TY - JOUR

T1 - Non-target effects of agri-environmental schemes on solitary bees and fungi in the United Kingdom

AU - Lunn, Katherine

AU - Frøslev, Tobias

AU - Rhodes, Madeleine

AU - Taylor, Leah

AU - Oliveira, Hernani F. M.

AU - Gresty, Catherine E. A.

AU - Clare, Elizabeth L.

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - Agri-environmental schemes (AES) are used to enhance pollinator diversity on agricultural farms within the UK. Though the impacts of these schemes on archetypal pollinator species such as the bumblebee (Bombus) and honeybee (Apis) are well-studied, the effects on non-target bee species like solitary bees, in the same environment, are generally lacking. One goal of AES is to alter floral provision and taxonomic composition of plant communities to provide better forage for pollinators, however, this may potentially impact other ecological communities such as fungal diversity associated with plant-bee communities. Fungi are integral in these bee communities as they can impact bee species both beneficially and detrimentally. We test the hypothesis that alteration of the environment through provision of novel plant communities has non-target effects on the fungi associated with solitary bee communities. We analyse fungal diversity and ecological networks formed between fungi and solitary bees present on 15 agricultural farms in the UK using samples from brood cells. The farms were allocated to two categories, low and high management, which differ in the number of agri-environmental measures implemented. Using internal transcribed spacer metabarcoding, we identified 456 fungal taxa that interact with solitary bees. Of these, 202 (approximately 44%) could be assigned to functional groups, the majority being pathotrophic and saprotrophic species. A large proportion was Ascosphaeraceae, a family of bee-specialist fungi. We considered the connectance, nestedness, modularity, nestedness overlap and decreasing fill, linkage density and fungal generality of the farms' bee-fungi ecological networks. We found no difference in the structure of bee-fungi ecological networks between low and high management farms, suggesting floral provision by AES has no significant impact on interactions between these two taxonomic groups. However, bee emergence was lower on the low management farms compared to high management, suggesting some limited non-target effects of AES. This study characterizes the fungal community associated with solitary bees and provides evidence that floral provision through AES does not impact fungal interactions.

AB - Agri-environmental schemes (AES) are used to enhance pollinator diversity on agricultural farms within the UK. Though the impacts of these schemes on archetypal pollinator species such as the bumblebee (Bombus) and honeybee (Apis) are well-studied, the effects on non-target bee species like solitary bees, in the same environment, are generally lacking. One goal of AES is to alter floral provision and taxonomic composition of plant communities to provide better forage for pollinators, however, this may potentially impact other ecological communities such as fungal diversity associated with plant-bee communities. Fungi are integral in these bee communities as they can impact bee species both beneficially and detrimentally. We test the hypothesis that alteration of the environment through provision of novel plant communities has non-target effects on the fungi associated with solitary bee communities. We analyse fungal diversity and ecological networks formed between fungi and solitary bees present on 15 agricultural farms in the UK using samples from brood cells. The farms were allocated to two categories, low and high management, which differ in the number of agri-environmental measures implemented. Using internal transcribed spacer metabarcoding, we identified 456 fungal taxa that interact with solitary bees. Of these, 202 (approximately 44%) could be assigned to functional groups, the majority being pathotrophic and saprotrophic species. A large proportion was Ascosphaeraceae, a family of bee-specialist fungi. We considered the connectance, nestedness, modularity, nestedness overlap and decreasing fill, linkage density and fungal generality of the farms' bee-fungi ecological networks. We found no difference in the structure of bee-fungi ecological networks between low and high management farms, suggesting floral provision by AES has no significant impact on interactions between these two taxonomic groups. However, bee emergence was lower on the low management farms compared to high management, suggesting some limited non-target effects of AES. This study characterizes the fungal community associated with solitary bees and provides evidence that floral provision through AES does not impact fungal interactions.

KW - Agri-environmental schemes

KW - ecological networks

KW - fungi classification

KW - non-target effects

KW - solitary bees

KW - IDENTIFICATION

KW - POLLINATORS

KW - COMMUNITIES

KW - EXTRAPOLATION

KW - CONSERVATION

KW - BIODIVERSITY

KW - ARCHITECTURE

KW - PENICILLIUM

KW - RAREFACTION

KW - PRESSURES

U2 - 10.1017/S0007485322000414

DO - 10.1017/S0007485322000414

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 36082699

VL - 112

SP - 734

EP - 744

JO - Bulletin of Entomological Research

JF - Bulletin of Entomological Research

SN - 0007-4853

IS - 6

ER -