland was the
'source' habitat for native insects in the study area, and I quantified the gradient as
follows: -300 m, -40 m, -10 m, 10 m, 40 m, 70 m, 100 m, 300 m, with negative
values indicating mallee woodland sites and positive values indicating almond
plantation sites.
I analysed bees and wasps separately because exploratory analysis showed
that the presence of an extreme outlier at one distance class in the bee data skewed
the analysis and masked the patterns in the wasp data set. SHE analysis examines
the relationship between three core measures of biodiversity, species richness (S),
diversity (H) and species evenness (E) as they accumulate through quadrats,
transects or time. Mathematically, this technique is similar to other methods for
analysing species richness, such as species accumulation curves (Buzas & Hayek
1996; Buzas & Hayek 1998); hence, it can also be applied to assemblages
identified to higher taxonomic levels, e.g. genus or family (Gotelli & Colwell
2011). SHE analysis has two main applications: as an investigation of the
diversity and underlying distribution of the sample population (Buzas & Hayek
1996; Magurran 2004); and as a robust measure for analysing zonation in
community structure along a spatial or temporal gradient (Buzas & Hayek 1998;
Osterman et al. 2002; Magurran 2004). SHE analysis has been used mainly in the
analysis of marine foraminiferal assemblages and palaeo-communities (e.g. Buzas
& Hayek 1998; Osterman et al. 2002), but has also been applied to a range of
terrestrial systems (e.g. Small & McCarthy 2002; Leponce et al. 2004; Parra-H &
Nates-Parra 2012). Because the analysis follows the sampled spatial or temporal
gradient in a sequential fashion, rather than analysing pairwise comparisons
between all pairs of samples, it is recommended for identifying boundaries within
faunal communities over ordination or clustering techniques (Osterman et al.
2002), which can mask the data's true complexity, overlook important
environmental or temporal relationships and confound dispersion and location
effects in the data (Osterman et al. 2002; Warton 2008; Warton et al. 2012).
SHE analysis assumes that a single 'closed-system' community has a log-
series distribution (Buzas & Hayek 2005), for which a plot of lnE vs lnN should
exhibit a decreasing linear trend (Buzas & Hayek 1998). Where the line departs
from this trend, a statistically significant change in the faunal assemblage has
occurred and the communities on either side of the break point can be assumed to
81
be separated in time or space, whichever is the focus of the sampled gradient
(Buzas & Hayek 1998; Osterman et al. 2002; Wilson 2008). I calculated S, H and
E for accumulated abundances (N) in each sequential sample along each ecotone
gradient (600 m), and plotted lnE vs lnN for the entire transect (following Buzas
& Hayek 1998). I examined the initial lnE vs lnN plot, and when a break in the
linear trend occurred, the samples up to and including the break point were
discarded and lnE vs lnN for the remaining samples was replotted. This process
continued until all samples were accounted for. The resulting wasp, fly, and bee
'abundance zones' were then compared with the distance classes along the
physical mallee—almond ecotone gradient.
5.3 Results
5.3.1 General patterns
I caught a total of 2394 fly individuals in 20 family groups, 336 wasp individuals
in 23 families, and 171 non-Apis bee individuals in 2 genera (Lasioglossum
(Chilalictus) and Homalictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae)) across the whole
sampling period (Appendix 2 Table A2.3). Per trap site, average bee abundance
was highest at Annuello (mean 8 ± 13.3), average wasp abundance was highest at
Collins (mean 8.4 ± 10.04) and average fly abundance was highest at Wemen
(mean 21.42 ± 43.02). Average fly richness was highest at Annuello (mean 1.92 ±
0.73), and average wasp (mean 1 ± 0.54) and bee (mean 0.65 ± 0.5) richness were
highest at Collins. Five Hymenoptera families (Halictidae, Ichneumonidae,
Mymaridae, Pteromalidae, Scelionidae) and seven Diptera families
(Calliphoridae, Chironomidae, Chloropidae, Dolichopodidae, Heleomyzidae,
Phoridae, Tachinidae) were collected at every distance class along the ecotone
(Appendix 4 Table A4.2).
5.3.2 Distance decay and monthly turnover
Pollinator community similarity between sites declined significantly as the
distance between them increased, but the slope of the regression was very weak
(Figure 5.3). Heterogeneity of vegetation types influenced community similarity
82
between sites. On average, almond/almond site pairs had higher community
similarity (mean 0.75 ± 0.14) than either almond/mallee (mean 0.69 ± 0.18; F =
1.59, t = 7.25, p < 0.001) or mallee/mallee site pairs (mean 0.69 ± 0.17; F = 1.53, t
= -3.45, p < 0.001). Similarity between mallee/mallee site pairs was not different
to almond/mallee site pairs (F = 1.04, t = -0.25, p = 0.8) (Figure 5.4).
Figure 5.3 Distance-decay graph showing the decline in pollinator community similarity with linear distance between sites along the 600 m mallee—almond ecotone.
Average bee and wasp abundance and richness increased gradually across the
sampling period, except for wasp richness in mallee woodland, which declined
slightly in August before another increase in September. Average fly abundance
increased each month in almond plantations, but fly abundance in mallee and fly
richness in both vegetation types peaked in August and declined again September.
Fly and wasp richness and abundance along the mallee section of the ecotone did
not change significantly between months (Figure 5.5). On the plantation side of
the boundary, there were no significant increases in wasp richness and abundance
from July-August at any distance class, but both richness and abundance increased
r² = 0.3945, similarity = -0.0002(distance) + 0.74370.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Bra
y-C
urtis
sim
ilarit
y
Distance (m)
83
significantly from August to September at 10 m, 70 m and 300 m (Figure 5.5a).
Fly abundance at all distance classes in almond and richness at 10 m, 100 m and
300 m increased significantly from July to August and then remained similar from
August to September (Figure 5.5b).
5.3.3 Influence of the edge
The SHE analysis identified changes in community structure (community zones)
relative to the physical distance gradient. At Collins—Wemen, there were three
distinct community zones, while only two were apparent at Annuello-Liparoo
(Table 5.1). Wasp and fly community composition at Collins—Wemen changed at
the boundary in August and September, and then again around 100 m inside the
plantation, while the native bee community changed on the mallee side of the
boundary in September (between 40 and 10 m). In July, wasp community
composition in the Collins (mallee) interior remained similar across the boundary
and into Wemen (almond), changing between 70 and 100 m inside the plantation,
and fly community boundaries were identified between 10 and 40 m and after 100
m on the almond side. At Annuello—Liparoo, wasp and fly communities also
changed near the physical boundary in September, while native bee communities
changed structure further inside the plantation (between 40 and 70 m). In July and
August, wasp and fly community boundaries were identified on the almond side
of the edge. Wasp zones changed between 70 and 100 m inside the plantation in
both months, and fly zones changed around 40 m inside the plantation (Table 5.1).
84
Figure 5.4 Mean (± SD) pollinator community similarity (Bray-Curtis) between site pairs of each combination of vegetation type. Lower-case letters above bars indicate whether each group of site pairs was significantly different from other groups (p < 0.01).
a b a
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Mallee-Mallee Almond-Almond Almond-Mallee
Aver
age
polli
nato
r com
mun
ity s
imila
rity
85
Figure 5.5 (a) Monthly average wasp abundance and richness at each distance along the ecotone throughout the sampling period (July-September). Asterisks indicate a significant increase/decrease from the previous month (p < 0.05).
* *
*
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Aver
age
abun
danc
e
(a) Jul
Aug
Sep
* *
*
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
-300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
Aver
age
richn
ess
Distance along ecotone (m)
86
Figure 5.5 (b) Monthly average fly abundance and richness at each distance along the ecotone throughout the sampling period (July-September). Asterisks indicate a significant increase/decrease from the previous month (p < 0.05).
*
* * *
*
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Aver
age
abun
danc
e(b) Jul
Aug
Sep
**
*
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
-300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
Aver
age
richn
ess
Distance along ecotone (m)
87
Table 5.1 Community zones identified from SHE analysis for wasp, fly and native bee communities, relative to the distance along the physical ecotone at each location (negative values indicate mallee sites and positive values indicate almond sites). Shading indicates the different community zones. Only September community zones are shown for native bees. Wasp Distance along ecotone gradient (m)
Ann—Lip -300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
July
August
September
Coll—Wem
July
August
September
Fly Distance along ecotone gradient (m)
Ann—Lip -300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
July
August
September
Coll—Wem
July
August
September
Native beeDistance along ecotone gradient (m)
-300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
Ann—Lip
Coll—Wem
Ann—Lip = ecotone between Annuello (mallee) and Liparoo (almond); Coll—Wem = ecotone between Collins (mallee) and Wemen (almond)
88
5.4 Discussion
5.4.1 Distance decay
Across the whole sampling period Hymenoptera were, on average, more abundant
and more diverse in mallee woodland and Diptera were more abundant in almond
plantations but more diverse in mallee woodland. There was an overall distance
decay of pollinator community similarity between distance classes along the
sampled distance gradient. Nekola & White (1999) suggest two possible causes
for this phenomenon: a decrease in environmental/habitat similarity with distance,
which influences niche availability; or changes in spatial configuration and
landscape context across space and time, which affect species' dispersal. These
factors are inherently linked and it can be difficult to separate the underlying
causes of observed variation in a distance decay model (Nekola & White 1999).
Mallee woodland is highly-complex and heterogeneous in structure compared to
the monoculture plantations, where herbicides are used to maintain bare ground
throughout and blocks of almond trees are nearly identical in row width and tree
height. I found that the homogeneity in plantations was reflected in pollinator
communities – similarity of insect communities between site pairs was highest
among almond sites, while variation between pollinator communities within
mallee vegetation was just as great as it was between the two different vegetation
types. Habitat heterogeneity and complexity increase niche availability, and can
also have a significant influence over invertebrate communities, trophic webs and
overall ecosystem function (Srivastava 2006; Randlkofer 2010a), particularly in
agroecosystems (Altieri 1999; Letourneau et al. 2011). Lower rates of distance
decay, as seen in the regression analysis here, can occur because of minimal
changes in the environment along the sampled gradient or because the focal taxa
are highly mobile and less affected by landscape barriers such as edges (Nekola &
White 1999). This latter explanation is most likely for my results, as vegetation
structure and heterogeneity changed significantly along the ecotone and
influenced community similarity of my focal taxa, highly-mobile insect
pollinators. Further sampling at more distance classes along the ecotone,
combined with a comparison of distance decay rates between insect groups,
89
vegetation types and months would yield more information on the significance of
the distance-similarity relationship in this study system.
5.4.2 Temporal variation
Each pollinator group showed different rates of temporal turnover, reflecting the
variation in resource needs of individual taxa. Wasps showed the weakest
responses in my system, despite evidence that some wasps may be more sensitive
to anthropogenic change than bees or other insects (Batista Matos et al. 2013).
Wasp abundance and family richness increased steadily, and at a lower rate, in
both vegetation types from July through to September, but were also consistently
higher in woodlands than plantations. Fly family richness and abundance showed
much stronger fluctuations throughout the sampling period, and flies were also
more abundant overall in my study system. Dipteran species can be more cold-
tolerant than hymenopterans and are often the most frequent flower-visitors in
colder climate zones and higher latitudes (Elberling & Olesen 1999; Pickering &
Stock 2003; Brown & McNeil 2009) so the low abundances of hymenopterans
most likely reflects the season I sampled in. Native bees were absent in samples in
July and rarely collected in August during almond flowering, even though
sampling from 2010 showed that native bees are typically present in the study
region during these months, including in plant-diverse almond orchards managed
with lower intensity (Chapter 3). Many non-Apis bees need access to multiple
heterogeneous habitats throughout the year (Winfree et al. 2011; Mandelik et al.
2012) so permanent spatial homogeneity and lack of floral diversity within
perennial monocultures could prevent bees from establishing inside plantations,
regardless of the resources provided by the short-term floral pulse, but more
sampling is needed to verify this effect.
Although pollinator abundance increased naturally across the sampling
period in response to seasonal warming, I also found evidence that some insects
may have been influenced by the phenological changes occurring in almond
plantations. In July, mallee sites had higher fly and wasp abundance and richness
than almond plantations, most likely because of greater availability and
heterogeneity of resources in woodlands. Pollinator abundance was also higher in
the mallee interior than the almond interior in July, despite the mallee having
90
higher structural density at the edge, an attribute that is considered to prevent
movement of some insects into forest interiors (Cadenasso & Pickett 2000). These
results suggest that consistent resource availability beyond an edge may override
the qualities of the edge itself, especially for pollinators (Kohler et al. 2008;
Stasek et al. 2008) or in agroecosystems with high temporal variability of
resources (Rand et al. 2006). During the almond flowering event in August, fly
abundance and richness increased significantly in plantations, and then remained
at similar levels into September. In contrast, wasp abundance and richness did not
increase significantly in the plantations until September – although there was a
small increase in wasp populations in August. This could indicate a delayed
response to the flowering event (Thomson 1981; Ries et al. 2004), which often
occurs with short, substantial resource pulses (Ostfeld & Keesing 2000).
Alternatively, wasp assemblages could have been influenced by the additional
resources available in plantations after flowering. As well as the spent flowers,
most trees were fully-leaved and nut formation had begun, and this coincided with
an increase in herbivorous insects such as planthoppers, aphids (Hemiptera) and
psocids (Psocoptera), which are potential prey or host species for many wasps and
flies (see Chapter 6). Temporal increases in pollinator abundance and richness on
the mallee side of the boundary were not significant, so the increases I observed at
almond sites were more likely to be influenced by the simultaneous changes in
resource availability, rather than seasonal changes in weather conditions.
Although managed European honeybees were present in plantations during the
August sampling event, it is unlikely that the increase in honeybee abundance
significantly influenced my results, due to the abundant floral resources (e.g.
Markwell et al. 1993). As discussed in Chapter 2, evidence suggests that
honeybee and non-Apis pollinator insects can show spatial complementarity in
foraging and nesting locations. In particular, a study in North American almond
plantations found that wild pollinators and European honeybees partitioned
themselves across different parts of the tree while foraging, rather than being
deterred althogether (Brittain et al. 2013).
91
5.4.3 Influence of the edge
The results of the SHE analysis suggested that the physical presence of the edge
was not a barrier for pollinators, but the spatial and temporal changes in
vegetation structure and resources at the woodland/plantation boundary did have
an influence on community structure. Pollinators are highly-mobile, but can also
be sensitive to changes in habitat that do not provide the food or structural
resources they need (Kremen et al. 2007; Kohler et al. 2008). Therefore, edge
responses for these species can be highly-variable, related to contextual attributes
of the studied habitat (Jauker et al. 2009; Azevedo et al. 2011; Coudrain et al.
2013; Macfadyen & Muller 2013) or specific to each taxa, with flies, bees and
wasps all showing differing responses within a single ecological context (Klein et
al. 2004; Jauker et al. 2009; Rader et al. 2011; Batista Matos et al. 2013). I
identified distinct community zones (i.e. significant changes in community
structure or composition) along the mallee/almond gradients, and the boundaries
between these zones shifted across the sampling season and also differed between
plantations. Most importantly, these boundaries did not always reflect the location
of the woodland/plantation edge. Two distinct community zones were identified
along the mallee—almond ecotone between Annuello woodland and Liparoo
plantation. All changes in community structure of each pollinator group occurred
between the physical edge and 100 m inside the plantation (Table 5.1), suggesting
that this could be the maximum distance from the source habitat (mallee) that
many pollinators would travel. For example, the wasp families Ichneumonidae
and Tiphiidae, both common flower-visitors (Kevan 1973) and important
pollinators for some Australian native flowers (Armstrong 1979; Peakall &
Handel 1993), were only found up to 70 m inside the plantation (Appendix 4
Table A4.2). In addition, although both bee species collected at Annuello and
Liparoo were found across the whole ecotone, 83 % of the total individuals were
collected at mallee and almond edge (10 m) sites and almond intermediate (40 m)
sites. This suggests that pollinators living in Annuello were utilising resources in
plantations throughout the flowering season, but environmental factors were
inhibiting their movement beyond 100 m. This hypothesis agrees with Ries et al.’s
(2004) finding that invertebrate responses to edges generally extend up to 100 m
from the actual edge, as well as established knowledge that pollinators,
92
particularly bees, require access to multiple different resources to complete their
life cycle (Kremen et al. 2007; Mandelik et al. 2012).
In contrast to the Annuello—Liparoo ecotone, three distinct community
zones were identified along the Collins—Wemen gradient. All groups, except
July wasp communities, changed structure on the mallee side of the boundary,
between 40 m and the edge, and then again between 70 and 300 m inside the
plantation. This could indicate that some pollinators were congregating near to the
edge, creating a community structure distinct from the interior sites, but this was
not the case with all taxa (Appendix 4 Table A4.2). For example, the bee species
L. (Chilalictus) erythrurum was found at 100 m inside Wemen plantation and this
species was not collected at all along the Annuello—Liparoo ecotone. In addition,
55 % of bee individuals collected at Collins—Wemen were found between 70 and
300 m inside the almond plantation. Because the two mallee/almond edges were
similar in their orientation, geographic location, edge contrast and general
vegetation structure, these results suggest that other ecological factors within the
plantation are influencing pollinator movement into plantation interiors. Both
Wemen and Liparoo plantations have a high proportion of native vegetation in the
surrounding landscape (mallee woodland along the studied edge and floodplain
red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis) forests bordering the other side of the
plantation); however, Wemen is much smaller in area than Liparoo (Appendix 4
Table A4.1) and the greatest distance from an edge to plantation interior is
approximately 600m, compared to about 1.5 km at Liparoo. It is possible that the
smaller plantation patch size at Wemen contributed to the increased abundances
and enhanced community structure I saw here; however, more detailed sampling
would be necessary to isolate the effects of ‘edge’ and ‘area’ in this system
(Fletcher et al. 2007).
5.4.4 Conclusions
In my study system, I found that the woodland/plantation boundary was not a
barrier to wild pollinators, and spatiotemporal changes in resources and vegetation
heterogeneity across the ecotone were more likely influencing pollinator
distribution patterns and movement into the interior of the plantation. In
particular, I found that pollinator community similarity between sites was
93
associated with the relative level of heterogeneity between vegetation types, and
that each insect group's response to the edge and overall distribution patterns
varied across time – before, during and after the mass-flowering event in almond
plantations. My results concur with studies of similar focus that have found
greater influence from context-specific environmental variables (e.g. light
availability, canopy or shrub cover) (Yu et al. 2007; Muff et al. 2009) than
distance from the edge alone, and this interaction may be more pertinent when
considering highly-mobile insects like pollinators (Haslett 2001).
The significance of my findings would be augmented by more intense
sampling, beyond the 300 m distance limit used here and across other
woodland/plantation boundaries, as well as further consideration of changes in
environmental variables relative to the edge and surrounding landscape.
Nonetheless, my results provide valuable information for the ecological
management of conventional almond plantations, as well as pollinator
conservation in agroecosystems generally, and also contribute to knowledge of
how edges influence beneficial insects in managed landscapes. I showed that the
spatial distribution and structure of potential almond pollinator communities can
vary in response to spatiotemporal changes in resources, which is critical
information for developing effective pollinator conservation initiatives in
agroecosystems centred on pollinator-dependent crops. Future studies of how
habitat boundaries in agroecosystems influence important insect taxa should
survey both sides of the boundary and consider the complex interactions of
physical landscape configuration, spatial and temporal variation in resource
availability, and the unique responses of specific insect groups to these elements.
94
95
Chapter 6: Food and habitat resources available to wild pollinators in a
winter-flowering crop
Abstract
Homogeneous tree crop plantations can adversely impact wild pollinator
communities by limiting temporal continuity of food and the availability of
nesting sites. Identifying structural differences between plantations and adjacent
natural vegetation, and how these differences influence pollinator communities,
can inform ecological management goals. Communities of potential wild
pollinators (native bees, wasps, flies) were compared between monoculture
almond plantations and native mallee vegetation in a semi-arid region of
temperate Australia, before, during and after the late winter almond flowering
period. I examined whether abundance and richness of each insect group were
related to overall site heterogeneity or individual structural attributes of vegetation
at each site, focusing on food and nesting resources. Relationships with site
heterogeneity varied temporally, and between taxa, before, during and after
almond flowering. Insect response variables were often influenced by particular
habitat attributes when they were not associated with overall heterogeneity. Fly
and wasp richness and wasp abundance were strongly associated with leaf litter
and ground cover vegetation before almond flowering, regardless of vegetation
type. After flowering ceased, native bee abundance had a strong negative
relationship with canopy cover and leaf litter. This study provides novel insights
into an understudied ecosystem and highlights the value in focusing on specific
resources when investigating relationships between insects and habitat structure,
rather than generalised ‘heterogeneity’ metrics. In particular, maintaining
keystone resources in agroecosystems can enhance the conservation of insects and
ecosystem services, especially in areas where agricultural systems overlap
dynamic natural ecosystems.
*This chapter has been published as Saunders ME, Luck GW, Gurr GG (in press)
Keystone resources available to wild pollinators in a winter-flowering tree crop
plantation. Agricultural and Forest Entomology.
96
6.1 Introduction
Heterogeneity in vegetation structure is essential for supporting biodiversity and
ecosystem functions at multiple scales (e.g. Srivastava 2006; Diacon-Bolli et al.
2012), especially in agricultural systems (Altieri 1999; Benton et al. 2003;
Letourneau et al. 2011). At small scales, variation in vegetation structure and
resource availability can influence population dynamics and distribution patterns
of invertebrates, including ecosystem service providers like pollinators (Williams
& Kremen 2007; Murray et al. 2012) and natural enemies (Landis et al. 2000;
Gámez-Virués et al. 2010). Maintaining pollination and pest control ecosystem
services is vital for minimising ‘yield gaps’ in agricultural production (Bommarco
et al. 2013). Yet, modern agroecosystems are dominated by large patches of
homogeneous vegetation (e.g. broadacre crop monocultures) that can disrupt the
provision of these services (Tscharntke et al. 2005) and negatively impact local
wildlife populations (Krebs et al. 1999; Tilman 1999; Stoate et al. 2009). The
provision of ecosystem services in agroecosystems depends on complex trophic
interactions between multiple individuals, species and communities (Vandermeer
et al. 2010; Lundin et al. 2013) and vegetation homogeneity can disrupt these
interactions in agroecosystems. A number of studies have found that conversion
of heterogeneous landscapes to monoculture crop systems has been linked to
increased pests and diseases and subsequent declines in crop yield (Marshall &
Foot 1979; Altieri & Nicholls 2002; Aragona & Orr 2011; Bennett et al. 2012).
Wild pollinators are particularly vulnerable to intensive management, as
they require access to multiple heterogeneous resources throughout the year and
prefer to forage in plant-diverse systems (Williams & Kremen 2007; Winfree et
al. 2011). Numerous studies have shown that pollinator richness and abundance
generally increases with greater plant diversity or structural complexity in
managed crop systems (Nicholls & Altieri 2013), but relationships with these
factors can vary between taxa (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002; Holzschuh et al.
2010; also Chapter 3) and across different spatial and temporal scales (Kleijn &
van Langevelde 2006; Vasseur et al. 2013). Temporal variation in resources is
particularly relevant to studies of pollination services, as many pollinator-
dependent crops grown in monocultures exhibit a brief, highly-concentrated
resource pulse during flowering, yet provide very few resources for pollinators for
97
the remainder of the year. This phenological pattern may provide temporary
benefits for pollinator insects (Bartomeus & Winfree 2011; Lander et al. 2011),
but can have longer-term negative consequences for nearby native plant
pollination (Holzschuh et al. 2011) and insect reproduction (Westphal et al. 2009),
especially for species that emerge after the crop has ceased flowering (Jauker et
al. 2012).
Perennial tree crop plantations (e.g. orchard fruits) are an interesting study
system, as they are usually managed as monocultures across large areas, but are
more permanent in the landscape compared to annual grain or vegetable crop
systems (Hartemink 2005). Because of this, tree crops may have underestimated
potential for wildlife conservation, as long as production goals are balanced by
ecological management objectives (Hartley 2002; Barlow et al. 2007; Quine &
Humphrey 2010; Tscheulin et al. 2011). Many economically-valuable tree crops
are also pollinator-dependent (Cunningham et al. 2002; Losey & Vaughan 2006;
Calderone 2012), so knowledge of relationships between wild pollinators and
vegetation structure within these systems will aid in prioritising conservation and
management needs. The ability of tree crop plantations to support wild pollinator
communities is particularly important for pollinator-dependent orchard fruits that
flower in late winter, as most orchard fruits do. Pollinator activity can be limited
at this time, affecting fruit set of pollinator-dependent crops (Stoddard & Bond
1987; Bosch & Kemp 2002), yet few studies have investigated the capacity of
these systems to provide food or nesting resources that support overwintering and
emerging wild pollinator species.
Here, I sampled potential wild pollinator insects in monoculture almond
plantations and adjacent native vegetation in northwest Victoria, Australia, during
the almond flowering period. Almond (Prunus dulcis, Mill.) is the biggest
contributor to Australia’s total annual nut production, and production is centred
around the semi-arid mallee regions of northwest Victoria and eastern South
Australia (Almond Board of Australia 2013), which include areas of high
conservation value (Mallee Catchment Management Authority 2008; Cheal et al.
2013). Almond flowers require cross-pollination to set fruit and, because trees
flower in late winter when insect activity is limited, growers rely on imported
managed honeybee hives to provide pollination services and information on
potential wild pollinators available in Australia’s growing regions is limited. In
98
general, research on invertebrate ecology in the Victorian mallee is dominated by
studies of ants and information on the ecology of other species is limited;
however, the region is considered to have high invertebrate species richness,
particularly hymenopterans, and high phenological diversity in invertebrate
activity patterns, sometimes across very short time periods (Yen et al. 2006). In
addition, knowledge from other Mediterranean regions suggests that insect
pollinators could be active throughout the year (Michener 1979; Petanidou &
Lamborn 2008) and there is a need for studies that identify how the expansion of
tree crop plantations in the Australian mallee regions might influence local
pollinator communities.
I refer to individuals in the taxonomic orders of Diptera and Hymenoptera
as potential pollinators, hereafter simply pollinators, although I did not quantify
almond pollination. Fly and wasp species have been documented as pollinators of
native flowers in the study region (e.g. Ford & Forde 1976; Horskins & Turner
1999) and I observed many of these individuals visiting almond flowers during
sampling. In addition, Diptera and non-bee Hymenoptera species are important,
but understudied, generalist pollinators in a variety of natural and agricultural
systems (Larson et al. 2001; Rader et al. 2013), especially in Australia (Armstrong
1979; Pickering & Stock 2003), and many dipteran and hymenopteran species that
are generally categorised as ‘natural enemies’ are also common, but
unacknowledged, flower visitors and pollinators (Larson et al., 2001; Wäckers et
al., 2005). I investigated the relationships between these insect groups and site
attributes relevant to vegetation structure and resource factors, before, during and
after almond flowering. I also explored associations between September
abundance counts of herbivore insect groups collected at each site (Psocoptera;
Hemiptera: Aphididae, Cicadellidae) and abundance of flies and wasps in each
vegetation type, as these insects are common host or prey species for many flies
and wasps and are therefore another potential resource factor in my study system.
In particular, I considered whether monoculture almond plantations provide
sufficient food and habitat resources for overwintering and emerging pollinator
species by asking the following questions: (i) How do vegetation structure and
resource attributes differ between mallee woodlands and almond plantations,
throughout the flowering period? (ii) Does the relationship between site
heterogeneity and abundance or richness of pollinator insect groups vary across
99
the almond flowering period? (iii) How is the abundance and richness of
pollinators related to the availability of understorey attributes and resources?
6.2 Methods
6.2.1 Study area and vegetation structure
I sampled 68 sites across two conventional monoculture almond plantations (n =
50) and adjacent mallee woodlands (n = 18) in the Victorian Murray Mallee
Bioregion, northwest Victoria, Australia (-34.8 °, 142.6°). Average annual rainfall
in the study area is 314.9 mm (Station 076000; Bureau of Meteorology 2013). I
sampled on three occasions in 2011, before (July), during (August) and after
(September) the mass-flowering event in almond plantations, which typically lasts
3-4 weeks. Plantations that were adjacent to large patches of remnant mallee
vegetation were chosen for sampling (see Appendix 5 Table A5.1). Liparoo
plantation is adjacent to the Annuello State Flora and Fauna Reserve and Wemen
plantation is adjacent to an unnamed patch of remnant woodland. Both plantations
are broadacre monocultures, intensively managed by the same company and the
linear distance between the two plantations is approximately 7.5 km. Plantations
had identical row widths (5-6 m) and tree spacing (5 m) and herbicides were used
to maintain bare ground across plantation floors.
Almond trees are deciduous and plantations were completely bare of
leaves or flowers before flowering (July). In August, mass-flowering occurred
across the entire plantation, while each tree was still predominantly leafless
(approx. 50,000 individual blossoms per tree). In September, the majority of
almond blossoms had dropped and trees were fully leaved. Mallee woodlands are
open, shrubby evergreen woodlands on alkaline, semi-arid soils and are restricted
to Mediterranean climate zones of southern Australia. They have heterogeneous
middle- and upper-storey vegetation, dominated by Eucalyptus species growing in
the characteristic ‘mallee’ habit of shorter trees with multiple trunks, as well as
Acacia, Callitris and Casuarina tree and shrub species. The understorey is highly
variable, with areas of bare ground interspersed with patchy ground cover
typically including hummocks of Triodia, halophytic plants, herbs and grasses,
and dense mats of leaf litter near eucalypt trees. Phenological changes in
100
woodland structure were less obvious across the sampling period, compared to
plantations, with evergreen vegetation and diverse, patchy floral resources
available in all months (see Figure 5.2 for representative photographs).
6.2.2 Data Collection
Flying insects were collected using pan traps and data on local habitat attributes
were recorded at each site. Pan trapping was chosen over on-site visual
identification methods, as it does not suffer from the ‘collector bias’ inherent in
the latter (Westphal et al., 2008); however, colour and placement of traps was
designed relevant to the context of the system and research questions, to increase
the chance that the data collected were ecologically meaningful (see Saunders &
Luck 2013; Appendix 1). One white and one yellow pan trap were placed at each
site, as white was the predominant flower colour in plantations and yellow the
most common in woodlands. Pan traps were placed on the ground under flowering
trees for maximum visibility, and because I was interested in associations between
ground-level resources (leaf litter, ground cover vegetation) and pollinator insects
that use these resources for foraging and nesting sites. As discussed in section
6.2.1, mats of leaf litter and herbaceous/weedy ground cover are the most
common ground-level resources in both vegetation types, and these elements are
eseential nesting and foraging habitat for flies, non-Apis bees and wasps (Leather
et al. 1993; Austin et al. 2005; Michener 2007). Traps were open for 8 hours on
fine, calm days, and were set just after sunrise and collected just before nightfall
in the order they were placed. Insects were transported to the laboratory in 70%
ethanol, counted and sorted into taxonomic groups (Diptera; Hymenoptera (non-
Apis bees and wasps); Hemiptera (Aphididae, Cicadellidae); Psocoptera). I
identified native bees to species (where possible, although most Lasioglossum
individuals could only be classified to subgenus) and wasps and flies to family
groups using identification keys (Hamilton et al. 2006; Stevens et al. 2007) along
with a reference collection provided by a taxonomic expert (K. Walker, Museum
Victoria).
At each trap site, I collected data on vegetation structure, as well as
canopy cover in September, as almond plantations were bare of leaves during July
and August. I did not quantify floral diversity or abundance in this study, because
101
plantations contained a single plant species (almond) that flowered in August only
and no flowering weedy plants were present under almond trees, so statistical
comparisons with woodland floral diversity across months would not be possible.
Small-scale vegetation structure was quantified using a line intercept method. At
each trap site, a 10 m line transect was marked out in a randomly-chosen direction
and the proportion of the transect length covered by the following structural
attributes was recorded: bare ground; leaf litter or decaying wood/nuts;
herbaceous ground cover vegetation (forb, succulent, moss); annual/perennial
grass; Triodia hummock grass; shrub <1 m; tree 1—2.9 m; tree 3—4.9 m; tree >5
m. In September, canopy cover was measured by placing a digital camera facing
upwards on the ground beside each trap and photographing the canopy above the
trap site. Images were then converted to black and white and the percentage of the
image area that was covered with canopy vegetation was quantified using
ImageTool 3.0, a freeware image processing and analysis program (UTHSCSA
2002, available from URL http://compdent.uthscsa.edu/dig/itdesc.html).
6.2.3 Data Analysis
Analyses of pollinator groups were conducted on abundance counts and a richness
index. Richness was calculated using the Menhinick index (Menhinick 1964).
Insect abundance counts were not transformed, as this approach is not
recommended when analysing overdispersed ecological count data (O’Hara &
Kotze 2010; Warton & Hui 2011). Raw data from the vegetation structure
transects were used to calculate a heterogeneity score for each site using the
complement of Simpson's Index (1-Simpson's Dominance measure): a score of 1
means that all habitat attributes were equally present along the measured transect
(high heterogeneity) and a score of 0 means one habitat attribute dominated the
entire transect (low heterogeneity).
Differences between the two vegetation types were identified for each
habitat attribute and insect group using Mann-Whitney (U) pairwise tests, and
then pollinator community composition was compared between woodlands and
plantations using ordination and an associated permutation test for significance. I
used non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) based on Bray-Curtis
similarities between sites to illustrate overall pollinator community composition
102
for the whole sampling period (pooled monthly abundance counts of each
pollinator insect group). The 'goodness-of-fit' for the configuration was confirmed
with an accompanying Shepard plot and STRESS value (values < 0.1 indicate that
the plot shows an ideal configuration). To identify whether the pattern shown in
the NMDS ordination was representative of the whole sampling period, a one-way
ANOSIM (analysis of similarities; Clarke 1993) was used to test for significant
differences in monthly pollinator communities grouped by the two vegetation
types, mallee or almond. The analysis provides an R statistic between -1 and +1:
values < 0.25 indicate that similarity coefficients within the compared groups are
similar to coefficients between groups, so the groups cannot be separated; values
> 0.50 indicate that the groups can be separated, but there is some overlap; and
values > 0.75 indicate distinct separation between groups (Chapman &
Underwood 1999).
6.2.4 Relationships between potential pollinators and habitat attributes
Relationships between pollinator groups and habitat attributes were identified
using generalised linear models (GLMs). First, I examined the relationship
between site heterogeneity scores and monthly richness and abundance of each
insect group, and compared the fit of each insect/heterogeneity model with the
intercept-only model. I then examined relationships between insect richness and
abundance and the understorey attributes that were present in both vegetation
types, ‘leaf litter’ and ‘ground cover’. I focused on these attributes as they were
the most biologically meaningful to my study questions, because many of the
target insect species nest or overwinter in the ground, leaf litter or ground cover
vegetation (Leather et al. 1993). ‘Canopy cover’ was also included in models of
September insect assemblages, as this attribute affects understorey light
availability and can influence insect abundance (Michener 2007; Abrahamczyk et
al. 2010).
GLMs were based on combinations of selected predictors. Monthly insect
abundances were modelled with a negative binomial distribution and richness data
were modelled with a linear distribution. The number of parameters (inclusive of
the intercept) in each model was limited to a maximum of six, to avoid over-
fitting. I included vegetation type (mallee, almond) as a categorical factor, and
103
percent ground cover, leaf litter (all months) and canopy cover (September models
only) as covariates. Interaction terms between vegetation type and each attribute
were included, as I believed that the importance of ground cover, leaf litter and
canopy cover may differ in plantations compared to mallee woodlands. I included
the intercept-only model for all response variables as a baseline comparison.
Competing explanatory models for each response were compared using an
information-theoretic model selection process. I compared information criterion
values within each set of models to rank models based on goodness-of-fit and
complexity. Richness models were compared by the modified Akaike’s
Information Criterion for small samples (AICc) and abundance models by the
quasi-likelihood adjusted AICc (QAICc) for overdispersed count data. Hereafter,
both AICc and QAICc values are referred to as simply AICc. Differences in AICc
(Δi) were calculated relative to the smallest AICc value in each model set and a
candidate model set for each response (all models with Δi < 10) was examined.
Most of the relationships were explained by the Δi < 2 model set, so only these are
presented here (see Appendix 5 Table A5.2 for full list of candidate models). I
calculated relative log likelihoods, L(gi) = exp(-0.5*Δi), and AICc weights, wi, for
each model to assess the probability of each model being a better fit to the data
relative to other models in the set and summed wi over all models in the set
containing that predictor to obtain an estimate of the relative importance of each
explanatory variable. In September model sets, the ‘Veg Type’ variable was
included in only five models, while all other variables were included in six
models. Therefore, all September variable weights were calculated from only the
five highest-ranked models for each variable, to balance the number of models
containing each variable.
To explore associations between Hymenoptera and Diptera and
herbivorous insect groups I used association analysis as an exploratory tool for
future hypothesis-generation, as I did not identify herbivores to species, nor did I
measure trophic interactions between parasitoids and prey species in my system.
To minimise the potential distortion of species associations arising from a high
number of zeros in the abundance data, I converted abundances for all five insect
groups to presence/absence data. I used Sørensen’s coefficient (Ssor) for
presence/absence data, as my focus was on co-occurrence of species per site
(Legendre & Legendre 1998). All analyses involving native bees and herbivores
104
were conducted on September data only, as these insect groups were mostly
absent in July and August. GLM analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS 20 (IBM
Corporation 2011) and I used PAST 2.17 (Hammer et al., 2001) for all other
analyses.
6.3 Results
6.3.1 General observations and overall community composition
I caught 2476 flies in 20 family groups, 336 wasps in 23 families, and 171 native
bees in 2 genera (see Appendix 2 Table A2.3). Fly abundance was significantly
higher in the plantations in all months, but monthly richness was not significantly
different between vegetation types. Wasp abundance and richness in July were
significantly higher in mallee, but wasp and bee abundance and richness in other
months were not significantly different between vegetation types (Table 6.1). The
cover of canopy and bare ground were higher at almond sites, while overall
habitat heterogeneity and all other vegetation attributes were higher at mallee sites
(Table 6.1). Cicadellidae and Psocoptera abundance were higher in plantations
than in woodlands, but Aphididae abundance was not different between
vegetation types (Table 6.1).
Overall pollinator community composition across the sampling period was
different between vegetation types, although there was some overlap between
sites (Figure 6.1). Results of the ANOSIM test showed that mallee and almond
pollinator communities differed significantly in all months, but the most variation
in similarity coefficients occurred in September (R = 0.44, p < 0.001). Community
similarity between vegetation types was only weakly separated in July (R = 0.15,
p = 0.02) and August (R = 0.16, p = 0.01).
105
Table 6.1 Mean (±SD) monthly insect abundance (A) and richness (R) of each pollinator group and mean (±SD) values for all resource attributes per trap site in mallee vegetation and almond plantations.
Mallee (n = 18) Almond (n = 50)
Pollinator group
Flies Jul (A) 7.2 (5.4)*
(R) 1.7 (0.6)
(A) 3.5 (2.5)
(R) 1.5 (0.7)
Aug (A) 10.3 (7.3)
(R) 2.1 (0.7)
(A) 17.1 (11.5)*
(R) 2.1 (0.6)
Sep (A) 7.4 (5.5)
(R) 1.9 (0.5)
(A) 19.9 (10.8)*
(R) 1.9 (0.6)
Wasps Jul (A) 1.6 (1.4)*
(R) 1.0 (0.6)*
(A) 0.6 (1.2)
(R) 0.4 (0.6)
Aug (A) 2.4 (4.3)
(R) 0.7 (0.6)
(A) 0.9 (1.0)
(R) 0.6 (0.6)
Sep (A) 3.5 (3.9)
(R) 1.3 (0.5)
(A) 2.5 (2.4)
(R) 1.2 (0.8)
Native bees Sep (A) 4.5 (9.8)
(R) 0.6 (0.5)
(A) 1.7 (2.7)
(R) 0.5 (0.5)
Resource attributes
Overall habitat heterogeneity 0.73 (0.2)* 0.19 (0.1)
Bare ground 0.15 (0.1) 0.89 (0.1)*
Leaf litter/decaying wood 0.21 (0.1)* 0.04 (0.04)
Ground cover vegetation 0.1 (0.1)* 0.01 (0.03)
Shrub < 1 m 0.18 (0.3) 0
Grasses 0.06 (0.07)* 0.007 (0.05)
Triodia hummock 0.03 (0.07) 0
Tree 1-3 m 0.1 (0.1) 0
Tree 3-5 m 0.09 (0.1)* 0.01 (0.02)
Tree > 5 m 0.09 (0.1) 0.04 (0.03)
Canopy cover^ 0.26 (0.1) 0.58 (0.2)*
106
Herbivorous insects
Cicadellidae^ (A) 0.56 (0.8) (A) 3.28 (3.2)*
Psocoptera^ (A) 0.22 (0.4) (A) 1.92 (2.7)*
Aphididae^ (A) 0.22 (0.6) (A) 0.48 (1.1)
^ data are from September only; Asterisks indicate in which vegetation type each value was significantly greater, * p < 0.01. Overall habitat heterogeneity = Simpson’s index, 1-D; Vegetation resource attributes = proportion of cover along 10 m transect
Figure 6.1 Non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination of overall pollinator community similarity (Bray-Curtis) between mallee woodlands and almond plantations. The configuration shown is an ideal representation of the data (STRESS value = 0.07).
6.3.2 Site heterogeneity
The influence of overall habitat heterogeneity at each site on pollinator groups
varied across the sampling period (Table 6.2). Fly abundance was higher at more
heterogeneous sites in July, but was associated with increased homogeneity in
August and September. Fly richness in all months was not influenced by habitat
heterogeneity. Wasp abundance in July and August, as well as richness in July,
Mallee
Almond
107
were associated with higher habitat heterogeneity. The following groups were not
associated with site heterogeneity: August wasp richness; September wasp
richness and abundance; native bee richness and abundance.
6.3.3 Understorey attributes and resource factors
The responses of each insect group to understorey attributes varied across the
flowering season (Tables 6.3 & 6.4). In July, fly abundance showed the strongest
association with ground cover vegetation, which had a summed Akaike weight of
0.84 (Table 6.4). However, the parameter estimates for ‘ground cover’ in the two
highest-ranked models had broad confidence intervals encompassing zero and the
vegetation type/ground cover interaction term in both models showed that fly
responses to ground cover differed between vegetation types (Table 6.3). Pearson
correlations between abundance and ground cover for each vegetation type
confirmed that the presence of ground cover was positively correlated with fly
abundance in mallee (r = 0.43, p = 0.07), but was not associated with abundance
in almond plantations (r = -0.17, p = 0.24). The third-highest ranked model
suggested a positive relationship between leaf litter and fly abundance in July,
regardless of vegetation type, but the likelihood of this model was low (L(gi) =
0.39) and the relative importance of leaf litter was lower than either ground cover
or vegetation type (wi = 0.45; Tables 6.3 & 6.4).
In August, the model containing only vegetation type as a predictor
provided the best fit for fly abundance data (Table 6.3), but leaf litter had the
highest relative influence compared to the other predictors (Table 6.4) and this
attribute had a strong negative relationship with fly abundance (Table 6.3). Leaf
litter and ground cover were associated with fly abundance in September, but
vegetation type had the highest relative influence (wi = 1) (Table 6.4). Vegetation
type also affected the fly—ground cover relationship and correlation analysis
showed that fly abundance was positively associated with ground cover vegetation
in almond plantations (r = 0.35, p = 0.01) but was not associated with ground
cover in mallee woodlands (r = -0.22, p = 0.38). Fly richness showed a weak
positive association with leaf litter in July and ground cover in August (Tables 6.3
& 6.4), but the intercept-only model was ranked as the best fit to the fly richness
data in both months. September fly richness was negatively associated with
108
Table 6.2 Relationships between overall site heterogeneity and abundance and richness of each pollinator insect group in each month.
Pollinator group MonthAbundance Richness
Model χ2 wi Model χ2 wiFly July 0.59 (0.17) 18.2** 0.99 0.35 (0.28) 1.6 0.43
August -12.36 (3.60) 8.5** 0.93 -0.26 (0.28) 0.9 0.34
September -19.39 (3.50) 18.9** 0.99 -0.15 (0.25) 0.4 0.29
Wasp July 1.30 (0.44) 11.6** 0.92 1.16 (0.24) 19.9** 0.99
August 0.52 (0.24) 5.1* 0.78 -0.05 (0.28) 0.03 0.25
September 0.03 (0.16) 0.02 0.26 -0.21 (0.30) 0.5 0.30
Bee September -2.13 (1.41) 1.7 0.35 0.16 (0.20) 0.70 0.32
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01 Model: parameter estimates with SE in parentheses; χ2: likelihood ratio test statistic, indicates if the model provides a significantly better fit for the data set than the ‘constant only’ model; wi: Akaike weight for the heterogeneity model, gives the probability that the model is the best fit for the relationship
109
Table 6.3 Relationships between resource attributes and monthly pollinator insect abundance (A) or richness (R) across all almond and mallee sites (n = 68). The highest-ranked models (Δi AICc ≤ 2) in each candidate set are shown. Where the constant only model is ranked the highest, only the second-highest model is listed for comparison. All models include the Intercept. See Appendix 5 Table A5.2 for the full candidate set of models for each response variable. Response Month Model Δi AICc L(gi) wiFly (A) July Veg (0.47; 1.20) + GC (-15.65; 9.76) + Veg*GC (49.04; 17.14)
Veg (1.64; 2.17) + GC (-13.81; 9.72) + LL (16.78; 9.62) + Veg*GC (49.19;
18.86) + Veg*LL (-19.6; 13.95)
GC (15.5; 8.35) + LL (11.23; 5.60)
0
1.36
1.87
1
0.51
0.39
0.41
0.21
0.16
August Veg (-6.78; 2.19)
LL (-28.99; 8.20)
Veg (0.63; 4.29) + LL (72.76; 50.13) + Veg*LL (-94.53; 51.81)
GC (-17.36; 16.54) + LL (-25.65; 9.22)
0
0.31
0.46
1.81
1
0.86
0.80
0.41
0.28
0.24
0.22
0.11
110
September Veg (-0.76; 0.21) + GC (5.56; 2.60) + Veg*GC (-7.37; 3.0)
Veg (-1.32; 0.30) + LL (3.07; 1.91) + Veg*LL (-1.06; 2.21)
Veg (-0.99; 0.16)
Veg (-1.54; 0.33) + CC (0.12; 0.48) + GC (1.39; 1.34) + LL (2.63; 0.99)
0
0.38
1.34
1.84
1
0.83
0.51
0.40
0.35
0.29
0.18
0.14
(R) July LL (1.27; 0.71)
Con (1.50; 0.08)
GC (0.69; 1.14) + LL (1.18; 0.72)
0
0.96
1.26
1
0.62
0.53
0.30
0.19
0.16
August Con (2.12; 0.08)
Veg (-0.13; 0.22) + GC (-7.84; 3.18) + Veg*GC (7.96; 3.50)
0
0.88
1
0.65
0.29
0.19
September Veg (-0.8; 0.03) + CC (-1.05; 0.45) + GC (0.19; 1.22) + LL (2.06; 0.91)
Veg (-0.63; 0.27) + LL (0.12; 1.94) + Veg*LL (2.47; 2.18)
Con (1.92; 0.07)
0
1.54
1.58
1
0.46
0.45
0.26
0.12
0.12
111
Wasp (A) July LL (4.45; 2.03)
Veg (0.96; 0.43)
GC (2.57; 2.67) + LL (3.90; 1.94)
0
0.04
1.43
1
0.98
0.49
0.30
0.29
0.15
August GC (1.95; 0.68)
Veg (0.71; 0.26) + LL (0.26; 2.93) + Veg*LL (-1.89; 3.07)
Veg (0.41; 0.16)
0
0.15
0.37
1
0.93
0.83
0.28
0.26
0.23
September Con (-0.49; 0.12)
Veg (0.38; 0.16) + LL (0.54; 1.49) + Veg*LL (-1.95; 1.66)
0
0.63
1
0.73
0.19
0.14
(R) July GC (2.36; 1.04) + LL (1.93; 0.66) 0 1 0.53
August Con (0.64; 0.08)
GC (0.79; 1.13)
0
1.71
1
0.43
0.41
0.18
September Con (1.20; 0.08)
GC (-1.19; 1.23)
0
1.27
1
0.53
0.27
0.14
112
Native Bee (A) September CC (-4.83; 0.88) + LL (-4.05; 1.79) + GC (-5.45; 2.74)
Veg (0.78; 0.63) + CC (-3.89; 1.08) + GC (-6.61; 2.85) + LL (-5.58; 2.14)
LL (-4.72; 1.84) + CC (-4.74; 0.91)
0
0.94
0.97
1
0.63
0.62
0.37
0.23
0.23
(R) September Con (0.50; 0.06)
GC (1.02; 0.81)
0
0.62
1
0.73
0.21
0.15
Veg = vegetation type; CC = canopy cover; LL = leaf litter; GC = ground cover; Con = constant only model. Vegetation type is a categorical factor, testing whether pollinator-habitat relationships differed between the two vegetation types. Model: parameter estimates and SE for each predictor in parentheses; * indicates an interaction term; Δi AICc = difference in AICc values, relative to the highest-ranked model; L(gi) = relative likelihood of the model; wi = Akaike weight for the model.
113
Table 6.4 Summed Akaike weights (wi) for each resource attribute included as an explanatory variable in generalised linear models, indicating the relative importance of each attribute for explaining variation in the response variables (insect abundance or richness). Response Month Canopy Cover Ground Cover Leaf Litter Vegetation Type
Fly (abundance) July 0.84 0.45 0.75
August 0.22 0.60 0.56
September 0.17 0.49 0.43 1
(richness) July 0.35 0.52 0.25
August 0.45 0.27 0.40
September 0.50 0.47 0.53 0.50
Wasp (abundance) July 0.27 0.50 0.38
August 0.50 0.39 0.61
September 0.25 0.27 0.36 0.34
(richness) July 0.65 0.78 0.31
August 0.26 0.23 0.22
September 0.23 0.36 0.23 0.25
Bee (abundance) September 0.99 0.72 0.82 0.24
(richness) September 0.30 0.34 0.25 0.22
Canopy cover was not included in July and August models. All September variable weights were calculated from the five highest-ranked models for each variable, to balance the number of models used to calculate wi
114
canopy cover and positively associated with leaf litter (Table 6.3), but all four
predictors had relatively equal importance (Table 6.4).
Wasp richness in July showed the strongest (positive) relationship with
both ground cover and leaf litter and these relationships were not affected by
vegetation type (Tables 6.3 & 6.4). Wasp abundance in July and August showed
the strongest (positive) relationship with leaf litter and ground cover respectively,
regardless of vegetation type, although the model containing vegetation type alone
was also ranked highly in both months (Table 6.3). None of the predictors were
related to wasp richness in August and September or abundance in September
(Tables 6.3 & 6.4). September native bee abundance had a strong negative
relationship with canopy cover, ground cover and leaf litter, but was not
influenced by vegetation type (Table 6.3). Canopy cover had the strongest relative
influence on bee abundance compared to the other attributes (wi = 0.99; Table
6.4). Bee richness showed a weak association with ground cover (Tables 6.3 &
6.4).
At mallee sites, fly and wasp presence showed a moderate association with
Cicadellidae presence (wasp, Ssor = 0.58; fly, Ssor = 0.56), but co-occurrence with
Psocoptera (wasp, Ssor = 0.38; fly, Ssor = 0.36) and Aphididae (wasp, Ssor = 0.30;
fly, Ssor = 0.29) was much weaker. In almond plantations, wasps and flies were
strongly associated with Cicadellidae (wasp, Ssor = 0.85; fly, Ssor = 0.91) and
Psocoptera presence (wasp, Ssor = 0.69; fly, Ssor = 0.70), but Aphididae presence
was not strongly associated with either wasps (Ssor = 0.39) or flies (Ssor = 0.39).
6.4 Discussion
6.4.1 Site heterogeneity
Although the composition of potential wild pollinator assemblages differed
significantly between mallee woodlands and almond plantations in each month,
there was a lot of overlap in assemblages for the whole sampling period,
suggesting that pollinator community composition in mallee or almond vegetation
was more likely associated with variation in smaller-scale environmental factors
rather than the overall vegetation type. The strongest compositional difference
between mallee and almond assemblages was in September, possibly influenced
115
by the significant increase in the number of insects collected in plantations in that
month. Some of the increased abundance is likely accounted for by warmer spring
temperatures which would have prompted the emergence of more adult insects,
especially bees (average daily min-max temperature range for study area: 4.3 °C –
15.1 °C in July compared to 6.7 °C – 20.2 °C in September; Bureau of
Meteorology 2013). The relationship between each pollinator group and site
heterogeneity also varied across months. Abundance and richness of flies and
wasps were associated with higher heterogeneity in July, and wasps were also
more abundant at heterogeneous sites in August, during the almond flowering
event. However, fly abundance was negatively related to site heterogeneity in
August, as well as in September, after flowering had finished, when they were the
only pollinator group to show a relationship with site heterogeneity.
This variation in insect-site heterogeneity associations across such a short
time period reinforces the idea that the relationship between farmland biodiversity
and agricultural intensification is not a simple linear one (Burel et al. 1998) and an
insect’s response to agricultural environments can be more influenced by its life
stage (e.g. Delettre 2005) or seasonal environmental changes (e.g. Reese &
Philpott 2010) than on simple metrics of overall habitat heterogeneity. Tews et al.
(2004) highlight the importance of considering how ‘heterogeneity’ metrics are
measured, as the attributes used to calculate the metric may create beneficial
‘heterogeneity’ or detrimental ‘fragmentation’ for different taxa, depending on the
context. For example, my habitat heterogeneity score was based on the number of
different surface elements across a given stretch of land. Consequently, an area of
completely bare ground would receive a similar heterogeneity score as an area
completely covered by leaf litter, yet the latter would provide structural
heterogeneity and diverse micro-habitats and climates for a variety of taxa. Hence,
it would be reasonable to consider relationships between organisms and specific
structural attributes. The regression models for individual habitat attributes
corroborated this, as abundance or richness of some insect groups were strongly
related to individual attributes even when they were not related to overall site
heterogeneity (Tables 6.2 & 6.3).
116
6.4.2 Understorey attributes: winter
Many Diptera and Hymenoptera species are dependent on the thermal protection
provided by the litter layer or ground cover vegetation during winter, as they
either overwinter or nest there themselves, or prey on other species that live in
these microhabitats (Leather et al. 1993; Landis et al. 2000; Austin et al. 2005;
Michener 2007; Bale & Hayward 2010). This was reflected in my results, as a
high proportion of leaf litter and ground cover was particularly important for flies
and wasps in July, when almond plantations were devoid of resources in the upper
vegetation layer. Wasp abundance and richness were associated with leaf litter
and ground cover regardless of vegetation type, but the relationship between fly
abundance and ground cover was strongest in mallee woodlands, where the
proportion of ground cover vegetation was higher than in plantations. This
suggests that there may have been other resources or environmental factors
specific to mallee sites that influenced fly assemblages more than wasps. Wasp
richness in July was the only response variable to show the strongest relationship
with both ground cover and leaf litter together, but leaf litter had the greatest
relative importance. There is a paucity of knowledge on the ecology of wasp
species in my study system specifically; however, leaf litter provides vital habitat
and foraging substrate for various Australian wasp families, including scelionid
species (Austin et al. 2005), which were common in samples in July, and litter
patches are known to be essential habitat for other hymenopteran taxa, i.e. ants, in
the Victorian mallee (Andersen 1983; Yen et al. 2006). Although some of my
sampled wasps were likely parasitoid species, many carnivorous wasps are also
nectar-feeders and their effectiveness as pollinators is often underestimated
(Wäckers et al. 2005). In addition, pollination and pest control services in
agroecosystems are synergistically linked (Bos et al. 2007; Lundin et al. 2013)
and more detailed investigation of this study system would contribute valuable
information to our knowledge of these interactions. I was unable to determine if
understorey attributes were important for bees in this study, as I collected no bees
in July and only four individuals in August; however, this was most likely a result
of the passive sampling method, which was unable to detect hibernating or larval-
stage insects. Many of the bee species I collected are known to nest in the ground
(Knerer & Schwarz 1976; Houston & Maynard 2012) and active sampling for nest
117
sites and brood cells would reveal more information about their nesting habits in
my system.
6.4.3 Understorey attributes: late winter-spring
The relationships between wild pollinators and ground-level attributes in August
and September were weaker than in July, suggesting that the importance of these
attributes declined as the weather warmed and resources increased in both
vegetation types. There was no evidence of a convincing relationship between
August fly richness and any predictor, but the candidate set of models for August
fly abundance revealed a strong negative relationship with leaf litter. However,
vegetation type was ranked nearly as highly as leaf litter for explaining fly
abundance and, given that fly relationships with leaf litter in other months were
either positive or neutral, this most likely reflected that abundance was extremely
skewed toward plantation sites in August. The negative relationship with leaf litter
could be reflecting a positive relationship with ‘bare ground’, the most dominant
attribute in plantations (leaf litter was negatively correlated with the proportion of
bare ground, r = -0.73, p < 0.001). However, it is also possible that the negative
relationship indicated fly species dependent on leaf litter habitats were using the
plantation litter habitats more than mallee litter habitats. This could be because of
the additional resource supply available from nearby almond flowers (Fayt et al.
2006), or because of the increased connectivity of litter patches in plantations,
which were configured in continuous strips of litter along rows of almond trees
(Schiegg 2000; Randlkofer et al. 2010b). In mallee woodlands, areas of litter were
significantly larger, but more patchy, with areas of bare ground or vegetation
between litter patches, and this raises interesting questions for investigations of
potential pollinator insects using litter habitats in my system.
Wasps showed the strongest association with ground cover vegetation in
August, which had greater cover at mallee sites. Although I did not record plant
species at each site, many of the native understorey plants were flowering at
mallee sites during sampling and it is possible that these flowers were preferred
by foraging wasp species over almond flowers. There are many examples of local
adaptation and co-evolution between plants and their insect pollinators (Fægri &
van der Pijl 1979; Kalske et al. 2012), particularly among Australian
118
hymenopterans (Adams & Lawson 1993; Peakall & Handel 1993; Dyer et al.
2012). Mallee ecosystems are typical of Mediterranean bioregions in other parts
of the world, with a high diversity of annual and perennial herbs (Naveh &
Whittaker 1979) and flowering tree canopies close to the ground (Andersen &
Yen 1992), and wasps are common visitors to flowering herbs in European
Mediterranean ecosystems (Bosch et al. 1997). Hence, non-bee hymenopterans
native to this region may have co-evolved with, and therefore prefer, these
flowering plant species (Kummerow 1983) and this is an area with scope for
further research.
In September, wasps were not associated with any of the measured habitat
attributes, but wasp presence was related to the presence of Cicadellidae and
Psocoptera in plantations, as was fly presence. This result could indicate
parasitoid-host or predator-prey relationships, or simply a mutual preference for
similar habitat attributes, but further sampling and identification of potential
interactions between these insect groups is necessary to confirm the nature of this
effect. For example, fly abundance and richness were positively associated with
leaf litter (Table 6.3), as was Psocoptera abundance (r = 0.38, p = 0.007), which
could partly explain the fly-Psocoptera relationship I found. Fly abundance
showed a positive relationship with ground cover in September, but only in
plantations, and this result was most likely influenced by differences between the
two plantations I sampled. Ground cover was more common at Wemen plantation,
which has been established longer than Liparoo and contained predominantly
mature almond trees (approximately 25 years old). Stands of mature trees are
critical habitat elements for forest/woodland insect species, as they provide
established microclimates and habitat structures (e.g. dead wood, bark crevices,
leaf litter banks) that support diverse communities and complex food webs
(Warren & Key 1991). This link between invertebrate communities and mature
trees has also been found in orchard systems (Dubois et al. 2009; Herrmann et al.
2012) and predatory flies and wasps in particular may respond to the higher
resource availability in these environments.
Native bees showed the strongest response to vegetation structure in
September, compared to other pollinator groups. Bee abundance was negatively
associated with leaf litter, ground cover and canopy cover, suggesting a preference
for lighter, more open areas. It is possible that this result was influenced by two of
119
the mallee sites which were extreme outliers – 35 % of the total bee abundance
was collected at these two sites. Both sites had very low canopy cover and were
dominated by shrubs and heath vegetation. However, when I removed the two
outliers from the data set, overall bee abundance was still negatively correlated
with canopy cover (r = -0.34, p = 0.006) and this effect was present in plantations
(r = -0.65, p < 0.001), but not in woodlands (r = 0.12, p = 0.66). These results
agree with the majority of findings that suggest bees prefer open areas over dense
forests, particularly in rangeland, temperate or semi-arid systems (Grundel et al.
2010; Hoehn et al. 2010; Proctor et al. 2012). Leaf litter can be a limiting factor
for bee communities in Mediterranean environments because many species prefer
to excavate their nests into bare ground (Potts et al. 2005), including species in my
system (Knerer & Schwarz 1976; Houston & Maynard 2012), and this could
explain the negative relationship seen here. A similar effect could also explain the
negative relationship between bee abundance and ground cover. In contrast, I
found that bee richness was positively associated with ground cover vegetation,
although the relationship was very weak. This agrees with the strong wild bee-
ground cover relationships I found in Chapter 3. In addition, Yen et al. (2006)
observed that Halictine bees in Victorian mallee (which dominated my collected
bee fauna) appear to prefer understorey perennial flowering plants, particularly
around disturbed, weedy sites, and this is a promising area for further research
with the potential to inform management goals.
6.4.4 Conclusions and implications
This study has highlighted gaps in ecological knowledge of the species rich
mallee insect fauna. My findings would be augmented by further investigation of
the ecology and life history of pollinator insect species in the mallee, especially
around the rapidly expanding almond plantations. Further sampling across more
sites and over a longer time period, as well as more detailed taxonomic
identification and examination of species-habitat relationships, would enable
researchers to determine the contribution of these insects to ecosystem function in
mallee woodlands and adjacent almond plantations. In relation to this, my study
has provided two major insights. Firstly, I have shown that insects may be
strongly associated with particular habitat attributes, or keystone structures (Tews
120
et al. 2004), despite showing no relationship with overall heterogeneity. This
highlights the value in considering specific habitat and resource requirements of
the focal species when investigating relationships between ecosystem service
providers and habitat structure, rather than focusing on generalised
‘heterogeneity’ metrics. Secondly, although almond plantations supported a
diverse group of potential wild pollinators, the relationships between different
groups of pollinators and habitat attributes at each site varied among taxa, and
also with seasonal and phenological changes in the local environment. This
knowledge will be beneficial to plantation managers and may encourage the
adoption of holistic, ecologically-focused management strategies that provide
resource diversity within plantations to support multiple wild pollinator taxa, and
other ecosystem service providers, throughout the year. Hence, given the
conservation value of the mallee bioregions where Australian almond production
is concentrated and the gaps I have highlighted in our knowledge of habitat use by
mallee pollinator communities, this study system provides a unique opportunity
for further investigation of these issues and the potential to align conservation and
management goals.
121
PART III: SYNTHESIS
122
123
Chapter 7: Synthesis and Conclusions
7.1 Synthesis and general discussion
Ecological management of agroecosystems relies on understanding the biological
properties and ecological processes of the natural environment surrounding the
system (Pimentel et al. 1989). In particular, knowledge of local insect
communities and the way they interact with their environment can have
widespread benefits for biodiversity conservation and the productive capacity of
the agroecosystem. The work presented here has achieved two aims: it provides
insight into potential wild pollinator taxa living in the Victorian Murray Mallee
that could provide pollination and pest control services to almond growers; and it
gives credence to my overall thesis that intensively-managed monoculture tree
crop plantations do not provide the vegetation heterogeneity necessary to support
diverse native insect communities in the long-term. The data presented here were
limited in seasonal scope, being relevant to the almond flowering season in late
winter. The purpose of this was to provide information on the most critical life
stages for both the crop variety and the focal insect taxa. Almond trees rely
completely on insect pollination to set fruit, so the ability of a commercial almond
orchard to sustain a diverse pollinator community in the long-term is paramount.
This limitation is even more challenging for growers because almond trees flower
in winter when insect activity is limited. Additionally, given the natural dynamics
of semi-arid mallee ecosystems, where resource availability can be unreliable and
prone to extreme weather events, resource-rich agroecosystems could provide a
consistent resource supply for some insect species. Thus, prioritising ecological
management of these agroecosystems has potential to enhance the conservation of
both wild insects and the ecosystem services they provide.
My results have shown that potential wild pollinator taxa are using almond
plantations during flowering, as well as immediately before and after, but their
distribution throughout plantations appears to be limited by homogeneous
vegetation structure and lack of permanent resources. A number of results were of
particular interest:
The highest bee and wasp abundances were collected in a plantation
that combined living ground cover along the middle of rows with bare
124
ground along the tree line (Chapter 3). Given our knowledge of the
nesting habits of many hymenopteran species, particularly in
Mediterranean ecosystems, this result is not surprising. A contiguous
carpet of ground cover across the plantation floor can provide diverse
floral resources, but not areas of bare soil for ground-nesting bees and
wasps to excavate their nests into. Hence, almond plantations may be more
capable of supporting permanent pollinator communities if they are
managed with a combination of weedy ground cover and bare soil, rather
than only one of these elements. This provides valuable baseline
information for future research, as previous studies examining
relationships between pollinator taxa and ground cover within fruit
orchards have rarely provided any detail on the level of contiguity of
ground cover vegetation (e.g. Mandelik & Roll 2009), or have only
compared ‘bare’ orchards with ‘weedy’ orchards (e.g. Brown 2012). More
studies that compare pollinator communities across orchards with multiple
different types of ground cover configurations and specifically examine
relationships between these two variables will increase our understanding
of the optimal configuration of this important habitat attribute.
In broadacre monoculture plantations, native bees and hoverflies
were only present in patches of remnant mallee vegetation within and
adjacent to blocks of almond trees (Chapter 4). Native bees and
hoverflies are the most recognised pollinators and this result has
significant potential to motivate changes toward ecological management
practices in the almond industry. It is possible that the sampling method
underrepresented the abundance and richness of the pollinator taxa
collected in plantations, as plentiful floral resources may divert insects
from pan traps (Baum & Wallen 2011) and the single sampling event in
this study could not account for temporal variation in pollinator
abundance. However, the clear differences in abundance and richness of
pollinator taxa caught in the plant-diverse orchards during flowering,
compared to the abundance and richness of the same taxa caught in
monoculture plantations (Chapters 3 & 4), shows that the method was able
to provide comparative information on how pollinators were using the two
plantation types during the critical flowering period. The pattern seen here
125
agrees with other studies suggesting that bees and hoverflies may be
highly-sensitive to severe homogeneity and changes in vegetation contrast
(Wratten et al. 2003; Kohler et al. 2008), as well as Brosi et al.’s (2008)
recommendation to maintain small patches of natural habitat interspersed
through intensively-managed landscapes. A long-term comparison of
pollinator communities across plantations containing different sizes and
configurations of internal mallee patches would shed more light on the
importance of these landscape elements for supporting wild pollinators in
broadacre plantation landscapes.
Of the two monoculture plantations, Wemen plantation had
consistently more abundant and diverse pollinator communities than
Liparoo plantation (Chapters 3-6). Wemen plantation was smaller than
Liparoo, and also had more average ground cover vegetation across the
orchard floor (Chapter 3). The implications of these results have been
discussed in relevant chapters; however, it is likely that the smaller area
gave foraging pollinator insect fauna greater access to the interior of the
plantation and the presence of sparse ground cover also provided a limited
amount of non-crop resources for pollinators. Given the overall similarity
between the two plantations compared to other sampled vegetation types,
this is unlikely to have had a significant impact on my results as a whole,
but the ecological and management implications of this pattern requires
more robust investigation.
In combination, the results presented here provide incentive for further detailed
research programs, because of the study system’s two-fold significance. The
mallee bioregions are unique ecosystems with high conservation value (Mallee
Catchment Management Authority 2008; Cheal et al. 2013), but our knowledge of
flying invertebrate fauna is limited (Yen et al. 2006). Additionally, almond is an
economically-significant crop for Australia’s economy and the current pressures
on the commercial honeybee industry warrant serious investigation of alternative
pollination services available to growers.
Based on the findings presented in this work, the limitations of my
research can be expanded on through a number of detailed studies. In particular,
my sampling method was chosen to maximise sampling time per site and to
minimise bias from inexperience in visual identification and netting techniques
126
(Westphal et al. 2008; Popic et al. 2013). However, my sampling method did not
account for potential Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies) or Formicidae (ant)
pollinators, although individuals of both these groups were seen visiting flowers
during sampling (see Appendix 2) and very small numbers of other known
pollinator insect groups, Thysanoptera (thrips) and Coleoptera (beetles), were also
caught in pan traps during sampling. Furthermore, family-level identification of
insect samples is useful for providing broad estimates of ecosystem service
providers, especially when reliable taxonomic information is limited, as was the
case with my system; however, higher-level taxonomic identification may
increase the application of these results after specific taxa of conservation and
management interest to the system have been identified. Hence, experienced net
sampling of the flowering almond canopy, combined with detailed flower visitor
observations and species-level identification of samples, would expand my results
with a more robust estimate of wild pollinator taxa available to pollinate almond
flowers in this system. In addition to the sampling limitations, the logistical
restrictions on the number of sites I could sample on each trip, particularly in the
mallee vegetation, would have limited the breadth of the pollinator community I
sampled. The accumulation curves shown in Chapter 3 (page 38) indicated that I
had most likely not captured the full representation of wild hymenopteran taxa,
although the curves for mallee dipteran communities and orchard hymenopteran
communities did approach an asymptote. In addition, a number of taxa across all
pollinator groups, and in both years, were only collected at mallee sites (Appendix
2) and the wetter than average weather conditions across the region during the two
sampling years most likely influenced the abundance and richness of my target
insects (Chapter 2). Given the lack of ecological information available on
Hymenoptera and Diptera of the Victorian mallee regions, these are exciting areas
for further investigation.
7.2 Conclusions
The results presented in this thesis suggest that plant-diverse almond plantations
established in heterogeneous landscapes contribute to local biodiversity
conservation, and thus benefit from wild pollinators, more than intensively-
managed plantations cultivated as broadacre monocultures. My results concur
with numerous studies that have shown that: (a) weedy ground cover in crop
127
systems increases the abundance and richness of pollinator taxa (e.g. Mandelik &
Roll 2009; Brown 2012); (b) ecological management practices on individual
farms are often more responsible for creating resource heterogeneity and
connectivity than the presence of particular vegetation types in the surrounding
landscape (e.g. Kleijn & van Langevelde 2006; Persson & Smith 2013); (c)
physical habitat boundaries in agroecosystems are not barriers to wild pollinator
movement, but limited structure, complexity and resources available beyond the
boundary may hinder their movement into homogeneous patches (e.g. Kohler et
al.2008); and (d) the availability of nesting and overwintering resources is crucial
for supporting beneficial insect communities in agroecosystems (e.g. Pfiffner &
Luka 2000) and this is especially pertinent to winter-flowering crops like almond.
Thus, the ability of a plantation to benefit from unmanaged pollination services
during the flowering period may depend on its capacity to support pollinators
throughout the plantation before flowering, i.e. overwintering or larval stages
from the previous season, or after flowering, i.e. during the post-emergence
reproductive stage.
The work presented in this thesis has highlighted ecological differences,
and similarities, between commercial almond plantations and local native mallee
woodlands, with particular relevance to the conservation of wild insect
pollinators. Overall, I have shown that ecologically-managed almond plantations
have the potential to support a diverse wild pollinator community, which has
important implications for both almond production and biodiversity conservation
in the mallee regions. In addition, my research has highlighted a number of gaps
in our knowledge of the ecological role of tree crop plantations and how they
influence pollinator communities. This is an essential area for future research,
given the global expansion of economically-important tree crop plantations and
their potential to contribute to the conservation of multiple ecosystem services in
agricultural landscapes. Most importantly, I have contributed to knowledge of the
pollinator insect fauna of the Victorian mallee, a unique but understudied
ecosystem, and presented data showing how these taxa interact with
agroecosystems in the region. These results will hopefully motivate further
scientific and public discourse and more detailed research into the importance of
conserving wild pollinators, particularly in and around agroecosystems
established in regions of high conservation value.
128
129
PART IV: REFERENCE MATERIAL
130
Literature Cited
Abate, T. (1991) Intercropping and weeding – effects on some natural enemies of African bollworm, Heliothis armigera (Hbn.) (Lep., Noctuidae) in bean fields. Journal of Applied Entomology 112:38-42.
Abrahamczyk, S., Steudel, B., Kessler, M. (2010) Sampling Hymenoptera along a precipitation gradient in tropical forests: the effectiveness of different coloured pan traps. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 137:262-268.
Abrol, D.P. (1988) Pollination studies in almond (Prunus amygdalis L.). Current Science57:397-398.
Adams, P.B., Lawson, S.D. (1993) Pollination in Australian orchids: a critical assessment of the literature 1882-1992. Australian Journal of Botany 41:553-575.
Adler, P.B., Lauenroth, W.K. (2003) The power of time: spatiotemporal scaling of species diversity. Ecology Letters 6:749-756.
Aguiar, M.R., Sala, O.E. (1999) Patch structure, dynamics and implications for the functioning of arid ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 14:273-277.
Alcock, J. (1981) Notes on the reproductive behaviour of some Australian Thynnine wasps (Hymenoptera: Tiphiidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 54:681-693.
Almond Board of Australia (2013) Almond Insights 2012-13. Almond Board of Australia Inc., Berri SA. URL: http://australianalmonds.com.au/industry/resources_stats_reports. Accessed 26 July 2013.
Altieri, M.A. (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74:19-31.
Altieri, M.A. (2004) Linking ecologists and traditional farmers in the search for sustainable agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 2:35-42.
Altieri, M.A., Letourneau, D.K., Davis, J.R. (1983) Developing sustainable agroecosystems. BioScience 33:45-49.
Altieri, M.A., Nicholls, C.I. (2002) The simplification of traditional vineyard based agroforests in northwestern Portugal: some ecological implications. Agroforestry Systems 56:185-191.
Andersen, A.N. (1983) Species diversity and temporal distribution of ants in the semi-arid mallee region of north-western Victoria. Australian Journal of Ecology8:127-137.
131
Andersen, A.N., Yen, A.L. (1985) Immediate effects of fire on ants in the semi-arid mallee region of northwestern Victoria. Australian Journal of Ecology 10:25-30.
Andersen, A.N., Yen, A.L. (1992) Canopy ant communities in the semi-arid Mallee region of north-western Victoria. Australian Journal of Zoology 40:205-214.
Anderson, M.J. (2001) A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32-46.
Andrew, N., Rodgerson, L., York, A. (2000) Frequent fuel-reduction burning: the role of logs and associated leaf litter in the conservation of ant biodiversity. Austral Ecology 25:99-107.
Aragona, F.B., Orr, B. (2011) Agricultural intensification, monocultures, and economic failure: the case of onion production in the Tipajara watershed on the eastern slope of the Bolivian Andes. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35:467-492.
Armstrong, J.A. (1979) Biotic pollination mechanisms in the Australian Flora – a review. New Zealand Journal of Botany 17:467-508.
Arnan, X., Bosch, J., Comas, L., Gracia, M., Retana, J. (2011) Habitat determinants of abundance, structure and composition of flying Hymenoptera communities in mountain old-growth forests. Insect Conservation and Diversity 4:200-211.
Arthur, A.D., Li, J., Henry, S., Cunningham, S.A. (2010) Influence of woody vegetation on pollinator densities in oilseed Brassica fields in an Australian temperate landscape. Basic and Applied Ecology 11:406-414.
Ashman, T-L., Knight, TM.., Steets, J.A., Amarasekare, P., Burd, M., Campbell, D.R., Dudash, M.R., Johnston, M.O., Mazer, S.J., Mitchell, R.J., Morgan, M.T., Wilson, W.G. (2004) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: ecological and evolutionary causes and consequences. Ecology 85:2408-2421.
Austin, A.D., Yeates, D.K., Cassis, G., Fletcher, M.J., La Salle, J., Lawrence, J.F., McQuillan, P.B., Mound, L.A., Bickel, D.J., Gullan, P.J., Hales, D.F., Taylor, G.S. (2004) Insects 'Down Under' – Diversity, endemism and evolution of the Australian insect fauna: examples from select orders. Australian Journal of Entomology 43:216-234.
Austin, A.D., Johnson, N.F., Dowton, M. (2005) Systematics, evolution, and biology of scelionid and platygastrid wasps. Annual Review of Entomology 50:553-582.
Australian Nut Industry Council (n.d.) Industry Overview, ANIC. Australian Nut Industry Council, Elanora QLD. URL: http://nutindustry.org.au/ANIC/Industry-Overview.asp. Accessed 15 March 2011.
Azevedo, P.C.B., Lopes, G.N., Fonteles, R.S., Vaconcelos, G.C., Moraes, J.L.P., Rebêlo, J.M.M. (2011) The effect of fragmentation on Phlebotomine communities (Diptera: Psychodidae) in areas of ombrophilous forest in São Luís, State of Maranhão, Brazil. Neotropical Entomology 40:271-277.
132
Bale, J.S., Hayward, S.A.L. (2010) Insect overwintering in a changing climate. The Journal of Experimental Biology 213:980-994.
Barbour, R.C., Otahal, Y., Vaillancourt, R.E., Potts, B.M. (2008) Assessing the risk of pollen-mediated gene flow from exotic Eucalyptus globulus plantations into native eucalypt populations of Australia. Biological Conservation 141:896-907.
Barlow, J., Gardner, T.A., Araujo, I.S., Ávila-Pires, T.C., Bonaldo, A.B., Costa, J.E., Esposito, M.C., Ferreira, L.V., Hawes, J., Hernandez, M.I.M., Hoogmoed, M.S., Leite, R.N., Lo-Man-Hung, N.F., Malcolm, J.R., Martins, M.B., Mestre, L.A.M., Miranda-Santos, R., Nunes-Gutjahr, A.L., Overal, W.L., Parry, L., Peters, S.L., Ribeiro-Junior, M.A., da Silva, M.N.F., da Silva Motta, C., Peres, C.A. (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104:18555-18560.
Bartomeus, I., Winfree, R. (2011) The Circe Principle: are pollinators waylaid by attractive habitats? Current Biology 21:652-654.
Batista Matos, M.C., Sousa-Souto, L., Almeida, R.S., Teodoro, A.V. (2013) Contrasting patterns of species richness and composition of solitary wasps and bees (Insecta: Hymenoptera) according to land-use. Biotropica 45:73-79.
Batley, M., Hogendoorn, K. (2009) Diversity and conservation status of native Australian bees. Apidologie 40:347-354.
Baum, K.A., Wallen, K.E. (2011) Potential bias in pan trapping as a function of floral abundance. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84:155-159.
Bejan, A., Lorente, S. (2010) The constructal law of design and evolution in nature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365:1335-1347.
Bennett, A.F., Radford, J.Q., Haslem, A. (2006) Properties of land mosaics: implications for nature conservation in agricultural environments. Biological Conservation133:250-264.
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J. (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12:1394-1404.
Bennett, A.J., Bending, G.D., Chandler, D., Hilton, S. & Mills, P. (2012) Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations. Biological Reviews 87:52-71.
Benton, T.G., Vickery, J.A., Wilson, J.D. (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:182-188.
Bianchi, F.J.J.A., Schellhorn, N.A., Buckley, Y.M., Possingham, H.P. (2010) Spatial variability in ecosystem services: simple rules for predator-mediated pest suppression. Ecological Applications 20:2322-2333.
133
Biesmeijer, J.C., Roberts, S.P.M., Reemer, M., Ohlemüller, R., Edwards, M., Peeters, T., Schaffers, A.P., Potts, S.G., Kleukers, R., Thomas, C.D., Settele, J., Kunin, W.E. (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351-354.
Blakers, M., Macmillan, L. (1988) Mallee Conservation in Victoria. Research Paper No. 6. Faculty of Environmental Design and Construction, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne.
Blanche, K.R., Ludwig, J.A., Cunningham, S.A. (2006) Proximity to rainforest enhances pollination and fruit set in orchards. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:1182-1187.
Blitzer, E.J., Dormann, C.F., Holzschuh, A., Klein, A-M., Rand, T.A., Tscharntke, T. (2008) Spillover of functionally important organisms between managed and natural habitats. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 146:34-43.
Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. & Potts, S.G. (2013) Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 28:230-238.
Bond, W.J. (1994) Do mutualisms matter? Assessing the impact of pollinator and disperser disruption on plant extinction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 344:83-90.
Bos, M.M., Veddeler, D., Bogdanski, A.K., Klein, A-M., Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tylianakis, J.M. (2007) Caveats to quantifying ecosystem services: fruit abortion blurs benefits from crop pollination. Ecological Applications17:1841-1849.
Bosch, J., Blas, M. (1994) Foraging behaviour and pollinating efficiency of Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera on almond (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae and Apidae). Applied Entomology and Zoology 29:1-9.
Bosch, J., Retana, J., Cerdá, X. (1997) Flowering phenology, floral traits and pollinator composition in a herbaceous Mediterranean plant community. Oecologia109:583-591.
Bosch, J., Kemp, W.P. (2002) Developing and establishing bee species as crop pollinators: the example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees. Bulletin of Entomological Research 92:3-16.
Brittain, C., Kremen, C., Klein, A-M. (2013) Biodiversity buffers pollination from changes in environmental conditions. Global Change Biology 19:540-547.
Brosi, B.J., Armsworth, P.R., Daily, G.C. (2008) Optimal design of agricultural landscapes for pollination services. Conservation Letters 1:27-36.
Brown, M.W. (1999) Applying principles of community ecology to pest management in orchards. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 73:103-106.
134
Brown, M.W. (2012) Role of biodiversity in intergrated fruit production in eastern North American orchards. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 14:89-99.
Brown, A.O., McNeil, J.N. (2009) Pollination ecology of the high-latitude, dioecious cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus; Rosaceae). American Journal of Botany96:1096-1107.
Bugg, R.L., Waddington, C. (1994) Using cover crops to manage arthropod pests of orchards: a review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 50:11-28.
Bureau of Meteorology (2013) Climate Data Online (Annuello Station 76000). URL: http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/ncc/cdio/weatherData/av?p_nccObsCode=139&p_display_type=dataFile&p_startYear=&p_c=&p_stn_num=076000. Accessed January 26 2013.
Burel, F., Baudry, J., Butet, A., Clergeau, P., Delettre Y., Le Coeur D., Dubs F., Morvan N., Paillat G., Petit S., Thenail C., Brunel E., Lefeuvre J-C. (1998) Comparative biodiversity along a gradient of agricultural landscapes. Acta Oecologia 19:47-60.
Burnham, K.P., Anderson, D.R. (2002) Model Selection and Multimodel Inference. Springer Science, New York.
Buzas, M.A., Hayek, L-A.C. (1996) Biodiversity resolution: An integrated approach. Biodiversity Letters 3:40-43.
Buzas, M.A., Hayek, L-A.C. (1998) SHE analysis for biofacies identification. Journal of Foraminiferal Research 28:233-239.
Buzas, M.A., Hayek, L-A.C. (2005) On richness and evenness within and between communities. Paleobiology 31:199-220.
Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A. (2000) Linking forest edge structure to edge function: mediation of herbivore damage. Journal of Ecology 88:31-44.
Cadenasso, M.L., Pickett, S.T.A., Weathers, K.C., Bell, S.S., Benning, T.L., Carreiro, M.M., Dawson, T.E. (2003) An interdisciplinary and synthetic approach to ecological boundaries. BioScience 53:717-722.
Cadotte, M.W., Carscadden, K., Mirotchnick, N. (2011) Beyond species: functional diversity and the maintenance of ecological processes and services. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1079-1087.
Calderone, N.W. (2012) Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992-2009. PLoS ONE7(5):e37235. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.
Cale, P.G., Hobbs, R.J. (1994) Landscape heterogeneity indices: problems of scale and applicability, with particular reference to animal habitat description. Pacific Conservation Biology 1:183-93.
135
Campbell, R.E., Harding, J.S., Ewers, R.M., Thorpe, S., Didham, R.K. (2011) Production land use alters edge response functions in remnant forest invertebrate communities. Ecological Applications 21:3147-3161.
Cane, J.H., Minckley, R.L., Kervin, L.J. (2000) Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan trapping. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 73:225-231.
Cardoso, P., Erwin, T.L., Borges, P.A.V., New, T.R. (2011) The seven impediments in invertebrate conservation and how to overcome them. Biological Conservation144:2647-2655.
Carreck, N.L., Williams, I.H. (2002) Food for insect pollinators on farmland: insect visits to flowers of annual seed mixtures. Journal of Insect Conservation 6:13-23.
Carvalheiro, L.G., Seymour, C.L., Veldtman, R., Nicolson, S.W. (2010) Pollination services decline with distance from natural habitat even in biodiversity-rich areas. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:810-820.
Carvalheiro, L.G., Veldtman, R., Shenkute, A.G., Tesfay, G.B., Walter, C., Pirk, W., Donaldson, J.S., Nicolson, S.W. (2011) Natural and within-farmland biodiversity enhances crop productivity. Ecology Letters 14:251-259.
Chacoff, N.P., Aizen, M.A. (2006) Edge effects on flower-visiting insects in grapefruit plantations bordering premontane subtropical forest. Journal of Applied Ecology43:18-27.
Chapman, M.G., Underwood, A.J. (1999) Ecological patterns in multivariate assemblages: information and interpretation of negative values in ANOSIM tests. Marine Ecology Progress Series 180:257-265.
Cheal, D.C., Parkes, D.M. (1989) Mallee Vegetation in Victoria. In: J.C. Noble, R.A. Bradstock (eds.) Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and their Management, pp. 125-140. CSIRO, East Melbourne.
Cheal, D., Moxham, C., Kenny, S., Millet-Riley, J. (2013) Rare plant recovery in Mallee woodlands. The Victorian Naturalist 130:96-108.
Clarke, K.R. (1993) Non-parametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:117-143.
Clarke, K.R., Ainsworth, M. (1993) A method of linking multivariate community structure to environmental variables. Marine Ecology Progress Series 92:205-219.
Cole, P.J., Sharley, A., Wetherby, K.G. (1989) Irrigated Agriculture. In: J.C. Noble, R.A. Bradstock (eds.) Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and their Management, pp. 329-342. CSIRO, East Melbourne.
136
Collinge, S.K., Palmer, T.M. (2002) The influences of patch shape and boundary contrast on insect response to fragmentation in California grasslands. Landscape Ecology17:647-656.
Collinge, S.K., Prudic, K.L., Oliver, J.C. (2006) Effects of local habitat characteristics and landscape context on grassland butterfly diversity. Conservation Biology17:178-187.
Colloff, M.J., Fokstuen, G., Boland, T. (2003) Toward the Triple Bottom Line in sustainable horticulture: biodiversity, ecosystem services and an environmental management system for citrus orchards in the Riverland of South Australia.CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, ACT.
Colwell, R.K. (2013) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 9.1. User's Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates. Accessed 30 June 2013.
Colwell, R.K., Coddington, J.A. (1994) Estimating biodiversity through extrapolation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 345:101-118.
Colwell, R.K., Mao, C.X., Chang, J. (2004) Interpolating, extrapolating, and comparing incidence-based species accumulation curves. Ecology 85:2717-2727.
Colwell, R.K., Chao, A., Gotelli, N.J., Lin, S-Y., Mao, C.X., Chazdon, R.L., Longino, J.T. (2012) Models and estimators linking individual-based and sample-based rarefactio, extrapolation and comparison of assemblages. Journal of Plant Ecology 5:3-21.
Concepción, E.D., Díaz, M., Kleijn, D., Báldi, A., Batáry, P., Clough, Y., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Knop, E., Marshall, E.J.P., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J. (2012) Interactive effects of landscape context constrain the effectiveness of local agri-environmental management. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:695-705.
Coudrain, V., Herzog, F., Entling, M.H. (2013) Effects of habitat fragmentation on abundance, larval food and parasitism of a spider-hunting wasp. PLOS One8(3):e59286. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059286.
Cunningham, S.A. (2000) Effects of habitat fragmentation on the reproductive ecology of four plant species in mallee woodland. Conservation Biology 14:758-768.
Cunningham, S.A., FitzGibbon, F., Heard, T.A. (2002) The future of pollinators for Australian agriculture. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 53:893-900.
Dąbrowska-Prot, E., Wasiłowska, A. (2012) The role of ecotones in man-disturbed landscape: boundaries between mixed forest and adjacent man-made ecosystems in the Kampinos National Park, Poland. Polish Journal of Ecology 60:677-698.
Dafni, A. (1996) Autumnal and winter pollination adaptations under Mediterranean conditions. Bocconea 5:171-181.
137
Daily, G.C. (1997) Nature’s Services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington D.C.
Dangerfield, J.M., Pik, A.J., Britton, D., Holmes, A., Gillings, M., Oliver, I., Briscoe, D., Beattie, A. (2003) Patterns of invertebrate biodiversity across a natural edge. Austral Ecology 28:227-236.
Degrandi-Hoffman, G. (2001) The pollination of almonds. American Bee Journal141:655-657.
Delettre, Y.R. (2005) Short-range spatial patterning of terrestrial Chironomidae (Insecta: Diptera) and farmland heterogeneity. Pedobiologia 49:15-27.
Department of Sustainability and Environment (2013) Conservation and Environment: Victoria’s Bioregions. The State of Victoria, Australia. URL: http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/conservation-and-environment/native-vegetation-groups-for-victoria/victorias-bioregions. Accessed 4 September 2013.
Diacon-Bolli, J., Dalang, T., Holderegger, R., Bürgi, M. (2012) Heterogeneity fosters biodiversity: linking history and ecology of dry calcareous grasslands. Basic and Applied Ecology 13:641-653.
D’Odorico, P., Laio, F., Porporato, A., Ridolfi, L., Rinaldo, A., Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. (2010) Ecohydrology of terrestrial ecosystems. BioScience 60:898-907.
Driscoll, D.A., Weir, T. (2005) Beetle responses to habitat fragmentation depend on ecological traits, habitat condition, and remnant size. Conservation Biology19:182-194.
Dubois, G.F., Vignon, V., Delettre, Y.R., Rantier, Y., Vernon, P., Burel, F. (2009) Factors affecting the occurrence of the endangered saproxylic beetle Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763) (Coleoptera: Cetoniidae) in an agricultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 91:152-159.
Duncan, D.H., Dorrough, J.W. (2009) Historical and current land use shape landscape restoration options in the Australian wheat and sheep farming zone. Landscape and Urban Planning 91:124-132.
Dunning, J.B., Danielson, B.J., Pulliam, H.R. (1992) Ecological processes that affect populations in complex landscapes. Oikos 65:169-175.
Dutoit, T., Buisson, E., Gerbaud, E., Roche, P., Tatoni, T. (2007) The status of transitions between cultivated fields and their boundaries: ecotones, ecoclines or edge effects? Acta Oecologia 31:127-136.
Dyer, A.G., Boyd-Gerny, S., McLoughlin, S., Rosa, M.G.P., Simonov, V., Wong, B.B.M. (2012) Parallel evolution of angiosperm colour signals: common evolutionary pressures linked to hymenopteran vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society B279:3606-3615.
138
Ebeling, A., Klein, A-M., Schumacher, J., Weisser, W.W., Tscharntke, T. (2008) How does plant richness affect pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower visits? Oikos 117:1808-1815.
Ebeling, A., Klein, A-M., Tscharntke, T. (2011) Plant-flower interaction webs: Temporal stability and pollinator specialization increases along an experimental plant diversity gradient. Basic and Applied Ecology 12:300-309.
Ehrlich, P.R., Mooney, H.A. (1983) Extinction, substitution and ecosystem services. BioScience 33:248-254.
Eilers, E.J., Klein, A-M. (2009) Landscape context and management effects on an important insect pest and its natural enemies in almond. Biological Control51:388-394.
Ekroos, J., Heliölä, J., Kuussaari, M. (2010) Homogenisation of lepidopteran communities in intensively cultivated agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:459-467.
Elberling, H., Olesen, J.M. (1999) The structure of a high-latitude plant-flower visitor system: the dominance of flies. Ecography 22:314-323.
Essenberg, C.J. (2013) Scale-dependent shifts in the species composition of flower visitors with changing floral density. Oecologia 171:187-196.
Ewers, R.M., Didham, R.K. (2006) Continuous response functions for quantifying the strength of edge effects. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:527-536.
Fægri, K., van der Pijl, L. (1979) The Principles of Pollination Ecology. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford.
Fagan, W.F., Cantrell, R.S., Cosner, C. (1999) How habitat edges change species interactions. The American Naturalist 153:165-182.
Faith, D.P., Minchin, P.R., Belbin, L. (1987) Compositional dissimilarity as a robust measure of ecological distance. Vegetatio 69:57-68.
Farina, A. (1998) Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Chapman & Hall, London.
Fayt, P., Dufrêne, M., Branquart, E., Hastir, P., Pontégnie, C., Henin, J-M., Versteirt, V. (2006) Contrasting responses of saproxylic insects to focal habitat resources: the example of longhorn beetles and hoverflies in Belgian deciduous forests. Journal of Insect Conservation 10:129-150.
Fletcher Jr., R.J., Ries, L., Battin, J., Chalfoun, A.D. (2007) The role of habitat area and edge in fragmented landscapes: definitively distinct or inevitably intertwined? Canadian Journal of Zoology 85:1017-1030.
139
Fonseca, C.R., Joner, F. (2007) Two-sided edge effect studies and the restoration of endangered ecosystems. Restoration Ecology 15:613-619.
Ford, H.A., Forde, N. (1976) Birds as possible pollinators of Acacia pycnantha. Australian Journal of Botany 24:793-795.
Forister, M.L. (2009) Anthropogenic islands in the arid west: comparing the richness and diversity of insect communities in cultivated fields and neighboring wildlands.Environmental Entomology 38:1028-1037.
Forman, R.T.T., Godron, M. (1986) Landscape Ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Francis, C.A., Porter, P. (2011) Ecology in sustainable agriculture practices and systems. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:64-73.
Freeman Long, R., Corbett, A., Lamb, C., Reberg-Horton, C., Chandler, J., Stimmann, M. (1998) Beneficial insects move from flowering plants to nearby crops. California Agrriculture 52:23-26.
Friend, G.R., Williams, M.R. (1996) Impact of fire on invertebrate communities in mallee-heath shrublands of southwestern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology2:244-267.
Fründ, J., Linsenmair, K.E., Blüthgen, N. (2010) Pollinator diversity and specialization in relation to flower diversity. Oikos 119:1581-1590.
Gaffney, A., Allen, G.R., Brown, P.H. (2011) Insect visitation to flowering hybrid carrot seed crops. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 39:79-93.
Gámez-Virués, S., Gurr, G., Raman, A., La Salle, J., Nicol, H. (2009) Effects of flowering groundcover vegetation on diversity and activity of wasps in a farm shelterbelt in temperate Australia. BioControl 54:211-218.
Gámez-Virués, S., Gurr, G.M., Raman, A., Nicol, H.I. (2010) Plant diversity and habitat structure affect tree growth, herbivory and natural enemies in shelterbelts. Basic and Applied Ecology 11:542-549.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J.M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S.A., Carvalheiro, L.G., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenhöffer, J.H., Greenleaf, S.S., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, L.A., Potts, S.G., Ricketts, T.H., Szentgyörgyi, H., Viana, B.F., Westphal, C., Winfree, R., Klein, A-M. (2011) Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters 14:1062-1072.
Garibaldi, L.A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen, M.A., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Carvalheiro, L.G., Harder, L.D., Afik, O., Bartomeus, I., Benjamin, F., Boreux, V., Cariveau, D., Chacoff, N.P., Dudenhöffer, J.H., Freitas, B.M., Ghazoul, J., Greenleaf, S., Hipólito, J., Holzschuh, A., Howlett, B., Isaacs, R., Javorek, S.K., Kennedy, C.M., Krewenka,
140
K.M., Krishnan, S., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M., Motzke, I., Munyuli, T., Nault, B.A., Otieno, M., Petersen, J., Pisanty, G., Potts, S.G., Rader, R., Ricketts, T.H., Rundlöf, M., Seymour, C.L., Schüepp, C., Szentgyörgyi, H., Taki, H., Tscharntke, T., Vergara, C.H., Viana, B.F., Wanger, T.C., Westphal, C., Williams, N., Klein, A-M. (2013) Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science 339:1608-1611.
Gattone, S.A., Di Battista, T. (2009) A functional approach to diversity profiles. Journal of Applied Statistics 58:267-284.
Gemmill-Herren, B., Ochieng, A.O. (2008) Role of native bees and natural habitats in eggplant (Solanum melongena) pollination in Kenya. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 127:31-36.
Gittings, T., O’Halloran, J., Kelly, T., Giller, P.S. (2006) The contribution of open spaces to the maintenance of hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) biodiversity in Irish plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 237:290-300.
Gómez, J.A., Llewellyn, C., Basch, G., Sutton, P.B., Dyson, J.S., Jones, C.A. (2011) The effects of cover crops and conventional tillage on soil and runoff loss in vineyards and olive groves in several Mediterranean countries. Soil Use and Management27:502-514.
Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., Paoletti, M.G. (2011) Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: conventional vs. organic agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:95-124.
Gotelli, N.J., Colwell, R.K. (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecology Letters 4:379-391.
Gotelli, N.J., Colwell, R.K. (2011) Estimating species richness. In: A.E. Magurran, B.J. McGill (eds.) Biological Diversity: Frontiers in measurement and assessment, pp. 39-54. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Grasswitz, T.R., James, D.G. (2009) Influence of hop yard ground flora on invertebrate pests of hops and their natural enemies. Journal of Applied Entomology 133:210-221.
Greenleaf, S.S., Williams, N.M., Winfree, R., Kremen, C. (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589-596.
Griggs, W.H., Iwakiri, B.T. (1975) Pollen tubes growth in almond flowers. CaliforniaAgriculture 29:4-7.
Gruber, B., Eckel, K., Everaars, J., Dormann, C.F. (2011) On managing the red mason bee (Osmia bicornis) in apple orchards. Apidologie 42:564-576.
Grundel, R., Jean, R.P., Frohnapple, K.J., Glowacki, G.A., Scott, P.E., Pavlovic, N.B. (2010) Floral and nesting resources, habitat structure, and fire influence bee
141
distribution across an open-forest gradient. Ecological Applications 20:1678-1692.
Haaland, C., Naisbit, R.E., Bersier, L-F. (2010) Sown wildflower strips for insect conservation: a review. Insect Conservation and Diversity 4:60-80.
Haenke, S., Scheid, B., Schaefer, M., Tscharntke, T., Thies, T. (2009) Increasing syrphid fly diversity and density in sown flower strips within simple vs. complex landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1106-1114.
Hagan, M., Kraemer, M. (2010) Agricultural surroundings support flower-visitor networks in an Afrotropical rain forest. Biological Conservation 143:1654-1663.
Hamilton, J., Yeates, D., Hastings, D., Colless, D., McAlpine, D., Bickel, D., Daniels, G., Schneider, M., Cranston, P., Marshall, S. (2006) On the Fly: the interactive atlas and key to Australian fly families (CD-ROM). Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, ACT.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D. (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paeleontologia Electronica4(1):9pp. URL: http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm. Accessed November 14 2010.
Harding, J.S., Benfield, E.F., Bolstad, P.V., Helfman, G.S., Jones III, E.B.D. (1998) Stream biodiversity: the ghost of land use past. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences USA 95:14843-14847.
Hartemink, A.E. (2005) Plantation agriculture in the tropics. Outlook on Agriculture34:11-21.
Hartley, M.J. (2002) Rationale and methods for conserving biodiversity in plantation forests. Forest Ecology & Management 155:81-95.
Haslem, A., Bennett, A.F. (2008) Birds in agricultural mosaics: the influence of landscape pattern and countryside heterogeneity. Ecological Applications 18:185-196.
Haslett, J.R. (2001) Biodiversity and conservation of Diptera in heterogeneous land mosaics: a fly's eye view. Journal of Insect Conservation 5:71-75.
Hawkeswood, T.J. (1982) Notes on insect pollination of two species of Eucalyptus(Myrtaceae) from south-west Western Australia. The Victorian Naturalist 99:28-37.
Hayek, L-A.C., Buzas, M.A. (1997) Surveying Natural Populations. Columbia University Press, New York.
Heard, T.A. (1999) The role of stingless bees in crop pollination. Annual Review of Entomology 44:183-206.
142
Heard, T.A., Vithanage, V., Chacko, E.K. (1990) Pollination biology of cashew in the Northern Territory of Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research41:1101-1114.
Heard, T.A., Exley, E.M. (1994) Diversity, abundance, and distribution of insect visitors to macadamia flowers. Environmental Entomology 23:91-100.
Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, F., Rollin, O., Odoux, J-F., Aupinel, P., Aptel, J., Tchamitchian, S., Decourtye, A. (2012) A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Science 336:348-350.
Herrmann, J.D., Kormann, U., Schüepp, C., Stocker, Y., Herzog, F., Entling, M.H. (2012) Effects of habitat isolation and predation pressure on an arboreal food-web. Community Ecology 13:82-87.
Hill, M.O. (1973) Diversity and evenness: a unifying notation and its consequences. Ecology 54:427-432.
Hill, S.J., Stephenson, D.W., Taylor, B.K. (1985) Almond pollination studies: pollen production and viability, flower emergence and cross-pollination tests. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 25:697-704.
Hoehn, P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2010) Relative contribution of agroforestry, rainforest and openland to local and regional bee diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:2189-2200.
Holland, P.G. (1969) The plant patterns of different seasons in two stands of mallee vegetation. Journal of Ecology 57:323-333.
Holland, R.A., Eigenbrod, F., Armsworth, P.R., Anderson, B.J., Thomas, C.D., Gaston, K.J. (2011) The influence of temporal variation on relationships between ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation 20:3285-3294.
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2008) Agricultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity. Oikos 117:354-361.
Holzschuh, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2010) How do landscape composition and configuration, organic farming and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasiotids? Journal of Animal Ecology 79:491-500.
Holzschuh, A., Dormann, C.F., Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2011) Expansion of mass-flowering crops leads to transient pollinator dilution and reduced wild plant pollination. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278:3444-3451.
Holzschuh, A., Dormann, C.F., Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2013) Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance. Oecologia 172:477-484.
Hooks, C.R.R., Johnson, M.W. (2004) Using undersown clovers as living mulches: effects on yields, lepidopterous pest infestations, and spider densities in a
143
Hawaiian broccoli agroecosystem. International Journal of Pest Management50:115-120.
Horskins, K., Turner, V.B. (1999) Resource use and foraging patterns of honeybees, Apis mellifera, and native insects on flowers of Eucalyptus corsata. Australian Journal of Ecology 24:221-227.
Horton, D.R., Broers, D.A., Lewis, R.R., Granatstein, D., Zack, R.S., Unruh, T.R., Moldenke, A.R., Brown, J.J. (2003) Effects of mowing frequency on densities of natural enemies in three Pacific Northwest pear orchards. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 106:135-145.
Houston, T.F., Maynard, G.V. (2012) An unusual new paracolletine bee, Leioproctus (Ottocolletes) muelleri subgen. & sp. nov. (Hymenoptera: Colletidae): with notes on nesting biology and in-burrow nest guarding by macrocephalic males. Australian Journal of Entomology 51:248-257.
Humphrey, J.W., Hawes, C., Peace, A.J., Ferris-Kaan, R., Jukes, M.R. (1999) Relationships between insect diversity and habitat characteristics in plantation forests. Forest Ecology and Management 113:11-21.
Hunter, M.D. (2002) Landscape structure, habitat fragmentation, and the ecology of insects. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 4:159-166.
Hyvönen, T., Huusela-Veistola, E. (2008) Arable weeds as indicators of agricultural intensity – a case study from Finland. Biological Conservation 141:2857-2864.
IBM Corporation (2011) IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20. IBM Corporation, Somers, NY.
Jackson, D., Looney, N., Morley-Bunker, M., Thiele, G. (eds.) (2011) Temperate and subtropical fruit production. 3rd edn. CABI International, Oxfordshire UK.
Jackson, J.F. (1996) Gene flow in pollen in commercial almond orchards. Sexual Plant Reproduction 9:367-369.
Jauker, F., Diekötter, T., Schwarzbach, F., Wolters, V. (2009) Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat. Landscape Ecology 24:547-555.
Jauker, F., Peter, F., Wolters, V., Diekötter, T. (2012) Early reproductive benefits of mass-flowering crops to the solitary bee Osmia rufa outbalance post-flowering disadvantages. Basic and Applied Ecology 13:268-276.
Jha, S., Vandermeer, J.H. (2009) Contrasting bee foraging in response to resource scale and local habitat management. Oikos 118:1174-1180.
Jha, S., Kremen, C. (2013) Resource diversity and landscape-level homogeneity drive native bee foraging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110:555-558.
144
Jones, G.A., Gillett, J.L. (2005) Intercropping with sunflowers to attract beneficial insects in organic agriculture. Florida Entomologist 88:91-96.
Jordano, P. (1993) Pollination biology of Prunus mahaleb L.: deferred consequences of gender variation for fecundity and seed size. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50:65-84.
José-María, L., Armengot, L., Blanco-Moreno, J.M., Bassa, M., Sans, F.X. (2010) Effects of agricultural intensification on plant diversity in Mediterranean dryland cereal fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:832-840.
Jost, L. (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113:363-375.
Jules, E.S., Shahani, P. (2003) A broader ecological context to habitat fragmentation: why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. Journal of Vegetation Science14:459-464.
Kalske, A., Muola, A., Laukkanen, L., Mutikainen, P., Leimu, R. (2012) Variation and constraints of local adaptation of a long-lived plant, its pollinators and specialist herbivores. Journal of Ecology 100:1359-1372.
Kearns, C.A. (2001) North American Dipteran pollinators: assessing their value and conservation status. Conservation Ecology 5:article 5. URL: http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art5/. Accessed 11 January 2013.
Kehinde, T., Samways, M.J. (2012) Endemic pollinator response to organic vs. conventional farming and landscape context in the Cape Floristic Region biodiversity hotspot. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 146:162-167.
Kennedy, C.M., Lonsdorf, E., Neel, M.C., Williams, N.M., Ricketts, T.H., Winfree, R., Bommarco, R., Brittain, C., Burley, A.L., Cariveau, D., Carvalheiro, L.G., Chacoff, N.P., Cunningham, S.A., Danforth, B.A., Dudenhöffer, J-H., Elle, E., Gaines, H.R., Garibaldi, L.A., Gratton, C., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Javorek, S.K., Jha, S., Klein, A-M., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, L., Neame, L.A., Otieno, M., Park, M., Potts, S.G., Rundlöf Saez, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Taki, H., Viana, B.F., Westphal, C., Wilson, J.K., Greenleaf, S.S., Kremen, C. (2013) A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecology Letters 16:584-599.
Kester, D.E., Ross, N.W. (1996) History. In W.C. Micke (Ed.) Almond Production Manual. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Oakland.
Kevan, P.G. (1973) Parasitoid wasps as flower visitors in the Canadian high Arctic. Journal of Pest Science 46:3-7.
Kevan, P.G. (1999) Pollinators as bioindicators of the state of the environment: species, activity and diversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 74:373-393.
145
Kevan, P.G., Baker, H.G. (1983) Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Annual Review of Entomology 28:407-453.
Kiers, E.T., Palmer, T.M., Ives, A.R., Bruno, J.F., Bronstein, J.L. (2010) Mutualisms in a changing world: an evolutionary perspective. Ecology Letters 13:1459-1474.
King, L.E., Douglas-Hamilton, I., Vollrath, F. (2011) Beehive fences as effective deterrents for crop-raiding elephants: field trials in northern Kenya. African Journal of Ecology 49:431-439.
Kleijn, D., van Langevelde, F. (2006) Interacting effects of landscape context and habitat quality on flower visiting insects in agricultural landscapes. Basic and Applied Ecology 7:201-214.
Klein, A-M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2004) Foraging trip duration and density of megachilid bees, eumenid wasps and pompilid wasps in tropical agroforestry systems. Journal of Animal Ecology 73:517-525.
Klein, A-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Tscharntke, T. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274:303-313.
Klein, A-M., Brittain, C., Hendrix, S.D., Thorp, R., Williams, N., Kremen, C. (2012) Wild pollination services to California almond rely on semi-natural habitat. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:723-732.
Knerer, G., Schwarz, M. (1976) Halictine social evolution: the Australian enigma. Science 194:445-448.
Knight, T.M., Steets, J.A., Vamosi, J.C., Mazer, S.J., Burd, M., Campbell, D.R., Dudash, M.R., Johnston, M.O., Mitchell, R.J., Ashman, T-L. (2005) Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: pattern and process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution & Systematics 36:467-97.
Kohler, F., Verhulst, J., van Klink, R., Kleijn, D. (2008) At what spatial scale do high-quality habitats enhance the diversity of forbs and pollinators in intensively farmed landscapes? Journal of Applied Ecology 45:753-762.
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Batáry, P., Báldi, A. (2011) Local and landscape effects on bee communities of Hungarian winter cereal fields. Agricultural and Forest Entomology 13:59-66.
Krebs, J.R., Wilson, J.D., Bradbury, R.B., Siriwardena, G.M. (1999) The second Silent Spring? Nature 400:611-612.
Krell, F-T. (2004) Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies – pitfalls and applicability of ‘morphospecies’ sorting. Biodiversity and Conservation 13:795-812.
146
Kremen, C. (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecology Letters 8:468-479.
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, S.G., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vázquez, D.P., Winfree, R., Adams, L., Crone, E.E., Greenleaf, S.S., Keitt, T.H., Klein, A-M., Regetz, J., Ricketts, T.H. (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services provided by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters 10:299-314.
Kremer, R.J., Kussman, R.D. (2011) Soil quality in a pecan-kura clover alley cropping system in the Midwestern USA. Agroforestry Systems 83:213-223.
Krewenka, K.M., Holzschuh, A., Tscharntke, T., Dormann, C.F. (2011) Landscape elements of potential barriers and corridors for bees, wasps and parasitoids. Biological Conservation 144:1816-1825.
Kummerow, J. (1983) Comparative phenology of Mediterranean-type plant communities. In: F.J. Kruger, D.T. Mitchell, J.U.M. Jarvis (eds.) Mediterranean-type ecosystems, pp. 300-317. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg.
Ladizinsky, G. (1999) On the origin of almond. Genetic resources and crop evolution46:143-147.
Lander, T.A., Bebber, D.P., Choy, C.T.L., Harris, S.A., Boshier, D.H. (2011) The Circe Principle explains how resource-rich land can waylay pollinators in fragmented landscapes. Current Biology 21:1302-1307.
Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D., Gurr, G.M. (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annual Review of Entomology 45:175-201.
Larson, B.M.H., Kevan, P.G., Inouye, D.W. (2001) Flies and flowers: taxonomic diversity of anthophiles and pollinators. The Canadian Entomologist 133:439-465.
Laubertie, E.A., Wratten, S.D., Sedcole, J.R. (2006) The role of odour and visual cues in the pan-trap catching of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Annals of Applied Biology 148:173-178.
Lavorel, S., Grigulis, K., Lamarque, P., Colace, M-P., Garden, D., Girel, J., Pellet, G., Douzet, R. (2011) Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. Journal of Ecology 99:135-147.
Leather, S.R., Walters, K.F.A., Bale, J.S. (1993) The Ecology of Insect Overwintering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lebuhn, G., Droege, S., Connor, E.F., Gemmill-Herren, B., Potts, S.G., Minckley, R.L., Griswold, T., Jean, R., Kula, E., Roubik, D.W., Cane, J., Wright, K.W., Frankie, G., Parker, F. (2013) Detecting insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales. Conservation Biology 27:113-120.
147
Legendre, P., Legendre, L. (1998) Numerical Ecology. 2nd English Edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Leinster, T., Cobbold, C.A. (2012) Measuring diversity: the importance of species similarity. Ecology 93:477-489.
Lentini, P.E., Martin, T.G., Gibbons, P., Fischer, J., Cunningham, S.A. (2012) Supporting wild pollinators in a temperate agricultural landscape: Maintaining mosaics of natural features and production. Biological Conservation 149:84-92.
Leponce, M., Theunis, L., Delabie, J.H.C., Roisin, Y. (2004) Scale dependence of diversity measures in a leaf-litter ant assemblage. Ecography 27:253-267.
Letourneau, D.K., Bothwell, S.G. (2008) Comparison of organic and conventional farms: challenging ecologists to make biodiversity functional. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6:430-438.
Letourneau, D.K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B., Lerma, J.M., Carmona, E.J., Daza, M.C., Escobar, S., Galindo, V., Gutiérrez, C., López, S.D., Mejía, J.L., Rangel, A.M.A., Rangel, J.H., Rivera, L., Saavedra, C.A., Torres, A.B., Trujillo, A.R. (2011) Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecological Applications 21:9-21.
Letourneau, D.K., Bothwell Allen, S.G., Stireman III, J.O. (2012) Perennial habitat fragments, parasitoid diversity nd parasitism in ephemeral crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:1405-1416.
Levin, S.A. (1992) The problem of pattern and scale in ecology: the Robert H MacArthur Award lecture. Ecology 73:1943-1967.
Lindenmayer, D.B., Hobbs, R.J. (2004) Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests – a review. Biological Conservation 119:151-168.
Liu, C., Whittaker, R.J., Ma, K., Malcolm, J.R. (2007) Unifying and distinguishing diversity ordering methods for comparing communities. Population Ecology49:89-100.
Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J.P., Hector, A., Hooper, D.U., Huston, M.A., Raffaelli, D., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., Wardle, D.A. (2001) Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804-808.
Losey, J.E., Vaughan, M. (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. BioScience 56:311-323.
Lovell, S., Hamer, M., Slotow, R., Herbert, D. (2007) Assessment of congruency across invertebrate taxa and taxonomic levels to identify potential surrogates. Biological Conservation 139:113-125.
148
Lowenstein, D.M., Huseth, A.S., Groves, R.L. (2012) Response of wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) to surrounding land cover in Wisconsin pickling cucumber. Environmental Entomology 41:532-540.
Lucey, J.M., Hill, J.K. (2012) Spillover of insects from rain forest into adjacent oil palm plantations. Biotropica 44:368-377.
Luck, G.W., Possingham, H.P., Paton, D.C. (1999) Bird responses at inherent and induced edges in the Murray Mallee, South Australia. 1. Differences in abundance and diversity. Emu 99:157-169.
Luck, G.W., Harrington, R., Harrison, P.A., Kremen, C., Berry, P.M., Bugter, R., Dawson, T.P., de Bello, F., Díaz, S., Feld, C.K., Haslett, J.R., Hering, D., Kontogianni, A., Lavorel, S., Rounsevell, M., Samways, M.J., Sandin, L., Settele, J., Sykes, M.T., van den Hove, S., Vandewalle, M., Zobel, M. (2009) Quantifying the contribution of organisms to the provision of ecosystem services. BioScience 59:223-235.
Luck, G.W., Triplett, S., Spooner, P.G. (2013) Bird use of almond plantations: implications for conservation and production. Wildlife Research 40:523-535.
Ludwig, J.A., Tongway, D.J. (1995) Spatial organisation of landscapes and its function in semi-arid woodlands, Australia. Landscape Ecology 10:51-63.
Lundin, O., Smith, H.G., Rundlöf, M., Bommarco, R. (2013) When ecosystem services interact: crop pollination benefits depend on the level of pest control. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280:20122243.
MacArthur, R.H., Wilson, E.O. (1963) An equilibrium theory of insular zoogeography. Evolution 17:373-387.
Macfadyen, S., Cunningham, S.A., Costamagna, A.C., Schellhorn, N.A. (2012) Managing ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes: are the solutions the same? Journal of Applied Ecology 49:690-694.
Macfadyen, S., Muller, W. (2013) Edges in agricultural landscapes: species interactions and movement of natural enemies. PLOS One 8(3):e59659. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059659.
Maestre, F.T., Castillo-Monroy, A.P., Bowker, M.A., Ochoa-Hueso, R. (2012) Species richness effects on ecosystem multifunctionality depend on evenness, composition and spatial pattern. Journal of Ecology 100:317-330.
Magurran, A.E. (2004) Measuring Biological Diversity. Blackwell Science, Malden, MA.
Majer, J.D., Recher, H.F., Wellington, A.B., Woinarski, J.C.Z., Yen, A.L. (1997) Invertebrates of eucalypt forests. In: Eucalypt Ecology: Individuals to Ecosystems, pp.278-302. Eds. J. Williams, J.C.Z. Woinarski. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
149
Mallee Catchment Management Authority (2008) Mallee Native Vegetation Plan. Mallee Catchment Management Authority, Irymple, Victoria. Available from: http://www.malleecma.vic.gov.au.
Mandelik, Y., Roll, U. (2009) Diversity patterns of wild bees in almond orchards and their surrounding landscape. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 57:185-191.
Mandelik, Y., Winfree, R., Neeson, T., Kremen, C. (2012) Complementary habitat use by wild bees in agro-natural landscapes. Ecological Applications 22:1535-1546.
Marini, L., Quaranta, M., Fontana, P., Biesmeijer, J.C., Bommarco, R. (2012) Landscape context and elevation affect pollinator communities in intensive apple orchards. Basic and Applied Ecology 13:681-689.
Marino, P.C., Landis, D.A. (1996) Effect of landscape structure on parasitoid diversity and parasitism in agroecosystems. Ecological Applications 6:276-284.
Markwell, T.J., Kelly, D., Duncan, K.W. (1993) Competition between honey bees (Apis mellifera) and wasps (Vespula spp.) in honeydew beech (Nothofagus solandri var. solandri) forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 17:85-93.
Marshall, J.W., Foot, M.A. (1979) Parasite problems of plant monoculture. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 6:656.
Mason, J. (2003) Sustainable Agriculture. Landlinks Press, Collingwood, VIC.
Matson, P.A., Parton, W.J., Power, A.G., Swift, M.J. (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277:504-509.
Mayer, C., Adler, L., Armbruster, W.C., Dafni, A., Eardley, C., Huang, S-Q., Kevan, P.G., Ollerton, J., Packer, L., Ssymank, A., Stout, J.C., Potts, S.G. (2011) Pollination ecology in the 21st century: key questions for future research. Journal of Pollination Ecology 3:8-23.
Mayfield, M.M., Bonser, S.P., Morgan, J.W., Aubin, I., McNamara, S., Vesk, P.A. (2010) What does species richness tell us about functional trait diversity? Predictions and evidence for responses of species and functional trait diversity to land-use change. Global Ecology and Biogeography 19:423-431.
McArdle, B.H., Anderson, M.J. (2004) Variance heterogeneity, transformations, and models of species abundance: a cautionary tale. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1294-1302.
McKenna, M.K.L., Murray, W.E. (2002) Jungle law in the orchard: comparing globalisation in the New Zealand and Chilean apple industries. Economic Geography 78:494-514.
Melo, A.S., Pereira, R.A.S., Santos, A.J., Shepherd, G.J., Machado, G., Medeiros, H.F., Sawaya, R.J. (2003) Comparing species richness among assemblages using
150
sample units: why not use extrapolation methods to standardise different sample sizes? Oikos 101:398-410.
Meng, L-Z., Martin, K., Liu, J-X., Burger, F., Chen, J. (2012) Contrasting responses of hoverflies and wild bees to habitat structure and land use change in a tropical landscape (southern Yunnan, SW China). Insect Science 19:666-676.
Menhinick, E.F. (1964) A comparison of some species-individuals diversity indices applied to samples of field insects. Ecology 45:859-861.
Mesa, L.A., Howlett, B.G., Grant, J.E., Didham, R.K. (2013) Changes in the relative abundance and movement of insect pollinators during the flowering cycle of Brassica rapa crops: implications for gene flow. Journal of Insect Science 13:13.
Michener, C.D. (1979) Biogeography of the bees. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 66:277-347.
Michener, C.D. (2007) The Bees of the World. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore MD.
Morton, S.R., Stafford Smith, D.M., Friedel, M.H., Griffin, G.F., Pickup, G. (1995) The stewardship of arid Australia: ecology and landscape management. Journal of Environmental Management 43:195-217.
Muff, P., Kropf, C., Frick, H., Nentwig, W., Schmidt-Entling, M.H. (2009) Co-existence of divergent communities at natural boundaries: spider (Arachnida: Araneae) diversity across an alpine timberline. Insect Conservation and Diversity 2:36-44.
Murray, T.E., Fitzpatrick, U., Byrne, A., Fealy, R., Brown, M.J.F., Paxton, R.J. (2012) Local-scale factors structure wild bee communities in protected areas. Journal of Applied Ecology 49:998-1008.
Naveh, Z., Whittaker, R.H. (1979) Structural and floristic diversity of shrublands and woodlands in northern Israel and other Mediterranean areas. Vegetatio 41:171-190.
Nekola, J.C., White, P.S. (1999) The distance decay of similarity in biogeography and ecology. Journal of Biogeography 26:867-878.
New, T.R., Yen, A.L., Sands, D.P.A., Greenslade, P., Neville, P.J., York, A., Collett, N.G. (2010) Planned fires and invertebrate conservation in south east Australia. Journal of Insect Conservation 14:567-574.
Nicholls, C.I., Altieri, M.A. (2013) Plant biodiversity enhances bees and other insect pollinators in agroecosystems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development33:257-274.
Nielsen, A., Dauber, J., Kunin, W.E., Lamborn, E., Jauker, B., Moora, M., Potts, S.G., Reitan, T., Roberts, S., Sõber, V., Settele, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Stout, J.C., Tscheulin, T., Vaitis, M., Vivarelli, D., Biesmeijer, J.C., Petanidou, T. (2012)
151
Pollinator community responses to the spatial population structure of wild plants: a pan-European approach. Basic and Applied Ecology 13:489-499.
Noble, J.C., Bradstock, R.A. (eds.) (1989) Mediterranean Landscapes in Australia: Mallee Ecosystems and their Management. CSIRO, Melbourne VIC.
NSW Agriculture (2002) Irrigation for Horticulture in the Mallee. NSW Agriculture, Orange NSW.
Obrist, M.K., Duelli, P. (2010) Rapid biodiversity assessment of arthropods for monitoring average local species richness and related ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation 19:2201-2220.
Öckinger, E., Smith, H.G. (2007) Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:50-59.
Odum, E.P. (1969) The strategy of ecosystem development. Science 164:262-270.
O’Hara, R.B., Kotze, D.J. (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 1:118-122.
Oldroyd, B.P., Lawler, S.H., Crozier, R.H. (1994) Do feral honey bees (Apis mellifera) and regent parrots (Polytelis anthopeplus) compete for nest sites? Australian Journal of Ecology 19:444-450.
Oliver, I., Beattie, A.J. (1996) Invertebrate morphospecies as surrogates for species: a case study. Conservation Biology 10:99-109.
Olson, D., Andow, D. (2008) Patch edges and insect populations. Oecologia 155:549-558.
Onans, J., Parsons, R.F. (1980) Regeneration of native plants on abandoned mallee farmland in south-eastern Australia. Australian Journal of Botany 28:479-493.
Osterman, L.E., Buzas, M.A., Hayek, L-A.C. (2002) SHE analysis for biozonation of benthic foraminiferal assemblages from western Arctic Ocean. Palaios 17:297-303.
Ostfeld, R.S., Keesing, F. (2000) Pulsed resources and community dynamics of consumers in terrestrial ecosystems. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15:232-237.
Paini, D.R., Williams, M.R., Roberts, J.D. (2005) No short-term impact of honey bees on the reproductive success of an Australian native bee. Apidologie 36:613-621.
Pal, R.W., Pinke, G., Botta-Dukát, Z., Campetella, G., Bartha, S., Kalocsai, R., Lengyel, A. (2013) Can management intensity be more important than environmental factors? A case study along an extreme elevation gradient from central Italian cereal fields. Plant Biosystems – An International Journal Dealing with all
152
Aspects of Plant Biology: Official Journal of the Societa Botanica Italiana147:343-353.
Paredes, D., Cayuela, L., Campos, M. (2013) Synergistic effects of ground cover and adjacent vegetation on natural enemies of olive insect pests. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 173:72-80.
Parra-H, A., Nates-Parra, G. (2012) The ecological basis for biogeographic classification: an example in orchid bees (Apidae: Euglossini). Neotropical Entomology 41:442-449.
Patil, G.P., Taillie, C. (1982) Diversity as a concept and its measurement. Journal of the American Statistical Association 77:548-561.
Pauw, A. (2007) Collapse of a pollination web in small conservation areas. Ecology88:1759-1769.
Pauw, A., Hawkins, J.A. (2011) Reconstruction of historical pollination rates reveals linked declines of pollinators and plants. Oikos 120:344-349.
Peakall, R., Handel, S.N. (1993) Pollinators discriminate among floral heights of a sexually deceptive orchid: implications for selection. Evolution 47:1681-1687.
Persson, A.S., Smith, H.G. (2013) Seasonal persistence of bumblebee populations is affected by landscape context. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment165:201-209.
Petanidou, T., Vokou, D. (1990) Pollination and pollen energetic in Mediterranean ecosystems. American Journal of Botany 77:986-992.
Petanidou, T., Lamborn, E. (2008) A land for flowers and bees: studying pollination ecology in Mediterranean communities. Plant Biosystems - An International Journal Dealing with all Aspects of Plant Biology: Official Journal of the Societa Botanica Italiana 139:279-294.
Peters, V.E., Carroll, C.R., Cooper, R.J., Greenberg, R., Solis, M. (2013) The contribution of plant species with a steady-state flowering phenology to native bee conservation and bee pollination services. Insect Conservation and Diversity 6:45-56.
Pfiffner, L., Luka, H. (2000) Overwintering of arthropods in soils of arable fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 78:215-222.
Pickering, C.M., Stock, M. (2003) Insect colour preference compared to flower colours in the Australian Alps. Nordic Journal of Botany 23:217-223.
Pik, A.J., Oliver, I., Beattie, A.J. (1999) Taxonomic sufficiency in ecological studies of terrestrial invertebrates. Australian Journal of Ecology 24:555-562.
153
Pimentel, D., Culliney, T.W., Buttler, I.W., Reinemann, D.J., Beckman, K.B. (1989) Low-input sustainable agriculture using ecological management practices. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27:3-24.
Pinke, G., Pal, R. (2009) Floristic composition and conservation value of the stubble-field weed community, dominated by Stachys annua in western Hungary. Biologia 64:279-291.
Plourde, J.D., Pijanowski, B.C., Pekin, B.K. (2013) Evidence for increased monoculture cropping in the Central United States. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment165:50-59.
Popic, T.J., Davila, Y.C., Wardle, G.M. (2013) Evaluation of common methods for sampling invertebrate pollinator assemblages: net sampling out-perform pan traps. PLoS ONE 8(6):e66665. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066665.
Potts, S.G., Vulliamy, B., Dafni, A., Ne’eman, G., Willmer, P. (2003) Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology84:2628-2642.
Potts, S.G., Vulliamy, B., Roberts, S., O’Toole, C., Dafni, A., Ne’eman, G., Willmer, P. (2005) Role of nesting resources in organising diverse bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape. Ecological Entomology 30:78-85.
Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., Kunin, W.E. (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:345-353.
Preston, F.W. (1960) Time and space and the variation of species. Ecology 41:612-627.
Proctor, E., Nol, E., Burke, D., Crins, W.J. (2012) Responses of insect pollinators and understory plants to silviculture in northern hardwood forests. Biodiversity and Conservation 21:1703-1740.
Pryke, J.S., Samways, M.J. (2012) Conservation management of complex natural forest and plantation edge effects. Landscape Ecology 27:73-85.
Pucci, T. (2008) A comparison of the parasitic wasps (Hymenoptera) at elevated versus ground yellow pan traps in a beech-maple forest. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 17:116-123.
Pywell, R.F., Meek, W.R., Hulmes, L., Hulmes, S., James, K.L., Nowakowski, M., Carvell, C. (2011) Management to enhance pollen and nectar resources for bumblebees and butterflies within intensively farmed landscapes. Journal of Insect Conservation 15:853-864.
Quine, C.P., Humphrey, J.W. (2010) Plantations of exotic tree species in Britain: irrelevant for biodiversity or novel habitat for native species? Biodiversity and Conservation 19:1503-1512.
154
Rader, R., Edwards, W., Westcott, D.A., Cunningham, S.A., Howlett, B.G. (2011) Pollen transport differs among bees and flies in a human-modified landscape. Diversity and Distributions 17:519-529.
Rader, R., Howlett, B.G., Cunningham, S.A., Westcott, D.A., Edwards, W. (2012) Spatial and temporal variation in pollinator effectiveness: do unmanaged insects provide consistent pollination services to mass flowering crops? Journal of Applied Ecology 49:126-134.
Rader, R., Edwards, W., Westcott, D.A., Cunningham, S.A., Howlett, B.G. (2013) Diurnal effectiveness of pollination by bees and flies in agricultural Brassica rapa: implications for ecosystem resilience. Basic and Applied Ecology 14:20-27.
Ramirez, P.A., Simonetti, J.A. (2011) Conservation opportunities in commercial plantations: the case of mammals. Journal for Nature Conservation 19:351-355.
Ramos, M.E., Benítez, E., García, P.A., Robles, A.B. (2010) Cover crops under different management vs. frequent tillage in almond orchards in semiarid conditions: effects on soil quality. Applied Soil Ecology 44:6-14.
Rand, T.A., Tylianakis, J.M., Tscharntke, T. (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecology Letters 9:603-614.
Randlkofer, B., Obermaier, E., Hilker, M., Meiners, T. (2010a) Vegetation complexity –the influence of plant species diversity and plant structures on plant chemical complexity and arthropods. Basic and Applied Ecology 11:383-395.
Randlkofer, B., Obermaier, E., Casas, J., Meiners, T. (2010b) Connectivity counts: disentangling effects of vegetation structure elements on the searching movement of a parasitoid. Ecological Entomology 35:446-455.
Rattigan, K., Hill, S.J. (1987) Relationship between temperature and flowering in almond – effect of location. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 27:905-908.
Raven, P.H., Yeates, D.K. (2007) Australian biodiversity: threats for the present, opportunities for the future. Australian Journal of Entomology 46:177-187.
Reese, K.M., Philpott, S.M. (2010) Environmental and habitat drivers of relative abundance for a suite of Azteca-attacking Pseudacteaon phorid flies. Environmental Entomology 41:1107-1114.
Ricketts, T.H., Regetz, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Bogdanski, A., Gemmill-Herren, B., Greenleaf, S.S., Klein, A-M., Mayfield, M.M., Morandin, M.A., Ochieng, A., Viana, B.F. (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecology Letters 11:499-515.
Ries, L., Fletcher Jr, R.J., Battin, J., Sisk, T.D. (2004) Ecological responses to habitat edges: mechanisms, models and variability explained. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35:491-522.
155
Robinson, S.L., Lundholm, J.T. (2012) Ecosystem services provided by urban spontaneous vegetation. Urban Ecosystems 15:545-557.
Robson, D.B. (2013) An assessment of the potential for pollination facilitation of a rare plant by common plants: Symphyotrichum sericeum (Asteraceae) as a case study. Botany 91:34-42.
Rollin, O., Bretagnolle, V., Decourtye, A., Aptel, J., Michel, N., Vaissière, B.E., Henry, M. (2013) Differences of floral resource use between honey bees and wild bees in an intensive farming system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 179:78-86.
Roschewitz, I., Gabriel, D., Tscharntke, T., Thies, C. (2005) The effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity in organic and conventional farming. Journal of Applied Ecology 42:873-882.
Roubik, D.W., Wolda, H. (2001) Do competing honey bees matter? Dynamics and abundance of native bees before and after honey bee invasion. Population Ecology 43:53-62.
Ruiz-Colmenero, M., Bienes, R., Marques, M.J. (2011) Soil and water conservation dilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards. Soil & Tillage Research 117:211-223.
Rundlöf, M., Nilsson, H., Smith, H.G. (2008) Interacting effects of farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees. Biological Conservation 141:417-426.
Ryszkowski, L., Kędziora, A. (1987) Impact of agricultural landscape structure on energy flow and water cycling. Landscape Ecology 1:85-94.
Sadras, V., Roget, D., Krause, M. (2003) Dynamic cropping strategies for risk management in dry-land farming systems. Agricultural Systems 76:929-948.
Sala, O.E., Lauenroth, W.K. (1982) Small rainfall events: an ecological role in semi-arid regions. Oecologia 53:301-304.
Samnegård, U., Persson, A.S., Smith, H.G. (2011) Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmland. Biological Conservation 144:2602-2606.
Saunders, M.E., Luck, G.W. (2013) Pan trap catches of pollinator insects vary with habitat. Australian Journal of Entomology 52:106-113.
Saunders, M.E., Luck, G.W., Mayfield, M.M. (2013) Almond orchards with living ground cover host more wild insect pollinators. Journal of Insect Conservation17:1011-1025.
Schiegg, K. (2000) Effects of dead wood volume and connectivity on saproxylic insect species diversity. Ecoscience 7:290-298.
156
Seavy, N.E., Quader, S., Alexander, J.D., Ralph, C.J. (2005) Generalised Linear Models and point count data: statistical considerations for the design and analysis of monitoring studies. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-191:744-753. URL: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0744-0753_seavy.pdf. Accessed 24 February 2012.
Şekercioğlu, C.H. (2010) Ecosystem functions and services. In: N.S. Sodhi, P.R. Ehrlich (eds.) Conservation Biology for All, pp. 45-72. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sharley, D.J., Hoffmann, A.A., Thomson, L.J. (2008) The effects of soil tillage on beneficial invertebrates within the vineyard. Agricultural and Forest Entomology10:233-243.
Sheffield, C.S., Westby, S.M., Smith, R.F., Kevan, P.G. (2008) Potential of bigleaf lupine for building and sustaining Osmia lignaria populations for pollination of apple. The Canadian Entomologist 140:589-599.
Sileshi, G. (2006) Selecting the right statistical model for analysis of insect count data by using information theoretic measures. Bulletin of Entomological Research 96:479-488.
Singleton, G., Krebs, C.J., Davis, S., Chambers, L., Brown, P. (2001) Reproductive changes in fluctuating house mouse populations in southeastern Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1741-1748.
Small, C.J., McCarthy, B.C. (2002) Spatial and temporal variability of herbaceous vegetation in an eastern deciduous forest. Plant Ecology 164:37-48.
Smith, J.R. (1916) The oak tree and man’s environment. Geographical Review 1:3-19.
Smith, F.P., Prober, S.M., House, A.P.N., McIntyre, S. (2013) Maximising retention of native biodiversity in Australian agricultural landscapes – the 10:20:40:30 guidelines. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 166:35-45.
Soininen, J. (2010) Species turnover along abiotic and biotic gradients: patterns in space equal patterns in time? BioScience 60:433-439.
Spivak, M., Mader, E., Vaughan, M., Euliss Jr, N.H. (2011) The plight of the bees. Environmental Science & Technology 45:34-38.
Srivastava, D.S. (2006) Habitat structure, trophic structure and ecosystem function: interactive effects in a bromeliad-insect community. Oecologia 149:493-504.
Ssymank, A., Kearns, C.A., Pape, T., Thompson, F.C. (2008) Pollinating flies (Diptera): a major contribution to plant diversity and agricultural production. Biodiversity9:86-89.
157
Stasek, D.J., Bean, C., Crist, T.O. (2008) Butterfly abundance and movements among prairie patches: the role of habitat quality, edge, and forest matrix permeability. Environmental Entomology 37:897-906.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Tscharntke, T. (2001) Pollination, seed set and seed predation on a landscape scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268:1685-1690.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T. (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology83:1421-1432.
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Leschke, K. (2003) Effects of habitat management on vegetation and above-ground nesting bees and wasps of orchard meadows in Central Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation 12:1953-1968.
Stephens, C.J., Schellhorn, N.A., Wood, G.M., Austin, A.D. (2006) Parasitic wasp assemblages associated with native and weedy plant species in an agricultural landscape. Australian Journal of Entomology 45:176-184.
Stevens, N.B., Stephens, C.J., Iqbal, M., Jennings, J.T., La Salle, J., Austin, A.D. (2007) What wasp is that?: an interactive identification guide to the Australasian families of Hymenoptera (CD-ROM). Australian Biological Resources Study, Canberra, ACT.
Stoate, C., Báldi, A., Boatman, N.D., Herzon, I., van Doorn, A., de Snoo, G.R., Rakosy, L., Ramwell, C. (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe – a review. Journal of Environmental Management 91:22-46.
Stoddard, F.L., Bond, D.A. (1987) The pollination requirements of the faba bean. Bee World 68:144-152.
SunRISE 21 Inc. (2008) Irrigated Horticulture of the Lower Murray-Darling 1997-2006. SunRISE 21, Mildura VIC. URL: http://www.sunrise21.org.au/page.php?id=34&rid=59. Accessed September 21 2011.
Symstad, A.J., Chapin III, F.S., Wall, D.H., Gross, K.L., Huenneke, L.F., Mittelbach, G.G., Peters, D.P.C., Tilman, D. (2003) Long-term and large-scale perspectives on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. BioScience53: 89-98.
Tedders, W.L. (1983) Insect management in deciduous orchard ecosystems: habitat manipulation. Environmental Management 7:29-34.
Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M.C., Schwager, M., Jeltsch, F. (2004) Animal species diversity driven by heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of Biogeography 31:79-92.
158
Thevathasan, N.V., Gordon, A.M. (2004) Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North temperate region: Experiences from southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems 61-2:257-268.
Thomson, J.D. (1981) Spatial and temporal components of resource assessment by flower-feeding insects. Journal of Animal Ecology 50:49-59.
Thomson, J.D., Goodell, K. (2001) Pollen removal and deposition by honeybee and bumblebee visitors to apple and almond flowers. Journal of Applied Ecology38:1032-1044.
Tilman, D. (1999) Global environmental impacts of agricultural expansion: the need for sustainable and efficient practices. Proceedings of the National Acadamey of Sciences USA 96:5995-6000.
Tóthmérész, B. (1995) Comparison of different methods for diversity ordering. Journal of Vegetation Science 6:283-290.
Tscharntke, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kruess, A., Thies, C. (2002) Characteristics of insect populations on habitat fragments: a mini review. Ecological Research17:229-239.
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A-M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Thies, C. (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity –ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters 8:857-874.
Tscharntke, T., Tylianakis, J.M., Rand, T.A., Didham, R.K., Fahrig, L., Batáry, P., Bengtsson, J., Clough, Y., Crist, T.O., Dormann, C.F., Ewers, R.M., Fründ, J., Holt, R.D., Holzschuh, A., Klein, A-M., Kleijn, D., Kremen, C., Landis, D.A., Laurance, W., Lindenmayer, D., Scherber, C., Sodhi, N., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Thies, C., van der Putten, W.H., Westphal, C. (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes – eight hypotheses. Biological Reviews87:661-685.
Tscheulin, T., Neokosmidis, L., Petanidou, T., Settele, J. (2011) Influence of landscape context on the abundance and diversity of bees in Mediterranean olive groves. Bulletin of Entomological Research 101:557-564.
Tuell, J.K., Isaacs, R. (2009) Elevated pan traps to monitor bees in flowering crop canopies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 131:93-98.
Tuomisto, H., Ruokolainen, K. (2006) Analysing or explaining beta diversity? Understanding the targets of different methods of analysis. Ecology 87:2697-2708.
Turner, M.G. (1989) Landscape ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 20:171-197.
Ulanowicz, R.E. (2002) The balance between adaptability and adaptation. BioSystems64:13-22.
159
van der Maarel, E. (1990) Ecotones and ecoclines are different. Journal of Vegetation Science 1:135-138.
Vandermeer, J., Perfecto, I., Philpott, S. (2010) Ecological complexity and pest control in organic coffee production: uncovering an autonomous ecosystem service. BioScience 60:527-537.
vanEngelsdorp, D., Hayes Jr, J., Underwood, R.M., Pettis, J. (2008) A Survey of Honey Bee Colony Losses in the U.S., Fall 2007 to Spring 2008. PLoS ONE 3:e4071. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0004071.
Vasseur, C., Joannon, A., Aviron, S., Burel, F., Meynard, J-M., Baudry, J. (2013) The cropping systems mosaic: how does hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 166:3-14.
Vezvaei, A. (1994) Pollination Studies in Almond. PhD Thesis, University of Adelaide.
Vezvaei, A., Jackson, J.F. (1995) Effect of pollen parent and stages of flower development on almond nut production. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35:109-113.
Vogt, W. (1948) Road to Survival. William Sloan, New York NY.
Vrdoljak, S.M., Samways, M.J. (2012) Optimising coloured pan traps to survey flower visiting insects. Journal of Insect Conservation 16:345-354.
Wäckers, F.L., van Rijn, P.C.J., Bruin, J. Eds. (2005) Plant-provided food for carnivorous insects: a protective mutualism and its applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.
Walton, N.J., Isaacs, R. (2011) Influence of native flowering plant strips on natural enemies and herbivores in adjacent blueberry fields. Environmental Entomology40:697-705.
Warren, M.S., Key, R.S. (1991) Woodlands: Past, present and potential for insects. In: N.M. Collins (ed.) The Conservation of Insects and Their Habitats, pp. 155-212. Academic Press Ltd, London.
Warton, D.I. (2008) Raw data graphing: an informative but under-utilised tool for the analysis of multivariate abundances. Austral Ecology 33:290-300.
Warton, D.I., Hui, F.K.C. (2011) The arcsine is asinine: the analysis of proportions in ecology. Ecology 92:3-10
Warton, D.I., Wright, S.T., Wang, Y. (2012) Distance-based multivariate analyses confound location and dispersion effects. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 3:89-101.
160
Watson, J.C., Wolf, A.T., Ascher, J.S. (2011) Forested landscapes promote richness and abundance of native bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) in Wisconsin apple orchards. Environmental Entomology 40:621-632.
Weinbaum, S.A. (1985) Role of natural self-pollination in self-fruitfulness of almond. Scientia Horticulturae 27:295-302.
Weis, T. (2010) The accelerating biophysical contradictions of industrial capitalist agriculture. Journal of Agrarian Change 10:315-341.
Westgarth, W. (1848) Australia Felix; or, A historical and descriptive account of the settlement of Port Phillip, New South Wales. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.
Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecology Letters 6:961-965.
Westphal, C., Bommarco, R., Carré, G., Lamborn, E., Morison, N., Petanidou, T., Potts, S.G., Roberts, S.P.M., Szentgyörgyi, H., Tscheulin, T., Vaissière, B., Woyciechowski, M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kunin, W.E., Settele, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monographs 78:653-671.
Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T. (2009) Mass flowering oilseed rape improves early colony growth but not sexual reproduction of bumblebees. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:187-193.
Westrich, P. (1996) Habitat requirements of central European bees and the problem of partial habitats. In: A. Matheson, S.L. Buchmann, C. O'Toole, P. Westrich, I.H. Williams (eds.) The conservation of bees, pp. 1-16. Academic Press, New York NY.
Whitford, W.G. (1996) The importance of the biodiversity of soil biota in arid ecosystems. Biodiversity and Conservation 5:185-195.
Whittaker, R.H., Niering, W.A., Crisp, M.D. (1979) Structure, pattern and diversity of a mallee community in New South Wales. Vegetatio 39:65-76.
Wilkinson, J. (2012) Almonds in Australia: from pioneer planting to prime production. Almond Board of Australia, Berri SA.
Williams, N.M., Kremen, C. (2007) Resource distributions among habitats determine solitary bee offspring production in a mosaic landscape. Ecological Applications17:910-921.
Wilson, B. (2008) Using Shebi (SHE Analysis for Biozone Identification): to proceed from the top down or the bottom up? A discussion using two Miocene foraminiferal successions from Trinidad, West Indies. Palaios 23:636-644.
Winfree, R., Griswold, T., Kremen, C. (2007) Effect of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conservation Biology 21:213-223.
161
Winfree, R., Williams, N.M., Gaines, H., Ascher, J.S., Kremen, C. (2008) Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:793-802.
Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I., Cariveau, D.P. (2011) Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 42:1-22.
Winqvist, C., Ahnström, J., Bengtsson, J. (2012) Effects of organic farming on biodiversity and ecosystem services: taking landscape complexity into account. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1249:191-203.
With, K.A., Pavuk, D.M. (2011) Habitat area trumps fragmentation effects on arthropods in an experimental landscape system. Landscape Ecology 26:1035-1048.
Wood, J.G. (1929) Floristics and ecology of the mallee. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 53:359-78.
Woodhouse, P. (2010) Beyond industrial agriculture? Some questions about farm size, productivity and sustainability. Journal of Agrarian Change 10:437-453.
Wratten, S.D., Bowie, M.H., Hickman, J.M., Evans, A.M., Sedcole, J.R., Tylianakis, J.M. (2003) Field boundaries as barriers to movement of hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) in cultivated land. Oecologia 134:605-611.
Wratten, S.D., Gillespie, M., Decourtye, A., Mader, E., Desneux, N. (2012) Pollinator habitat enhancement: Benefits to other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 159:112-122.
Yahner, R.H. (1988) Changes in wildlife communities near edges. Conservation Biology2:333-339.
Yarrow, M.M., Marín, V.H. (2007) Toward conceptual cohesiveness: a historical analysis of the theory and utility of ecological boundaries and transition zones. Ecosystems 10:462-476.
Yen, A.L., Ewart, D., Walker, K. (2006) Mallee eucalypts, hummock grasses and social insects – key elements of the Victorian mallee. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria 118:281-293.
Yong, K.E., Li, Y., Hendrix, S.D. (2012) Habitat choice of multiple pollinators in almond trees and its potential effect on pollen movement and productivity: a theoretical approach using the Shigesada-Kawasaki-Teramoto model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 305:103-109.
Yu, X.D., Luo, T.H., Zhou, H.Z., Yang, J. (2007) Distribution of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) across a forest-grassland ecotone in southwestern China. Environmental Entomology 36:348-355.
162
Zurbuchen, A., Landert, L., Klaiber, J., Müller, A., Hein, S., Dorn, S. (2010) Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances. Biological Conservation 143:669-676.
163
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Pan trap catches of pollinator insects vary with habitat
ABSTRACT
Coloured pan trapping is a simple and efficient method for collecting flying
insects, yet there is still discussion over the most effective bowl colour to use for
particular target groups (e.g. pollinator insects). The success of particular colours
can vary across bioregions and habitat contexts. Most published pan trap studies
have been conducted in the northern hemisphere and very few investigated the
effects of habitat context on pan trap catches. Our study is one of the first to (a)
sample for potential pollinators in Australian mallee vegetation and almond
orchards and (b) to investigate whether habitat context interacts with trap colour
to influence pan trap catches. We sampled Hymenoptera and Diptera using
yellow, white and blue pan traps in native mallee vegetation and two types of
managed almond orchards (monoculture and plant-diverse) in the Murray Mallee
bioregion of northwest Victoria, Australia. Yellow traps caught the most insects
across all habitats, although catches in each coloured trap varied with habitat
context. For all insect groups combined, blue traps caught more individuals in
mallee habitats than in almond orchards. For native hymenopterans, yellow traps
caught more individuals in plant-diverse orchards than in native sites, while blue
traps caught more individuals in native sites. Our results highlight the importance
of considering the habitat context of individual pan trapping surveys, as no one
trap colour is likely to be suitable for trapping target insects across all habitat
contexts.
*This appendix is published as Saunders ME, Luck GW (2013) Pan trap catches
of pollinator insects vary with habitat. Australian Journal of Entomology 52:106-
113. (Formatting is per journal style.)
164
INTRODUCTION
Coloured pan (or bowl) trapping is considered a simple, efficient method for
collecting flying insects, and its lack of collector bias (compared to, for example,
sweep netting) makes it particularly useful for comparing invertebrate
communities across time, locations or when collector experience varies (Cane et
al. 2000; Westphal et al. 2008). Pan trapping was traditionally used for sampling
agricultural pests and phytophagous insects (e.g. Evans & Medler 1967; Boiteau
1983), but now is also used for collecting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) and other
pollinating insects (Leong & Thorp 1999; Campbell & Hanula 2007; Gollan et al.
2011).
Despite the benefits of pan trapping as a sampling method, examination of
its use for sampling pollinator insects remains limited. Potential sampling biases
associated with the technique have been identified recently (Roulston et al. 2007;
Baum & Wallen 2011) and it is not clear which bowl colour is most effective in
particular contexts (i.e. the colour that attracts the highest abundance and diversity
of the target species). Blue traps have been endorsed as the best bee attractant
(Cane et al. 2000; Stephen & Rao 2005), yet the findings of research using pan
traps to sample bees and other pollinator insects do not show a consistent
preference for a particular bowl colour (e.g. Campbell & Hanula 2007; Gollan et
al. 2011; Grundel et al. 2011).
The success of certain pan trap colours in attracting pollinators may vary
across bioregions, habitat contexts or topography. For example, Grundel et al.
(2011) sampled sites in northwest Indiana, USA, using blue, yellow and white
traps, and caught the most bees in white pan traps. Campbell and Hanula (2007)
sampled sites in south-eastern USA, including coastal plain and southern
Appalachian Mountain ecosystems, with red, blue, yellow and white pan traps and
caught the most bees in blue traps. Gollan et al. (2011) sampled sites in the New
South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South Western Slopes regions in
eastern Australia, using yellow and white traps and caught the most bees in yellow
pans.
To our knowledge, there is only one published study from pan trapping
pollinator insects in Australian habitats (Gollan et al. 2011). Given the wide
variation in results from pan trap sampling in the northern hemisphere, more pan
trap studies are needed from the southern hemisphere to determine whether
165
catches in particular coloured traps are likely to vary with habitat or ecological
context. Our study is one of the first to sample potential pollinators in the Murray
Mallee region of northwest Victoria (Australia) using coloured pan traps and also
one of the first to investigate whether habitat context interacts with trap colour to
influence pan trap catches (see Missa et al. 2009; Abrahamczyk et al. 2010;
Droege et al. 2010 for relevant discussions on habitat context).
In this paper, the term ‘pollinator insect’ refers to any species of insect
belonging to the taxonomic order Hymenoptera or Diptera. Although we did not
quantify pollination efficiency in this study, we use the term to refer to flower-
visiting species of these orders so as to maintain consistency with the pollination
literature. Bees are the most recognised pollinators, yet wasps and flies are also
known to be frequent flower visitors and pollinators (Kevan & Baker 1983;
Larson et al. 2001) and many of these species are considered important, yet
understudied, generalist pollinators in a variety of natural (Pickering & Stock
2003; Brunet 2009) and crop systems (Klein et al. 2007; Jauker et al. 2009; Rader
et al. 2011). Hence, we focussed on Hymenoptera and Diptera, as the broader
scope of our research was to quantify potential native pollination services for
almond orchards that could complement current commercial European honeybee
(Apis mellifera L.) stocks. The questions addressed in the following study are:
Is there a difference in the number of pollinator insects caught in different
coloured pan traps?
Does pollinator insect abundance in each trap colour vary with habitat
context?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study area and system
The study area is located in northwest Victoria, Australia, in the Victorian Murray
Mallee Bioregion, specifically in the Wemen/Liparoo (hereafter Wemen) district
and the Colignan/Nangiloc (hereafter Colignan) district (see Figure 2.1). The
Murray Mallee bioregion is classified as semi-arid and annual rainfall is between
250-300 mm per year (Natural Resources & Environment n.d.). Sampling was
conducted in 2010, during which the region recorded wetter than average rainfall.
Approximately 528 mm fell in Wemen and 427 mm in Colignan. Average
166
temperatures for the months of sampling (July—September 2010) ranged from
minimums of 5—7oC to maximums of 15—20oC (Bureau of Meteorology 2011).
One natural and one agricultural habitat were sampled – native mallee
vegetation and commercial almond orchards respectively. Native vegetation sites
were located within patches of remnant mallee vegetation that were greater than
50 m across and proximate to an almond orchard. Almond orchards were
classified as either broadacre monoculture (MONO) orchards or plant-diverse
(GRASS) orchards. MONO orchards are managed intensively and have
completely bare ground across the entire orchard. They operate on a large,
broadacre scale, occupying thousands of hectares of continuous land with small,
infrequent patches of native vegetation interspersed between blocks of almond
trees. GRASS orchards are managed with lower intensity and have a living carpet
of grass and weedy ground cover across the orchard throughout the year. These
orchards are situated within a heterogeneous agricultural landscape, with smaller
block sizes (<1000 ha) interspersed among a variety of crops and land uses,
including small, frequent patches of remnant vegetation.
Figure A1.1 The study region and sampling localities in northwest Victoria.
Sampling
Insect assemblages were sampled within almond orchards and native mallee
vegetation prior to almond flowering in July 2010, and again during the final
stages of flowering in August—September 2010. Due to weather conditions and
167
logistics, the first sampling period was 5 days and the second was 10 days. Insects
were sampled at each location using pan trap sets consisting of one blue, one
yellow and one white bowl. Traps were made from plastic picnic bowls painted
with UV-bright fluorescent blue or yellow paint or left white (the reflectance of
each colour was not quantified in this study). Data for July (pre-flowering) were
collected from 24 sets of pan traps in almond orchards and 10 sets of pan traps in
native vegetation in Wemen and Colignan. Data for August-September (during
flowering) were collected from 57 sets of pan traps in almond orchards and 43
sets of pan traps in native vegetation. During the whole sampling period, a total of
19 individual pans (4.7%), five blue, seven yellow and seven white, were lost
from wind, weather or animal disturbance.
Sampling locations were at least 200 metres apart and were chosen a
priori from satellite maps to ensure a representative sample of the entire area of
almond orchards and so that native vegetation sites were located proximate to an
almond orchard. At all sites, sets of traps were placed on the ground, as close as
possible to a flowering tree, and filled with 200 mL of water and a drop of
dishwashing detergent to break surface tension. Very few studies advise at what
height pan traps were placed, and there appears to be no consensus on whether
traps should be mounted on poles (e.g. Tuell & Isaacs 2009) or placed on the
ground itself (e.g. Abrahamczyk et al. 2010). In this study, we placed pan traps on
the ground as the broader scope of the research was to investigate interactions
between potential pollinators and ground cover in almond orchards. Traps were
set out early in the morning (8—10 am) prior to maximum invertebrate activity,
and collected late in the afternoon just before nightfall (3.30—6 pm). Traps were
collected in the order they were placed to ensure that all traps were available to
insects for a similar time.
After collection, insects were removed from the pan traps and placed into
containers filled with 70% ethanol, before being transported back to the
laboratory. Insects were subsequently counted and identified to taxonomic order
and morphospecies, and stored in ethanol in refrigeration.
Data analysis
Data from both sampling periods were pooled and analyses were conducted using
PAST 2.14 (Hammer et al. 2001). The data set is ecological count data, with mild
168
heteroscedasticity (Brown-Forsythe test, P = 0.052) and a positively-skewed
distribution. Hence, we used non-parametric analysis on the untransformed data,
as evidence is mounting that it is preferable not to transform these type of data
(McArdle & Anderson 2004; O’Hara & Kotze 2010). Analyses were carried out
on combined counts of Hymenoptera and Diptera (Total Insects) and on Total
Diptera, Total Hymenoptera and subsets of Hymenoptera (European Honeybees,
Native Bees, and Total Native Hymenoptera).
Trap colour and insect catches
Friedman tests were performed to determine if a particular pan trap colour caught
more individuals across all habitat contexts for the following groups: Total
Insects, Total Hymenoptera, Total Diptera, Honeybees, Native Bees and Total
Native Hymenoptera. Post hoc multiple comparisons were conducted using
Wilcoxon signed rank tests for each trap colour pair (blue-yellow; yellow-white;
white-blue) to determine which colour caught the most individuals within each
pollinator insect group.
Habitat context and trap colour preference
The influence of habitat context on trap captures was analysed using two test
groups, Total Insects and Total Native Hymenoptera. Diptera were not included as
a separate group as 88% of our total captures were dipterans and initial analyses
on Total Diptera produced highly-similar results to analyses on Total Insects.
Native bees were combined with wasps to form the Total Native Hymenoptera
group, owing to the high number of zeroes in the Native Bee data set. In addition,
habitat context analysis of the Native Bee data set produced nearly identical
results to analysis of the Native Hymenoptera data set.
Analyses were conducted on the proportion of insects caught in a
particular trap colour across habitat contexts (native vegetation, MONO or
GRASS orchards). Proportions for each test group were calculated by dividing the
number of captures in a particular trap colour in a given habitat context by the
total number of trap captures (across all colours) in that habitat. This accounts for
the possibility that some habitat contexts may inherently support higher numbers
of insects than other habitats. Chi-squared contingency table analyses were
conducted to determine an overall effect and post-hoc pairwise comparisons were
169
calculated using the Marascuilo procedure (Marascuilo 1966) to determine
significant differences between each habitat pair combination (Native-MONO,
Native-GRASS, MONO-GRASS) for a given trap colour. For this procedure, the
rejection of H0 (that habitat has no influence on trap colour captures) occurs when
U'0 > Χ22,0.05 = 5.991.
RESULTS
Trap colour and insect catches
A total of 4060 Diptera and 436 Hymenoptera were captured in the study area.
Yellow bowls caught the most insects, while blue and white attracted relatively
equal numbers (Table A1.1). Results of Friedman tests revealed a statistically
significant effect of trap colour on the total number of insects caught as well as on
all individually-tested pollinator groups. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons showed
that yellow traps caught significantly more insects than blue or white (Table
A1.1). European honeybees were the only group that exhibited a significant
preference for blue traps over white (P = 0.035).
Habitat context and trap colour preference
Total Insects
Yellow traps caught the most pollinator insects in all habitats (Figure A1.2),
although habitat context significantly influenced the proportion of insects caught
in each trap colour (Table A1.2). Post-hoc comparisons showed that blue traps
were significantly more attractive in Native habitat than in either almond orchard
(Marascuilo procedure, Native vs MONO U'0 = 8.425, df = 2, P = 0.015; Native
vs GRASS: U'0 = 23.184, df = 2, P < 0.001). Conversely, white traps were
signficantly less attractive in Native habitat than in either orchard type (Native vs
MONO: U'0 = 6.517, df = 2, P = 0.038; Native vs GRASS: U'0 = 7.631, df = 2, P =
0.022) (Table A1.2).
170
Table A1.1: Pollinator insect abundance from pan trap collection in three habitat contexts (ncolour = 134) and results from Friedman tests (χ2) and Wilcoxon pairwise comparisons (W) to test for differences between number of individuals caught in each trap colour.
Pollinator Insect Group
Trap Colour χ2 W
Blue Yellow White Yellow/Blue Yellow/White White/Blue
Honeybee 64 88 23 15.351** 529* 690** 238.5*
Native Bee 10 57 8 19.043** 337* 268* 33
Other Native Hymenoptera 54 64 68 ~ ~ ~ ~
Total Native Hymenoptera 64 121 76 7.112* 1505* 1297* 699.5
Total Hymenoptera 128 209 99 11.352** 2460* 2425** 1073
Total Diptera 1150 1752 1158 16.112** 4928** 5176** 3735
Total Insects Mean (SE) Median
Interquartiles
1278
9.54 (1.3) 4
2, 9
1961
14.63 (2.22) 7
2, 15
1257
9.19 (1.26) 5
2, 9
24.609** 5388** 5050** 3588
Mean values indicate mean number of insects caught per trap of each colour. * P < 0.05 ** P < 0.001 ~ indicates that the analysis was not conducted on the associated variable.
171
Table A1.2: Results of Χ2 contingency table analysis and post-hoc pairwise comparisons (Marascuilo procedure) to determine whether habitat context influences insect captures in each coloured trap. Total Insect and Native Hymenoptera abundance in each trap colour is expressed as a proportion of the total individuals from that group caught in each habitat context.
TOTAL INSECTS NATIVE HYMENOPTERA
Χ24,0.05 27.491, P < 0.0001 15.609, P = 0.004
Blue Yellow White Blue Yellow White
Native 0.35 0.41 0.24 0.36 0.31 0.33
Native-MONO Χ22,0.05
8.4247,
P = 0.02
0.1439,
P = 0.93
6.5171,
P = 0.04
1.0842,
P = 0.58
2.856,
P = 0.24
0.6614,
P = 0.72
MONO 0.28 0.42 0.30 0.26 0.48 0.26
MONO-GRASS Χ22,0.05
0.2629,
P = 0.88
1.5233,
P = 0.47
0.6932,
P = 0.71
0.9812,
P = 0.61
0.5578,
P = 0.76
0.0133,
P = 0.99
GRASS 0.27 0.45 0.28 0.17 0.56 0.27
GRASS-Native Χ22,0.05 23.184, P<0.0001
4.6414,
P = 0.01
7.6308,
P = 0.02
9.3455,
P = 0.01
14.7964,
P = 0.0006
1.1159,
P = 0.57
172
Figure A1.2 Total pollinator insects caught in each coloured pan trap expressed as a proportion of total individuals caught in each habitat context (Native, n = 53; MONO, n = 42; GRASS, n = 39).
Native Hymenoptera
Yellow traps caught more native hymenopteran insects in GRASS and MONO
orchards than the other two colours, but native habitat had very little influence
over the attractiveness of different trap colours (Figure A1.3). Post-hoc
comparisons of each trap colour showed that blue traps were significantly more
attractive in Native habitats than in GRASS orchards (U'0 = 9.346, df = 2, P =
0.009). Conversely, yellow traps were significantly more attractive in GRASS
orchards than in Native habitats (U'0 = 14.79, df = 2, P = 0.0006).
Figure A1.3 Total Native Hymenoptera caught in each coloured pan trap expressed as a proportion of total individuals caught in each habitat context (Native, n = 53; MONO, n = 42; GRASS, n = 39).
173
DISCUSSION
Overall, we caught the most insect individuals (for all groups) in yellow traps.
Catches in blue and white traps were mostly similar across all insect groups,
except for European honeybees, which were significantly more abundant in blue
traps than in white. Habitat context significantly influenced pan trap catches. For
all insect groups combined, blue traps caught more individuals in native habitats
than in almond orchards, while white traps were more attractive within almond
orchards. For native hymenopterans, yellow traps caught more individuals in
GRASS orchards compared to native habitats, while blue traps were significantly
more attractive in native habitats.
Trap Colour
Pan trap surveys for pollinator insects highlight the wide variation in the
attractiveness of particular colours to different species or groups (e.g. Laubertie et
al. 2006; Cane et al. 2000; Gollan et al. 2011). Although most pan trap surveys
have focussed on bees, the few studies that include other pollinator insects (e.g.
flies, beetles, thrips etc.) have shown that one colour cannot be considered more
attractive than others when targeting a wide range of taxa in different ecological
contexts (Kirk 1984; Bowie et al. 1999; Vrdoljak & Samways 2012).
UV blue is currently considered to be the most suitable colour to attract
bees, perhaps because it has been noted previously that certain bee species in
some habitats prefer to visit blue or violet flowers (Kevan 1983; Weiss 2001).
Also, European honeybees have shown a preference for blue visual cues in some
laboratory experiments (e.g. Horridge 2007) and some pan trap studies from
North America have collected many more bee individuals in blue bowls than in
other coloured bowls (Cane et al. 2000; Campbell & Hanula 2007). Blue vane
traps (plastic jars with UV blue wing-like ‘vanes’ protruding from the mouth)
have also had some success attracting wild bee species in North America (Stephen
& Rao 2007; McKenney et al. 2009; Porter 2010) and have been recommended
for bee collecting by Stephen and Rao (2005). Only one published Australian
study has used blue vane traps to successfully sample native bees in an
agricultural landscape in southern New South Wales (Lentini et al.
2012).However, this study did not use any other coloured traps or insect sampling
methods, so it is still uncertain how effective blue vane traps are in Australian
174
ecosystems, relative to other trap types or colours. Other pan trapping surveys
have collected more bees in white bowls than blue (Grundel et al. 2011) or equal
numbers in blue and yellow bowls (Droege 2006) suggesting that bees do not
show a consistent preference for trap colour in all habitat contexts.
We collected a total of 682 more individuals in yellow traps than in blue
traps and both European honeybees and native bees were caught more frequently
in yellow traps, despite recommendations that the colour blue is more attractive to
bees (e.g. Cane et al. 2000; Stephen & Rao 2005). Nevertheless, in our sampled
habitats, honeybees were attracted to blue traps significantly more than native bee
species – 37% of honeybees were caught in blue traps compared to only 13% of
native bees. When compared with other Australian pan trap studies, our results
support the hypothesis that trap colour preference among pollinator insects,
including bees, is habitat-context specific. Gollan et al.’s (2011) pan trap survey
in New South Wales, which did not include blue bowls, caught more European
honeybees in white traps compared to yellow traps. In an unpublished
contemporaneous pan trap study of wet tropical rainforest and pasture systems in
north Queensland, the majority of captured bees were caught in blue pan traps;
however, the strength of colour preference varied among bee species, and across
seasons (Smith T, 2012, pers. comm. 25 April). In another Australian study,
which used five colours of sticky traps rather than bowls, Pickering and Stock
(2003) sampled alpine pollinators in the Mt Kosciuszko area and collected the
most insects in white traps. Hence, it is clear that variables other than trap colour
per se affect which colour, or combination of colours, is most attractive to target
insect groups in different habitat contexts.
Habitat context
The published literature on pan trap studies covers a variety of habitat contexts,
but a consistent preference for any one colour has not been determined. Results
have shown either no difference in catch abundances across bowl colours (e.g.
Toler et al. 2005; Wilson et al. 2008) or significant differences in catch
abundances (e.g. Campbell & Hanula 2007; Abrahamczyk et al. 2010). These
studies rarely correlate the pan trap data with ecological variables such as habitat
context, floral resource, vegetation structure or canopy cover (but see Missa et al.
175
2009; Abrahamczyk et al. 2010), so it is still unclear if the wide variety of pan
trap results is purely coincidental, or the result of an ecological interaction.
The habitat contexts sampled in our study differ in a variety of ways.
Almond plantations are managed as either bare-ground monocultures or as
orchards with continuous weedy/grassy ground cover. Almond orchards also have
a very different vegetation structure to the native mallee habitats. Although
MONO and GRASS orchards differ in that the latter has extensive ground cover,
they have essentially the same dimensional plant structure – all almond trees
within a block grow at essentially the same height and there is no understorey
vegetation. In contrast, native mallee habitats are more open than almond orchards
and have multiple vegetation layers, including a sparsely vegetated ground layer
and shrubs and trees ranging from two to twelve metres in height (Wood 1929).
We found that native hymenopterans were caught in yellow traps more often than
in blue or white traps within both MONO and GRASS orchards. However, at
mallee vegetation sites, hymenopterans showed no significant preference for any
colour. This could be because yellow traps were more visible to flying insects in
the orchard habitats, as a result of the contrast between trap colour and the
predominant colours of the surrounding habitat (i.e. green and white) (see
Laubertie et al. 2006; Abrahamczyk et al. 2010).
Almond trees are not native to Australia and produce white flowers,
sometimes tinged with pale pink. Weedy species in the GRASS orchards
produced mostly white and yellow flowers, but some other colours were observed,
both within the orchard and in adjacent patches. Mallee sites were typical of
Murray Mallee vegetation (Wood 1929), with a mixture of Eucalyptus, Callitris,
Acacia, Senna, Casuarina or Allocasuarina species. From personal observation,
the majority of flower-bearing plant species in these habitats produced yellow or
white flowers at the time of trapping. Blue flowers were rarely observed at native
mallee sites, yet blue traps caught significantly more insects in these locations
than in either orchard type.
The effect of local floral resources on the results of pan trap surveys has
been discussed previously. There is evidence to support theories of co-evolution
or adapted mutualisms between flowering plants and pollinators (Faegri & van der
Pijl 1979; Kearns et al. 1998; Chittka & Thomson 2001; Pauw & Bond,2011),
including between Australian Hymenoptera and native flowers (Dyer et al. 2012).
176
Although most pollinator insects are considered generalist foragers (Waser et al.
1996), it is also likely that the composition of local pollinator assemblages has
evolved in response to ecosystem variables, such as habitat structure, plant
diversity or predominant floral resource colour (Kevan et al. 2001; Pickering &
Stock 2003; Wenninger & Inouye 2008; Bates et al. 2011). Therefore, such
localised assemblages may respond to coloured traps differently depending on
their habitat context.
Very few studies have considered the interaction between pan trap colours
and floral colour in the sampled habitat. Leong and Thorp (1999) sampled bee
fauna in a flowering-vegetation patch dominated by white flowers and found that
females of the host-specific bee species preferred white bowls matching the colour
of their host plant, but other captured species preferred yellow bowls. Cane et al.
(2000) collected more bees in blue rather than yellow bowls, even though yellow
was the predominant flower colour at their study site, and Toler et al. (2005)
found there was no effect of the ecosystem-dominant flower colour on pan trap
catches of bees. An Australian study using six colours of pan traps found that
local floral resource influenced pan trap catches of hoverflies - when traps were
placed near yellow canola flowers, all hoverflies were caught in yellow traps, but
when traps were placed near white nashi flowers, 20% of sampled hoverflies were
caught in white bowls (Bowie et al. 1999). Although we did not statistically
quantify floral resources in this study, we caught more total insects in white traps
within both orchard types (where the dominant flower colour was white)
compared to native sites. In contrast, hymenopterans showed a significant
preference for yellow traps in GRASS orchards compared to native sites,
indicating that the dominant flower colour in those orchards did not influence this
taxonomic group.
Previous work considers some wasp species to see and respond to colours
differently to bees (Faegri & van der Pijl 1979; Peitsch et al. 1992; Lunau &
Maier 1995; but see also Desouhant et al. 2010), and an insect’s functional role
may also affect its response to colour, with different responses even appearing
within the same taxonomic family (Kirk 1984). Most experimental research into
insect colour vision has been conducted under controlled, laboratory conditions
(e.g. Horridge 2007; Desouhant et al. 2010) using European honeybees or
bumblebees (Lunau & Maier 1995; Kevan et al. 2001), both of which are native to
177
the northern hemisphere. Although these studies put much effort into designing a
variety of response contexts, these conditions can never emulate actual
environmental conditions across different habitats.
Colour has multiple aspects, such as intensity, wavelength, contrast, or
spectral purity, which will cause insects to respond differently depending on the
behavioural context (e.g. foraging, initial flower detection etc.) (Lunau & Maier
1995) or the environmental characteristics of the habitat itself, and these values
must not be considered as isolated variables (Menzel & Shmida 1993; Kevan et
al. 2001). For example, light has been shown to affect plant pollination, as insects
are less likely to visit shaded flowers compared to sunlit flowers (Kilkenny &
Galloway 2008). Light itself is also affected by numerous atmospheric factors
such as time of day, cloud cover, latitude or even hemisphere (Kevan 1983).
Radiation at ground level was not measured in this study, but light levels varied
between ‘interior’ sites (in the centre of almond orchard blocks) and more open
sites (edges of orchards or native vegetation). We also conducted this study during
late winter at latitude 34° S, both factors that will affect sunlight radiation and
levels of ambient light. Hence, it is likely that these variables would have
influenced the attractiveness of each pan trap colour in this study, and further
comparison across other seasons would confirm how significant such an effect
may be.
Conclusions and recommendations
Our results highlight the importance of considering the habitat context of
individual pan trapping surveys. Insects respond to colour differently across
environmental contexts and within taxonomic groups. Previous research has
shown that trap placement can interact with habitat context when attempting to
attract target insects in pan trapping surveys (Missa et al. 2009; Abrahamczyk et
al. 2010; Droege et al. 2010) and there is still much information to be gained on
the influence of habitat context on trapping success.
No one trap colour is likely to be suitable for trapping pollinator insects
across all habitat contexts. Rather, the most efficient use of pan trapping should
consider relevant environmental variables (e.g. vegetation structure), include
clusters of multiple colours, and address the potential for complementary
collection methods (e.g. sweep netting). Nevertheless, pan traps have immense
178
potential as a cheap, efficient collection method, especially for community- or
school-based science programs, and more sampling of this kind will provide
valuable ecological knowledge of insect diversity in different habitats, particularly
in the southern hemisphere.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to Select Harvests and Manna Farms for allowing access to their almond orchards; James Abell and Katrina Lumb for field assistance; MM Mayfield, T Smith and two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the draft manuscript; and GM Gurr for helpful guidance and encouragement during planning of the project. The Institute for Land Water & Society at Charles Sturt University provided a postgraduate scholarship to undertake the research project.
REFERENCES
Abrahamczyk, S., Steudel, B., Kessler, M. (2010) Sampling Hymenoptera along a precipitation gradient in tropical forests: the effectiveness of different coloured pan traps. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 137:262-268.
Bates, A.J., Sadler, J.P., Fairbrass, A.J., Falk, S.J., Hale, J.D., Matthews, T.J. (2011) Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS ONE 6:e23459.
Baum, K.A., Wallen, K.E. (2011) Potential bias in pan trapping as a function of floral abundance. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84:155-159.
Boiteau, G. (1983) The arthropod community of potato fields in New Brunswick, 1979-1981. The Canadian Entomologist 115:847-853.
Bowie, M.H., Gurr, G.M., Hossain, Z., Baggen, L.R., Frampton, C.M. (1999) Effects of distance from field edge on aphidophagous insects in a wheat crop and observations on trap design and placement. International Journal of Pest Management 45:69-73.
Brunet, J. (2009) Pollinators of the Rocky Mountain columbine: temporal variation, functional groups and associations with floral traits. Annals of Botany103:1567-1578.
Bureau of Meteorology (2011) Climate Data Online. Available from URL: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/.
Campbell, J.W., Hanula, J.L. (2007) Efficiency of Malaise traps and coloured pan traps for collecting flower visiting insects from three forested ecosystems. Journal of Insect Conservation 11:399-408.
179
Cane, J.H., Minckley, R.L., Kervin, L.T. (2000) Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan-trapping. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 73:225-231.
Chittka, L., Thomson, J.D. (eds.) (2001) Cognitive Ecology of Pollination. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.
Desouhant, E., Navel, S., Foubert, E., Fischbein, D., Théry, M., Bernstein, C. (2010) What matters in the associative learning of visual cues in foraging parasitoid wasps: colour or brightness? Animal Cognition 13:535-543.
Droege, S. (2006) Impact of colour and size of bowl trap on numbers of bees captured. Available from URL: http://online.sfsu.edu/~beeplot/pdfs/color%20and%20size.pdf.
Droege, S., Tepedino, V.J., Lebuhn, G. et al. (2010) Spatial patterns of bee captures in North American bowl trapping surveys. Insect Conservation & Diversity 3:15-23.
Dyer, A.G., Boyd-Gerny, S., McLoughlin, S., Rosa, M.G.P., Simonov, V., Wong, B.B.M. (2012) Parallel evolution of angiosperm colour signals: common evolutionary pressures linked to hymenopteran vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.0827.
Evans, D.A., Medler, J.T. (1967) Flight activity of corn leaf aphid in Wisconsin as determined by yellow pan trap collections. Journal of Economic Entomology60:1088.
Faegri, K., van der Pijl, L. (1979) The Principles of Pollination Ecology. Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford.
Gollan, J.R., Ashcroft, M.B., Batley, M. (2011) Comparison of yellow and white pan traps in surveys of bee fauna in New South Wales, Australia (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). Australian Journal of Entomology 50:174-178.
Grundel, R., Frohnapple, K.J., Jean, R.P., Pavlovic, N.B. (2011) Effectiveness of bowl trapping and netting for inventory of a bee community. Environmental Entomology 40:374-380.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D. (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Paeleontologia Electronica4(1):9pp. Available from URL: http://palaeo-electronica.org/2001_1/past/issue1_01.htm.
Horridge, A. (2007) The preferences of the honeybee (Apis mellifera) for different visual cues during the learning process. Journal of Insect Physiology 53:877-889.
Jauker, F., Diekötter, T., Schwarzbach, F., Wolters, V. (2009) Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to
180
landscape structure and distance from main habitat. Landscape Ecology 24:547-555.
Kearns, C.A., Inouye, D.W., Waser, N.M. (1998) Endangered Mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 29:83-112.
Kevan, P.G. (1983) Floral colours through the insect eye: what they are and what they mean. In: Handbook of Experimental Pollination Biology (eds CE Jones & RJ Little) pp. 3-30. Scientific and Academic Editions/Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., New York
Kevan, P.G., Baker, H.G. (1983) Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Annual Review of Entomology 28:407-453.
Kevan, P.G., Chittka, L., Dyer, A.G. (2001) Limits to the salience of ultraviolet: lessons from colour vision in bees and birds. Journal of Experimental Biology204:2571-2580.
Kilkenny, F.F., Galloway, L.F. (2008) Reproductive success in varying light environments: direct and indirect effects of light on plants and pollinators. Oecologia 155:247-255.
Kirk, W.D.J. (1984) Ecologically selective coloured traps. Ecological Entomology9:35-41.
Klein, A-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A., Kremen, C., Tscharntke, T. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274:303-313.
Larson, B.M.H., Kevan, P.G., Inouye, D.W. (2001) Flies and flowers: taxonomic diversity of anthophiles and pollinators. The Canadian Entomologist 133:439-465.
Laubertie, E.A., Wratten, S.D., Sedcole, J.R. (2006) The role of odour and visual cues in the pan-trap catching of hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae). Annals of Applied Biology 148:173-178.
Lentini, P.E., Martin, T.G., Gibbons, P., Fischer, J., Cunningham, S.A. (2012) Supporting wild pollinators in a temperate agricultural landscape: Maintaining mosaics of natural features and production. Biological Conservation 149:84-92.
Leong, J.M., Thorp, R.W. (1999) Colour-coded sampling: the pan trap colour preferences of oligolectic and nonoligolectic bees associated with a vernal pool plant. Ecological Entomology 24:329-335.
Lunau, K., Maier, E.J. (1995) Innate colour preferences of flower visitors. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 177:1-19.
Marascuilo, L.A. (1966) Large-sample multiple comparisons. Psychological Bulletin 65:280-290.
181
McArdle, B.H., Anderson, M.J. (2004) Variance heterogeneity, transformations, and models of species abundance: a cautionary tale. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 61:1294-1302.
McKenney, M.A., Rao, S., Stephen, W.P. (2009) Pollination in Cranberries on the South Oregon Coast: Honeybees. South Coast Grower News, vol. 3, no. 1, Spring 2009, pp 3-5. Available from URL: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/16200/McKenneyGrowerNewsSpring2009.pdf?sequence=1.
Menzel, R., Shmida, A. (1993) The ecology of flower colours and the natural colour vision of insect pollinators: the Israeli flora as a study case. Biological Reviews 68:81-120.
Missa, O., Basset, Y., Alonso, A., et al. (2009) Monitoring arthropods in a tropical landscape: relative effects of sampling methods and habitat types on trap catches. Journal of Insect Conservation 13:103-118.
Natural Resources & Environment. (n.d.) Victorian Mallee Bioregions. Victoria’s Biodiversity, Department of Natural Resources & Environment, Victoria. URL: http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/plntanml/biodiversity/directions/mallee.htm.
O’Hara, R.B., Kotze, D.J. (2010) Do not log-transform count data. Methods in Ecology & Evolution 1:118-122.
Pauw, A., Bond, W.J. (2011) Mutualisms matter: pollination rate limits the distribution of oil-secreting orchids. Oikos 120:1531-1538.
Peitsch, D., Fietz, A., Hertel, H., de Souza, J., Ventura, D.F., Menzel, R. (1992) The spectral input systems of hymenopteran insects and their receptor-based colour vision. Journal of Computational Physiology A 170:23-40.
Pickering, C.M., Stock, M. (2003) Insect colour preference compared to flower colours in the Australian Alps. Nordic Journal of Botany 23:217-223.
Porter, D.A. (2010) An investigation of wild bee diversity and abundance in plots managed by The Nature Conservancy in south-central Nebraska and of beneficial arthropods associated with native Nebraska flora. Thesis, Master of Science, University of Nebraska.
Rader, R., Edwards, W., Westcott, D.A., Cunningham, S.A., Howlett, B.G. (2011) Pollen transport differs among bees and flies in a human-modified landscape. Diversity & Distributions 17:519-529.
Roulston, T.H., Smith, S.A., Brewster, A.L. (2007) A comparison of pan trap and intensive net sampling techniques for documenting a bee (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) fauna. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 80:179-181.
182
Stephen, W.P., Rao, S. (2005) Unscented colour traps for non-Apis bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 78:373-380.
Stephen, W.P., Rao, S. (2007) Sampling native bees in proximity to a highly competitive food resource (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 80:369-376.
Toler, T.R., Evans, E.W., Tepedino, V.J. (2005) Pan-trapping for bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Utah’s West Desert: the importance of colour diversity. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 81:103-113.
Tuell, J.K., Isaacs, R. (2009) Elevated pan traps to monitor bees in flowering crop canopies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 131:93-98.
Vrdoljak, S.M., Samways, M.J. (2012) Optimising coloured pan traps to survey flower visiting insects. Journal of Insect Conservation 16:345-354.
Waser, N.M., Chittka, L., Price, M.V., Williams, N.M., Ollerton, J. (1996) Generalisation in pollination systems, and why it matters. Ecology 77:1043-1060.
Weiss, M.R. (2001) Vision and learning in some neglected pollinators: beetles, flies, moths, and butterflies. In: Cognitive Ecology of Pollination (eds L Chittka & JD Thomson) pp. 171-190. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wenninger, E.J., Inouye, R.S. (2008) Insect community response to plant diversity and productivity in a sagebrush-steppe ecosystem. Journal of Arid Environments 72:24-33.
Westphal, C., Bommarco, R., Carré, G., et al. (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monographs78:653-671.
Wilson, J.S., Griswold, T., Messinger, O.J. (2008) Sampling bee communities (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in a desert landscape: are pan traps sufficient? Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 81:288-300.
Wood, J.G. (1929) Floristics and Ecology of the Mallee. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia 53:59-78.
183
Appendix 2: Taxonomic lists of flower visitor observations and trap samples
Table A2.1 Observations of insects visiting open flowers at almond and mallee sites, August-September 2010. Sites are grouped by vegetation type (GRASS = plant-diverse almond; MONO = monoculture almond; Native = mallee vegetation).
GRASS
(n = 27)
MONO
(n = 30)
Native
(n = 43)
Diptera (unidentified) 38 4 8
Diptera: Syrphidae 3 5
Hymenoptera: Formicidae 2
Hymenoptera (all wasps) 2 15
Lepidoptera (unidentified) 1 17
Site notes Honeyeaters and other small birds also occasional feeders on almond flowers.
Fly individual on almond flower at Wemen plantation seen with pollen grains attached to leg.
N.B. Data collection – random walks within 10 metres of each trap location, for a 10 minute period; European honeybees were observed at all vegetation types, but not recorded
184
Figure A2.1 Representative photographs of Diptera, Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera individuals observed visiting flowers in almond plantations (top row) and native vegetation (bottom row). See Figure 2.2 on page 13 for additional photographs of pollinators at native vegetation sites.
185
Table A2.2 Total abundance of European honeybees, native bees (species), wasps and flies (family groups) collected at almond (GRASS, MONO) and Native mallee vegetation sites, August-September 2010 (Chapters 3 & 4).
GRASS Native MONO
Nangiloc
(n =8)
Colignan B
(n =9)
Colignan C
(n =10)
NC (Colignan)
(n =13)
NV (Wemen)
(n =15)
NL (Liparoo)
(n = 15)
Wemen
(n =15)
Liparoo
(n =15)
HYMENOPTERA
Apis mellifera 10 23 12 3 10 61 11 45
Total native bees 5 7 49 10 15 3
Homalictus sphecoides 2
H. urbanus 2 2 4 2 1
Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) athrix 13
L. (C.) brunnesetum 2 2
186
L. (C.) callophyllae 5
L. (C.) erythrurum 1
L. (C.) globosum 22 3
L. (C.) helichrysi 3
L. (C.) victoriae 1
L. (C.) spp. 2 4 10 2
Leioproctus spp. 1 1 2 1
Lipotriches spp. 1
187
Total wasps 24 20 32 14 16 9 19 10
Bethylidae 1
Braconidae 10 4 3 11 1 7
Ceraphronidae 1 1
Chalcididae 1 2 1 1 1
Crabronidae 1 1 1
Diapriidae 6 12 12 2 1 5 6 4
Evaniidae 1 1
Ichneumonidae 2 1
188
Megaspilidae 1 1
Mymaridae 1 1
Perilampidae 1
Platygastridae 1
Proctotrupidae 7 1 3 1
Pteromalidae 2 1 2 1 1 3
Scelionidae 3 3 1 1 2
Sphecidae 3
Tiphiidae 1
Trichogrammatidae 1
189
DIPTERA (total) 1185 968 201 274 138 139 139 207
Asilidae 1 11 10 3
Bombyliidae 1 2
Calliphoridae 238 79 14 17 10 12 44 15
Ceratopogonidae 57 26 8 7 3 15 14
Chironomidae 6 35 7 4 9 1 11 6
Chloropidae 29 29 19 12 3 1 3 4
Cryptochetidae 1
Dolichopodidae 20 5 11 3 4 4
Drosophilidae 64 231 27 8 4 18 7 21
Ephydridae 2 16 6 2 2 1 4
Heleomyzidae 17 24 10 1 10 1 11 19
190
Hybotidae 1 1
Milichiidae 7 6
Muscidae 1 5 3 3 1 1 3
Phoridae 75 85 27 10 11 11 12 10
Pipunculidae 1
Platypezidae 3 2 33 5 10 6 2 1
Sarcophagidae 1 3
Sepsidae 1
Stratiomyidae 1 5 3
Syrphidae 1 3 2 8 1
Tachinidae 689 429 21 190 39 59 27 104
Tephritidae 1
191
Therevidae 2 1 1
Trichoceridae 2 1
192
Table A2.3 Total abundance of European honeybees, native bees (species), wasps and flies (family groups) collected at monoculture almond plantation and native mallee vegetation sites, July-September 2011 (Chapters 5 & 6).
July August September
Almond
(n = 50)
Mallee
(n = 18)
Almond
(n = 50)
Mallee
(n = 18)
Almond
(n = 50)
Mallee
(n = 18)
HYMENOPTERA
Apis mellifera 1 5 3 2
Total Native Bee 4 86 81
Lasioglossum (chilalictus) spp. 3 79 78
L (Ch.) erythrurum 1
Homalictus urbanus 1 6 3
Total Wasps (inc. Symphyta) 30 28 44 43 128 63
Bethylidae 1 1 8
193
Braconidae 3 1 3 2 9 1
Ceraphronidae 2 2 3 8 4
Chalcididae 2
Crabronidae 2 4
Cynipidae 4
Diapriidae 6 1 5 2 24 1
Eulophidae 1 13 4
Eurytomidae 2 1
Evaniidae 4
Figitidae 1 3 2
194
Gasteruptiidae 1
Ichneumonidae 1 1 3 10 8
Megaspilidae 3 2
Mymaridae 4 4 7 2
Pergidae 4 19
Perilampidae 1
Platygastridae 2 6 1
Pompilidae 17
Proctotrupidae 1 3
Pteromalidae 1 5 10 5 14 10
Scelionidae 11 8 8 3 15 4
195
Sphecidae 1 1
Tiphiidae 5 2 1 1
DIPTERA (total) 157 125 847 179 974 112
Asilidae 4 25 1 9 6 15
Calliphoridae 7 18 14 30 5
Ceratopogonidae 5
Chironomidae 30 7 52 6 65 2
Chloropidae 5 111 9 157 16
Dolichopodidae 7 3 204 7 363 17
Drosophilidae 12 2 64 13 68
Heleomyzidae 13 1 14 60 12
196
Milichiidae 2 2
Muscidae 4 2 10 11
Phoridae 33 3 105 18 69 1
Platypezidae 3 6 5 6 4
Sarcophagidae 8 2
Sepsidae 5 1
Syrphidae 1 2 3
Tachinidae 45 68 145 80 114 38
Tephritidae 1 2 1
Therevidae 1
Unidentified Acalyptrata 55 14
Unidentified Brachycera 54 11
197
Appendix 3: Full set of models for analyses of ground cover vegetation—pollinator relationships (Chapter 3)
Table A3.1 Parameter estimates with confidence intervals from negative binomial regression (abundance) and linear regression (richness) analysis testing the relationship between insect groups and ground cover variables. Akaike weights (wi) for each model indicate the probability that the given model is the best fit for the data. Insect response Model AICc Δ AICc wi
Fly Abundance Constant only (-0.11, -0.14 to -0.09)
D (0, 0 to 0)
PR (-0.005, -0.02 to 0.007)
GC (0, -0.001 to 0.001)
PR (-0.005, -0.02 to 0.008) + D (0, 0 to 0)
GC (0, -0.001 to 0.001) + D (0, 0 to 0)
PR (-0.003, -0.02 to 0.02) + D (0, 0 to 0) + PR*D (0, 0 to 0)
GC (0, -0.001 to 0.001) + D (0, 0 to 0) + GC*D (0, 0 to 0)
325.5
327.1
327.1
327.6
328.9
329.3
331.1
331.3
0
1.5
1.6
2.1
3.4
3.8
5.6
5.7
0.37
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.02
198
Richness GC (-0.003, -0.007 to 0.001)
Constant only (1.33, 1.18 to 1.49)
PR (-0.06, -0.15 to 0.05)
D (0, 0 to 0)
GC (-0.003, -0.007 to 0.002) + D (0, -0.001 to 0.001)
PR (-0.06, -0.15 to 0.05) + D (0, -0.001 to 0)
GC (-0.004, -0.01 to 0.004) + D (0, 0 to 0) + GC*D (0, 0 to 0)
PR (-0.09, -0.22 to 0.07) + D (0, -0.002 to 0.001) + PR*D (0, -0.001 to 0)
107.9
108.1
108.4
109.7
109.8
110.3
111.9
112.5
0
0.2
0.5
1.8
1.9
2.4
4.1
4.6
0.25
0.23
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.07
0.03
0.03
Wasp Abundance GC (0.006, 0.003 to 0.01)
GC (0.007, 0.003 to 0.01) + D (0.001, -0 to 0.002)
GC (0.01, 0 to 0.01) + D (0.001, -0.001 to 0.003) + GC*D (0, 0 to 0)
PR (0.12, 0.04 to 0.19) + D (0.001, 0 to 0.002)
201.9
202.3
204.5
206.5
0
0.4
2.6
4.6
0.43
0.34
0.12
0.04
199
PR (0.10, 0.03 to 0.17)
PR (0.06, -0.065 to 0.19) + D (0, -0.003 to 0.002) + PR*D (0, 0 to 0.001)
206.8
207.5
4.9
5.5
0.04
0.03
Richness GC (0.006, 0.001 to 0.01)
GC (0.006, 0.002 to 0.01) + D (0.001, 0 to 0.002)
PR (0.12, 0.008 to 0.22)
PR (0.13, 0.02 to 0.23) + D (0.001, 0 to 0.003)
GC (0.005, -0.003 to 0.01) + D (0.001, -0.002 to 0.003) + GC*D (0, 0 to 0)
PR (0.08, -0.09 to 0.02) + D (0, -0.002 to 0.003) + PR*D (0, -0.001 to
0.001)
Int (0.87, 0.68 to 1.1)
D (0.001, -0.001 to 0.002)
127.9
128.3
129.7
129.9
130.5
131.7
131.8
132.7
0
0.4
1.8
2.0
2.6
3.8
3.9
4.8
0.31
0.26
0.13
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.03
Native bee Abundance PR (1.18, 0.52 to 1.8) 88.0 0 0.60
200
PR (1.2, 0.49 to 1.8) + D (0, -0.006 to 0.005)
GC (0.05, 0.02 to 0.07)
PR (0.98, -0.02 to 2.0) + D (-0.004, -0.02 to 0.01) + PR*D (0.001, -0.004 to
0.007)
GC (0.04, 0.02 to 0.07) + D (-0.003, -0.008 to 0.003)
GC (0.04, -0.01 to 0.09) + D (-0.004, -0.02 to 0.01) + GC*D (0, 0 to 0)
90.2
92.0
92.4
93.6
95.9
2.2
4.0
4.4
5.6
7.9
0.20
0.08
0.07
0.04
0.01
201
Richness GC (0.007, 0.004 to 0.01)
GC (0.007, 0.005 to 0.01) + D (0, 0 to 0.001)
GC (0.005, 0 to 0.01) + D (0, -0.001 to 0.001) + GC*D (0, 0 to 0)
PR (0.14, 0.07 to 0.21)
PR (0.14, 0.07 to 0.21) + D (0, 0 to 0.001)
PR (0.08, -0.02 to 0.19) + D (0, -0.002 to 0.001) + PR*D (0, o to 0.001)
72.2
73.6
74.6
79.8
81.1
81.2
0
1.4
2.4
7.6
8.9
9.0
0.54
0.27
0.17
0.01
0.006
0.006
GC = percent ground cover; PR = plant richness; D = distance to natural or semi-natural vegetation. All models include the constant as a parameter.
202
Appendix 4: Location attributes and pollinator occurrence along ecotone gradients (Chapter 5)
Table A4.1 Physical and historical attributes of the studied ecotone patches. Name Type Patch Size (ha) Management History
Liparoo Commercial almond orchard 1002 orchard established 2001, broadacre conventional
monoculture (herbicide only)
Annuello Regenerated mallee woodland 35283.5 State flora and fauna reserve, established 1990
Wemen Commercial almond orchard 165 orchard established 1988, broadacre conventional
monoculture (herbicide only)
Collins Remnant mallee woodland 210 unmanaged mallee remnant, unknown history
203
Table A4.2 Monthly occurrence of Hymenoptera and Diptera families along the (a) Annuello—Liparoo and (b) Collins—Wemen ecotones. The
shaded portion of the table represents the mallee side of the boundary. J = July, A = August, S = September. Bold family names indicate the family was
unique to the specified location (i.e. only collected at either Annuello/Liparoo or Collins/Wemen).
Family (a) Distance along Annuello—Liparoo ecotone (m)
-300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
HYMENOPTERA
Bethylidae A S S
Braconidae A A S A,S
Ceraphronidae A,S S J,A A S
Crabronidae S S
Cynipidae J J
Diapriidae J,A,S S S A,S J,S
204
Eulophidae S S S S
Figitidae A A
Halictidae S S S S S S S A,S
Ichneumonidae A,S A S S A
Megaspilidae A A
Mymaridae S S A S
Perilampidae S
Platygastridae J J,S S
Pompilidae S S
Proctotrupidae J S S
Pteromalidae A,S J,A A,S A,S A,S A,S S
Scelionidae J J,S J,A,S S J,A,S J,S A,S J,S
205
Sphecidae S
Tiphiidae J,A J,S S
DIPTERA
Asilidae S J S S S
Calliphoridae J,A,S A A,S A,S S
Chironomidae J,A J S A,S J,A,S J,A,S
Chloropidae S A,S A,S A,S A,S A,S A,S J,A,S
Dolichopodidae A J,A,S A,S J,S J,A,S J,A,S A,S A,S
Drosophilidae A A J,A,S J,A A A J,A,S
Heleomyzidae S S J,A,S J,A,S J,S J,S J,A,S
Milichiidae A A
Muscidae J A A S A,S J,A
206
Phoridae A A J,A J,A,S J,A J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S
Platypezidae J J,A A J J J
Sarcophagidae S S
Sepsidae A A A
Syrphidae S S A,S
Tachinidae A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S
Tephritidae S
un. Acalyp A
un. LBrach S
un. Acalyp = unidentified Acalyptrata; un. LBrach = unidentified Lower Brachycera
207
Family
(b) Distance along Collins—Wemen ecotone (m)
-300 -40 -10 10 40 70 100 300
HYMENOPTERA
Bethylidae J S S
Braconidae S J J J,A,S J,S A
Ceraphronidae A S J,S
Chalcididae S S
Crabronidae S S S
Cynipidae J
Diapriidae A S J,A A,S S J,S S
Eulophidae S J S S S
208
Eurytomidae S S S
Evaniidae A A
Figitidae S A J,S
Gasteruptiidae S
Halictidae S A,S S S A,S A,S S S
Ichneumonidae S J,S S S S S
Megaspilidae S A,S
Mymaridae J J S A S A,S A S
Pergidae A A A A
Platygastridae S S S
Pompilidae S S
Proctotrupidae J S S
209
Pteromalidae J,S J,A J,S A J,A,S A,S S
Scelionidae S J J,S J,A S A A,S
Sphecidae S
DIPTERA
Asilidae J,A,S J,A J,S A,S
Calliphoridae J,A,S J,A J,A,S A,S A,S J,A,S A,S J,A,S
Ceratopogonidae S S S
Chironomidae J,S A,S A J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S
Chloropidae A S J,A,S A,S A,S A,S A,S
Dolichopodidae J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S A,S A,S A,S
Drosophilidae J J,A,S A,S J,A,S J,A,S S
Heleomyzidae S J,S S A,S S S
210
Milichiidae S S
Muscidae S J, S J J,S
Phoridae A A,S A J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S
Platypezidae A S A A,S S
Sarcophagidae S S
Sepsidae A
Syrphidae J,A
Tachinidae J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S J,A,S
Tephritidae J,A A
Therevidae S
un. Acalyp A A A A A A A
un. LBrach A,S S A A A
211
Appendix 5: Physical attributes and full candidate sets of models for analysis of habitat structure relationships (Chapter 6)
Table A5.1 Location and physical attributes of the sampled monoculture almond plantations. Liparoo Wemen
Location -34.818° 142.576° -34.751° 142.679°
Year established 2001 1988
Area (ha) 1,002 165
Area of adjacent mallee patch (ha) 35,000 – Annuello Flora and Fauna Reserve 210 – unnamed patch
Average height of almond trees 5.3 m SE 0.17 m 6.6 m SE 0.13 m
Row width 5-6 m 5-6 m
Tree spacing 5 m 5 m
212
Table A5.2 The candidate set of models (Δi AICc ≤ 10) explaining relationships between habitat attributes and monthly wild pollinator abundance (A)
or richness (R) across all almond plantation and mallee woodlands sites (n = 68).
Response Month Model Δi AICc L(gi) wi
Fly (A) July Veg (0.47; 1.2) + GC (-15.65; 9.8) + Veg*GC (49.04; 17.1)
Veg (1.64; 2.2) + GC (-13.81; 9.7) + LL (16.78; 9.6) + Veg*GC (49.19; 18.9) + Veg*LL (-19.6; 14.0)
GC (15.5; 8.4) + LL (11.23; 5.6)
Veg (3.72; 1.2)
GC (26.49; 9.3)
Veg (4.26; 2.4) + LL (16.68; 9.8) + Veg*LL (-16.11; 14.1)
LL (16.21; 5.5)
0
1.36
1.87
3.11
3.88
4.36
5.15
1
0.51
0.39
0.21
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.41
0.21
0.16
0.09
0.06
0.05
0.03
213
August Veg (-6.78; 2.2)
LL (-28.99; 8.2)
Veg (0.63; 4.3) + LL (72.76; 50.1) + Veg*LL (-94.53; 51.8)
GC (-17.36; 16.5) + LL (-25.65; 9.2)
Constant only (15.27; 1.2)
GC (-26.07; 12.9)
Veg (-5.72; 2.8) + GC (30.15; 61.0) + Veg*GC (-38.03; 62.9)
Veg (2.67; 5.2) + GC (41.08; 59.6) + LL (74.44; 47.8) + Veg*GC (-54.77; 62.78) + Veg*LL (-97.67; 49.8)
0
0.31
0.46
1.81
3.61
3.73
4.03
4.39
1
0.86
0.80
0.41
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.11
0.28
0.24
0.22
0.11
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.03
September Veg (-0.76; 0.2) + GC (5.56; 2.6) + Veg*GC (-7.37; 3.0)
Veg (-1.32; 0.3) + LL (3.07; 1.9) + Veg*LL (-1.06; 2.2)
Veg (-0.99; 0.2)
Veg (-1.54; 0.3) + CC (0.12; 0.5) + GC (1.39; 1.3) + LL (2.63; 0.9)
Veg (-0.51; 0.5) + CC (0.29; 0.5) + Veg*CC (-1.52; 1.4)
0
0.38
1.34
1.84
4.71
1
0.83
0.51
0.40
0.10
0.35
0.29
0.18
0.14
0.03
214
(R) July LL (1.27; 0.7)
Constant only (1.50; 0.1)
GC (0.69; 1.1) + LL (1.18; 0.7)
Veg (0.21; 0.2)
GC (1.10; 1.1)
Veg (0.01; 0.2) + GC (-4.67; 3.2) + Veg*GC (6.23; 3.6)
Veg (0.02; 0.3) + LL (1.85; 2.2) + Veg*LL (-0.62; 2.5)
Veg (-0.46; 0.4) + GC (-4.45; 3.2) + LL (1.56; 2.2) + Veg*GC (7.08; 3.5) + Veg*LL (0.48; 2.5)
0
0.96
1.26
1.72
2.22
3.21
4.52
4.86
1
0.62
0.53
0.42
0.33
0.20
0.10
0.09
0.30
0.19
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.03
215
August Constant only (2.12; 0.1)
Veg (-0.13; 0.2) + GC (-7.84; 3.2) + Veg*GC (7.96; 3.5)
GC (-1.01; 1.1)
LL (-0.34; 0.7)
Veg (-0.04; 0.2)
Veg (0.36; 0.4) + GC (-7.51; 3.1) + LL (2.37; 2.1) + Veg*GC (6.84; 3.5) + Veg*LL (-3.88; 2.5)
GC (-0.94; 1.2) + LL (-0.21; 0.7)
Veg (0.35; 0.3) + LL (2.86; 2.2) + Veg*LL (-4.16; 2.5)
0
0.88
1.39
1.97
2.13
3.01
3.57
3.84
1
0.65
0.50
0.37
0.34
0.22
0.17
0.15
0.29
0.19
0.15
0.11
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.04
216
September Veg (-0.8; 0.3) + CC (-1.05; 0.5) + GC (0.19; 1.2) + LL (2.06; 0.9)
Veg (-0.63; 0.3) + LL (0.12; 1.9) + Veg*LL (2.47; 2.2)
Constant only (1.92; 0.1)
CC (-0.38; 0.3)
LL (0.73; 0.6)
GC (-1.60; 1.1) + CC (-0.59; 0.4)
Veg (-0.50; 0.4) + CC (-1.12; 0.5) + Veg*CC (0.19; 1.2)
GC (-0.91; 1.0)
GC (-1.22; 1.0) + LL (0.89; 0.7)
Veg (-0.09; 0.2)
LL (0.47; 0.8) + CC (-0.25; 0.4)
CC (-0.45; 0.4) + GC (-1.61; 1.1) + LL (0.49; 0.7)
Veg (0.07; 0.2) + GC (1.99; 2.9) + Veg*GC (-3.45; 3.2)
0
1.54
1.58
2.49
2.49
2.56
2.86
2.96
3.33
3.43
4.36
4.46
6.40
1
0.46
0.45
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.24
0.23
0.19
0.18
0.11
0.11
0.04
0.26
0.12
0.12
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.01
217
Wasp (A) July LL (4.45; 2.0)
Veg (0.96; 0.4)
GC (2.57; 2.7) + LL (3.9; 1.9)
Constant only (0.85; 0.2)
GC (4.61; 3.4)
Veg (0.43; 0.7) + LL (2.39; 4.2) + Veg*LL (0.58; 5.5)
Veg (1.07; 0.7) + GC (2.81; 4.9) + Veg*GC (-3.65; 6.9)
Veg (0.15; 1.0) + GC (2.88; 4.9) + LL (2.36; 3.9) + Veg*GC (-1.25; 6.6) + Veg*LL (1.36; 5.5)
0
0.04
1.43
2.18
2.65
3.89
4.23
8.30
1
0.98
0.49
0.34
0.27
0.14
0.12
0.02
0.30
0.29
0.15
0.10
0.08
0.04
0.04
0.01
218
August GC (1.95; 0.7)
Veg (0.71; 0.3) + LL (0.26; 2.9) + Veg*LL (-1.89; 3.1)
Veg (0.41; 0.2)
GC (1.95; 0.7) + LL (-0.01; 0.7)
Veg (0.30; 0.2) + GC (1.91; 3.5) + Veg*GC (-0.71; 3.5)
Veg (0.67; 0.3) + GC (2.09; 3.6) + LL (0.44; 3.0) + Veg*GC (-1.64; 3.7) + Veg*LL (-1.91; 3.2)
Constant only (-0.47; 0.1)
LL (0.11; 0.6)
0
0.15
0.37
2.19
2.23
4.21
6.18
8.28
1
0.93
0.83
0.33
0.33
0.12
0.05
0.02
0.28
0.26
0.23
0.09
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.004
219
September Constant only (-0.49; 0.1)
Veg (0.38; 0.2) + LL (0.54; 1.5) + Veg*LL (-1.95; 1.7)
Veg (0.12; 0.1)
GC (0.66; 0.6)
CC (-0.19; 0.2)
LL (-0.27; 0.5)
LL (-0.59; 0.5) + CC (-0.34; 0.3)
GC (0.73; 0.5) + LL (-0.38; 0.5)
GC (0.55; 0.6) + CC (-0.11; 0.2)
Veg (0.04; 0.1) + GC (-2.43; 2.9) + Veg*GC (3.05; 3.1)
CC (-0.27; 0.3) + GC (0.51; 0.6) + LL (-0.61; 0.5)
Veg (0.29; 0.2) + CC (0.003; 0.4) + GC (-0.09; 0.7) + LL (-1.13; 0.6)
Veg (-0.01; 0.3) + CC (-0.10; 0.4) + Veg*CC (0.39; 0.7)
0
0.63
0.74
0.94
1.44
1.81
2.36
2.54
2.94
3.79
3.92
4.17
4.93
1
0.73
0.69
0.62
0.49
0.40
0.31
0.28
0.23
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.09
0.19
0.14
0.13
0.12
0.09
0.08
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
220
(R) July GC (2.36; 1.0) + LL (1.93; 0.7)
Veg (0.54; 0.2)
LL (2.26; 0.7)
Veg (0.52; 0.3) + LL (3.45; 2.1) + Veg*LL (-2.72; 2.3)
Veg (0.51; 0.2) + GC (4.56; 3.0) + Veg*GC (-3.76; 3.3)
Veg (0.36; 0.4) + GC (5.08; 2.9) + LL (3.78; 2.0) + Veg*GC (-3.67; 3.3) + Veg*LL (-2.61; 2.3)
GC (3.03; 1.1)
0
2.61
2.69
3.99
4.64
5.08
5.83
1
0.27
0.26
0.14
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.53
0.14
0.14
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.03
221
August Constant only (0.64; 0.1)
GC (0.79; 1.1)
Veg (0.10; 0.2)
LL (-0.07; 0.7)
GC (0.85; 1.2) + LL (-0.19; 0.7)
Veg (0.36; 0.3) + LL (0.47; 2.3) + Veg*LL (-1.62; 2.5)
Veg (0.12; 0.2) + GC (2.68; 3.3) + Veg*GC (-2.54; 3.6)
Veg (0.49; 0.4) + GC (2.77; 3.3) + LL (0.65; 2.3) + Veg*GC (-3.31; 3.7) + Veg*LL (-1.96; 2.6)
0
1.71
1.82
2.18
3.90
5.40
5.75
9.49
1
0.43
0.40
0.34
0.14
0.07
0.06
0.01
0.41
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.02
0.004
222
September Constant only (1.20; 0.1)
GC (-1.19; 1.2)
Veg (0.09; 0.2)
LL (-0.27; 0.8)
CC (-0.03; 0.4)
Veg (0.14; 0.2) + GC (-6.74; 3.5) + Veg*GC (5.44; 3.9)
GC (-1.44; 1.3) + CC (-0.21; 0.5)
GC (-1.15; 1.3) + LL (-0.11; 0.8)
Veg (0.76; 0.4) + GC (-3.14; 1.6) + CC (0.24; 0.6) + LL (-1.90; 1.2)
LL (-0.42; 0.9) + CC (-0.15; 0.5)
CC (-0.33; 0.5) + GC (-1.43; 1.3) + LL (-0.40; 0.9)
Veg (0.28; 0.4) + LL (-1.10; 2.5) + Veg*LL (-0.02; 2.8)
Veg (0.25; 0.6) + CC (0.28; 0.7) + Veg*CC (-0.28; 1.5)
0
1.27
1.98
2.07
2.19
2.36
3.30
3.51
3.92
4.24
5.44
5.62
6.39
1
0.53
0.37
0.36
0.34
0.31
0.19
0.17
0.14
0.12
0.07
0.06
0.04
0.27
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.08
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
223
Bee (A) September CC (-4.83; 0.9) + LL (-4.05; 1.8) + GC (-5.45; 2.7)
Veg (0.78; 0.6) + CC (-3.89; 1.1) + GC (-6.61; 2.9) + LL (-5.58; 2.1)
LL (-4.72; 1.8) + CC (-4.74; 0.9)
GC (-6.43; 2.8) + CC (-4.11; 0.8)
CC (-3.94; 0.9)
Veg (0.03; 1.1) + CC (-4.44; 1.4) + Veg*CC (-1.82; 3.1)
0
0.94
0.97
2.16
4.27
7.60
1
0.63
0.62
0.34
0.12
0.02
0.37
0.23
0.23
0.13
0.04
0.008
224
(R) September Constant only (0.50; 0.1)
GC (1.02; 0.8)
CC (-0.32; 0.3)
Veg (0.11; 0.1)
LL (0.45; 0.5)
GC (0.77; 0.9) + CC (-0.22; 0.3)
GC (0.91; 0.8) + LL (0.32; 0.5)
Veg (0.13; 0.2) + GC (4.14; 2.3) + Veg*GC (-3.93; 2.6)
LL (0.18; 0.6) + CC (-0.27; 0.3)
Veg (-0.40; 0.4) + CC (-0.55; 0.4) + Veg*CC (1.31; 1.0)
Veg (-0.12; 0.2) + LL (-1.74; 1.6) + Veg*LL (2.49; 1.8)
CC (-0.17; 0.3) + GC (0.77; 0.9) + LL (0.17; 0.6)
Veg (-0.18; 0.3) + GC (1.16; 1.1) + CC (-0.30; 0.4) + LL (0.51; 0.8)
0
0.62
0.84
1.39
1.45
2.34
2.51
2.86
3.02
3.61
4.03
4.59
6.53
1
0.73
0.66
0.50
0.48
0.31
0.29
0.24
0.22
0.16
0.13
0.10
0.04
0.21
0.15
0.14
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.06
0.05
0.05
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.007
Veg = vegetation type; CC = canopy cover; LL = leaf litter; GC = ground cover. Model: parameter estimates for each predictor with SE in parentheses; Δi AICc = difference in AICc values, relative to the highest-ranked model; L(gi) = relative likelihood of the model; wi = Akaike weight for the model