Abstract
Agroecosystems are often impoverished ecosystems, but they can host diverse communities of insects which provide ecosystem services. Specifically, crops may benefit from insect pollinators that increase their quantity and quality of yields. Basic knowledge is still needed regarding the identity, diversity, abundance, and ecology of insect pollinators in many parts of the world, especially in low and middle-income countries. In this study we investigate the potential of agroecosystems and crops in Morocco to host a high diversity of insect pollinators. We sampled insects in four eco-climatic regions encompassing a total of 22 crops for 2 years (2018–2019). After describing the general pattern of diversity and abundance of insect pollinators, we focused our comparative analyses on bees as they are known to be the most efficient and abundant group of insect pollinators. We recorded a total of 53,361 insect pollinators in all agroecosystems among which 37,091 were visiting crop flowers. Bees were by far the most abundant group visiting crops. Honeybees represented 49% of crop visitors followed by wild bees representing 33% of relative abundance. Three genera (Lasioglossum, Andrena, and Xylocopa) represented 53% of the total abundance of wild bees visiting crops. We identified a total of 213 species visiting crops (22% of national wild bee species richness). A comparison of the abundance, species richness, and community composition of wild bees visiting the same crops showed significant inter-regional differences for zucchini, faba bean, and eggplant. This study highlights the high diversity of pollinators in Moroccan agroecosystems and represents an important step toward exploring the Moroccan pollinator fauna. It provides basic information for future studies on pollinator conservation and pollination services.
Introduction
For centuries, farmers have worked to find ways to increase their yields and improve harvest quality. Several controlled factors affect crop production, such as fertilizer use (), irrigation (; ), and pesticide use (). In addition to these agricultural inputs, crops benefit from different ecosystem services that are provided “free of charge,” and which have complementary or synergistic effects on crop yield such as nutrient cycling, pest regulation, and pollination (; ). A recent study comparing the effect of reduction of fertilizer input, irrigation, and pollination, found that a reduction of insect pollination has a stronger effect on crop yield than other agricultural inputs (). Furthermore, insect pollination enhances the yield and the quality of many crops at both the local and global scale, such as for faba bean (; ), strawberries (; ), apple (; ), eggplant (), cucumber (, ), and tomato (; ). Moreover, many countries are becoming increasingly dependent on pollinators because production has shifted to more pollinator-dependent crops (; ). Pollination is therefore a key ecosystem service to conserve for crop production in and of itself, and also for agricultural development. On the other hand, many pollinator groups are experiencing widespread population declines (; ) in different parts of the world. demonstrated that land cover and land management are the major drivers of pollinator declines in most Western countries, while in Africa, pesticides, in addition to land cover was an important factor. Therefore, there is both a simultaneous increase in the demand for pollinators in agricultural regions, whilst many pollinators are concurrently declining in these same areas. The combination of these two phenomena could have a strong effect on crop production and food security ().
Despite the importance of pollinators, farmers often show little interest in wild pollinators and have a poor understanding about the ecosystem service they provide, especially in developing countries (; ; ). This suggests an urgent need to study pollinators and their contribution to crop production in these countries to identify measures to protect and enhance pollinator habitats. Therefore, the first step forward is to acquire basic knowledge on pollinator diversity in agricultural systems and crop-pollinator relationships ().
Located in the extreme northwest of Africa, Morocco is characterized by a high diversity of bioclimatic regions. The northern regions are influenced by Mediterranean and Atlantic climates (humid, sub-humid, and semi-arid) and the southern regions have an arid to desertic climate (). Morocco constitutes an important hotspot of biodiversity and shows a high rate of endemism when compared to Mediterranean countries and in North Africa (, ). In particular, recorded a total of 961 wild bee species which ranks Morocco as the fifth most species rich country for bee richness in the Mediterranean Basin, confirming previous estimates that Morocco comprises a hotspot of wild bee diversity and pollinators in general (; ). However, few publications exist that focus on insect pollinators and their importance in Moroccan agroecosystems (, ; ; ).
This study aims to test these previous assumptions with quantitative evidence based on extensive pollinator surveys, which comprised four regions in Morocco, 22 local entomophilous crops, and during two consecutive years. Our specific aims were: (1) to document the baseline abundance and diversity of the main insect pollinator groups in agroecosystems, specifically those of wild bees visiting crops in Morocco; (2) to characterize the bee assemblages visiting each crop; and (3) to compare the inter-regional variation in bee abundance, species richness and community composition associated with different crops.
Materials and Methods
Geographical Framework, Sites, and Crop Selection
Insect surveys were conducted in four regions in Morocco as follows (Figure 1 and Supplementary Table 1). (1) The Casablanca-Settat (CS) region in the north-center of Morocco, a semi-arid region dominated by cereal and legume crops. (2) The Rabat-Sale-Kenitra region (RSK) near Maamora forest (25 km from Kenitra city), characterized by sub-humid climate and small farms producing vegetables and avocado. (3) The Fes-Meknes region (FM), a mountainous zone with semi-arid climate located at the foot of the Middle Atlas in Sefrou province. This latter area is unique in Morocco for having Rosaceae orchards such as apple, plum, and cherry in addition to other crops like vegetables and cereals. (4) The Draa-Tafilalet (DT) arid region, including sites located between 4 and 20 km from Errich city and 8 and 20 km from Errfoud. Thus, sites were located between mountainous and oasis areas and characterized by apple orchard, alfalfa, some vegetables, and date palm ().
FIGURE 1
We considered nine main crops: faba bean, pumpkin, zucchini, melon, apple, cherry, tomato, eggplant, and okra (Supplementary Table 1). For each main crop in each region, we selected eight fields of 300 m2 (30 m × 10 m) (apple and cherry orchards excepted, see below). Five of the eight fields were under the Farming with Alternative Pollinators management approach (FAP) (; ). Under the FAP management, the main crop was planted in the central 75% of the field area and other crops (Marketable Habitat Enhancement Plants, MHEP) were planted at the edge of the fields. The three remaining fields were monoculture of the main crop. For apple and cherry, four orchards per crop (i.e., two regular orchards and two orchards with MHEP) were selected. For each orchard, two rows with seven trees were marked. All crops were planted (or orchards were surveyed) in 2018 and replicated in 2019, except pumpkin and faba bean in some regions (Supplementary Table 1). Crop planting date followed local farmer’s schedule in each region. Most crops were planted in different regions at the same time except for zucchini. Following the farmers’ choice, this was planted in spring in DT and FM regions and in summer in RSK and CS regions.
Overall, we completed 37 trials with 22 crops (including main crops and MHEP, see Supplementary Table 1), in a total of 263 fields.
Surveys of Pollinator Communities
For each trial, three or four insect sampling sessions were conducted depending on the flowering period of the main crop. Two types of sampling methods were used in each session: (1). Transect walks, including observations, and sweep net (about 30–35 cm in diameter) and vacuum collection on flowers (), and (2). Trapping with colored pan traps (white, blue, and yellow) ().
Four transects were completed in each sampling session as follows: two inside the main crop for 10 min (5 min each), a third in the outer 25% of the field (i.e., in main crop or MHEP, for 5 min in 2018 and 10 min in 2019) and a fourth in the flowering plants (wildflowers and other crops) in the field margin outside the crop (for 5 min). The insect survey in orchards (apple and cherry) consisted of walking alongside trees of the two plots during 10 min, and visits in MHEP were assessed within a 10 min transect. All insects visiting the crops’ flowers were collected or noted if they could not be collected. Pan trapping was done by using two sets of plastic bowls with three colors (blue, white, and yellow). Pan traps were filled with water and a drop of liquid soap. The three sets of pan traps were put in each field in each sampling event for 2 days (one set inside the field and the other outside the field). Floral visitors were identified visually to species level for the bee species Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris, and Xylocopa pubescens, all which can be unambiguously determined in the field.
Specimens collected from transects and pan traps were prepared and labeled for the following insect groups: Hymenoptera, Aculeata (i.e., bees and wasps), Lepidoptera (i.e., butterflies), and Diptera, Syrphidae (i.e., hoverflies) (). Individuals were identified in the laboratory to genus level for bees () then sent to expert taxonomists for identification to species level (see “Acknowledgments” section). The remaining groups were identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible in the laboratory ().
Data Analysis
We explored the records from both FAP and control fields. We assume that MHEP did not affect the crop pollinator community in FAP fields based on previous research in the same sites. This study has demonstrated using visitation data and pollen load analysis that MHEPs affected neither the crop pollinator’s abundance and richness nor the crop pollinator’s pollen diet (, ).
Initially, we classified insects recorded in this study into five insect groups: wild bees, honeybees, non-bee Hymenoptera, Syrphidae, and butterflies. The mean and the standard error of the relative abundance of each insect group was calculated using (1) the data of all insects recorded in agroecosystems and (2) the data of insects recorded visiting studied crops (22 different crops). We used the relative abundance for each insect group because the sampling effort was not standardized between the different agroecosystems and crops.
For the following analyses, we focused on wild bees. Data from all fields, all sampling dates and both years were pooled to generate a species accumulation curve using the “vegan” package in R. A heatmap was constructed using the “pheatmap” package to visualize interaction between bee genera and crops using the relative abundance of each genus visiting each crop.
To compare regions, we performed the analysis for each of the main crops which were studied in more than one region (zucchini, pumpkin, faba bean, and eggplant). We used data from the two transects sampled inside the main crop and only three sampling events for each crop in each year to remain with coherent sampling effort across all crops and regions. Differences in bee species richness and abundance were analyzed using a generalized linear mixed model “glmer.nb” in the “lme4” R package (). The data distribution used was a negative binomial and we fitted a random intercept model. We used “region” as fixed factor, “year” as crossed random factor and “sampling” as nested random factor within “field.” Then we performed a pairwise comparison between crops and regions using the “glht” function in the “multcomp” R package ().
Bee community composition across different regions was analyzed by Non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (NMDS) employing the function “metaMDS” in the R package “vegan.” NMDS was followed by statistical analyses: PERMANOVA (Permutational Multivariate Analysis of variance) and SIMPER (Similarity Percentage Analysis) to identify those species that contributed the most to the observed differences between pollinator communities. Indicator species were also identified using Indicator Value with the “multipatt” function in the package “indicspecies” in R.
Results
Insect Pollinators in Moroccan Agroecosystems
A total of 53,361 insects were collected or observed in all agroecosystems surveyed in 2018 and 2019. We recorded a total of 37,317 individuals within crop fields by direct observation and hand netting, of them 3,831 individuals vising wildflowers and additional 12,213 by using pan traps (Supplementary Figure 1). Honeybees and wild bees were the most abundant groups with 37 ± 2% and 45 ± 2% (mean ± SE; N = 263 fields), respectively. Among the other groups, non-bee Hymenoptera represented 12 ± 1%, Syrphidae with 4 ± 0.5% and Lepidoptera with 2 ± 0.5% (Supplementary Table 2). Among the insects visiting target crops, we counted a total of 24,553 honeybees which represented a mean of 49 ± 2%, and 8,400 wild bees that consisted of 33 ± 2% of the mean bee abundance per field (Supplementary Table 2).
Species accumulation curve showed that the number of bee species visiting crops did not reach an asymptote. Basing on the extrapolated values, we sampled as many as 88% of the expected wild bee species richness (Figure 2A and Supplementary Table 3).
FIGURE 2
A total of 213 species from 39 genera were identified as crop visitors (22% of the national richness) (Figure 2). The most abundant wild bee family visiting crops was the Halictidae (n = 3,940; 47% of the wild bees) followed by Apidae (n = 1,567; 19%), Andrenidae (n = 1,530; 18%), Colletidae (n = 432; 5%), and Megachilidae (n = 368; 4%). The most abundant genus was Lasioglossum (n = 2,046; 29%), followed by Andrena (n = 1,302; 19%), Xylocopa (n = 528; 8%), Amegilla (n = 450; 6%), Nomioides (n = 436; 6%), and Hylaeus (n = 391; 6%). Sixteen genera had an abundance less than 10 individuals and represented less than 1% of the total number of bee genera visiting crops. The most species-rich genus visiting crops was Andrena (53 species), followed by Lasioglossum (35 species), Anthophora (17 species), Hylaeus (16 species), and Eucera (12 species) (Supplementary Table 4).
Wild Bees Visiting Each Crop in Morocco
The heatmap revealed that most of the 22 crops were visited by dominant bee genera like Lasioglossum, Andrena, Xylocopa, and Amegilla, while some rare genera like Pseudapis, Lithurgus, and Melecta were visiting only one crop (Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
The family Fabaceae represented by faba bean, alfalfa, sweat pea, green bean, and grass pea, was visited mostly by the bee genera Anthophora, Amegilla, Eucera, Megachile, and Xylocopa, but also by some species of Andrena (such as A. abjecta, A. flavipes, and A. fulvicornis) and Lasioglossum. The Cucurbitaceae (zucchini, pumpkin, melon, armenian cucumber, and cucumber) was mostly visited by Lasioglossum, Ceratina, and X. pubescens. Crops of the family Solanaceae, including tomato and eggplant, had X. pubescens as the main visitor. However, we also collected bees from other genera visiting these crops like Amegilla, Halictus, and Lasioglossum but with a lower abundance. The Apiaceae (coriander and anise) and Brassicaceae (canola and arugula) attracted a high number of bees, these crops were visited mainly by Andrena, Hylaeus, and Lasioglossum. Okra (Malvaceae) was visited by a high abundance of Amegilla, Ceylalictus, Lasioglossum, and X. pubescens. In sunflower fields, the only crop which represented the Asteraceae family, we found that the most abundant species was X. pubescens, followed by the family Halictidae (genera Halictus, Lasioglossum, and Nomioides), but also with some bees of the genera Amegilla and Bombus. The family Lamiaceae represented by chia was frequented mostly by Ceratina cucurbitina, and two species of Osmia: O. caerulescens and O. tricornis. Finally, the wild bee species visiting apple flowers included two species of Andrena (A. flavipes, and A. propinqua), three species of Lasioglossum (L. lucidulum, L. malachurum, L. algericolellum), B. terrestris, Eucera nigrilabris, and Anthophora fulvitarsis, while cherry was mostly visited by Lasioglossum (L. algericolellum) and B. terrestris (Figure 3 and Supplementary Table 6).
Variation in Abundance, Species Richness and Community Composition of Wild Bees Visiting Crops Present in Different Regions
Accounting to how the abundance and species richness of wild bees visiting each crop differed between regions, the GLMM analysis revealed significant differences for zucchini, faba bean, and eggplant (all p < 0.05, Supplementary Table 7). Zucchini and faba bean in Draa-Tafilalet hosted the highest mean bee abundance (13.05 ± 3.2 individuals for zucchini and 10.08 ± 1.92 individuals for faba bean) and mean bee species richness (3.25 ± 0.54 for zucchini and 5.17 ± 0.65 for faba bean) followed by Fes-Meknes for zucchini (5.36 ± 1.03 individuals; 2.22 ± 0.31 species), and Casablanca-Settat for faba bean (4.49 ± 0.69 individuals, 2.20 ± 0.26 species).
For eggplant, the mean bee abundance and species richness were found to be higher in Rabat-Sale-Kenitra (1.23 ± 0.27 individuals: 0.65 ± 0.12 species) than in Casablanca-Settat region (0.36 ± 0.11 individuals, 0.31 ± 0.09 species) (Figure 4). However, no statistical differences were found between regions in the abundance and species richness of wild bees visiting pumpkin and apple fields (Supplementary Table 7).
FIGURE 4
Wild bee composition differed between regions for all studied crops (PERMANOVA test: all p < 0.005). Based on pairwise analyses, we found differences in bee composition between all pairs of regions for each crop except between the regions Rabat-sale-Kenitra and Casablanca-Settat for wild bees visiting zucchini (p = 0.15), and between Rabat-Sale-Kenitra and Fes-Meknes for zucchini and pumpkin (p = 0.08 and p = 1, respectively) (Figure 5).
FIGURE 5
SIMPER analysis showed that X. pubescens and halictid bees, especially Lasioglossum species, were the major contributors to the dissimilarity between regions for zucchini and pumpkin, whereas species of Eucera, Anthophora, Amegilla, and Xylocopa contributed to the compositional differences between regions for faba bean. Comparison between the two regions where eggplant was sampled revealed that only four species had a cumulative contribution of more than 70% to the dissimilarity index (X. pubescens with 53%, Anthophora sp. with 8%, Amegilla quadrifasciata with 7% and Halictus fulvipes with 5%) (Supplementary Table 8).
Based on the indicator species analysis, 14 bee species visiting zucchini were strongly associated with one or several regions. Seven species were associated with Draa-Tafilalet, two with Fes-Meknes and only one species was associated with Rabat-Sale-Kenitra. Four other species were found in more than one region: Lasioglossum villosulum, Lasioglossum leucozonium, and Lasioglossum interruptum in two regions and Lasioglossum malachurum in three regions (Tables 1, 2). Among the bee species visiting pumpkin, only four species were significantly associated with one region (Table 1) whereas Lasioglossum villosulum and Xylocopa pubescens were common and widespread species across regions (Table 2). For faba bean, six species were associated with Draa-Tafilaltet, two species were found to be indicators of the regions Rabat-Sale-Kenitra and Casablanca-Settat (Table 1) and only one species was associated with both Casablanca-Settat and Rabat-Sale-Kenitra (Table 2).
TABLE 1
| Crop | Species | DT | FM | RSK | CS | Stat | P-value |
| Zucchini | Xylocopa pubescens | X | 0.935 | 0.001 | |||
| Lasioglossum pseudoplanulum | X | 0.866 | 0.002 | ||||
| Halictus fulvipes | X | 0.844 | 0.001 | ||||
| Amegilla sp2_cf_velocissima | X | 0.707 | 0.011 | ||||
| Lasioglossum limbellum | X | 0.707 | 0.005 | ||||
| Nomioides facilis | X | 0.707 | 0.007 | ||||
| Amegilla sp. | X | 0.612 | 0.040 | ||||
| Lasioglossum algericolellum | X | 0.866 | 0.002 | ||||
| Lasioglossum mediterraneum | X | 0.707 | 0.010 | ||||
| Lasioglossum prasinum | X | 0.577 | 0.028 | ||||
| Pumpkin | Lasioglossum discum | X | 0.7 | 0.005 | |||
| Nomioides facilis | X | 0.707 | 0.005 | ||||
| Lasioglossum pseudoplanulum | X | 0.612 | 0.043 | ||||
| Lasioglossum callizonium | X | 0.866 | 0.010 | ||||
| Faba bean | Anthophora fulvitarsis | X | 0.984 | 0.001 | |||
| Eucera nigrilabris | X | 0.866 | 0.002 | ||||
| Andrena numida | X | 0.887 | 0.002 | ||||
| Andrena verticalis | X | 0.854 | 0.003 | ||||
| Andrena asperrima | X | 0.791 | 0.005 | ||||
| Andrena fulvicornis | X | 0.791 | 0.005 | ||||
| Eucera sp. | X | 0.791 | 0.003 | ||||
| Lasioglossum lucidulum | X | 0.707 | 0.024 | ||||
| Xylocopa pubescens | X | 0.791 | 0.008 | ||||
| Andrena tunetana | X | 0.707 | 0.031 | ||||
| Eggplant | Xylocopa pubescens | X | 0.966 | 0.005 | |||
Indicator bee species visiting crops significantly associated with only one region (DT, Draa-Tafilalet; FM, Fes-Mekenes; CS, Casablanca-Settat; RSK, Rabat-Sale-Kenitra).
TABLE 2
| Crop | Species | DT + FM | DT + CS | CS + FM | CS + RSK | CS + FM + RSK | Stat | P-value |
| Zucchini | Lasioglossum villosulum | X | 0.879 | 0.006 | ||||
| Lasioglossum leucozonium | X | 0.707 | 0.020 | |||||
| Lasioglossum interruptum | X | 0.661 | 0.040 | |||||
| Lasioglossum malachurum | X | 0.934 | 0.010 | |||||
| Pumpkin | Xylocopa pubescens | X | 0.847 | 0.003 | ||||
| Lasioglossum villosulum | X | 0.818 | 0.018 | |||||
| Faba bean | Eucera numida | X | 0.750 | 0.037 | ||||
Indicator bee species visiting crops significantly associated with more than one region (DT, Draa-Tafilalet; FM, Fes-Mekenes; CS, Casablanca-Settat; RSK, Rabat-Sale-Kenitra).
Discussion
Our study provides a first comprehensive and accurate estimation of the relative abundance and species richness of pollinators in agroecosystems in Morocco. It describes the relationship between wild bee species and crops from different plant families and across four ecoclimatic regions.
Wild Bees in Moroccan Agroecosystems
This study shows that agroecosystem in Morocco and particularly crop plants host high relative abundance of wild bee species, i.e., 45% in all agroecosystems, and 33% of all crop visitors, compared to that found in other countries. For example, in a study across five continents, wild bees accounted for 23% of crop visitors () and in the United States they accounted for 26% of the visitors ().
Furthermore, we recorded 213 wild bee species as crop visitors, i.e., 22% of national species richness. This number is high compared to the estimated global species richness of bees currently known to be crop visitors, 785 bee species, i.e., 4% of global species richness (). The high species richness of wild bees found on crops further supports Morocco’s status as a hotspot of bee diversity (; ).
Wild Bees Visiting Crops in Morocco
Our results are in accordance with many studies linking bee species and crops. We found that the most commonly represented genera in our study sites, like Lasioglossum, Andrena, and Xylocopa, were visiting multiple crops in agreement with the findings of .
Our results are also in line with studies showing a link between the floral traits of crops and their bee visitors (). We found that long tongued bees like Eucera, Anthophora, and Amegilla were more abundant at Fabaceae flowers that are characterized by flowers with a deep corolla tube (; ; ). Likewise, Solanaceae crops that typically require buzz pollination for fertilization were found to be visited mostly by X. pubescens and A. quadrifaciata, the two species which represent groups of efficient buzz pollinators (; ; ; ).
Unlike other crops, we found a relatively small number of species and individuals visiting apple and cherry orchards. This could be explained by our sampling of these crops during cold and rainy weather conditions, when only a few species that are more tolerant to suboptimal conditions were active (including the genera Anthophora, Bombus, Eucera, and Lasioglossum). A similar pattern of floral visitation was found along a climatic gradient from Spain to the Netherlands with a growing dominance of the genera Bombus and Lasioglossum (). The higher abundance of Anthophora and Eucera in our study sites is typical to countries with a warmer Mediterranean climate, such as Morocco and Spain (; ). Particularly in cherry orchards, we recorded mostly bees of the genus Lasioglossum while Andrena were less frequent, contrary to other studies in Germany and Belgium where these bees were the most abundant (; ). Additionally, as woody Rosaceae are not a common element of the native Moroccan flora, the Moroccan Andrena community lacks many of the Eurasian species typically associated with these flowering plants, potentially explaining their low abundance in our surveys.
Regional Variability of Bee Abundance, Species Richness and Community Composition
We found that bee abundance, species richness and bee community composition were significantly different between regions for several of the studied crops.
There are several possible factors that can account for this variability between regions. Firstly, the studied regions are different in terms of the landscape composition and crop diversity that surround the surveyed fields. Studies have repeatedly shown that closer proximity of crop fields to semi-natural areas has a positive impact on wild bee diversity via augmentation of nesting resources in depauperate agricultural landscape (; ; ; ). In addition, higher crop diversity in agroecosystems may increase bee density (). Secondly, the variability of bee diversity and community composition might be related to the climatic variability among regions in our study (sub humid, semi-arid, and arid regions). Bee species richness was found to be higher in arid and warm regions compared to wet regions (; ). This finding is in line with our result in Draa-Tafilalet (an arid region) where bee abundance and species richness in faba bean and zucchini fields were higher compared to other regions. Finally, seasonal differences throughout the year (). Previous studies have shown differences in bee abundance and species richness between dry and rainy seasons (; ; ). These results may explain the differences that we found for zucchini in Draa-Tafilalet and Fes-Meknes where the crop was surveyed in early summer and was associated with a higher number of bee species as compared to Casablanca-Settat and Rabat-Sale-Kenitra, the two sites which were sampled in autumn.
Overall, 26 species were identified as indicator species of the regional crop-visiting bee community. The identified indicator species are among the most abundant species in agroecosystems (Supplementary Table 5) and are widespread in Morocco (). Identifying indicator species by region and by crop could form the basis for selecting conservation priority species (). We found for example that only Lasioglossum species (three species) are indicators in Rabat-Sale-Kenitra and Fes-Meknes for zucchini compared to Draa-Tafilalet, in which seven species from six genera were found: Lasioglossum, Xylocopa, Amegilla, Halictus, and Nomioides. This suggests that different conservation strategies may be required between regions given the identified differences in the agriculturally relevant bee faunas.
Conservation Implications and Future Recommendations
This study provides basic information about wild bees in Moroccan agroecosystems and shows the importance of these habitats in hosting a high diversity of wild bees. Identifying the bee species associated with each crop and their abundance in different regions could help to identify conservation strategies for wild bees in Moroccan agroecosystems. For example, Lasioglossum and Andrena were the most abundant and species rich bee genera recorded in this study. These ground nesting bees could be at risk from intensive agriculture because of deep tillage (; ), soil compaction by heavy machinery, accumulation of pesticides as well as the combined effects of these factors. Reducing machinery or adopting no tillage in farms could conserve ground nesting bees (). Assessment of pesticide impact and risk to solitary ground-nesting bees as demonstrated by , may be particularly important for the protection of pollinators in developing countries with high pesticide use (). For faba bean, cherry and apple that bloom in early season, seeding adequate complementary flowering crops (; ), wildflowers strips (; ; ) or hedgerows () may help to attract early flying bees like the genera Eucera, Anthophora, and Bombus and help to conserve these bees in the agricultural landscape.
This first comprehensive study on the bee fauna associated with crops in Morocco highlights the relatively few knowledge available and the urgent need for future research in this country including: (a) research on the value of pollination services (; , , ; ; ), (b) applied research to enhance pollinator diversity, and (c) assessment of different global change drivers (i.e., climate change) and their influence on pollinator distribution and diversity ().
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Statements
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Author contributions
IE and DM developed the specific research questions of this article. IE, PL, AS, LH, OI, and YB collected field data. AD, AP, SP, TW, DM, and PR identified bee species. IE analyzed data with the help of SR. SC developed FAP, designed, and coordinated the entire project. IE wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to revisions.
Funding
This work was part of an ICARDA project funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Protection and Nuclear Safety (BMU) within the International Climate Initiative (IKI). It was also partly supported by the “Research Foundation of Flanders (FWO)” and the “Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS) under EOS Project CLIPS (no. 3094785)”. The publication was supported by the Institute for bioscience, Belgium.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Holger H. Dathe, Michael Terzo, Andreas Müller, and Michael Kuhlmann for bee identification, and Axel Ssymank for Syrphid identification. We also received much support from Moulay Chrif Smaili who contributed to farmers selection and worked on pest and natural enemies. We would also like to thank Dimitri Evrard for his support in data management and digitization.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.866581/full#supplementary-material
References
1
AbrolD. P.GorkaA. K.AnsariM. J.Al-GhamdiA.Al-KahtaniS. (2019). Impact of insect pollinators on yield and fruit quality of strawberry.Saudi J. Biol. Sci.26524–530. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.08.003
2
AizenM. A.GaribaldiL. A.CunninghamS. A.KleinA. M. (2008). Long-Term Global Trends in Crop Yield and Production Reveal No Current Pollination Shortage but Increasing Pollinator Dependency.Curr. Biol.181572–1575. 10.1016/j.cub.2008.08.066
3
AliM.SajjadA.FarooqiM. A.BashirM. A.AslamM. N.NafeesM.et al (2020). Assessing indigenous and local knowledge of farmers about pollination services in cucurbit agro-ecosystem of Punjab.Pakistan Saudi J. Biol. Sci.27189–194. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2019.07.001
4
AnougmarS. (2021). Economics Of Pollination In Drylands: Farmers’ And Consumers’ Perspectives In A Middle-Income Country.
5
Aouar-sadliM.LouadiK.DoumandjiS. (2008). Pollination of the broad bean (Vicia faba L.var. major) (Fabaceae) by wild bees and honey bees (Hymenoptera: apoidea) and its impact on the seed production in the Tizi-Ouzou area (Algeria).Afr. J. Agric. Res.3266–272.
6
BalfourN. J.OllertonJ.CastellanosM. C.RatnieksF. L. W. (2018). British phenological records indicate high diversity and extinction rates among late-summer-flying pollinators.Biol. Conserv.222278–283. 10.1016/j.biocon.2018.04.028
7
BashirM. A.AlviA. M.KhanK. A.RehmaniM. I. A.AnsariM. J.AttaS.et al (2018). Role of pollination in yield and physicochemical properties of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum).Saudi J. Biol. Sci.251291–1297. 10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.10.006
8
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB. M.WalkerS. C. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4.J. Stat. Softw.671–48
9
BlaauwB. R.IsaacsR. (2014). Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop.J. Appl. Ecol.51890–898. 10.1111/1365-2664.12257
10
BladtJ.LarsenF. W.RahbekC. (2008). Does taxonomic diversity in indicator groups influence their effectiveness in identifying priority areas for species conservation?Anim. Conserv.11546–554. 10.1111/j.1469-1795.2008.00211.x
11
BorrorD. J.WhiteR. E. (1991). Les Insectes De L’amérique Du Nord (Au Nord Du Mexique).Canada: Broquet Inc.
12
ChatterjeeA.ChatterjeeS.SmithB.CresswellJ. E.BasuP. (2020). Predicted thresholds for natural vegetation cover to safeguard pollinator services in agricultural landscapes.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.290:106785. 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106785
13
ChristmannS. (2022). Regard and protect ground-nesting pollinators as part of soil biodiversity.Ecol. Appl.32:e2564. 10.1002/eap.2564
14
ChristmannS.Aw-HassanA.GülerY.SarisuH. C.BernardM.SmailiM. C.et al (2022). Two enabling factors for farmer-driven pollinator protection in low- and middle-income countries.Int. J. Agric. Sustain.2054–67. 10.1080/14735903.2021.1916254
15
ChristmannS.Aw-HassanA.RajabovT.KhamraevA. S.TsivelikasA. (2017). Farming with alternative pollinators increases yields and incomes of cucumber and sour cherry.Agron. Sustain. Dev.37:24. 10.1007/s13593-017-0433-y
16
ChristmannS.Aw-HassanA. A. (2012). Farming with alternative pollinators (FAP)— An overlooked win-win-strategy for climate change adaptation.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.161161–164. 10.1016/j.agee.2012.07.030
17
ChristmannS.BencharkiY.AnougmarS.RasmontP.SmailiM. C.TsivelikasA.et al (2021). Farming with Alternative Pollinators benefits pollinators, natural enemies, and yields, and offers transformative change to agriculture.Sci. Rep.111–11. 10.1038/s41598-021-97695-5
18
CunninghamS. A.Le FeuvreD. (2013). Significant yield benefits from honeybee pollination of faba bean (Vicia faba) assessed at field scale.F Crop. Res.149269–275. 10.1016/j.fcr.2013.05.019
19
DicksL. V.BreezeT. D.NgoH. T.SenapathiD.AnJ.AizenM. A.et al (2021). A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.Nat. Ecol. Evol.51453–1461. 10.1038/s41559-021-01534-9
20
EeraertsM.VanderhaegenR.SmaggheG.MeeusI. (2020). Pollination efficiency and foraging behaviour of honey bees and non-Apis bees to sweet cherry.Agric. For. Entomol.2275–82. 10.1111/afe.12363
21
FijenT. P. M.ScheperJ. A.VogelC.RuijvenJ. V.KleijnD. (2020). Insect pollination is the weakest link in the production of a hybrid seed crop.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.290:106743. 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106743
22
GaribaldiL. A.AizenM. A.KleinA. M.CunninghamS. A.HarderL. D. (2011). Global growth and stability of agricultural yield decrease with pollinator dependence.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.1085909–5914. 10.1073/pnas.1012431108
23
GaribaldiL. A.AnderssonG. K. S.RequierF.FijenT. P. M.HipólitoJ.KleijnD.et al (2018). Complementarity and synergisms among ecosystem services supporting crop yield.Glob. Food Sec.1738–47. 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.03.006
24
GaribaldiL. A.BartomeusI.BommarcoR.KleinA. M.CunninghamS. A.AizenM. A.et al (2015). Trait matching of flower visitors and crops predicts fruit set better than trait diversity.J. Appl. Ecol.521436–1444. 10.1111/1365-2664.12530
25
GarrattM. P. D.BreezeT. D.JennerN.PolceC.BiesmeijerJ. C.PottsS. G. (2014a). Avoiding a bad apple: insect pollination enhances fruit quality and economic value.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.18434–40. 10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.032
26
GarrattM. P. D.CostonD. J.TrusloveC. L.LappageM. G.PolceC.DeanR.et al (2014b). The identity of crop pollinators helps target conservation for improved ecosystem services.Biol. Conserv.169128–135. 10.1016/j.biocon.2013.11.001
27
GeeraertL.AertsR.BerechaG.DabaG.De FruytN.D’hollanderJ.et al (2020). Effects of landscape composition on bee communities and coffee pollination in Coffea arabica production forests in southwestern Ethiopia.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.288106706–106717. 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106706
28
Gemmill-herrenB.OchiengA. O. (2008). Role of native bees and natural habitats in eggplant (Solanum melongena) pollination in Kenya.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.12731–36. 10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.002
29
HolzschuhA.DudenhöfferJ. H.TscharntkeT. (2012). Landscapes with wild bee habitats enhance pollination, fruit set and yield of sweet cherry.Biol. Conserv.153101–107. 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.04.032
30
HothornT.BretzF.WestfallP. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models.Biom. J.50346–363. 10.1002/bimj.200810425
31
HünickenP. L.MoralesC. L.AizenM. A.AndersonG. K. S.GarcíaN.GaribaldiL. A. (2021). Insect pollination enhances yield stability in two pollinator-dependent crops.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.320:107573. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107573
32
HutchinsonL. A.OliverT. H.BreezeT. D.BailesE. J.BrünjesL.CampbellA. J.et al (2021). Using ecological and field survey data to establish a national list of the wild bee pollinators of crops.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.315:107447. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107447
33
JayasingheU. J. M. S. R.SilvaT. H. S. E.KarunaratneW. A. I. P. (2017). Buzzing Wild Bee Visits Enhance Seed Set in Eggplant, Solanum melongena.Hindawi20171–7. 10.1155/2017/4624062
34
KennedyC. M.LonsdorfE.NeelM. C.WilliamsN. M.RickettsT. H.WinfreeR.et al (2013). A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems.Ecol. Lett.16584–599. 10.1111/ele.12082
35
KleijnD.WinfreeR.BartomeusI.CarvalheiroL. G.HenryM.IsaacsR.et al (2015). Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.Nat. Commun.61–8. 10.1038/ncomms8414
36
LhommeP.MichezD.ChristmannS.ScheuchlE.El AbdouniI.HamroudL.et al (2020). The wild bees (Hymenoptera: apoidea) of Morocco.Zootaxa4892:zootaxa.4892.1.1. 10.11646/zootaxa.4892.1.1
37
LoseyJ. E.VaughanM. (2006). The Economic Value of Ecological Services Provided by Insects.Bioscience56:311.
38
MacInnisG.ForrestJ. R. K. (2019). Pollination by wild bees yields larger strawberries than pollination by honey bees.J. Appl. Ecol.56824–832. 10.1111/1365-2664.13344
39
MarzinzigB.BrünjesL.BiagioniS.BehlingH.LinkW.WestphalC. (2018). Bee pollinators of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) differ in their foraging behaviour and pollination efficiency.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.26424–33. 10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.003
40
MichenerC. D. (1979). Biogeography of bees.Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard.66277–347. 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.07.005
41
MichenerC. D. (2007). The Bees Of The World. 2nd ed.Baltimore: JHU Press.
42
MichezD.RasmontP.TerzoM.VereeckenN. J. (2019). Bees Of Europe.France: NAP Editions.
43
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Development, Water, and Forests (2020). Consolidation et archivage des statistiques produites par le ministère (superficie, Production, Effectifs d’élevage, …).Warsaw: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Rural Development, Water, and Forests.
44
MokhtariN.MrabetR.LebaillyP.BockL. (2013). Spatialisation des bioclimats, de l’aridité et des étages de végétation du Maroc.Rev. Marocaine Des Sci. Agron. Vét.250–66.
45
MorandinL. A.KremenC. (2013). Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields.Ecol. Appl.23829–839. 10.1890/12-1051.1
46
MuñozA. E.PlantegenestM.AmourouxP.ZaviezoT. (2021). Native flower strips increase visitation by non-bee insects to avocado flowers and promote yield.Basic Appl. Ecol.56369–378. 10.1016/j.baae.2021.08.015
47
OertliS.MüllerA.DornS. (2005). Ecological and seasonal patterns in the diversity of a species-rich bee assemblage (Hymenoptera: apoidea): apiformes.Eur. J. Entomol.10253–63. 10.14411/eje.2005.008
48
OllertonJ.WinfreeR.TarrantS. (2011). How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals?Oikos120321–326. 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x
49
Osorio-canadasS.ArnanX.Torné-NogueraA.MolownyR.BoschJ.GómezJ. M. (2016). Body size phenology in a regional bee fauna : a temporal extension of Bergmann’s rule.Ecol. Lett.191395–1402. 10.1111/ele.12687
50
PatinyS.MichezD. (2007). Biogeography of bees (Hymenoptera, Apoidea) in Sahara and the Arabian deserts.Insect Syst. Evol.3819–34. 10.1163/187631207788784012
51
PatinyS.MichezD.KuhlmannM.PaulyA.BarbierY. (2009). Factors limiting the species richness of bees in Saharan Africa.Bull. Entomol. Res.99337–346. 10.1017/S0007485308006433
52
PopicT. J.DavilaY. C.WardleG. M. (2013). Evaluation of Common Methods for Sampling Invertebrate Pollinator Assemblages: net Sampling Out-Perform Pan Traps.PLoS One8:e66665. 10.1371/journal.pone.0066665
53
PottsS. G.Imperatriz-FonsecaV.NgoH. T.AizenM. A.BiesmeijerJ. C.BreezeT. D.et al (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being.Nature540220–229. 10.1038/nature20588
54
PowneyG. D.CarvellC.EdwardsM.MorrisR. K. A.RoyH. E.WoodcockB. A.et al (2019). Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain.Nat. Commun.10:1018. 10.1038/s41467-019-08974-9
55
RaderR.BartomeusI.GaribaldiL. A.GarrattM. P. D.HowlettB. G.WinfreeR.et al (2016). Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.113146–151. 10.1073/pnas.1517092112
56
RaderschallC. A.BommarcoR.LindströmS. A. M.LundinO. (2021). Landscape crop diversity and semi-natural habitat affect crop pollinators, pollination benefit and yield.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.306:107189. 10.1016/j.agee.2020.107189
57
RankouH.CulhamA.JuryS. L.ChristenhuszM. J. M. (2013). The endemic flora of Morocco.Phytotaxa781–69. 10.11646/phytotaxa.78.1.1
58
RankouH.CulhamA.Sghir TalebM.OuhammouA.MartinG.JuryS. L. (2015). Conservation assessments and red listing of the endemic moroccan flora (monocotyledons).Bot. J. Linn. Soc.177504–575. 10.1111/boj.12258
59
ReillyJ. R.ArtzD. R.BiddingerD.BobiwashK.BoyleN. K.BrittainC.et al (2020). Crop production in the USA is frequently limited by a lack of pollinators: pollination limitation in US crops.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.2872–9. 10.1098/rspb.2020.0922rspb20200922
60
RickettsT. H.RegetzJ.Steffan-DewenterI.CunninghamS. A.KremenC.BogdanskiA.et al (2008). Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?Ecol. Lett.11499–515. 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x
61
SabbahiR. (2021). Economic value of insect pollination of major crops in Morocco.Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci.421275–1284.
62
SamnegårdU.HambäckP. A.EardleyC.NemomissaS.HylanderK. (2015). Turnover in bee species composition and functional trait distributions between seasons in a tropical agricultural landscape.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.211185–194. 10.1016/j.agee.2015.06.010
63
ScheperJ.HolzschuhA.KuussaariM.PottsS. G.RundlofM.SmithH. G.et al (2013). Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a.Ecol. Lett.16912–920. 10.1111/ele.12128
64
SentilA.LhommeP.MichezD.RevertéS.RasmontP.ChristmannS. (2021). “Farming with Alternative Pollinators” approach increases pollinator abundance and diversity in faba bean fields.J. Insect Conserv.26, 401–414
65
SentilA.WoodT. J.LhommeP.HamroudL.El AbdouniI.IhsaneO.et al (2022). Impact of the “Farming With Alternative Pollinators” Approach on Crop Pollinator Pollen Diet.Front. Ecol. Evol.10:824474. 10.3389/fevo.2022.824474
66
SheblM. A.FaragM. (2015). Bee diversity (Hymenoptera: apoidea) visiting Broad Bean (Vicia faba L.) flowers in Egypt.Zool. Middle East61256–263. 10.1080/09397140.2015.1069245
67
ShulerR. E.RoulstonT. H.FarrisG. E. (2005). Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin.J. Econ. Entomol.98790–795. 10.1603/0022-0493-98.3.790
68
SutterL.JeanneretP.BartualA. M.BocciG.AlbrechtM. (2017). Enhancing plant diversity in agricultural landscapes promotes both rare bees and dominant crop-pollinating bees through complementary increase in key floral resources.J. Appl. Ecol.541856–1864. 10.1111/1365-2664.12907
69
TarakiniG.ChemuraA.MusundireR. (2020). Farmers’ Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Pollination and Bees in a Maize-Producing Region of Zimbabwe: implications for Pollinator Conservation.Trop. Conserv. Sci.131–13. 10.1177/1940082920918534
70
TemesgenT.AyanaM.BedadiB. (2018). Evaluating the Effects of Deficit Irrigation on Yield and Water Productivity of Furrow Irrigated Onion (Allium cepa L.) in Ambo, Western Ethiopia.Irrig. Drain. Syst. Eng071–6. 10.4172/2168-9768.1000203
71
ToniH. C.DjossaB. A.AyenanM. A. T.TekaO. (2020). Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) pollinators and their effect on fruit set and quality.J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol.961–13. 10.1080/14620316.2020.1773937
72
TuraL. E.TolossaT. T. (2020). Effect of Irrigation Water Quality and Deficit Irrigation on Crop Yield and Water Use efficiency.Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol.81201–1210.
73
UdayakumarA.ChaubeyB. K.TimalapurM. (2021). Amegilla violacea (Lepeletier, 1841) (Anthophorini : apidae) – A native bee, an effective pollinator of eggplant (Solanum melongena).J. Apic. Res.01–7. 10.1080/00218839.2020.1862393
74
UllmannK. S.MeisneraM. H.WilliamsN. M. (2016). Impact of tillage on the crop pollinating, ground nesting bee, Peponapis pruinosa in California.Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.232240–246.
75
WeekersT.MarshallL.LeclercqN.WoodT. J.CejasD.DrepperB.et al (2022). Dominance of honey bees is negatively associated with wild bee diversity in commercial apple orchards regardless of management practices.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.323:107697. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107697
76
WestphalC.BommarcoR.CarréG.LambornE.MorisonN.PetanidouT.et al (2008). Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions.Ecol. Monogr.78653–671. 10.1890/07-1292.1
77
YousafM.LiJ.LuJ.RenT.CongR.FahadS.et al (2017). Effects of fertilization on crop production and nutrient-supplying capacity under rice-oilseed rape rotation system.Sci. Rep.71–9. 10.1038/s41598-017-01412-0
78
ZattaraE. E.AizenM. A. (2021). Worldwide Occurrence Records Reflect a Global Decline in Bee Species Richness.One Earth4114–123. 10.1101/869784
79
ZhangC.GuanmingS.ShenJ.HuR. F. (2015). Productivity effect and overuse of pesticide in crop production in China.J. Integr. Agric.141903–1910. 10.1016/S2095-3119(15)61056-5
Summary
Keywords
honeybees, wild bees, Andrena, Lasioglossum, Xylocopa, pollination services
Citation
El Abdouni I, Lhomme P, Christmann S, Dorchin A, Sentil A, Pauly A, Hamroud L, Ihsane O, Reverté S, Patiny S, Wood TJ, Bencharki Y, Rasmont P and Michez D (2022) Diversity and Relative Abundance of Insect Pollinators in Moroccan Agroecosystems. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10:866581. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2022.866581
Received
31 January 2022
Accepted
26 May 2022
Published
11 July 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Rory Mc Donnell, Oregon State University, United States
Reviewed by
Alistair John Campbell, Embrapa Amazônia Oriental, Brazil; Gabor Pozsgai, University of the Azores, Portugal
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 El Abdouni, Lhomme, Christmann, Dorchin, Sentil, Pauly, Hamroud, Ihsane, Reverté, Patiny, Wood, Bencharki, Rasmont and Michez.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Insafe El Abdouni, insafe.elabdouni@student.umons.ac.be
This article was submitted to Conservation and Restoration Ecology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.