Insect Pollinators Within Cotton Fields of Small-Scale Farms in Mwachisompola, Zambia and Development of an Educational Manual

Home , Atherigona, Ischiodon, Lipotriches, Tetralonia

INSECT POLLINATORS WITHIN COTTON FIELDS OF SMALL-SCALE FARMS IN MWACHISOMPOLA, ZAMBIA AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN EDUCATIONAL MANUAL

By:

Daphne M. Mayes

A Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

NATURAL RESOURCES

College of Natural Resources

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN

Stevens Point, Wisconsin

December 2011

ABSTRACT

Global declines in wild and managed pollinator species have increased the need to evaluate the current status of these populations. Farming systems are a good place to examine pollinator presence and activity, because the blooming period of the crop provides a predictable floral resource which attracts pollinators. In this study, pollinator data was collected in small-scale conservation and conventional cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) fields in Mwachisompola, Zambia. Twenty-seven species of insect pollinators were recorded, with 67% belonging to the order Hymenoptera, 26% Diptera, and 7%

Coleoptera. Results indicate that only 33% of the total observed species were found within both farm systems. Furthermore, eleven of the insects observed foraging within cotton flowers were also predatory. Paragus borbonicus and Ischiodon aegyptius were found within both conservation and conventional fields. These species are important predators of crop pests that are known to attack cotton. There was a negative correlation between species richness and field size, regardless of farm management. This study shows that both types of farm systems are important resources for insect pollinators and crop pest predators, and that local management practices have the opportunity to positively or negatively impact these organisms.

A secondary objective of this study was the development of an educational manual focused on pollinators in Zambia. Living and working as a rural-based Peace

Corps volunteer, I had the opportunity to explore how farmers and extension staff view pollinators. Using this information it was determined that an education manual focusing on pollinators in Zambia would assist in promoting pollinator awareness and conservation. This resource will be freely distributed by the Conservation Farming Unit

iii of Zambia and the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute, and supports the efforts of actors involved in pollinator conservation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis would not have been possible without the support, guidance, and generosity of many people; it is my pleasure to humbly give thanks.

I would like to thank the United States Peace Corps Master’s International

Program and the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point for providing the opportunity to participate in both endeavors. The Peace Corps Zambia staff, notably Donald Phiri and

Henry Chilufya, provided support and encouragement as a Peace Corps Volunteer and

Master’s International student.

I would like to thank Drs. Holly Petrillo, Anna Haines, and Eric Anderson for their valuable feedback and advice during the formation of this thesis. I would especially like to thank Dr. Petrillo and Bobbi Kubish for their patience and guidance during my

Peace Corps service in Zambia. For all the time and energy you put into helping me, for your comments on the drafts of this paper, and supporting my many ideas, thank you

Holly.

Many people working hard to promote pollinator work and conservation in Africa were important contributors to this project. Identification of insects was graciously provided by Dr. Connal Eardley of the Agricultural Research Council and Plant

Protection Research Institute in South Africa. Dr. Eardley was an invaluable resource throughout the planning, execution, and follow-up phases of this research project as well as the development of the pollinator manual. Dr. Barbara Gemmill-Herren also provided additional guidance and support for the research project and pollinator manual.

The Conservation Farming Unit of Zambia welcomed this project and provided extension assistance and support. I would like to especially thank Peter Agaard, Yvonne

Nakacinda, and Nephat Chimbwe for all their hard work and collaborations in making this idea a reality. Special thanks to the participating farmers of Mwachisompola, their cooperation and interest in the topic of pollinators made this effort a success.

Special thanks are in order for all the people who made my Peace Corps Zambia experience memorable. Central Province volunteers provided many laughs and good times, thank you all. Our extended family in Zambia, Mukuka and Gertrude Mubanga, provided continued support and selflessness. Jacob, Jennifer, Sonka, Katebe, Miriam,

Inkonde, and Princess, your laughter will forever be in my heart.

Sarah, Lindsey, and Scott provided friendship from day one at UWSP, thank you.

To my family and the wonderful family I am a part of through Tyson, words cannot express enough gratitude in supporting this endeavor. My brothers Jake, Rodney, and

Gene provided laughter, sincerity and understanding, thank you. I especially want to mention my mom and friend Ryan for making the long journey to visit us in Zambia; it meant so much to have you there.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the one person who has always supported my dreams and goals, believed in me, hitchhiked with me in the rain on the side of the road, guided me through bush paths, given strength when I had none, and has always continued to make me laugh. My husband and best friend, Tyson, thank you for all that you are and all that you do.

FORWARD

This thesis is a compilation of the research and work I performed while also serving as a United States Peace Corps volunteer in Zambia from February 2009 to April

2011. There were many challenges to make this project a reality, including limited mobility and resources, no budget, and simultaneous work obligations as a PCV.

Communication and access to computers was also limited to a few days per month, and during this time work related to my Peace Corps project came first and my Master’s

International project second. Nonetheless, I was still inspired to pursue a project that explored the topic of insect pollinators because of their importance to social and environmental sustainability. The purpose of these efforts was to gather information pertaining to insect pollinators found within two commonly practiced small-scale farming systems in Mwachisompola, Zambia, and to create an extension manual focused on pollinators. This study provides a species list of insect pollinators found within this area, which can be used for future efforts focusing on pollinator conservation and research.

The manual is also available to stakeholders and educators as a free resource promoting pollinator understanding and conservation.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………………..v

FORWARD………………...………………………………………...…………………vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………...………...……...…..viii

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES………………………….…..…………...…….…ix

APPENDIX…………………………………………………………...…………………..x

CHAPTER ONE………………………………………………………………………....1

CHAPTER TWO…………………………………………….…………………………41

CONCLUSION………………………………………………...……………………….50

viii

LIST OF TABLES & FIGURES

CHAPTER 1

Tables

1. Comparison of conservation and conventional farm fields………….………11 2. List of species observed………………………………..……………….……24 3. Data summary by field and type……………………………………………..25 4. Correlation matrix……………………………………………………………26 5. Results of multiple regression……………….……………………………….27

Figures

1. Map of Zambia and study area…………………………………….…………10 2. Field study illustration……………………………………………………….28 3. Species richness frequency………………………………………………..…29 4. Box plot of pollinator density on conservation and conventional fields…….30 5. Box plot of species richness on conservation and conventional fields……...31 6. Scatter plot of field size and species richness……...………………………...32

APPENDIX

I. POLLINATOR MANUAL…………………………………..……………….…….52

CHAPTER ONE

INSECT POLLINATORS WITHIN COTTON FIELDS OF SMALL-SCALE FARMS IN MWACHISOMPOLA, ZAMBIA

Abstract

Global declines in wild and managed pollinator species have increased the need to evaluate the current status of these populations and understand their needs for sustainability. Farming systems are a good place to examine pollinator presence and activity, because the blooming period of the crop provides a predictable floral resource which attracts pollinators. In this study, pollinator density and species richness were measured in five conservation and five conventional cotton fields in Mwachisompola,

Zambia. Between the two farm types, species richness was not significantly different; however, only 33% of the total observed species were found within both farm systems.

Furthermore, eleven of the insects observed foraging within cotton flowers were predatory and serve as important pest control. Species richness was also negatively correlated with field size, showing the importance of edge providing habitat for beneficial species. This study shows that both types of farm systems are important resources for insect pollinators and crop pest predators, and that local management practices have the opportunity to positively or negatively impact these organisms.

INTRODUCTION

Insect pollinators play key roles in ecosystem processes as well as agricultural sustainability. More than 70% of wild flowers depend on biotic pollinators for their reproduction (Xerces Society 2011), and over one-third of the plants human beings consume rely on pollinators for fruit and seed set (Klein et al. 2007). The total economic value of pollination worldwide has been estimated to be $2.9 billion (Gallai et al 2009).

The importance of pollinators to biodiversity, food security and the economy is immense, yet their present and future status is uncertain.

Declines of pollinating insects have been occurring world-wide due to factors such as habitat loss, pesticide use, diseases, and parasites (Potts et al 2010). Studies have documented this in managed honeybee colonies, but wild pollinator status remains unclear (National Research Council 2007). Recent research has documented the importance of wild pollinator diversity to agricultural security, and how landscape affects the presence and activity of these pollinators (Vaughan et al. 2007). Although there have been many contributions and efforts to address the conservation and sustainable use of pollinators, many gaps remain in how to balance agricultural productivity and sustainability with the habitat needs of pollinators.

Managing a suitable landscape that provides resources for wild pollinators is critical to their ability to survive and thrive, as well as maintaining secure food production. Understanding how local land use practices, such as various farming techniques, are affecting pollinators is important to their conservation and sustainability.

Eighty percent of Zambia’s rural population depends on farming, with over one million

3 farmers cultivating one hectare each (USAID 2010). Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) is an important cash crop in Zambia with over 130,000 small-scale farmers (Tschirley and

Kabwe 2009). It is a useful focal crop to study because of its large floral display which is attractive to foraging pollinators. It is also susceptible to insect pests such as aphids and bollworms causing many farmers to use pesticides throughout the growing season.

Insect pollinators, particularly bees, are the most common pollinators of agricultural crops (Klein et al. 2007) and wild plants (Potts et. al 2003). Concern regarding a loss of pollinator species diversity has called attention to researchers around the world to better understand the habitat requirements and how land use decisions impact these organisms (Potts et al. 2010). This information is important for many stakeholders including those involved in food and agriculture, forestry, and conservation to develop sound management practices to ensure the sustainability of both pollinators and the systems that depend on them. Pollinators are important for basic ecosystem functions, agricultural productivity, as well as biological diversity, but the requirements needed to support them are not entirely understood.

Declines

Dramatic declines of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) in managed colonies across the world due to diseases, parasitism, and recently Colony Collapse

Disorder has become the ‘canary in the mine’ for researchers to explore the status of wild and managed pollinators (Cameron et al. 2010). Honey bees have the ability to increase the yields of 96% of crops that require animal pollinators (Kremen et al. 2007), however they have suffered declines in over half of the managed colonies in the U.S. since 1947

(Doebler 2000) and a quarter of the colonies in Europe since 1965 (vanEngelsdorp and

Meixner 2009). While many speculations have been made about the underlying cause of honey bee declines, researchers now believe that many previously mentioned factors are ultimately responsible (Cameron et al. 2010). Although honey bees have proven to be efficient and effective pollinators, the reliance on only one species that continues to suffer marked declines has directed efforts to understand the status and roles of wild pollinators.

There have been documented declines in wild pollinators as well. Bumble bee

(Bombus spp.) populations in the US, Belgium, and the UK have decreased, and in some cases, become extinct (Cameron et al. 2010). The increase of human-induced disturbances across landscapes often translates into declines of wild pollinators and in some cases, the plants that depend on their services. In a meta- analysis of 54 studies which included 89 wild plant species, pollination limitation was the leading cause of reproductive loss in fragmented habitats (Kremen et al. 2007). Other contributors to the loss of pollinators are disease causing pathogens (e.g., Nosema bombi) and parasites (e.g.,

Varroa spp.); as well as a loss of genetic diversity in isolated populations due to habitat fragmentation (Cameron et al. 2011).

Wild pollinators can compensate for pollination when the services of honey bees are limited or reduced. In Costa Rican coffee farms, the abundance of European honey bees declined without significant consequences to the crop due to the pollination services of other pollinators (Ricketts 2004). The activity and presence of wild pollinators is not guaranteed, however; they have been found to be largely dependent on proximity to natural habitats. An analysis of 23 studies focused on wild bee activities in agricultural systems found the abundance and species richness of wild pollinators were negatively

5 affected by habitat loss (Ricketts et al. 2008). A recent review by Potts et al (2010) summarized multiple analyses focusing on the impact of habitat loss on pollinators and found consensus supporting the hypothesis that habitat loss causes a reduction in bee diversity and abundance.

Not all pollinators have the same response to habitat loss or conversion, however.

Since pollinators have the ability to move to forage and find suitable nesting resources, they may have a certain degree of tolerance to changes in their immediate environment and in some cases even benefit from those changes. One study by Klein et al. (2002) found that solitary bees benefited from an increase in land use intensity, while social bee species were negatively impacted. Some researchers have speculated that habitat degradation (loss of necessary nesting and food resources) may be a more influential cause of species loss or decline (Potts et al. 2010).

Agricultural intensification around the world has also increased the amount of pesticides and herbicides used (Brittain et al. 2010). Pesticides can be directly lethal to insect pollinators, while other commonly used herbicides can inadvertently affect the floral resources that these organisms depend on as a food source. While these chemicals must be thoroughly evaluated to ensure minimal environmental impacts (although see

NRDC vs. EPA & Bayer CropScience 2009) these experiments are often conducted on domesticated honey bees and it is possible that wild pollinators’ responses may differ.

Another concern is the synergistic effects of pesticides in the environment, an area of research that needs further examination.

Invasive species of pollinating insects have negatively affected native and managed pollinators in many countries. Beekeepers in southern Mexico have noticed a dramatic decrease in the native stingless bee, Melipona beecheii (Villanueva et al. 2005).

One factor contributing to the loss includes competition from the introduced African honey bee, which led to an increasing feral population that has continued to expand from

South America northwards. A study by Clarke et al. (2002) found a massive hybridization event between the feral African honey bees and resident European honey bees. These Africanized honey bees are more aggressive and defensive, making it difficult for beekeepers to manage hives. One study found that the European honey bee has also impacted native bumble bee pollinators in California, by outcompeting for their nectar sources leading to fewer progeny (Thomsen 2004); however Kremen et al. (2002) found no evidence of honey bees displacing native bees in watermelon farms. Another study in New Caledonia found that invasive honey bees made 498 out of 544 recorded bee visits, while only 46 were by native pollinators (Kato and Kawakita 2004). More research is needed to understand the relationship between native and invasive or introduced pollinators in different landscapes around the world.

Farming Practices and Pollinators

Pollinators have an important role in agriculture, and have been estimated to contribute between 6 - 14 billion dollars per year in the United States alone (Southwick and Southwick 1992). Although most cereal grains are wind pollinated, over one-third of the world’s crop species depends on pollinators (Roubik 1995). Recent studies have attempted to address agricultural intensification and the potential effects on pollinators, though the results are inconclusive. In many cases, farms using organic practices have

7 been shown to host a greater diversity and abundance of pollinators (Bengtsson et al.

2005; Otieno et al. 2011); however others have found no differences between pollinators on organic and conventional farms (Brittain et al 2010; Winfree 2008).

Various farming practices will likely affect pollinators’ species differently. Since there is great diversity in the life cycle, nesting requirements, and food sources utilized by the greater than 20,000 species of pollinating bees worldwide (Kremen et al. 2002), it is not surprising that their reactions to disturbances may vary. Soil tillage was an important determinant for squash bees, with farms practicing no tillage hosting three times greater density, but the density of honey bees and bumble bees showed no differences (Shuler et al. 2005). These studies demonstrate the need to evaluate the impact of farming practices on the diversity and abundance of pollinators in order to better understand their needs and make recommendations about agricultural practices.

This research project was developed to fill gaps pertaining to pollinators in

Zambia. It is the first study to examine insect pollinators in cotton fields, G. hirsutum, of small-scale farms using conservation and conventional farming practices in Zambia, and can be used for future pollinator studies.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

My primary research objective was to explore the presence of insect pollinators on small-scale farms that used conservation farming methods1 and small- scale2 farms using conventional methods in cotton (G. hirsutum) fields within the Mwachisompola area of

Chibombo district in the Central Province of Zambia.

1 Conservation Farming methods in this document refers to those promoted by the Conservation Farming Unit in Zambia, an organization teaching specific sustainable agriculture methods including: no burning, reduced or minimum soil tillage, crop rotation with legumes, early preparation of fields for timely planting, and diversification of the landscape including using trees in fields. 2 A small-scale farm in Zambia is equal or less than 5 hectares according to the Ministry of Agriculture Planning Unit.

STUDY AREA

Zambia is a country in Southern Africa with an area of approximately 752,614 square km and includes a diverse topography ranging from mountains reaching up to

1,500 m to lowland areas measured at 400 m (Figure 1). Zambia has a good climate for agriculture receiving 650 mm in the southern part of the country and 1,800 mm in the north (MAFF 2001). A wide range of crops are grown including: cassava, maize, millets, sorghum, tobacco, cotton, rice, wheat and groundnuts.

Mwachisompola is located in the Chibombo district within the Central Province of Zambia (Figure 1). This area was selected for this research project because of the long history of farmers working with the Conservation Farming Unit, which established itself in the area in 1998 (Conservation Farming Unit 2011). The area includes both commercial and small-scale level farms; commonly grown crops in the area include maize, cotton, and groundnuts.

The Ministry of Tourism, Environment, and Natural Resources (MTENR) is responsible for sustainable development in the area of tourism and the environment. One of the five departments included in the MTENR is the Forestry Department, having the responsibility of managing the forest resources in Zambia. Part of their mission statement is to “ensure the protection and maintenance of biodiversity for the benefit of present and future generations…” (MTENR 2011). Another actor relevant to this thesis is the

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, who is responsible for broad based agricultural policies and programs. One of these programs is the Government of Zambia’s national extension policy in collaboration with the Conservation Farming Unit.

Zambia

Mwachisompola Central Province

Figure 1. Map of study area, Mwachisompola, located in the Chibombo district within the Central Province of Zambia.

The Conservation Farming Unit (CFU) was established in 1995 and teaches farmers how to incorporate the following practices: dry-season land preparation using minimum tillage systems, crop residue retention (i.e., no burning), seeding and input application in permanent basins or ripped lines, and nitrogen-fixing crop rotations. Hand hoe farmers’ conservation farming involves dry-season preparation of permanent planting basins, while farmers using oxen conservation farming technology involves dry-season ripping using the Magoye Ripper (Conservation Farming Unit 2011; Haggblade and

Tembo 2003). Another important recommendation the CFU stresses is preparing the land early during the dry season to ensure crops are planted on time when the rainy season starts (CFU 2011). They have been working with small-scale farmers in the

Mwachisompola area since 1998.

Table 1. Comparison of Conservation and Conventional field practices in Zambia

Conservation fields Conventional fields Tillage Minimum or no tillage of soil Complete tillage of soil Crop rotations Rotate each season with leguminous Often plants same crop every crop year Field residues Residues are left on fields each year Residues are burned each year Other Some fields use nitrogen-fixing Often plants the entire field trees and/or intercrop with one crop

METHODS

The methods used followed the “Protocol to Detect and Assess Pollination

Deficits in Crops” developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the

United Nations (UN) and the International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) within the project entitled “Development of Tools and Methods for Conservation and

Management of Pollination Services for Sustainable Agriculture” (Vassiere et al. 2010).

The CFU staff chose ten farms (5 conservation, 5 conventional), based on the following criteria:

1. Farm fields must be at least 2 km distance from the other farm fields sampled.

2. Farms must be growing cotton (G. hirsutum) in a field no smaller than 50 m x

25 m.

3. Five farms must be using a minimum of three conservation farming methods and

have used these methods for the past two years or more.

4. Five farms must not be using conservation farming methods.

The conventional farms were those nearest to the sampled conservation farms, but at least

2 km away. This was necessary because the soil type, land topography, altitude, and weather conditions would be the same among the farms. Each field was sampled on three separate dates at different times of the day (07:00-17:00 hours) during the main blooming period of the cotton crop (February - March, 2010). These measurements were recorded only under good weather conditions for foraging bees: Temperature ≥ 15°C, low wind, no rain, and dry vegetation (Westphal et al. 2008); or if pollinator activity was observed.

Data was collected from the onset of the main blooming period when ≥ 10% of the plants

13 had started to bloom. Fields were sampled only if pollinator activity was observed and if the cotton flowers were open.

To assess the presence of insect pollinators within conservation and conventional small-scale farms, pollinator density and species richness were collected and measured.

Species composition for each farm field was gathered from this data and was used to understand and compare the assemblages found in conservation and conventional fields.

Pollinator Density

The density of pollinating insects was recorded using a scan sampling technique

(Vassiere et al. 2010). This was accomplished by observing the number of insects first seen on or near the first 400 cotton flowers in the field. Rows were walked slowly and open cotton flowers counted and number of insects suspected to be potential pollinators

(i.e. seen on or nearby the open flower) observed were counted. Measurements were taken only on days that pollinator activity was witnessed.

Pollinator Species Richness

The species richness of pollinating insects in cotton fields was determined by actively sampling six fixed transect lines within each field. The transect lines were established using a random number generator which provided numbers that referred to the rows within the field. The transect line was 25 m length by 2 m width using a standard aerial net to capture insects on or nearby cotton flowers. Each transect line was sampled for five minutes. Insects were placed in a container and later stored in a freezer for a minimum of 48 hours for killing purposes. Collected insects were sent to Dr. Connal

Eardley from the Agricultural Research Council within the Plant Protection Research

Institute in South Africa for identification.

Additional Variables

Other variables that were collected included farm field size, number of pesticide applications, number of years practicing conservation farming, general notes about the surrounding landscape, and seed variety. Pesticide applications were counted as the total number of applications prior to the study, as reported by the land owner. The surrounding landscape was categorized by being: 1) surrounded by crop fields, 2) surrounded by crop fields with few trees, or 3) having many (10 or more) trees on at least one side of the field. There were three categories of seed varieties which included: 1) Basic, 2) Fuzzy, and 3) Chureza. It was not possible to collect yield data because my Peace Corps service ended prior to the crop harvest. Temperature was recorded every day using information reported from the Kabwe weather station.

Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using PASW Statistics 18, Release Version

18.0.0 (Ó SPSS, Inc., Chicago Il, 2009) and PAST software (Hammer et al. 2001).

Pollinator density and species richness was compared between conservation and conventional fields using t-tests with unequal variance. The variation within and between conservation and conventional fields was measured using a one-way ANOVA. Results were considered significant at the p < 0.05 level.

To understand how the species composition compared between conservation and conventional fields, I calculated the Jaccard index to measure the similarity between sites; a score of 1 indicates that the two sites are identical. The Jaccard coefficient measures similarity between sample sets, and is defined as the size of the intersection divided by the size of the union of the sample sets:

A correlation matrix was created that included the following variables: pollinator density, pollinator species richness, farm type, field size, pesticide applications, number of years practicing conservation farming, seed variety, and surrounding landscape.

Stepwise multiple regressions were conducted to assess how other variables collected may have predicted pollinator density and species richness. In these analyses, pollinator density or species richness was the dependent variable, and farm type

(categorized as 1 or 2 for Conservation or Conventional), field size, pesticide applications, number of years practicing conservation farming, seed variety, and surrounding landscape explored as predictor variables.

RESULTS

A total of 27 pollinating insect species were recorded from ten samples (3 field visits per sample), with 67% belonging to the order Hymenoptera, 26% Diptera, and 7%

Coleoptera. Eight families were represented within Hymenoptera and three in Diptera

(Table 2). The most frequent species across samples was A. mellifera, which occurred in every field visit (Figure 3).

The average pollinator density for conservation fields was 29.4 (SD = 8.296) and

22.6 (SD = 4.560) for conventional fields. There was no significant difference between the pollinator density of the two field types (t (6) = 2.446, p = 0.159). The average pollinator species richness for conservation fields was 7.6 (SD = 2.608) and 7.0 (SD =

2.828) for conventional fields. There was no significant difference between the pollinator species richness of the two farm types (t (8) = 2.306, p = 0.736). There were no significant differences within conservation field density (F (4, 10) = 1.365, p = .312) or conventional field density (F (4, 10) = 1.719, p = 0.221).The Jaccard index of similarity showed that the pollinator species composition in conservation and conventional farm fields was not strongly similar (Cj = 0.33). A Jaccard value of 1 equals complete similarity. Out of the twenty-seven observed species, twelve were found only in conservation fields, six were found only in conventional farm fields, and nine were observed on both farm types (Table 2). Field size, average pollinator density and standard deviation, total species richness, and species composition for each of the study field sites is summarized in Table 3.

Species richness was negatively correlated with field size (Spearman R² = -0.727, p = 0.017). None of the other variables were significantly correlated with pollinator density and species richness (Table 3). Field size was the only significant predictor in the regression for species richness (β = -0.727, t (9) = -2.998, p = 0.017). There were no significant results for pollinator density in the regression analysis.

DISCUSSION

This study examined insect pollinators within two common farming systems in

Zambia and was an effort to explore whether there are any differences in the species observed in conservation and conventional farm fields. Species assemblages found in conservation and conventional farms did show interesting differences. The individuals observed only in conservation fields included seven species of pollinating insects that are also predatory, and in the conventional fields there were two species that are both pollinators and predatory. There were no significant differences in the pollinator density and species richness between conservation and conventional farms, but there was a negative correlation with field size and species richness.

Both farming systems hosted some of the more commonly observed species which included honeybees, flies and beetles. In total, eighteen species within the order

Hymenoptera, seven species within the order Diptera, and two species from the order

Coleoptera were observed (Table 1). Studies by Hoehn et al. (2008) and Ricketts (2004) have found pollinator diversity to be a significant contributor to crop yields, emphasizing the importance of maintaining not only a few efficient pollinators (such as honeybees) but that a greater richness of species that may improve pollination across time and space.

Hover flies (Diptera: Syrphidae) significantly increased the seed set and yield of oilseed rape, illustrating the importance of non-bee species to agricultural productivity (Jauker and Wolters 2008). This has become a major concern in the United States, where dependence has been placed on one species that has suffered recent declines (Doebler

2007), leading researchers and stakeholders to focus on native pollinating species

(Vaughan et al. 2007).

Species assemblages of each farm type did differ. Two species, Halictus sp. 1

(Hymenoptera: Halictidae) and Paragus borbonicus (Diptera: Syrphidae) were predominately observed within conservation fields, while Tetralonia caudata

(Hymenoptera: Apidae) was only observed in conventional fields. Tetralonia species are known to be common pollinators of plants in the Malvaceae family which includes cotton

(Michener 2000). Although T. caudata was only observed in conventional fields, two other species within this genus were observed within both farm types. A recent study in

Cameroon explored the insect pollinators associated with okra, which like cotton, is in the family Malvaceae (Azo’o et al. 2011). Azo’o et al. (2011) found that T. fraterna was one of the dominant foraging species with activity lasting throughout the day, and contributed to higher seed sets (Azo’o et al. 2011).

P. borbonicus is a flower visiting fly that feeds on aphids, a common pest of cotton (Kaufmann 1973). This species has been observed to actively seek aphid infested plants to deposit their eggs, the developing larvae then feed on the aphids as they grow

(Kaufmann 1973). Another beneficial predator observed in both systems was Ischiodon aegyptius (Diptera: Syrphidae), a type of hover fly that has been lauded as a useful species for biological control of crop pests (Edukole and Misari 1993). Edukole and

Misari (1993) found that I. aegyptius increased consumption of cotton aphids as the aphid density increased, exhibiting a response that could be useful for natural pest control in agricultural systems. Other species observed in this study are members of the families

Eumenidae and Sphecidae (Hymenoptera), which have been documented as predators of herbivorous insects (Holzschuh et al. 2010). Research on small-scale farm systems in

Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo found that the presence of predatory insects in

20 crop systems improved the yields up to 66% in groundnuts (Munyuli 2009). The presence of predatory insects in agricultural fields like the ones found in this study can be used as critical natural enemies when use of chemical controls is not available or desirable.

Although there were no significant differences found in pollinator species richness and density between conservation and conventional fields in this study, several factors may have contributed to the findings. One factor that may have impacted the results was the differences in vegetation density between the two types of fields. This study took place following a three week drought, and the conservation fields tended to have greater vegetation density than conventional fields which may have biased my ability to see pollinators. The vegetation may have provided more places for insects to hide and therefore I may not have been able to accurately count all of the pollinators in the dense vegetation in conservation fields. Additionally, because all of the farms in the study reside within a patchwork of disturbed and undisturbed landscapes the mobility of pollinators throughout these areas may have also contributed to the species observed within the farm fields. This could also help explain the variability witnessed within and between the fields, in which the wild flowers in undisturbed areas near the fields may have at times attracted foraging pollinators more than the cotton flowers. Chacoff and

Aizen (2006) found that the species richness of insect pollinators was two to four times higher at the edge of the field than 1000 meters within the plantation, and had a stronger negative impact on all flower visitors other than honeybees. Ricketts (2004) also found that non-cultivated habitat adjacent to agricultural fields can provide critical habitat for many insect species. My results agree with the findings of Chacoff and Aizen (2006), in that species richness showed a negative correlation with field size, where as field size

21 increased, pollinator species richness decreased (Figure 3). Other studies have documented a similar trend with bumble bee abundance and field size (Klein et al. 2008;

Muljar et al. 2010), and butterfly diversity and field size (Marini et al. 2009). This result may be influenced by the proportion of field edges on small fields compared to large fields, in which the edge to area ratio for small fields is greater than large fields.

Additionally, small bodied insect pollinators have a smaller foraging distance (Greenleaf et al. 2007) and may have greater difficulties moving within larger field areas. These results demonstrate that farm field size, whether managed using conservation or conventional practices, influences the richness of pollinating and predatory insect species.

One major difference between conservation and conventional farming in Zambia is how the soil is managed. Conservation farmers use minimal tillage techniques and conventional farmers often plow an entire field each year. This is an important consideration, because some studies have found minimal tillage to be better for pollinator density within farm fields (Shuler et al. 2005). This study found significantly different species assemblages in conservation and conventional farm fields, and many of the species were ground-nesting pollinators. Because some pollinator species nest in the soil, minimal tillage practices are less likely to disturb or destroy these nests. Members of the genus Halictus are commonly known as sweat bees, and nest in the ground (Schabel

2006). Though Halictus species were found in both field types, they were more commonly observed in conservation fields and may be affected by the soil management practices due to their ground nesting habits. Shuler et al. (2006) found three times greater density of squash bees in farm fields that used no-till methods compared to tilled fields.

Recent research in Uganda assessing pollinators in various landscapes including farming

22 systems found that among the majority of species observed were wood and ground nesting species (Munyuli 2011). The results of this study found ground nesting species in both systems, however future research specifically focused on the ground nesting species of pollinators in conservation and conventional farm fields will provide a better understanding of how tillage practices may influence these organisms.

CONCLUSION

This study provides basic information regarding pollinator presence on two types of farming systems commonly practiced by small-scale famers in Zambia and its focus was solely on one crop type during the main blooming period. Future research studies could include looking more closely at surrounding landscapes as refuges for pollinators and beneficial insect predators, including the wild plants that provide nectar and pollen throughout the year. Recent studies have found surrounding land use to be important to pollinator presence in crop systems (Klein et al. 2008). Another interesting question to explore is pollinator contributions to crop yields. It was not possible for me to collect this data but it may have been another interesting part of the study since other studies have found insect pollinators to contribute to higher yields of cotton (Radoev and Bozhinov

1961; McGregor 1958). Looking more closely at the conservation farming practices (such as minimal tillage, no burning, and crop diversification) as well as field size will help provide a better understanding of what techniques are important for pollinator presence and activity.

Agricultural landscapes are an important resource for pollinators and land that is managed conventionally or with conservation techniques have the opportunity to benefit from pollinator services including both pollination of crops and predation of crop pests.

Understanding how various farming methods may help or hinder pollinators is a necessary consideration for sustaining key ecological services as well as securing food production. With agricultural expansion occurring rapidly across Zambia and the rest of the world, finding ways to conserve pollinators and maintain on-farm productivity can be mutually beneficial.

Table 2. Species list including Order, Family, and Species if determined, Field type the species was observed in (Conservation, Conventional, Both), and Trophic level (Pollinator, Predator).

Order Family Species Field type(s) Tropic level Hymenoptera Apidae Tetralonia caudata Conventional Pollinator Friese Hymenoptera Apidae Tetralonia Both Pollinator macrognatha (Gerstaecker) Hymenoptera Apidae Apis mellifera Both Pollinator Linnaeus Hymenoptera Halictidae Lipotriches Both Pollinator (Lipotriches) sp.1 Hymenoptera Eumenidae unknown Conventional Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Apidae Amegilla acraensis Conventional Pollinator (Fabricius) Hymenoptera Sphecidae Philanthus sp. Conventional Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Apidae Ceratina Conventional Pollinator nyassensis Strand Hymenoptera Braconidae unknown Both Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Halictidae Halictus Both Pollinator (Seladonia) sp.1 Hymenoptera Apidae Tetralonia Conservation Pollinator nigropilosa Friese Hymenoptera Sphecidae unknown Conventional Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Vespidae Polistes sp. Conservation Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Vespidae Rhopalidia sp. Conservation Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Halictidae Lasioglossum sp. Conservation Pollinator Hymenoptera Halictidae Halictus Conservation Pollinator (Seladonia) sp.2 Hymenoptera Tiphiidae unknown Conservation Predator; Pollinator Hymenoptera Megachilidae Megachile discolor Both Pollinator Smith Diptera Syrphidae Paragus Both Predator; Pollinator borbonicus Macquart Diptera Syrphidae Ischiodon Conservation Predator; Pollinator aegyptius Diptera Syrphidae Phytomia incisa Conservation Predator; Pollinator Diptera Syrphidae Melanostoma Conservation Predator; Pollinator annulipes Diptera Bombyliidae Exoprosopa eluta Conservation Predator; Pollinator Loew Diptera Muscidae Atherigona Both Predator; Pollinator orientalis Diptera Muscidae unknown Both unknown Coleoptera 1 Meloidae unknown Both Predator; Pollinator;

Coleoptera 2 unknown unknown Conservation unknown

Table 3. A list of the study sites, including field size, mean pollinator density and standard deviation, total species richness, and species composition. Study type and Size Average Total Species site (hectares) Pollinator Species composition density ± SD richness Conservation 1 31.3 ± 18.8 8 Megachile discolor Field 1 Apis mellifera Halictus sp. 1 Lipotriches sp. 1 Coleoptera 1 Ischiodon aegyptius Paragus borbonicus Phytomia incisa Conservation 0.45 34.6 ± 8.7 12 Apis mellifera Field 2 Halictus sp. 1 Lasioglossum sp. Halictus sp. 2 Tetralonia macrognatha Tiphiidae Rhopalidia sp. Lipotriches sp. 1 Isciodon aegyptius Paragus borbonicus Exoprosopa eluta Coleoptera 1 Conservation 2 29.3 ± 8.7 6 Halictus sp. 1 Field 3 Apis mellifera Ischiodon aegyptius Melanostoma annulipes Paragus borbonicus Atherigona ortientalis Conservation 1 31 ± 11.1 6 Bracondiae Field 4 Apis mellifera Halictus sp. 1 Polistes sp. Ischiodon aegyptius Coleoptera 1 Conservation .35 14.6 ± 7.6 6 Apis mellifera Field 5 Coleoptera 1 Tetralonia nigropilosa Coleoptera 2 Halictus sp. 1

Paragus borbonicus Conventional .5 29.3 ± 8.7 8 Lipotriches sp. 1 Field 1 Rhopalidia sp. Sphecidae Braconidae Apis mellifera Paragus borbonicus Ischiodon aegyptius Coleoptera 1 Conventional .5 19.6 ± 3.2 10 Apis mellifera Field 2 Sphecidae Braconidae Philanthus sp. Amegilla acraensis Ischiodon aegyptius Phytomia incise Paragus borbonicus Muscidae Coleoptera 1 Conventional 1 19 ± 4.4 9 Amegilla acraensis Field 3 Tetralonia caudata Bracondiae Apis mellifera Halictus sp. 1 Ischiodon aegyptius Coleoptera 1 Ceratina nyassensis Muscidae Conventional 2.5 23.6 ± 1.2 4 Apis mellifera Field 4 Coleoptera 1 Ischiodon aegyptius Paragus borbonicus Conventional 2 20.7 ± 7 4 Tetralonia caudata Field 5 Paragus borbonicus Apis mellifera Coleoptera 1

Table 4. Pearson correlation matrix of variables collected. Significant values are in bold.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Species - richness

Pollinator 0.255 - density

Field size -0.727* -0.275 -

(hectares)

Seed variety .204 -0.149 -0.169 -

Surrounding -0.095 0.000 0.319 0.156 - landscape

Pesticide -0.503 0.075 -0.496 -0.165 -0.502 - applications

Years 0.274 0.475 -0.158 -0.497 -0.170 -0.122 - practicing conservation farming

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed).

Table 5. Multiple-regression analysis of the relationship of species richness to field type, field size, and pesticide applications.*

Model and variables B Std. Error β t Significance

1 Size (hectares) -2.448 0.816 -0.727 -2.998 0.017

R² =0.529

2 Size (hectares) -3.365 0.724 -1.000 -4.650 0.002

Pesticide -0.868 0.340 -0.549 -2.553 0.038 applications

R² = 0.756

*Only significant explanatory variables are given in the table. Stepwise selection of variables was used.

Minimummeters 25 width =

Minimum length = 50 meters

Figure 2. Illustrated fields showing sampling method to assess pollinator density (top) using a scan sampling technique, and species richness using six randomly placed transect lines.

35 30

25 20 15

Field Field visit 10 5

Tiphiidae

Muscidae

Sphecidae

Euminidae

Polistessp.

Braconidae

Coleoptera3 Coleoptera 1 Coleoptera 2

Rhopalidia sp.

Phytomiaincisa

Lasioglossum sp.

Ischiodon aegyptius

Atherigona orientalis

Exoprosopa eluta Loew

Tetraloniamacrognatha…

Melanostoma annulipes

Apis mellifera Linnaeus

Halictus (Seladonia) sp.2 Halictus (Seladonia) sp.1

Tetraloniacaudata Friese

Megachile discolor Smith

Ceratina nyassensis Strand

Tetralonianigropilosa Friese

Lipotriches(Lipotriches) sp.1

Paragus borbonicus Macquart Amegillaacraensis (Fabricius) Species

Figure 3: Species present for each field visit. If species name is not determined, the classification known is provided.

27 Y 24

21 Pollinators /400 cotton flowers cotton /400 Pollinators 18

12 F ConservationE Conventional

Figure 4: Box plot of pollinator density in Conservation (A) and Conventional (B) fields. The Y axis represents Pollinator Density (pollinators/400 cotton flowers). The average pollinator density in conservation fields was 29.27 (SD = 8.296) and 22.47 (SD = 4.560) in conventional fields.

ness

Y 8

Pollinator species rich species Pollinator 5

4 D ConservationC Conventional

Figure 5: Box plot of species richness on Conservation (A) and Conventional (B) farms. The Y axis represents the mean Pollinator Species Richness. The average pollinator species richness in conservation fields was 7.6 (SD = 2.608) and 7.0 (SD = 2.828) in conventional fields.

8 y = -2.3385x + 9.5917 R² = 0.4296

6 Species richness Species 4

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Size of field (hectares)

Figure 6. Number of insect pollinators observed in relation to field size. Species richness decreases with increasing field size.

LITERATURE CITED

Azo’o, M.E., F.N.T. Fohouo and J. Messi, 2011. Influence of the foraging activity of the entomofauna on Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) seed yield. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 13: 761–765

Bengtsson, J., J. Ahnstrom, and A.C. Weibull. 2005. The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 42, 261- 269.

Brittain, C., R. Bommarco, M. Vighi, J. Settele, and S.G. Potts. 2010. Organic farming in isolated landscapes does not benefit flower-visiting insects and pollination. Biological Conservation 143, 1860-1867.

Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter, and T.L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 1014743108v1-201014743.

Central Statistical Office of Zambia.Census: Zambia. 2010. Homepage. . Accessed 2011 November 8.

Chacoff, N.P. and M.A. Aizen. 2006. Edge effects on flower-visiting insects in grapefruit plantations bordering premontane subtropical forest. Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (1): 18-27.

Clarke, K.E., T.E. Rinderer, P. Franck, J.G. Quezada-Euan, and B.P. Oldroyd. 2002. The Africanization of honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) of the Yucatan: a study of a massive hybridization event across time. Evolution 56, 1462-1474.

Conservation Farming Unit. 2011. Homepage. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2008. Homepage. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Doebler, S. 2000. The rise and fall of the honey bee. BioScience 50, 738-742.

Eardley, C, D. Roth, J. Clarke, S. Buchmann & B. Gemmill [Eds.], 2006. Pollinators and Pollination: A resource book for policy and practice. African Pollinator Initiative, Pretoria. Pp. 77.

Ekukole, G. and S.M. Misari. 1993. Effect of prey density on the predatory behavior of Ischiodon aegyptius Weid. and Scymnus sp. on the cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii Glover in Cameroon. Samaru Journal of Agricultural Research 10 (55): 55-62.

Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Document Repository. Crops, Browse, and Pollinators in Africa: An Initial Stock-taking. African Pollinators Initiative. 2007.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2002. Plan of Action of the African Pollinators Initiative. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2006. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles: Zambia. Ed. E.M. Aregheore. Accessed 2011 October 30.

Gallai, N, Salles, JM, Settele J, and BE Vaissière. 2009. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 68: 810-821.

Global Invasive Species Program (GISP). 2011. Homepage. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Greenleaf, S.S., Williams, N.M., Winfree, R., and C. Kremen. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153: 589-596.

Guseinov, A. M. and Z.M. Mukhtarov. 1963. New data on effectiveness of intravarietal hybridization of cotton. Agrobiologiya 4: 490-496.

Haggblade, S. and T. Gelson. 2003. "Development, Diffusion and Impact of Conservation Farming in Zambia," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 54464, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.

Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. 2001. PAST: Paleontological Statistics Software Package for Education and Data Analysis.

Holzschuh, A., I. Steffan-Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2010. How do landscape composition and configuration, organic farming, and fallow strips affect the diversity of bees, wasps and their parasitoids? Journal of Animal Ecology 79: 491-500.

Jauker, F. and V. Wolters. 2008. Hover flies are efficient pollinators of oilseed rape. Oecologia 156: 819-823.

Kato, M. and A. Kawakita. 2004. Plant-pollinator interactions in New Caledonia influenced by introduced honey bees. American Journal of Botany 91, 1814-1827.

Kaufmann, T. 1973. Biology of Paragus borbonicus (Diptera: Syrphidae) as a predator of Toxoptera aurontii (Homoptera: Aphididae) attacking cocoa in Ghana. The American Midland Naturalist 90(1), 252-256.

Klein, A.M., I. Steffan-Dewenter, and T. Tscharntke. 2003. Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 270, 955-961.

Klein, A.M., I. Stefan-Dewenter, D. Muchori, and T. Tscharntke. 2002. Effects of land- use intensity in tropical agroforestry systems on coffee flower-visiting and trap- nesting bees and wasps. Conservation Biology 16, 1003-1014.

Klein, A.M., B.E. Vaissiere, J.H. Cane, I. Steffan-Dewenter, S.A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, and T. Tscharntke. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B- Biological Sciences 274, 303-313.

Klein, A.M., S.A. Cunningham, M. Bos, and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2008. Advances in pollination ecology from tropical plantation crops. Ecology 89, 935-943.

Kremen, C., N.M. Williams, M.A. Aizen, B. Gemmill-Herren, G. LeBuhn, R. Minckley, L. Paker, S.G. Potts, T. Roulston, I. Steffan-Dewenter, D.P. Vazquez, R. Winfree, L. Adams, E.E. Crone, S.S. Greenleaf, T.H. Keitt, A.M. Klein, J. Regetz, and T.H. Ricketts. 2007. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters 10, 299-314.

Kremen, C., N.M. Williams, and R.W. Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS 99, 16812-16816.

Marini, L., P. Fontana, S. Klimek, A. Battisti, and K.J. Gaston. 2009. Impact of farm size and topography on plant and insect diversity of managed grasslands in the Alps. Biological Conservation 142: 394-403.

Marlin, J.C. and W.E. LaBerge. 2001. The native bee fauna of Carlinville Illinois revisited after 75 years: a case for persistence. Conservation Ecology 5(1): 9.

McGregor, S. E. 1958. Relation of honeybees to pollination of male-sterile cotton. In Eleventh Cotton Impr. Conf. Proc.:93-94. Houston.

Michener, C.D. The bees of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000.

Mickels-Kokwe, G. 2006. Small-scale woodland-based enterprises with outstanding economic potential: The case of honey in Zambia. United Kingdom, Bees for Development.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment, and Natural Resources (MTENR). 2011. Homepage. . Accessed 2011 November 4.

Muljar, R., E. Viik, R. Marja, E. Svilponis, K. Jogar, R. Karise, and M. Mand. 2010. The effect of field size on the number of bumble bees. Agronomy Research 8: 357- 360.

Munyuli, M.B.T. 2009. Effects of native insect predators on population densities of Aphis craccivora and yields of Vigna unguiculata and Arachis hypogeae grown under various cropping systems, in Kivu Province, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

Munyuli, M.B.T. 2011. Pollinator biodiversity in Uganda and in Sub-Sahara Africa: Landscape and habitat strategies for its conservation. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 3(11): 551-609.

National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America. The National Academies Press, 2007.

NRDC vs. EPA/Bayer CropScience. Web page. Accessed 2011 November 4.

Otieno, M., B.A. Woodcock, A. Wilby, l.N. Vogiatzakis, A.L. Mauchline, M.W. Gikungu, and S.G. Potts. 2011. Local management and landscape drivers of pollination and biological control services in a Kenyan agro-ecosystem. Biological Conservation 144, 2424-2431.

Perfecto, I., R.A. Rice, R. Greenberg, and M.E. Van der Voort. 1996. Shade coffee: a disappearing refuge for biodiversity, Shade coffee plantations can contain as much biodiversity as forest habitats. BioScience 46, 598-608.

Plan of Action African Pollinator Initiative. 2003. African Pollinator Initiative Secretariat, Nairobi. Pp. 36.

Potts, S. G., B. Vulliamy, A. Dafni, G. Ne’eman, and P. G. Willmer. 2003. Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology 84:2628-2642.

Potts, S.G., J.C. Biesmeijer, C. Kremen, P. Neumann, O. Schweiger, and W.E. Kunin. 2010. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25, 345-353.

Ricketts, T.H. 2004. Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conservation Biology 18, 12-62-1271.

Ricketts, T.H., RJ. Regetz, I. Steffan-Dewenter, S.A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, A. Bogdanski, B. Gemmill-Herren, S.S. Greenleaf, A.M. Klein, M.M. Mayfield, L.A. Morandin, A. Ochieng, and B.F. Viana. 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecology Letters 11(5): 499-515.

Roubik, D.W. 1995. Pollination of cultivated plants in the tropics. Agricultural services bulletin 118, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Roubik, D.W. 2001. Ups and downs in pollinator populations: when is there a decline? Conservation Ecology 5(1): 2.

Schabel, H.G. Forest entomology in East Africa: forest insects of Tanzania. Springer Publishing 2006.

Schuler, R.E., T.H. Roulston, and G.E. Farris. 2005. Farming practices influence wild pollinator populations on squash and pumpkin. Journal of Economic Entomology 98, 790-795.

Southwick, E.E. and I. Southwick. 1992. Estimating the economic value of honey-bees (Hymenoptera; Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States. Journal of Economic Entomology 85, 621-633.

The Xerces Society. Attracting Native Pollinators:The Xerces Socity Guide to Conserving North American Bees, Butterflies, and their Habitat. Storey Publishing, 2011.

Thomson, D. 2004. Competitive interactions between the invasive European honey bee and native bumble bees. Ecology 85, 458-470.

Tschirley, D. and S. Kabwe. 2009. The Cotton Sector of Zambia. Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 124.

United States Senate. Section 1: Designation of North American Pollinator Appreciation Week. SRES 580 ATS. 21 September 2006.

USAID. Country Profile: Zambia. Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal. Accessed 2011, October 27.

40 vanEngelsdorp, D., and M. Meixner. 2010. A historical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 103, S80-S95.

Vaissiere, B.E., B.M. Freitas, and B. Gemmill-Herren. 2010. Protocol to detect and assess pollination deficits in crops. FAO/IFAD Project: Development of tools and methods for conservation and management of pollination services for sustainable agriculture. http://www.ciencias.unal.edu.co/unciencias/data- file/user_21/Protocolo%20FAO.pdf

Vaughan, M., M. Shepherd, C. Kremen, and S.H. Black. Farming for Bees. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2nd ed. 2007.

VillaNueva, G.R., D.W. Roubik, and U. Colli-Ucan. 2005. Extinction of Melipona beecheii and traditional beekeeping in the Yucatan peninsula. Bee World 86, 35- 41.

Winfree, R., N.M. Williams, H. Gaines, J.S. Ascher, and C. Kremen. 2008. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 45, 793-802.

CHAPTER TWO

DEVELOPMENT OF AN EDUCATIONAL MANUAL

Abstract

Educational outreach materials that are focused on pollinator conservation are limited in developing countries. No manuals or guides specific to the environment of

Zambia were available for educating farmers and stakeholders about the role of pollinators. During the course of my Peace Corps service as an environment volunteer and through conversations with farmers and extension staff, it was determined that an education manual focusing on pollinators in Zambia would assist in promoting pollinator conservation and awareness. Topics covered were relevant to this area and included locally grown foods and their associated pollinators, and guidance on land management.

This manual is currently available as a resource for the Conservation Farming Unit of

Zambia and the South Africa National Biodiversity Institute, and supports the efforts of many actors involved in pollinator conservation and education, including the African

Pollinator Initiative and the Global Pollination Project.

INTRODUCTION

Pollinators are necessary contributors to improved livelihoods, increased income, and food security. While many people understand the value of bees to beekeeping for honey and wax production, but the role that they play in pollination is not widely recognized. Many initiatives are working to broaden the education of citizens around the world about pollinators.

At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, world leaders met to discuss a comprehensive strategy for sustaining the world’s biodiversity entitled “Convention on

Biological Diversity” (CBD 2008). One of the thematic issues is the “Conservation and

Sustainable Use of Agricultural Biological Diversity,” a program administered by the

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), which aims to “reduce the negative impacts associated with agricultural systems on biodiversity, promote the conservation of genetic resources for food and agriculture, and promote fair access to utilizing these genetic resources” (CBD 2008). These initiatives were further supported by scientists and agriculturists who were concerned that a worldwide decline of pollinator diversity was occurring and urged representatives from around the world to research the status and conservation policies of pollinators (Eardley et al. 2006). These include but are not limited to the European Pollinator Initiative, Brazilian Pollinator Initiative, the North

American Pollinator Protection Campaign, the African Pollinator Initiative and a world wide effort, the International Pollinator Initiative.

The African Pollinator Initiative (API), founded in 1999 at the Southern African

Society for Systematic Biology, contributes by strengthening existing institutions (FAO

2002). The API has built a regional network across the African continent that addresses

43 existing initiatives such as the Global Taxonomy Initiative, the Global Biodiversity

Initiative, and the Global Invasive Species Program (GISP 2008). They have also made a large investment in educating the public about the beneficial roles that pollinators play, targeting students, farmers, extension agencies, and consumers through demonstration

‘pollination gardens’, management guides, workshops and media campaigns (FAO 2002).

Currently, Kenya, Ghana, and South Africa are participating countries with research projects and informational outreach programs taking place. The API serves by facilitating interests and efforts associated with the overall goal of pollinator conservation.

Pollinator conservation has become a hot topic in the U.S. in recent years. In

2006, the US Senate deemed June 24-30 as “National Pollinator Week” which has brought more attention to the issue of pollinator health and conservation (Senate Res. 580

ATS). Many states have followed this lead by enacting “Pollinator Protection Day” promoting citizens, schools, and organizations to advocate for pollinator friendly practices around the home, school yard, and on the farm. Activities are readily available online for teachers and parents to use and educate students about the topic of pollination and the contributions made by pollinators. Many new and updated recommendations regarding land management for regions across the United States encourages farmers, landowners, and corporations to consider practices that are beneficial for pollinators

(Xerces Society 2011).

Similar projects are taking place around the world largely on behalf of the efforts of the International Pollinator Initiative and associated branches. The rural areas in developing countries of the world, however, due to the lack of extensive communication media (such as the internet and television) and few experts working in the field of

44 pollinator conservation, are lacking the education needed to ensure pollinator sustainability. In a study that surveyed farmers in Central Kenya, researchers found that pollinators were mostly perceived in the same category as insect pests (FAO 2007). In

Ghana, however, farmers had a better understanding of the roles that pollinators play in fruit/seed development. Eighty-three percent of those surveyed thought that crop yield increases when flowers are sufficiently pollinated (FAO 2007). A recent article focusing on pollinators in Uganda and Sub-Saharan Africa emphasized the need to extend education into rural areas (Munyuli 2010). Equipping stakeholders with knowledge and practical advice concerning pollinators will assist in land use strategies and management.

STUDY OBJECTIVE

A secondary objective was to create a pollinator education manual applicable to the environment of Zambia which included advice on land management and practices that support pollinators. This was accomplished as a by-product of the first objective of this study, serving to enhance the scope of this research project.

METHODS

During the two years that I lived and worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in

Zambia, I had the opportunity to observe and participate in life at the village level. I worked with small-scale farmers on projects ranging from building and managing tree nurseries to creating environmental education clubs. During Peace Corps pre-service training, I also learned about traditional customs and how to speak Icibemba.

Participant observation is a qualitative research method that is used to collect information about a phenomenon or topic of interest from the perspective of a particular study group (Jorgenson 1989). Throughout the course of this experience, I had multiple conversations with small-scale farmers and extension agents about pollinators. These conversations led me to create a manual focused on pollinator conservation, which is specifically focused on the environment of Zambia (See Appendix).

Drafts of the manual were reviewed by local stakeholders and pollinator conservation experts. Informal conversations with farmers and extension staff about the topics covered in the manual (e.g., pesticide use and pollinators) ensured it warranted inclusion.

Two days each month Peace Corps volunteers were granted permission to utilize their Provincial house and office. During these periods, I created the manual using my field notes and written drafts. These electronic drafts were then emailed for review, then revisions were made, and lastly an approved final copy was provided to the Conservation

Farming Unit and African Pollinator Initiative affiliates.

RESULTS

From the field observations and informal conversations I had with farmers and extension staff regarding insect pollinators, I found that pollinator education was limited.

Everybody that I spoke with (including children) understood that honeybees visit flowers and make wax and honey, but their knowledge about pollinator roles in improving crop yields and food production was less known. One farmer mentioned, “I did not know about bees, what they do. I just spray (pesticides) without knowing. I want to learn more.

Just recently I burned a tree with a honeybee colony. I would have left it alone if I knew the benefits.”

Though the manual was initially created for use by the Conservation Farming

Unit of Zambia and other interested extension personnel, it has been extended to reach a broader audience across Africa. The South Africa Biodiversity Institute is using the manual as part of the Global Pollination Project, Conservation and Management of

Pollinators through an Ecosystem Approach which is coordinated by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and receiving financial support from the

Global Environment Facility and implementation support from the United Nations

Environment Program (UNEP).

The manual will be freely distributed by the CFU, SANBI, and API staff to teach necessary stakeholders about the importance of pollinators. The manual will also be available on the internet as a free resource for other interested parties through the API website and the United States Peace Corps resource library.

DISCUSSION

In the African Pollinator Initiative’s Plan of Action (date), it states that “…while research to identify pollinators and document their roles is critically needed, no amount of scientific work will retain its value unless a campaign to increase public awareness of pollinator importance is placed at the highest level of priority.” This was the purpose of the second objective of this study, the creation of a pollinator conservation manual.

The Conservation Farming Unit of Zambia and organizations working with the

African Pollinator Initiative have the ability to use this pollinator conservation manual as a resource for their ongoing work programs. Opportunities to incorporate this resource include field days with farmers, one on one farmer education, meetings with governmental officials regarding land management (including those involved in forestry and agriculture) and policies, as well as marketing opportunities with businesses that could carry a ‘pollinator friendly’ logo on their products (Munyuli 2011).

The manual concisely highlights locally relevant resources that can capture the interest and attention of stakeholders in Zambia. A table that includes commonly grown fruits, vegetables, and fibers along with their associated pollinators makes the manual unique to the targeted audience and therefore may be more effective. Pictures of local landscapes, fields, mud grass-thatched homes, gardens, and people are also featured in the manual are provided to give the readers the ability to easily translate concepts to their own lives. By encouraging landowners to take ownership and equip them with strategies that conserve pollinators, they will be rewarded with greater overall sustainability.

Although this resource was created to educate stakeholders about pollinator conservation, it must be utilized in order to be effective. Those organizations working in the realm of conservation and sustainable agriculture are overloaded with current projects with other topics of concern, and may find it difficult to add another item to their list of things to do. While the manual does include basic pollinator information, it also contains specific concepts that may be similar to those promoted by organizations already. For example, leaving field edges uncultivated is a sustainable agriculture practice that aims to reduce soil erosion. Yet another potential service these field edges can provide is pollinator habitat and nectar resources. By incorporating those practices that are dually beneficial to farm fields and pollinators, the goal of conservation is strengthened.

CONCLUSION

This study has attempted to address the issue of pollinator conservation in

Zambia from two angles, farming impacts and educational outreach. A species list and specimens from Zambia are now a part of a collection that will serve future studies throughout Africa. Another benefit that was a product of both objectives was the dialogue created with farmers and extension staff regarding pollinator conservation. While it is difficult to predict how this study will contribute to the over-all topic of pollinator conservation, it provides a starting point for future efforts in Zambia.

The second objective of this study was met. Although it is too early to assess its use, it is in place for future pollinator education efforts. The Conservation Farming Unit of Zambia is now equipped with a resource that can be used as a guide to assist in pollinator conservation. Educating farmers about pollinators in and around their farms may contribute to improved yields of fruits, vegetables, and crops leading to a more sustainable future.

LITERATURE CITED

Conservation Farming Unit. 2011. Homepage. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Convention on Biological Diversity. 2008. Homepage. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Eardley, C, D. Roth, J. Clarke, S. Buchmann & B. Gemmill [Eds.], 2006. Pollinators and Pollination: A resource book for policy and practice. African Pollinator Initiative, Pretoria. Pp. 77.

Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Document Repository. Crops, Browse, and Pollinators in Africa: An Initial Stock-taking. African Pollinators Initiative. 2007.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2006. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles: Zambia. Ed. E.M. Aregheore. Accessed 2011 October 30.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2002. Plan of Action of the African Pollinators Initiative. Accessed 2011 October 23.

Jorgenson, D.L. Participant observation: a methodology for human studies. Sage Publications, 1989.

Klein, A.M., S.A. Cunningham, M. Bos, and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2008. Advances in pollination ecology from tropical plantation crops. Ecology 89, 935-943.

Ministry of Tourism, Environment, and Natural Resources (MTENR). 2011. Homepage. . Accessed 2011 November4.

National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America. Status of Pollinators in North America. The National Academies Press, 2007.

Plan of Action African Pollinator Initiative. 2003. African Pollinator Initiative Secretariat, Nairobi. Pp. 36.

The Xerces Society. Attracting Native Pollinators:The Xerces Socity Guide to Conserving North American Bees, Butterflies, and their Habitat. Storey Publishing, 2011.

United States Senate. Section 1: Designation of North American Pollinator Appreciation Week. SRES 580 ATS. 21 September 2006.

APPENDIX I: POLLINATOR MANUAL

Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting Written by Da phne Mayes, Peace Corps Volunteer and Master's International student, Zambia, 2009-2011. Photographs courtesy of Tyson Mayes Cover art and illustrations by Jacob Jones

First edition 2011 Editors: Conna l Eardley, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, This manual is supported by the African Pollinator Initiative and the Conser vation Farming Unit and was originally written and produced for small scale fa rmers in Zambia and the staff of the Conservation Farming Unit-an organi sation that promotes sustainable agriculture methods at all levels of farming in Zambia.

This Edition Editor: Linette Ferreira This edition of the booklet is printed by the South African National Biod i versity Institute (SANBI).This publication contributes to the outcomes of the Global Pollination Project, Conservation and Management of Pollinators for Sustainable Agriculture through an Ecosystem Approach implemented in 7 countries-Brazil, Ghana, India, Kenya, Nepal, Pakistan and South Africa. The project is coordinated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, with financing from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and imple mentation support from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In South Africa, the project is implemented by SANBI and will run until the end of 2013. The booklet is intended to create general public awareness about pol linators in Africa. Information relating to specific crops in South Africa wi ll be generated as outputs of the project. More information about the project can be obtained from the SANBI website (www.sanbi.org) under the section Ecosys tem Services.

Contents Introduction ...... 5

What is pollination? ...... 6

What is a pollinator? ...... 7

Pollinators have different needs and life cycles ...... 8

Why conserve pollinators? ...... 11

Pollinators in and around farms ...... 12

How pollinators can benefit from farms and communities ...... 13 Health and food security depend on pollinators ..... 14 Pollinators.greatly benefit trees, orchards and forests ...... 16 Peak flowering times of the Miombo Woodlands ...... 17 Farming practices that impact pollinators ...... 18

When and how to use pesticides ...... 19 Soil improvement and pollinator conservation ...... 20 Natural areas on farm lands have many benefits ... 21 Conclusion ...... 22

References ...... 23

'-.... 6 Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting

' What is pollination? Pollination is the movement of pollen grains (male) from the anthers to the stigma (female) of a flower. This occurs by wind, water and biotic means and varies among plant species. The plant continues the path of producing seed and fruit after being fertilised. Pollination is therefore a requirement for seed and fruit production. Plants are pollinated during their floweri ng period. Generally cereal grains like wheat, maize and sorghum are wind pollinated, while most fruits and vegetables are pollinated by animals. Cross pollination is necessary for most plants and occurs when pollen is delivered to a flower from a different plant. Even plants that can 'self pollinate' (when pollen grains are carried from an anther to the stigma of the same flower) often benefit by cross pollination.

Petal Stigma Style Anther

Filament

Ovary

Parts of a flower. Image: T. Essington Brown and B. Ferreira (editors). Guia de Manejo e Conserva~ao de Abel has Si lves tres, produced by the Probio Programme in Brazil.

Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting

What is a pollinator? A pollinator is a living organism that transfers pollen to the stigma of a flower. This can take place within the same flower, within flowers of the same plant or among flowers in a given locality. This occurs as a result of an animal foraging for nectar or pollen among flowers. Insects, birds and bats are the most commonly observed animals involved in pollination. Bees are notable within the insect community because they actively forage among flowers of the same species - thereby increasing the chance of suc cessful fertilisation

Pollinators. Clockwise f rom top left: A Honeybee collecting pollen; a butterfly col lecting nectar; a sunbird (resting between flights) collecting nectar and a Solitary Bee foraging.

.---.~--..

'-.... 8 Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting

' Pollinators have different needs and life cycles Pollinators come in many shapes and forms and require different resourc es to survive and thrive. Most pollinators depend on natural areas such as forests for part of their life cycles. Birds and bats must have undisturbed areas to reproduce and nest while insects use soil, dead trees and aban doned holes, such as those in termite mounds, to complete their life cycles. This manual focuses on the needs and life cycles of bees since they are the primary pollinators in agricultural systems. Bees are the most efficient pollinators of crops because they forage among the same plant types in a single visit, while others such as but terflies are more random in the flowers they visit. Bees are additionally equipped with small hairs that pollen grains can stick to while they search for food . There are many different types of bees that forage on plants at different times of the day, year and at different temperatures. Some are more effec tive pollinators of certain plants than others due to their size and behaviour.

Carpenter Bee (Xylocopa Senior) collecting nectar and poll en.

Pollinators in Af rica: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting

A cross-sectional view of a Solitary Mason Bee (in the family of leafcutter bees, Megachilidae) building a nest inside a cavity. Wet mud or clay is used to build a nest in which fertilised eggs are deposited. Eggs develop into larvae that feed on nectar and pollen.

1Q Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting

Did you know? Honeybee colonies maintain a social so ciety which includes the following three castes:

• The queen bee is the only fertile female in the colony and can live up to five years. • Worker bees are all non-repro ducing females and make up the majority of bees in a hive. They also do most of the work which includes foraging for food , rais- ing the young as well as building, cleaning and pro tecting the hive. • Drone bees are the only males in a colony and their main role is reproduction.

A cross-sectional view of Social Honeybees feeding and caring for developi ng larvae. Each bee colony has a single queen bee that deposits fertilised or unfertilised eggs into chambers of the honey comb which is built by worker bees.

~l ' 12 Pollinators in Af rica: Understanding is t he First Step to Protecting L ' ' ''''Pollinators in and around farms Animals are needed to pollinate 35 percent of crops grown worldwide. Cross pollination contributes to more productive farm land and resu lts in increased seed sets (the number of ovules that successfully develop into seeds) and crop ha rvests as well as fruit quantity, size and quality. Pollina tors vary in size, behaviour, appearance and needs. The decline of managed European honeybees in North America and Europe and the reliance on this one species for crop pollination resulted in lower yields of almonds in the United States. This happened because there were not enough managed honeybees to fulfill the pol lination needs and populations of wild poll inators had decreased due to habitat loss and pesticides. This serves as an important lesson for sustainable agricultu re and emphasises the need to conserve wild pollinators Pollinators can thrive naturally in and around farms if the land is managed with pollinator conservation in mind. Chapter 3 addresses this topic in detail and focus on fa rming practices used in Zambia specifically, due to its expanding agriculture which influences how resources are used. Education is the first step to conserving these important contributors of agricultural productivity and sustainability.

These fields have permanent planting basins and are surrounded by trees, which provide a habitat for pollinators and serve as windbreaks that red uce soil erosion.

~---...... Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is t he First Step to Protecting 13 """'I , { 1 How pollinators can benefit from farms and I, 1 communities Communities and people can provide food and habitat for pollinators by:

• supplying a constant source of nectar and pollen, • leaving undisturbed areas untouched for nesting, • creating pesticide-free gardens that will allow predatory insects to control pests in a natural way, and also by • creating healthy, diverse gardens that beautify the environment and serve as a food source.

Top, clockwise: A small garden near the home provides food for people and pollina tors; a butterfly displaying and a praying mantis awaiting its next meal.

.----.- '' 14 Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting ' ' Health and food security depend on pollinators Pollinators contribute to our health and food security by pollinating many of the fruits and vegetables we eat. The following table indicates some of the food plants that are grown in Zambia and also the method of pollina tion that is needed for fruit or seed production.

Plant name Method of pollination Common bean (Vicia faba) Self pollination; bees Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Self pollination; bees Eggplant (Solanum melongena) Bees Cucumber (Cucumis sativus) Bees Hot/Sweet pepper (Capsicum spp.) Self pollination; bees Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) Self pollination; bees; wasps; flies; birds; beetles Pumpkin squash (Cucurbita spp.) Bees Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) Self pollination; large bees Watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) Bees Bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceria) Bees; bats; hawk moths Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis) Large bees

Pumpkins greatly rely on pollinators to create good quality fruits and seeds. In Zam bia many people enjoy pu mpkin leaves also called cibwabwa. Without pollinators this relish would not be available!

Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting 15

Avocados are pollinated by bees, wasps and thrips.

Spiny cucumbers are found in fields and bushy areas. These nutritious snacks rely on insect pollinators to develop properly.

Parinari curatellifolia, known locally as mupundu, provides wild f ruits which are high in vitamin C.

Pollinators in Afric a: Under standing is che F1rst Step to Protecting 17

Peak flowering times of the Miombo Woodlands Zambia is largely covered by miombo woodland which is dominated by three tree genera namely Brachystegia spp. (locally known as musamba), Ju/bernardia spp. (mutondo) and /soberlinia angolenis (mutobo). Bee keepers in Zambia are quite familiar with these trees because they deter mine the two main honey flows that occur each year. (Honey flow is a term commonly used by beekeepers to indicate that one or more main nectar sources are in bloom and that the weather is favourable for bees to fly and collect nectar in large quantities}.

The musamba and mutobo trees flower from September to December, while the mutondo trees flower from March to June. This makes a large amount of pollen and nectar available to pollinators and is especially noticeable for people managing honeybees. Following these peak flowering times, hives are often overflowing with honey which is then harvested.

Beekeepers often harvest honey in June and December. This particular harvest occurred in June. Mr. Mukuka (left}, Mr. Mulubakwenda (middle} and Mr. Chanda (right} using a honey press to process comb honey.

...... - 16 Pollinators in Africa: Understandmg is t he First Step to Protecting ' '\\\' Pollinators greatly benefit trees, orchards and forests

Poll inators not only benefit fields and gardens, but also assist with fruit and seed production of trees. Not much is known about the ways many of Zambia's indigenous trees are pollinated, but they most likely benefit hugely from animal pollinators.

Plant name Method of pollination Avocado (Persea americana) Bees; wasps; thrips Apple (Malus domestica) Bees Orange, lemon, Citrus spp. Bees; insects Fig (Ficus carica) Fig wasps Guava (Psidium guajava) Self pollination; bees ; insects Litchie (Litchi chinensis) Bees; flies; ants; wasps Papaya (Carica papaya) Butterflies; hawk moths Cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale) Flies; ants; bees Coconut (Cocos nucifera) Wind; bees Oil palm (Eiaeis guineensis) Beetles Cacao (Theobroma cacao) Midges; thrips; ants Coffee (Coffea arabica) Self pollination; bees Wild loquat (Uapaca kirkiana) Insects Marula (Sclerocarya caffra) Bees; insects Sausage tree (Kigelia africana) Insects; birds Baobab (Adansonia digitata) Flies; bats; wind

(Rodger; Balkwill & Gemmill, 2004).

..... J '-.- 18 Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is t he First Step to Protecting

'~\'' Farming practices that impact pollinators Pollinators are important players in agriculture and must be considered when applying certain management strategies. The Conservation Farming Unit advocates many practices that are beneficial to the soil and pollina tors which include reduced tillage, no burning as well as the creation of a diverse landscape that include multiple crops and trees. Other important impacts on pollinators include the misuse of pesticides, water pollution and the overstocking and overgrazing of livestock. If farmers provide an agricultural landscape which includes pollen, nectar, water, nesting sites and materials needed by pollinators to complete their life cycles, they will enable pollinators to thrive and this will benefit both pollinators as well as the overal l productivity of the farm.

Jinny Sekeleti has been practicing conservation farming for 3 years. Here she poses with her cotton crop which is thriving even after a three week drought in Mwachis ompola!

Pollinators in Africa: Understandmg ts the First Step to Protecting - 19 -,, When and how to use pesticides Pollinators can be the victims of pesticide poisoning when chemicals are ',,' used in fields and gardens. This negative impact can be reduced if pes ticides are applied while the crop is not in bloom. Pol linators are mostly active during the day when flowers are open and farmers should be encour aged to apply pesticides in the evening when flowers are closed. Use pesticides with care:

• Try not to use broad-spectrum pesticides because they are designed to kill a wide range of animals and can affect or kill all insects including beneficial ones. • Use pesticides that target specific insects if necessary and apply only if a problem persists. • Use pesticides with caution and take note of all instructions provided with the products. • Pesticides in the form of liquids and granules are better than powder ones because they can be better controlled and directed at target prob lem areas. • Use pesticides sparingly and in the evening when pollinators are not active.

A Honeybee foraging in a cotton flower. Honeybees may improve the quality and yield of cotton and should be considered when pesticides are used to treat pests such as bollworms and aphids.

~~ ..... 20 (j '.- Pollinators in Africa: Underst anding is t he F1rst Step t o Prot ecting

' '\\ ' Soil improvement and pollinator conservation Soil fertility can complement the needs of pollinators in and around farm fields. A healthy, nutrient-rich soil that contains organic matter is good for crops and allows certain types of pollinators to complete their life cycles. Flowers of crops, on the other hand, provide nectar and pollen that is nec essary for pollinators to survive. The following practices will protect pollinators and improve the soil's fertility and structure:

• minimal tillage of soil, • crop rotation with legumes, • no burning, • planting of cover crops such as red sun hemp on unplanted lands will provide nitrogen to the soil and nectar and pollen to pollinators, • intercropping {the growing two or more crops closely together) will cre ate diverse farming systems, • planting of trees in and around fields will mimic the natural environ ment and allow beneficial insects to thrive. Nitrogen-fixing trees such as Faedherbia albida {known in Zambia as musangu), Sesbania sesban, and Leuceana spp. will provide nectar to pollinators all year round.

Soybeans and pollinators benefit each other as well as the soil. Honeybees im prove the production of soybeans by cross pollination.

I Pollinators in Africa: Understanding IS the First Step to Protecting 21 - .I, Natural areas on farmlands have many ',,, benefits Leaving areas of a farm uncultivated will provide the necessary habitat for pollinators to thrive e.g. Carpenter Bees depend on logs for their nests, Honeybees may build nests in tree cavities or termite mounds while Mason Bees use clay and Leaf Cutter Bees use leaves. A strip of uncultivated land around a farm field can also act as a wind break which helps to reduce soil erosion. The removal of invasive weeds before they go to seed will ensure that they do not invade natural areas. Natural areas are important safe havens for pollinators and ensure that other ecosystem services continue. Not only do natural enemies of crop pests benefit from these areas, but they also serve as carbon sinks that reduce greenhouse gases.

The cavity in this living tree is home to a wild Honeybee colony which forages and improves the productivity of the crops.

mj. '-....- 22 Pollinators in Africa: Understand•ng is the F1rst Step to Protecting

'~\ ,'Conclusion Farmers around the world can no longer depend on the free services that pollinators provide without taking their needs for survival into consider ation. By implementing a few simple practices these vital organisms can be protected and conserved. Many of the methods and techniques mentioned in this manual are not only beneficial to pollinators but also to the agricultural system as a whole. The health and needs of pollinators are vital for the future of sustainable agriculture, as is improved soil fertility, food security and productivity which are by-products of these methods. Educating all stakeholders in the agricultural field about the importance of pollinators will be of great benefit to all and will ensure a more productive and secure future.

A rainbow beyond a cotton and maize field in Mwachisompola.

Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the First Step to Protecting 23

References Bronstein, J.L. 1994. The plant-pollinator landscape. In: Hansson, L. , I. Fahrig, and G. Merriam (eds). Mosaic Landscapes and Ecological Processes. (pp. 256- 288). London: Chapman and Hall.

Eardley, C. 2002. Pollinators for Africa. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Centre. Pretoria: African Pollinator Institute.

Eardley, C., Roth, D., Clarke, J., Buchmann, S. & Gemmill,( B. eds). 2006. Pol linators and pollination: a resource book for policy and practice. Pretoria: African Pollinator Institute.

Delaplane, K. S. & Mayer, D. F. 2000. Crop pollination by bees. New York: CAB I Publishing.

Gordon Rodger, J. , Balkwill, K. & Gemmill, B. 2004. African pollination studies: where are the gaps' International Journal of Tropical Insect Science 24:5-28. Mace, V., Shepperd, M., Kremen C. & Black, S.H. 2007. Farming for Bees: guide lines for providing native bee habitat on farms. 224. L.A. Duram. Encyclopedia of organic, sustainable, and local food. Santa Barbara. CA: Greenwood Publishing.

Ricketts, T. H. 2008. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecology Letters 1 1:499-515.

Sheperd, M., Buchmann, S.L., Vaughan, M., Black, S.H. 2003. Pollinator conser vation kandbook. a guide to understanding, protecting, and providing habitat for native pollinator. Portland. OR: The Xerces Society.

Shrestha, J. 2008. Honeybees: the pollinator sustaining crop diversity. The Journal of Agriculture and Environment 9:90-92.

Steffan-Dewenter, 1., Potts, S.G. & Packer, L. 2005. Pollinator diversity and crop pollination services are at risk. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 651-652. Websites: www interoatjonalpollinatorsinitiatiye org • Includes documents on the value of pollination services and methods to deter mine when a crop is suffering from a shortage of pollination. It also links to a Pollination Information Management System where information on the pollina tion needs of individual crops is available. www.arc agric.za/home.asp'pid- 3493 • Explains the formation and role of the African Pollinator Initiative including its objectives. www xerces org/pollinator-conservatjon/ • Includes updated lists of threatened and endangered pollinator species, identi fication guides, policies affecting pollinators, education and outreach tool.

24 Pollinators in Africa: Understanding is the Firsc Step to Protecting

Daphne Mayes served as a United States Peace Corps Volunteer and Master's International (Mil student through the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point from February 2009 to April 2011. She worked in Zambia under the Peace Corps LIFE (Linking Income, Food and the Environment) program, where she taught rural Zambians about environmental topics that in cluded conservation farming, environmental education, beekeeping as well as fuel efficient stoves and cookers. Her M I research and projects focused on pollinator conservation and sustainable agricultural methods.