IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v316y2015icp133-143.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling pollinating bee visitation rates in heterogeneous landscapes from foraging theory

Author

Listed:
  • Olsson, Ola
  • Bolin, Arvid
  • Smith, Henrik G.
  • Lonsdorf, Eric V.

Abstract

Pollination by bees is important for food production. Recent concerns about the declines of both domestic and wild bees, calls for measures to promote wild pollinator populations in farmland. However, to be able to efficiently promote and prioritize between measures that benefit pollinators, such as modified land use, agri-environment schemes, or specific conservation measures, it is important to have a tool that accurately predicts how bees use landscapes and respond to such measures. In this paper we compare an existing model for predicting pollination (the “Lonsdorf model”), with an extension of a general model for habitat use of central place foragers (the “CPF model”). The Lonsdorf model has been shown to perform relatively well in simple landscapes, but not in complex landscapes. We hypothesized that this was because it lacks a behavioral component, assuming instead that bees in essence diffuse out from the nest into the landscape. By adding a behavioral component, the CPF model in contrast assumes that bees only use those parts of the landscape that enhances their fitness, completely avoiding foraging in other parts of the landscape. Because foraging is directed toward the most rewarding foraging habitat patches as determined by quality and distance, foraging habitat will include a wide range of forage qualities close to the nest, but a much narrower range farther away. We generate predictions for both simple and complex hypothetical landscapes, to illustrate the effect of including the behavioral rule, and for real landscapes. In the real landscapes the models give similar predictions for visitation rates in simple landscapes, but more different predictions in heterogeneous landscapes. We also analyze the consequences of introducing hedgerows near a mass-flowering crop field under each model. The Lonsdorf model predicts that any habitat improvement will enhance pollination of the crop. In contrast, the CPF model predicts that the hedgerow must provide good nesting sites, and not just foraging opportunities, for it to benefit pollination of the crop, because good forage quality alone may drain bees away from the field. Our model can be used to optimize pollinator mitigation measures in real landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Olsson, Ola & Bolin, Arvid & Smith, Henrik G. & Lonsdorf, Eric V., 2015. "Modeling pollinating bee visitation rates in heterogeneous landscapes from foraging theory," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 133-143.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:316:y:2015:i:c:p:133-143
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.08.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380015003725
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2015.08.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Olsson, Ola & Brown, Joel S. & Helf, Kurt L., 2008. "A guide to central place effects in foraging," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 22-33.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    2. Joanne Lee Picknoll & Pieter Poot & Michael Renton, 2021. "A New Approach to Inform Restoration and Management Decisions for Sustainable Apiculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Baey, Charlotte & Smith, Henrik G. & Rundlöf, Maj & Olsson, Ola & Clough, Yann & Sahlin, Ullrika, 2023. "Calibration of a bumble bee foraging model using Approximate Bayesian Computation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 477(C).
    4. Iovanna, R. & Ando, A & Swinton, S. & Kagan, J. & Hellerstein, D. & Mushet, D. & Otto, C., 2017. "Assessing Pollinator Habitat Services to Optimize Conservation Programs," C-FARE Reports 260678, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    5. Joseph, Julien & Santibáñez, Fernanda & Laguna, María Fabiana & Abramson, Guillermo & Kuperman, Marcelo N. & Garibaldi, Lucas A., 2020. "A spatially extended model to assess the role of landscape structure on the pollination service of Apis mellifera," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 431(C).
    6. Carturan, Bruno S. & Siewe, Nourridine & Cobbold, Christina A. & Tyson, Rebecca C., 2023. "Bumble bee pollination and the wildflower/crop trade-off: When do wildflower enhancements improve crop yield?," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    7. Image, Mike & Gardner, Emma & Breeze, Tom D., 2023. "Co-benefits from tree planting in a typical English agricultural landscape: Comparing the relative effectiveness of hedgerows, agroforestry and woodland creation for improving crop pollination service," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    8. Łowicki, Damian & Fagiewicz, Katarzyna, 2021. "A new model of pollination services potential using a landscape approach: A case study of post-mining area in Poland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    9. Wainger, L. & Ervin, D., 2017. "The Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Farms and Forests Informing a systematic approach to quantifying benefits of conservation programs (Synthesis Chapter)," C-FARE Reports 260677, Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics (C-FARE).
    10. Bourhis, Yoann & Poggi, Sylvain & Mammeri, Youcef & Le Cointe, Ronan & Cortesero, Anne-Marie & Parisey, Nicolas, 2017. "Foraging as the landscape grip for population dynamics—A mechanistic model applied to crop protection," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 354(C), pages 26-36.
    11. Santibañez, Fernanda & Joseph, Julien & Abramson, Guillermo & Kuperman, Marcelo N. & Laguna, María Fabiana & Garibaldi, Lucas A., 2022. "Designing crop pollination services: A spatially explicit agent-based model for real agricultural landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas K Lameris & Joel S Brown & Erik Kleyheeg & Patrick A Jansen & Frank van Langevelde, 2018. "Nest defensibility decreases home-range size in central place foragers," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 29(5), pages 1038-1045.
    2. May, Roel & van Dijk, Jiska & Landa, Arild & Andersen, Roy & Andersen, Reidar, 2010. "Spatio-temporal ranging behaviour and its relevance to foraging strategies in wide-ranging wolverines," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(6), pages 936-943.
    3. Santibañez, Fernanda & Joseph, Julien & Abramson, Guillermo & Kuperman, Marcelo N. & Laguna, María Fabiana & Garibaldi, Lucas A., 2022. "Designing crop pollination services: A spatially explicit agent-based model for real agricultural landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 472(C).
    4. Chudzińska, Magda & Ayllón, Daniel & Madsen, Jesper & Nabe-Nielsen, Jacob, 2016. "Discriminating between possible foraging decisions using pattern-oriented modelling: The case of pink-footed geese in Mid-Norway during their spring migration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 320(C), pages 299-315.
    5. Pashanejad, Ehsan & Thierry, Hugo & Robinson, Brian E. & Parrott, Lael, 2023. "The application of semantic modelling to map pollination service provisioning at large landscape scales," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 484(C).
    6. Mari, Lorenzo & Gatto, Marino & Casagrandi, Renato, 2009. "Central-place seed foraging and vegetation patterns," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 76(4), pages 229-240.
    7. Fishman, Michael A. & Hadany, Lilach, 2010. "Plant–pollinator population dynamics," Theoretical Population Biology, Elsevier, vol. 78(4), pages 270-277.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:316:y:2015:i:c:p:133-143. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.