Sweet Betrayal: Our Love for Honey is Silently Killing the Wild Bees

The focus on the plight of all bees, often conflates the managed populations of honeybees with the alarming decline of wild bee species, and allows us to feel like we’re “saving the bees".

With every article and podcast episode, we provide comprehensive study materials: References, Executive Summary, Briefing Document, Quiz, Essay Questions, Glossary, Timeline, Cast, FAQ, Table of Contents, Index, Polls, 3k Image, and Fact Check.

We’ve all bought into the fairytale: the gentle hum of the honeybee, a symbol of nature’s bounty, tirelessly flitting from flower to flower, the unsung hero of our food supply. We slather their golden nectar on toast, stir it into our tea, and feel a virtuous connection to the natural world. But what if this idyllic picture is a dangerous illusion? What if our unwavering affection for the honeybee is blinding us to a silent crisis unfolding in our own backyards and protected wildernesses?

The truth, as often happens in nature, is far more complex and, frankly, a bit uncomfortable. While honeybees (Apis mellifera) are indeed vital for many agricultural crops, their widespread introduction and management at high densities are casting a long shadow over their wild cousins – the native bees that have been quietly and diligently pollinating our ecosystems for millennia.

For too long, the narrative has focused on the plight of all bees, often conflating the well-managed populations of honeybees with the alarming declines of wild bee species. It’s a convenient blurring of the lines, one that allows us to feel like we’re “saving the bees” simply by buying local honey or planting bee-friendly gardens, often dominated by the very flowers that further fuel the honeybee boom.

But a groundbreaking study conducted on the protected island of Giannutri in the Tuscan Archipelago National Park, Italy, pulls back the curtain on this uncomfortable truth with stark clarity. This island, a natural laboratory largely untouched by human interference, offered a unique opportunity to observe the early stages of coexistence between introduced honeybees and native wild bees. And the findings? They should serve as a wake-up call to anyone who cares about the delicate balance of our natural world.

The researchers, granted unprecedented access to the entire 2.6 square kilometer island and its apiary of 18 hives, meticulously documented the interactions between honeybees and wild pollinators like Anthophora dispar (a solitary bee) and Bombus terrestris (the buff-tailed bumblebee). Their approach was rigorous, going beyond simple observations to experimentally manipulate honeybee pressure by temporarily closing the hives during peak wild bee foraging times.

What they discovered was a clear pattern of exploitative competition. Honeybees, present at a density higher than the European average (around 7 hives/km²), dominated the flower visits, accounting for nearly 60% of the total. They were the primary visitors to key plant species like Teucrium fruticans and Salvia rosmarinus, the very same resources relied upon by the native bees.

The impact of this resource monopolization became chillingly apparent when the honeybees were temporarily removed. In their absence, the nectar volume in the most visited plants increased by a staggering 60%, and pollen availability rose by 30%. Suddenly, the wild bees weren’t just surviving; they were thriving. Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris became the dominant players in the insect-plant visitation network, and the potential for apparent competition significantly decreased. They intensified their foraging activity, spending more time extracting nectar and, in the case of Bombus terrestris, even shortening the time spent searching for pollen.

This short-term relief, however, couldn’t mask the long-term devastation. Transect monitoring over four years revealed an alarming 80% decline in the populations of both Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris. This dramatic drop, the researchers concluded, was consistent with the honeybees’ monopolization of floral resources, leaving the wild pollinators with a depleted foraging budget.

This isn’t just about a few less bumblebees buzzing around. This is about the fundamental structure and function of an ecosystem being altered. Wild bees play a crucial role in pollinating a vast array of native plants, maintaining biodiversity, and ensuring the resilience of our natural landscapes. When their populations crash, the consequences ripple outwards, affecting plant reproduction, food webs, and the overall health of the environment.

The Giannutri study is particularly compelling because it addressed the methodological challenges that have often plagued research on this topic. It demonstrated trophic resource overlap, observed changes in wild bee foraging behavior, and, crucially, linked these effects to a significant reduction in wild bee populations over time. This fulfills the necessary steps to provide conclusive evidence of exploitative competition. The limited size and isolation of the island, coupled with the relatively recent introduction of honeybees, provided a unique “open-air laboratory” to study these early impacts.

The authors of the study don’t mince their words: “These findings underscore the risks of introducing high densities of honeybees into protected areas and emphasize the need for rigorous preventive ecological assessments”. They further recommend that beekeeping should not be allowed in small, protected areas unless there is clear evidence proving no harm to local wild bee populations.

This raises profound questions about our current approach to beekeeping and conservation. Are we so fixated on the honeybee, an economically important but ultimately managed species, that we are inadvertently sacrificing the irreplaceable value of our wild pollinators? Are we turning a blind eye to the ecological costs of our sweet obsession?

The Mediterranean maquis ecosystem of Giannutri, with its limited floral diversity, likely exacerbated the competition. The polylectic nature of Bombus and Anthophora species, meaning they can forage on various plants, might have led to the expectation that they could adapt their diets. However, the study found no significant changes in their floral resource use, suggesting that the honeybees were simply outcompeting them for the available resources.

The implications extend far beyond this small Italian island. Similar dynamics are likely at play in other confined or homogenous landscapes, such as urban green spaces and altered agricultural environments, where high densities of honeybees can further strain limited floral resources. As climate change intensifies, potentially reducing resource availability and increasing environmental stress, the added pressure from honeybee competition could push already vulnerable wild bee populations to the brink.

It’s time to move beyond the simplistic “save the bees” mantra and engage in a more nuanced understanding of pollinator ecology. We need to recognize that not all bees are created equal in terms of their ecological role and conservation needs. While supporting responsible beekeeping can have its place, it should not come at the expense of our native pollinator diversity.

This study on Giannutri provides compelling evidence that high-density honeybee introduction can have severe negative consequences for wild bee populations through resource competition. It underscores the urgent need for:

• Rigorous ecological assessments before introducing or increasing honeybee densities, especially in protected areas.

• Careful consideration of landscape context and floral resource availability when managing honeybee hives.

• Increased monitoring and research on the impacts of honeybees on diverse wild pollinator communities in various ecosystems.

• Shifting conservation efforts to specifically target and support the recovery of declining wild bee species through habitat restoration, reduced pesticide use, and other tailored interventions.

Our love for honey is understandable, a sweet reward from nature. But we must ensure that this love doesn't come at the cost of a silent betrayal – the slow, insidious decline of the wild bees that underpin the health and resilience of our planet. The gentle hum we cherish might just be drowning out the desperate buzz of an ecosystem in distress.It’s time to listen more closely, to look beyond the honey pot, and to act decisively to protect the wild pollinators we can’t afford to lose.

Link References

BuzzSprout

YouTube
Substack
Podcast Providers
Spotify
Apple Podcasts
Patreon
FaceBook Group

BlueSky

STUDY MATERIALS

1. Briefing Document

Executive Summary:

This research conducted on the protected Mediterranean island of Giannutri provides compelling evidence for the negative impacts of high-density managed honeybee ( Apis mellifera) introduction on native wild bee populations (Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris) through exploitative competition for floral resources. Using an experimental manipulation of honeybee presence and long-term monitoring, the study demonstrates that honeybees significantly reduce nectar and pollen availability, alter wild bee foraging behavior, and are associated with a substantial decline (around 80% over four years) in the populations of the two target wild bee species. The findings underscore the risks of introducing high densities of honeybees into protected areas and highlight the need for rigorous ecological assessments before such introductions.

Main Themes and Important Ideas/Facts:

• Competition for Floral Resources: The central theme is the competitive interaction between managed honeybees and wild bees for limited nectar and pollen resources.

• The study established a high density of honeybees (∼7 hives/km²) on the small island, exceeding the European average.

• "When kept in high densities, honeybees can consume large amounts of resources, reducing nectar and pollen availability for other pollinators."

• Experimental removal of honeybees for short periods (11 hours per day) led to a significant increase in nectar volume (∼60%) and pollen availability (∼30%) in the plants most visited by pollinators.

• "In the plants most visited by pollinators, even short-term honeybee removals (11 h per day) increased nectar volume (∼60%) and pollen availability (∼30%)."

• Alterations in Wild Bee Behavior: The presence of honeybees significantly altered the foraging behavior of the target wild bee species.

• In the absence of honeybees, Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris became dominant in the insect-plant visitation network, and potential apparent competition decreased.

• Both wild bee species intensified their foraging activity and Bombus terrestris shortened pollen searching time when honeybees were removed.

• Conversely, the presence of honeybees led to reduced time spent by wild bees within flower patches and altered their hourly activity patterns, often shifting their activity to avoid peak honeybee foraging times.

• "B. terrestris and A. dispar reduced the time spent within flower patches in HB− [hives closed/honeybees absent] ... with a significantly different hourly activity pattern between HB− and HB+ [hives open/honeybees present]."

• Nectar suction time for both wild bee species was shorter near the apiary when honeybees were present, suggesting reduced nectar availability.

• Population Decline of Wild Bees: Long-term monitoring revealed a significant decline in the populations of Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris.

• Transect monitoring showed an "alarming ∼80% decline in both species over 4 years".

• This decline was consistent with the hypothesis of honeybee monopolization of floral resources.

• "Transect monitoring revealed an alarming ∼80% decline in both species over 4 years, consistent with honeybee monopolization of floral resources, thus reducing availability for wild pollinators and altering their foraging budget."

• Experimental honeybee removals did not immediately increase wild bee abundance during the removal period, suggesting the impact is likely cumulative and affects fitness over time.

• Resource Overlap and Niche Dynamics: The study demonstrated a strong trophic resource overlap between honeybees and the target wild bees.

• Honeybees dominated flower visits when present, accounting for nearly 60% of total visits to key plant species.

• Removal of honeybees led to increased specialization in the pollination network, suggesting that competition from honeybees was forcing wild bees to generalize their foraging.

• Potential apparent competition (PAC) between honeybees and both wild bee species increased over the season, likely due to honeybee colony growth and increased resource demand.

• Island Ecosystem as a Model System: Giannutri Island provided a unique and valuable setting for this research.

• Its small, confined landscape ensures that honeybee influence is widespread.

• The recent introduction of honeybees (since 2018) allowed for the study of early impacts on wild bee populations.

• The absence of non-managed honeybees facilitated a comprehensive island-wide removal experiment.

• "Giannutri, a small Mediterranean island (2.6 km²) ... offers unique conditions to overcome these limitations... (1) honeybees had been present for only three years by 2021, when the experiment commenced, providing a unique opportunity to study early impacts on wild bees; (2) the island’s limited size ... ensured their influence across the entire island; and (3) the absence of non-managed honeybees enabled a comprehensive island-wide removal experiment."

• Implications for Conservation: The findings have significant implications for the conservation of wild pollinators, particularly in protected areas.

• Introducing high densities of honeybees into such areas carries considerable ecological risks.

• "These findings underscore the risks of introducing high densities of honeybees into protected areas and emphasize the need for rigorous preventive ecological assessments."

• The study suggests that even seemingly benign introductions of managed pollinators can have detrimental effects on wild biodiversity.

Quotes Highlighting Key Findings:

• "In the absence of honeybees, target wild bees (Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris) became dominant in the insect-plant visitation network, and the potential apparent competition significantly decreased. Accordingly, both species intensified their foraging activity and increased nectar suction time, a recognized proxy for the quantity of probed nectar, and Bombus terrestris also shortened the time of pollen searching."

• "Transect monitoring revealed an alarming ∼80% decline in both species over 4 years, consistent with honeybee monopolization of floral resources, thus reducing availability for wild pollinators and altering their foraging budget."

• "A. mellifera dominated flower visits in HB+, accounting for 59.95% of total visits..."

• "Experimental A. mellifera removals significantly altered resource availability and wild bees’ foraging behavior. Without A. mellifera, visitation networks became more specialized, and PAC significantly decreased, whereas nectar and pollen availability increased."

Potential Areas for Further Discussion or Research:

• Investigating the long-term consequences of the observed population declines on plant reproductive success and ecosystem function on Giannutri.

• Exploring the specific mechanisms through which resource competition impacts wild bee fitness (e.g., reduced larval survival, smaller colony sizes, impaired immune function).

• Conducting similar studies in different ecosystems and with varying densities of honeybees to assess the generality of these findings.

• Developing best practices for beekeeping in or near protected areas to minimize negative impacts on wild pollinators.

• Examining the potential role of other environmental stressors in conjunction with honeybee competition in driving wild bee declines on the island.

Conclusion:

This study provides strong empirical evidence for the detrimental effects of high honeybee densities on wild bee populations due to competition for floral resources. The observed changes in wild bee behavior and the significant population declines underscore the ecological risks associated with introducing large numbers of managed honeybees into natural environments, particularly those with limited floral resources like islands. The findings emphasize the critical need for careful ecological assessments and potentially stricter regulations regarding beekeeping practices in and around protected areas to safeguard wild pollinator biodiversity.

2. Quiz & Answer Key

Quiz

1. Describe the primary concern regarding the coexistence of managed honeybees and wild bees, as highlighted in the introduction of the source.

2. What experimental manipulation did the researchers employ on Giannutri Island to study the impact of honeybees on wild bees? What were the two main experimental conditions created?

3. According to the results, how did short-term honeybee removal affect nectar volume and pollen availability in the plants most visited by pollinators?

4. Explain the concept of "niche overlap" in the context of this study. How did network specialization (H2') change when honeybees were removed?

5. What changes in foraging activity and behavior were observed in Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris when honeybees were absent? Provide one specific example for each species.

6. What long-term population trends were observed for Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris on Giannutri Island during the study period? What percentage decline was noted for both species?

7. How did the researchers assess the trophic resource overlap between honeybees and wild bees? What were the key findings regarding Apis mellifera's dominance in flower visits?

8. Explain the significance of the Müller_modified index of potential apparent competition (PAC). How did PAC between A. mellifera and the wild bee species change when honeybees were removed?

9. What evidence suggests that the observed decline in wild bee populations might be linked to competition with honeybees for floral resources?

10. Briefly describe the limitations that the island of Giannutri helped overcome in studying honeybee-wild bee interactions, making it a unique study system.

Quiz Answer Key

1. The primary concern is that high densities of managed honeybees can lead to exploitative competition for floral resources (nectar and pollen), potentially reducing availability for wild bees and negatively impacting their foraging behavior, development, and fitness, ultimately contributing to wild bee population declines.

2. The researchers experimentally manipulated honeybee pressure by closing the hives on selected days during the peak wild bee foraging period. This created two main experimental conditions: HB+ (hives open, honeybees foraging) and HB− (hives closed, honeybees absent from foraging).

3. Short-term honeybee removals led to a significant increase in nectar volume (∼60%) and pollen availability (∼30%) in the plants most visited by pollinators, indicating that honeybees were consuming a substantial portion of these resources.

4. Niche overlap refers to the degree to which honeybees and wild bees utilize the same floral resources. When honeybees were removed (HB-), network specialization (H2') increased significantly, suggesting that the interactions between the remaining pollinators and plants became more specific and partitioned.

5. In the absence of honeybees (HB−), Anthophora dispar intensified their foraging activity and increased nectar suction time, while Bombus terrestris also intensified foraging activity and shortened the time spent searching for pollen.

6. Transect monitoring revealed an alarming ∼80% decline in both Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris populations over the 4-year study period (2021-2024).

7. The researchers analyzed trophic resource overlap using hierarchical flower-visitor networks based on transect walks. They found that A. mellifera dominated flower visits in HB+, accounting for nearly 60% of total visits and being the main visitor of key plant species like T. fruticans and S. rosmarinus.

8. The Müller_modified index of potential apparent competition (PAC) measures the degree of resource overlap between one species and all other pollinators in the network. In HB− conditions (honeybee removal), the PAC between A. mellifera and both A. dispar and B. terrestris significantly decreased.

9. The findings that honeybee removal led to increased resource availability, altered wild bee foraging behavior (increased foraging intensity and nectar consumption), and a decrease in potential apparent competition, coupled with the observed long-term decline in wild bee populations coinciding with honeybee presence, strongly suggests a link between resource competition with honeybees and wild bee declines.

10. Giannutri Island, being a small, protected, and isolated ecosystem with a recent and managed introduction of honeybees and an absence of other unmanaged colonies, provided a unique open-air laboratory to experimentally manipulate honeybee pressure across the entire island and study the early impacts on wild bees in a confined landscape with limited floral diversity.

3. Essay Questions

1. Discuss the experimental design of the study conducted on Giannutri Island, highlighting the strengths of using this specific location and the methods employed to assess the impact of honeybees on wild bee populations.

2. Analyze the results of the study regarding resource availability and foraging behavior of wild bees in the presence and absence of honeybees. What do these findings suggest about the nature of competition between these pollinator groups?

3. Evaluate the evidence presented in the study that supports the claim that high densities of honeybees can negatively impact wild bee populations. Consider both the short-term experimental manipulations and the long-term population trends observed.

4. Explore the ecological implications of the study's findings for conservation efforts in protected areas. What recommendations or considerations might arise from this research regarding the introduction or management of honeybees in such environments?

5. Critically assess the strengths and potential limitations of the methodological approaches used in this study to investigate the complex interactions between honeybees and wild bees. Consider the various survey methods, statistical analyses, and the overall experimental framework.

4. Glossary of Key Terms

• Apiary: A place where a collection of beehives is kept.

• Anthophila: The scientific name for bees (a clade within the order Hymenoptera).

• Dominance (in networks): When one species accounts for a significantly high proportion of interactions within a network.

• Exploitation: The act of utilizing a resource, which can lead to reduced availability for others.

• Fitness (ecological): The ability of an organism to survive and reproduce in its environment.

• Floral Resource: The nectar and pollen produced by flowers, serving as food for pollinators.

• Foraging Budget: The allocation of time and energy that an animal invests in searching for and acquiring food.

• Generalist Species: A species that can utilize a wide variety of resources or habitats.

• Hierarchical Network: A network where interactions are structured in a nested or layered manner, often reflecting differences in specialization or dominance.

• Indigenous Species: Species that naturally occur in a particular area.

• Maquis: A type of Mediterranean shrubland vegetation characterized by dense thickets of evergreen shrubs.

• Monopolization (of resources): When one species effectively controls or consumes the majority of a particular resource, limiting its availability to others.

• Null Model (in network analysis): A randomized version of an observed network used as a baseline to test whether the observed patterns are non-random.

• Phenology: The timing of biological events in relation to environmental changes, such as the flowering period of plants or the activity period of insects.

• Proxy (in research): A measurable variable that is used to represent another variable that is difficult or impossible to measure directly.

• Resource Partitioning: The differential use of resources by coexisting species, allowing them to reduce competition.

• Solitary Bee: A bee species where each female builds and provisions her own nest without the assistance of a worker caste.

• Social Bee: A bee species that lives in colonies with a queen and a worker caste (e.g., bumblebees, honeybees).

• Specialist Species: A species that relies on a narrow range of resources or habitats.

• Sucrose Concentration: The amount of sucrose (a type of sugar) present in nectar.

• Tuscan Archipelago: A group of islands between Corsica and the coast of Tuscany, Italy.

• Visitation Network: A graphical representation of the interactions (visits) between pollinators and plants.

• Weighted Network: A network where the connections (edges) between nodes (species) have a value (weight) associated with them, often representing the frequency or intensity of the interaction.

5. Timeline

Pre-2018:

• Giannutri Island has no recorded beekeeping activities at least since the establishment of the Tuscan Archipelago National Park in 1996, and likely much earlier.

• The island's vegetation is dominated by maquis, with slow changes over the past 50 years.

• The wild bee fauna is dominated by Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris.

December 2018:

• Professional beekeepers begin introducing approximately 18 hives of Apis mellifera annually to Giannutri Island in agreement with the National Park.

• The island is used as an isolated mating site for honeybee selection purposes.

• Hives are brought to the island in mid-December and removed in mid-June each year.

2018 - 2021:

• Honeybees are present on the island for three consecutive spring seasons.

• The density of honeybee hives reaches approximately 7 hives/km², higher than the European average.

• Preliminary analysis of wild bee populations on the island begins in 2021.

February - April (Peak Wild Bee Activity) 2021:

• Researchers establish six walking transects across Giannutri Island to monitor pollinator populations.

• Baseline data on the abundance of A. dispar and B. terrestris is collected under normal honeybee presence (HB+ conditions).

• A one-year monitoring study confirms Apis mellifera as the most abundant bee on the island, with A. dispar and B. terrestris comprising 91% of wild bee counts.

• Salvia rosmarinus and Thymus fruticans are identified as the most visited flowering plants by both wild and managed bees.

February - April 2022 - 2024 (Experimental Period):

• Researchers conduct manipulative experiments by temporarily closing honeybee hives on selected days (HB- conditions) during the peak wild bee foraging period to compare with days when hives are open (HB+ conditions).

• Four types of surveys are conducted under both HB+ and HB- conditions:

• Transect walks: To monitor abundance, resource overlap, and dietary changes of wild bees.

• Resource availability: To measure short-term changes in nectar and pollen availability on T. fruticans and S. rosmarinus.

• Plot observations: To detect changes in the abundance and activity of wild bees within flower patches.

• Focal observations: To study the foraging behavior of individual A. dispar and B. terrestris, including nectar suction time and lag times between foraging events.

• Experiments show that short-term honeybee removals lead to:

• Increased nectar volume (∼60%) and pollen availability (∼30%) in the most visited plants.

• A. dispar and B. terrestris becoming dominant in the insect-plant visitation network.

• Significant decrease in potential apparent competition between wild bees and honeybees.

• Intensified foraging activity and increased nectar suction time for both target wild bee species.

• B. terrestris also shortening pollen searching time.

• Analysis of flower-visitor networks reveals increased specialization during HB- conditions.

• Focal observations show that in HB+ conditions, nectar suction times were shorter near the apiary for both wild bee species, but this relationship disappeared in HB- conditions.

• Transect monitoring reveals an alarming decline (∼80%) in both A. dispar and B. terrestris populations over the four-year study period (2021-2024) under regular honeybee presence.

• Including HB- days in the abundance trend analysis shows that honeybee removal did not immediately increase wild bee abundance or cause displacement.

• Flower coverage on the island also significantly decreased over the years.

Mid-April onwards (Post-Experimental Period):

• Approximately 200 mating hives of Apis mellifera with a large worker force are added to the island by beekeepers.

• Researchers continue walking transects to monitor demographic trends of wild bees.

Mid-June - December:

• All managed honeybee hives are removed from Giannutri Island.

• No unmanaged honeybee colonies are observed on the island during this period.

Throughout the Study (2021-2024):

• Climate data from the nearest weather station on Giglio Island shows no significant variation in daily maximum temperature and monthly precipitation during the peak adult activity period (February-April), suggesting climate change in this period is not the primary driver of wild bee decline during the study. However, summer months showed an increase in maximum temperature.

• Statistical analyses using Generalized Additive Mixed Models (GAMMs) are used to analyze the collected data and account for various environmental factors.

• Validation experiments confirm that nectar suction time in Bombus terrestris is positively correlated with the amount of nectar probed.

• Tests confirm that the foraging activity of honeybees on a given day is independent of whether their hives were closed the previous day.

Cast of Characters (Principle People Mentioned in the Sources)

• Leonardo Dapporto: The lead contact for the study and one of the authors, likely involved in conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing, visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. Affiliated with Florence University.

• Maurizio Burlando: Director of the Tuscan Archipelago National Park, who provided support for the study.

• Giampiero Sammuri: President of the Tuscan Archipelago National Park, who provided support for the study.

• Gianni Alessandri: A professional beekeeper who, along with Paola Bidin, manages the honeybee hives on Giannutri Island and provided personal communication regarding hive management and honeybee density.

• Paola Bidin: A professional beekeeper who, along with Gianni Alessandri, manages the honeybee hives on Giannutri Island and provided personal communication regarding hive management and honeybee density.

• David Baracchi: A professor who provided suggestions in preparing experiments.

• Luca Polatto: One of the authors, likely involved in conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing, visualization, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition.

• Andrea Cini: One of the authors, likely involved in conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, writing, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition. Affiliated with the University of Pisa.

• Carlo Boni: One of the authors, likely involved in methodology, investigation, writing, and funding.

• Marco Biagioni: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Sara Savelli: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Elisa Molini: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Valentina Scarpellini: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Sara Penco: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Giulia Sottili: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Giulio Vesprini: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Matteo Povero: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Elia van Toor: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing and acknowledged for support from NBFC to Florence University.

• Federico Benesperi: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing.

• Marta Sławinska-Vargas: One of the authors, involved in investigation and writing and funded by the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange.

• Francesca Geri: One of the authors, likely involved in writing, supervision, and project administration.

• Anonymous Reviewers (3): Provided constructive comments on the research.

• Students and Colleagues from Florence and Pisa Universities: Helped with fieldwork.

6. FAQ

1. What was the primary goal of this study?

This study aimed to investigate the impact of high-density managed honeybee populations ( Apis mellifera) on wild bee communities, specifically focusing on resource competition and its effects on the foraging behavior and population trends of native wild bees. The researchers sought to provide comprehensive evidence, using a manipulative field experiment and long-term monitoring, of the ecological consequences of introducing honeybees into a protected island ecosystem.

2. Where and how was this study conducted?

The research was conducted on Giannutri Island, a small protected Mediterranean island within the Tuscan Archipelago National Park, Italy. This island provided a unique open-air laboratory due to its limited size, recent introduction of honeybees, and absence of other managed honeybee colonies. The researchers experimentally manipulated honeybee pressure by temporarily closing the island's 18 honeybee hives during peak wild bee foraging periods. They then measured various ecological parameters, including floral resource availability (nectar and pollen), wild bee foraging activity and behavior, pollinator-flower visitation networks, and the population abundance of target wild bee species ( Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris) over four years.

3. What were the main findings regarding resource competition between honeybees and wild bees?

The study found strong trophic resource overlap between honeybees and the target wild bee species. When honeybees were present, they dominated flower visits, accounting for a significant proportion of total visits to key plant species. Experimental removal of honeybees led to increased nectar volume (∼60%) and pollen availability (∼30%) in the most visited plants. Furthermore, in the absence of honeybees, the target wild bees became more dominant in the insect-plant visitation network, and the potential apparent competition significantly decreased.

4. How did the presence of honeybees affect the foraging behavior of wild bees?

The presence of honeybees significantly altered the foraging behavior of Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris. In the presence of honeybees, both species reduced the time spent within flower patches. Anthophora dispar also decreased its movements inside and outside flower plots, particularly when honeybee activity peaked. Conversely, when honeybees were removed, Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris intensified their foraging activity and increased nectar suction time. Bombus terrestris also shortened its pollen searching time when honeybees were absent. Over the years, in the presence of consistent honeybee populations, flower visitation rates and the time spent foraging by wild bees decreased.

5. What evidence did the study find for the impact of honeybees on wild bee populations?

Long-term monitoring over four years revealed an alarming decline (∼80%) in the populations of both Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris on Giannutri Island. This decline was consistent with the hypothesis that honeybee monopolization of floral resources reduced availability for wild pollinators, negatively affecting their foraging success and ultimately their population sizes. The experimental removals of honeybees, while showing short-term benefits in resource availability and foraging behavior, did not prevent the long-term population decline, suggesting a cumulative negative impact over time.

6. Did the removal of honeybees have any noticeable effects on the pollination network and resource availability?

Yes, short-term honeybee removals significantly impacted the pollination network and resource availability. Visitation networks became more specialized in the absence of honeybees. Nectar and pollen availability increased on key plant species. The potential apparent competition between wild bee species decreased, and the ecological relevance of Anthophora dispar within the visitation network (measured by indices like PSI and species strength) increased, suggesting it could fulfill a more central role in the absence of honeybee competition.

7. What are the implications of these findings for conservation, particularly in protected areas?

The findings underscore the potential risks of introducing or maintaining high densities of managed honeybees in protected areas. The study provides strong evidence that honeybees can negatively impact wild pollinator communities through resource competition, leading to population declines of native bees. This highlights the need for rigorous ecological assessments before introducing honeybees into such sensitive ecosystems. Conservation strategies in protected areas should carefully consider the density of managed honeybees and their potential to compete with and displace wild pollinators, which are crucial for maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function.

8. What were some of the limitations or considerations of this study?

One limitation was the relatively short duration of the honeybee removal experiments within each day, which aimed to minimize stress on the honeybee colonies. While these short-term removals revealed immediate effects on resource availability and wild bee behavior, the long-term population declines suggest cumulative impacts beyond these short windows. Additionally, the study focused on a single island ecosystem, which, while providing a controlled environment, may limit the generalizability of the findings to other landscapes with different floral compositions and pollinator communities. The study also primarily focused on two dominant wild bee species, and further research could explore the impacts on a broader range of wild pollinators.

7. Table of Contents

[00:00:00] Introduction: The Honeybee Halo

Setting the stage by discussing the commonly held positive image of honeybees as symbols of nature's goodness and essential pollinators.

[00:02:30] The Sweet Illusion: Unveiling a Hidden Crisis

Introducing the central conflict: while honeybees are important for agriculture, their high densities may be negatively impacting wild bee populations globally. Highlighting the common misconception that "saving the bees" primarily means supporting honeybees.

[00:05:00] Giannutri Island: A Natural Laboratory

Presenting Giannutri Island in Italy's Tuscan Archipelago National Park as a unique and protected ecosystem where the impact of recently introduced honeybees on native wild bees could be studied. Emphasizing the island's isolation and the controlled presence of honeybee hives.

[00:07:30] Experimenting with Absence: Manipulating Honeybee Pressure

Describing the experimental design: the temporary removal of honeybees by closing hives during peak wild bee foraging times and the comparison of ecological conditions with and without honeybees (HB+ and HB-).

[00:10:00] Resource Wars: Honeybees Dominating Floral Resources

Detailing the findings of strong trophic resource overlap between honeybees and wild bees, with honeybees accounting for the majority of flower visits on key plant species.

[00:12:30] The Immediate Relief: Increased Resources for Wild Bees

Explaining how the short-term removal of honeybees led to significant increases in nectar volume and pollen availability in the plants most visited by pollinators.

[00:15:00] Behavioral Shifts: Wild Bees Adjusting to Honeybee Presence

Discussing the changes observed in wild bee foraging behavior in the presence of honeybees, including altered activity patterns, time spent in flower patches, and movement within and outside foraging plots.

[00:18:00] Suction Time and Nectar Intake: A Proxy for Competition

Explaining how the researchers used nectar suction time as a proxy for the amount of nectar collected and how this behavior was affected by honeybee presence and distance from the apiary.

[00:21:00] The Long-Term Cost: Alarming Wild Bee Population Decline

Presenting the most concerning finding: the ~80% decline in both Anthophora dispar and Bombus terrestris populations over four years, strongly suggesting a link to resource competition with honeybees.

[00:24:00] Beyond the Buzz: Broader Ecological Consequences

Discussing the importance of wild bees for native plant pollination, biodiversity, and ecosystem resilience, and the potential far-reaching impacts of their decline.

[00:26:30] Challenging the Narrative: Not All Bees Are Equal

Emphasizing the need to differentiate between managed honeybee populations and declining wild bee species in conservation efforts. Highlighting that general "save the bees" initiatives may inadvertently favor honeybees.

[00:29:00] A Call for Ecological Awareness and Action

Summarizing the key recommendations from the study: the need for rigorous ecological assessments before introducing honeybees, especially in protected areas; careful management of honeybee densities; and targeted conservation efforts for wild bee species.

[00:32:00] Conclusion: Listening to the Silent Buzz

Concluding thoughts on the urgent need to understand the complex interactions between honeybees and wild bees and to prioritize the conservation of native pollinator diversity for the long-term health of our ecosystems.

8. Index

Action, call for: 00:29:00

Activity patterns, altered: 00:15:00

Apiary, distance from: 00:18:00

Assessments, ecological: 00:29:00

Biodiversity: 00:24:00

Bombus terrestris: 00:21:00

Broader ecological consequences: 00:24:00

Competition: 00:18:00, 00:21:00

Competition, resource: 00:10:00, 00:21:00

Conservation: 00:26:30, 00:29:00

Crisis, hidden: 00:02:30

Decline, population: 00:21:00, 00:24:00

Densities, honeybee: 00:02:30, 00:29:00

Ecological awareness: 00:29:00

Ecosystem resilience: 00:24:00

Floral resources: 00:10:00

Foraging behavior: 00:15:00

Giannutri Island: 00:05:00

Honeybee halo: 00:00:00

Honeybee pressure: 00:07:30

Honeybees: 00:00:00, 00:02:30, 00:07:30, 00:10:00, 00:15:00, 00:26:30, 00:29:00

Illusion, sweet: 00:02:30

Native plant pollination: 00:24:00

Nectar intake: 00:18:00

Nectar volume: 00:12:30

Narrative, challenging: 00:26:30

Open-air laboratory: 00:05:00

Pollen availability: 00:12:30

Population decline: 00:21:00

Protected ecosystem: 00:05:00

Proxy for competition: 00:18:00

Recommendations: 00:29:00

Resource wars: 00:10:00

Resources, increased: 00:12:30

Anthophora dispar: 00:21:00

Shifts, behavioral: 00:15:00

Silent buzz: 00:32:00

Suction time: 00:18:00

Trophic resource overlap: 00:10:00

Tuscan Archipelago National Park: 00:05:00=

Wild bee populations: 00:02:30

Wild bees: 00:02:30, 00:12:30, 00:15:00, 00:18:00, 00:21:00, 00:24:00, 00:26:30, 00:29:00

Wild bee species: 00:29:00

Wild bee foraging: 00:07:30, 00:15:00

Wild bee population decline: 00:21:00

9. Poll

10. Post-Episode Fact Check

11. Image (3000 x 3000 pixels)