The browser you are using is not supported by this website. All versions of Internet Explorer are no longer supported, either by us or Microsoft (read more here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Please use a modern browser to fully experience our website, such as the newest versions of Edge, Chrome, Firefox or Safari etc.

Photo of Liam Kendall, employee at CEC

Liam Kendall

Researcher

Photo of Liam Kendall, employee at CEC

The effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination service delivery

Author

  • Liam K. Kendall
  • Lisa J. Evans
  • Megan Gee
  • Tobias J. Smith
  • Vesna Gagic
  • Juan D. Lobaton
  • Mark A. Hall
  • Jeremy Jones
  • Lindsay Kirkland
  • Manu E. Saunders
  • Carolyn Sonter
  • Brian T. Cutting
  • Sophie Parks
  • Katja Hogendoorn
  • Cameron Spurr
  • Alistair Gracie
  • Melinda Simpson
  • Romina Rader
Show all

Summary, in English

Protective covers (i.e., glasshouses, netting enclosures, and polytunnels) are increasingly used in crop production to enhance crop quality, yield, and production efficiency. However, many protected crops require insect pollinators to achieve optimal pollination and there is no consensus about how best to manage pollinators and crop pollination in these environments. We conducted a systematic literature review to synthesise knowledge about the effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination services and identified 290 relevant studies. Bees were the dominant taxon used in protected systems (90%), represented by eusocial bees (e.g., bumble bees (Bombus spp.), honey bees (Apis spp.), stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini)) and solitary bees (e.g., Amegilla spp., Megachile spp., and Osmia spp.). Flies represented 9% of taxa and included Calliphoridae, Muscidae, and Syrphidae. The remaining 1% of taxa was represented by Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Of the studies that assessed pollination services, 96% indicate that pollinators were active on the crop and/or their visits resulted in improved fruit production compared with flowers not visited by insects (i.e., insect visits prevented, or flowers were self- or mechanically pollinated). Only 20% of studies evaluated pollinator health. Some taxa, such as mason or leafcutter bees, and bumble bees can function well in covered environments, but the effect of covers on pollinator health was negative in over 50% of the studies in which health was assessed. Negative effects included decreased reproduction, adult mortality, reduced forager activity, and increased disease prevalence. These effects may have occurred as a result of changes in temperature/humidity, light quality/quantity, pesticide exposure, and/or reduced access to food resources. Strategies reported to successfully enhance pollinator health and efficiency in covered systems include: careful selection of bee hive location to reduce heat stress and improve dispersal through the crop; increased floral diversity; deploying appropriate numbers of pollinators; and manipulation of flower physiology to increase attractiveness to pollinating insects. To improve and safeguard crop yields in pollinator dependent protected cropping systems, practitioners need to ensure that delivery of crop pollination services is compatible with suitable conditions for pollinator health.

Publishing year

2021-10-01

Language

English

Publication/Series

Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

Volume

319

Document type

Journal article review

Publisher

Elsevier

Keywords

  • Bee orientation
  • Covered cropping
  • Ecosystem services
  • Pollinator fitness
  • Pollinator management
  • Protected agriculture
  • Stocking rate

Status

Published

ISBN/ISSN/Other

  • ISSN: 0167-8809