4.2 Article

Farming with native bees (Apis mellifera subsp. capensis Esch.) has varied effects on nectar-feeding bird communities in South African fynbos vegetation

Journal

POPULATION ECOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 2, Pages 333-339

Publisher

SPRINGER TOKYO
DOI: 10.1007/s10144-010-0245-2

Keywords

Biodiversity conservation; Competition; Ecosystem services; Pollination; Sugarbirds; Sunbirds

Categories

Funding

  1. Harry Crossley fund
  2. NRF (South Africa)
  3. Stellenbosch University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Outside their natural range, honeybees (Apis mellifera) are known to have detrimental effects on indigenous pollinators through exploitative or interference competition, but little is known about the effect of honeybee farming in areas where honeybees occur naturally. In the Cape Floristic Region of South Africa, where honeybees are indigenous, managed hives potentially elevate the abundance of honeybees far above natural levels, but impacts on other floral resource-dependent species have not been studied. Here we use experimental manipulation of honeybee density to test whether honeybee farming affects nectar-feeding birds. We selected the common sugarbush (Protea repens), utilized by both birds and bees, and analysed the time (before/after) by treatment (control/experiment) interaction to explore changes in bee abundance, nectar availability and bird abundance at three sites. Hive addition increased honeybee abundance in inflorescences of P. repens above expected levels. Despite experimental increase in honeybee numbers, there is no reduction in nectar sugar availability relative to the control areas. Where honeybee density was highest, sugarbird (Promerops cafer) numbers declined relative to expected, but sunbirds (Nectarinidae) were not affected at any of the sites. We conclude that stocking rates of more than one honey bee per P. repens inflorescence have detrimental effects on bird abundance due to interference, rather than resource competition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available