Competition from feral honeybees - key threatening process listing

The Scientific Committee, established by the Threatened Species Conservation Act, has made a Final Determination to list Competition from feral honeybees Apis mellifera L. as a Key Threatening Process in Schedule 3 of the Act. Listing of a Key Threatening Process is provided for by Part 2 of the Act.

NSW Scientific Committee - final determination

The Scientific Committee has found that:

1. The introduced honeybee is abundant and widely but patchily distributed as a feral species across New South Wales. Feral honeybees occur in colonies, usually centered on tree hollows, independently of managed hives that are maintained by beekeepers (Paton 1996). Managed honeybees are not the subject of this determination.

2. There is evidence that honeybees impact on indigenous species in two broad ways, firstly via competition for tree hollows, and secondly via competition for floral resources.

3. Breeding colonies of honeybees occupy large hollows in trees. These hollows are completely taken over by honeybees, and are removed from the pool of hollows available to native species. Due to the long time required for hollow formation [ e.g. 150 years for Blackbutt, Eucalyptus pilularis (Mackowski 1984); Brown Barrel,  E. fastigata and Messmate,  E. obliqua (Gibbons  et al. 2000)] and the long term nature of bee occupation this represents a long term loss of a critical resource. It has been demonstrated that there is some overlap in hollow use between native fauna and feral honey bees (Paton 1996, Wood and Wallis 1998, Soderquist 1999).

4. Due to the physiological characteristics of eucalypt growth, hollow formation is a common trait of this group of plants (Gibbons 1999). Australian fauna, particularly birds and mammals, make extensive use of this structural element of habitat, and at least 20% of bird species (Saunders et al. 1982) are hollow-dependent. All arboreal marsupials use tree hollows, and all except the Koala are dependent upon them for shelter and breeding sites (Lindenmayer  et al. 1991). Tree hollows are also used by many species of microchiropteran bats and small scansorial mammals (Dickman 1991, Lumsden and Bennett 2000).

5. Threatened species which are likely to be affected by competition from honeybees for hollows include the Brush-tailed Phascogale, Phascogale  tapoatafa; Squirrel Glider,  Petaurus norfolcensis; Yellow-bellied Glider,  Petaurus australis; Major Mitchell's Cockatoo,  Cacatua leadbeateri; Glossy Black Cockatoo,  Calyptorhynchus lathami; Superb Parrot,  Polytelis swainsonii; and Regent Parrot,  Polytelis anthopeplus. Populations of protected species that may become threatened include the Common Brushtail Possum,  Trichosurus vulpecula; Greater Glider  Petauroides volans; and Sugar Glider,  Petaurus breviceps (Garnett 1992, Oldroyd  et al. 1994, Paton 1996, Soderquist  et al. 1996, Trainor 1995, Wood and Wallis 1998, Pyke 1999, Soderquist 1999).

6. Honeybees, both feral and managed, are frequent visitors at flowers, and often remove 80% or more of the floral resources produced (Paton 1996, 2000). This can result in competitive displacement of native fauna that use the floral resources, including honeyeaters (Paton 1993) and native bees (Sugden and Pyke 1991, Paton 1996, Sugden et al. 1996, Schwarz and Hurst 1997, cf. Spessa 1999).

7. Removal of pollen by honeybees has been shown to affect seed set in several plant species. Seed set is reduced in Melastoma affine (Gross and Mackay 1998), and  Grevillea macleayana (Vaughton 1996, Whelan  et al. 2000, Richardson  et al. 2000). Feral honeybees may also reduce seed set in species of  Persoonia due to inefficient transfer of pollen (Bernhardt and Weston 1996). Honeybees can have neutral or beneficial effects on some  Banksia species, although these effects may become manifest only after honeybees have depleted populations of native pollinators (Paton 1997, 2000).

8. Evidence from studies in Europe, where honeybees are native, and from other parts of the world where honeybees have been introduced, suggests that several factors interact to determine the magnitude of impact of the bees on native flora and fauna. These factors include the degree of habitat fragmentation and disturbance, the extent of temporal and spatial overlap in use of floral resources, and the presence of other introduced species that can facilitate honeybee presence (Butz Huryn 1997, Kato et al. 1999, Schwarz and Hogendoorn 1999, Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke 2000, Barthell  et al. 2001, Roubik and Wolda 2001). For these reasons, further research to predict taxa most at risk from competition from feral honeybees should be an objective of a future Threat Abatement Plan.

9. In view of the above points, the Scientific Committee is of the view that Competition from feral honeybees Apis mellifera L. could cause species that are not threatened to become threatened. Consequently, this process is eligible to be listed as a Key Threatening Process in Schedule 3 of the Act.

Proposed Gazettal date: 29/11/02
Exhibition period: 29/11/02 - 17/01/03

References

Barthell, J.F., Randall, J.M., Thorp, R.W. and Wenner, A.M. (2001). Promotion of seed set in yellow star-thistle by honey bees: evidence of an invasive mutualism. Ecological Applications 11: 1870-1883.

Bernhardt, P. and Weston, P.H. (1996). The pollination ecology of Persoonia (Proteaceae) in eastern Australia.  Telopea 6: 775-804.

Butz Huryn, V.M. (1997). Ecological impacts of introduced honey bees. Quarterly Review of  Biology 72: 275-297.

Dickman, C.R. (1991). Use of trees by ground-dwelling mammals: implications for management. In: Conservation of Australia's Forest Fauna. Lunney, D. (Ed.). Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp. 125-136.

Garnett, S. (editor) (1992). Threatened and extinct birds of Australia. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Melbourne.

Gibbons, P. 1999. Habitat tree retention in wood production forests. PhD Thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

Gibbons, P., Lindenmayer, D.B., Barry, S.C. and Tanton, M.T. (2000). Hollow formation in eucalypts from temperate forests in southeastern Australia. Pacific Conservation Biology 6: 218-228.

Gross, C.L. and Mackay, D. (1998). Honeybees reduce fitness in the pioneer shrub Melastoma affine (Melastomataceae).  Biological Conservation 86: 169-178.

Kato, M., Shibata, A., Yasui, T. and Nagamasu, H. (1999). Impact of introduced honeybees, Apis mellifera, upon native bee communities in the Bonin (Ogasawara) Islands.  Researches on  Population Ecology 41: 217-228.

Lindenmayer, D.B., Cunningham, R.B., Nix, H.A., Tanton, M.T. and Smith, A.P. (1991). Predicting the abundance of hollow-bearing trees in montane forests of southeastern Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology, 16: 91-98.

Lumsden, L. and Bennett, A. (2000). Bats in rural landscapes: a significant but largely unknown faunal component. In: Balancing Conservation and Production in Grassy Landscapes. Barlow, T. and Thorburn, R. (Eds.). Environment Australia, Canberra.

Mackowski, C.M. (1984). The ontogeny of hollows in Blackbutt, Eucalyptus pilularis and its relevance to the management of forests for possums, gliders and timber. In:  Possums and Gliders. Smith, A.P. and Hume, I.D. (Eds). Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Sydney, pp. 517-525.

Oldroyd, B.P., Lawler, S.H. and Crozier, R.H. (1994). Do feral honeybees (Apis mellifera) and regent parrots ( Polytelis anthopeplus) compete for nest sites?  Australian Journal of Ecology 19: 444-450.

Paton, D.C. (1993). Honeybees in the Australian environment: does Apis mellifera disrupt or benefit the native biota?  BioScience 43: 95-103.

Paton, D.C. (1996). Overview of feral and managed honeybees in Australia: distribution, abundance, extent of interactions with native biota, evidence of impacts and future research. ANCA, Canberra.

Paton, D.C. (1997). Honeybees Apis mellifera and the disruption of plant-pollinator systems in Australia.  Victorian Naturalist 114: 23-29.

Paton, D.C. (2000). Disruption of bird-plant pollination systems in southern Australia. Conservation Biology 14: 1232-1234.

Pyke, G.H. (1999). The introduced honeybee Apis mellifera and the Precautionary Principle: reducing the conflict.  Australian Zoologist 31: 181-186.

Richardson, M.B.G., Ayre, D.J. and Whelan, R.J. (2000). Pollinator behaviour, mate choice and the realised mating systems of Grevillea mucronulata and  Grevillea sphacelata.  Australian Journal  of Botany 48: 357-366

Roubik, D.W. and Wolda, H. (2001). Do competing honey bees matter? Dynamics and abundance of native bees before and after honey bee invasion. Researches on  Population Ecology 43: 53-63.

Saunders, D.A., Smith, G.T. and Rowley, I. (1982). The availability and dimensions of tree hollows that provide nest sites for cockatoos in Western Australia. Australian Wildlife Research 6:  205-216.

Schwarz, M.P. and Hogendoorn, K. (1999). Biodiversity and conservation of Australian native bees. In The Other 99%. The Conservation and Biodiversity of Invertebrates. Ponder, W. and Lunney, D. (Eds). Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman. Pp. 388-393.

Schwarz, M.P. and Hurst, P.S. (1997). Effects of introduced honey bees on Australia's bee fauna. Victorian  Naturalist 114: 7-12.

Soderquist, T.R. (1999). Tree hollows in box-ironbark forest. Forests Service Technical Report Series 99-3. Dept. of Natural Resources and Environment, Melbourne.

Soderquist, T.R., Traill, B.J., Faris, F. and Beasley, K. (1996). Using nest boxes to survey for the brush-tailed phascogale Phascogale tapoatafa.  Victorian Naturalist 113: 256-261.

Spessa, A. (1997). The behavioural and population ecology of an Australian native bee, Amphylaeus morosus Smith (Colletidae: Hylaeinae). Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

Steffan-Dewenter, I., and Tscharntke, T. (2000). Resource overlap and possible competition between honey bees and wild bees in central Europe. Oecologia 122: 288-296.

Sugden, E.A. and Pyke, G.H. (1991). Effects of honeybees on colonies of Exoneura asimillima, an Australian native bee.  Australian Journal of Ecology 16: 171-181.

Sugden, E.A., Thorp, R.W. and Buchmann, S.L. (1996). Honeybee-native bee competition: focal point for environmental change and apicultural response in Australia. Bee World 77: 26-44.

Trainor, R. (1995). Sweet danger. The Bird Observer April 1995: 7-9.

Vaughton, G. (1996). Pollination disruption by European honeybees in the Australian bird-pollinated shrub Grevillea barklyana (Proteaceae).  Plant Systematics and Evolution 200: 89-100.

Whelan, R.J., Ayre, D.J., England, P.R., Llorens, T. and Beynon, F. (2000). Ecology and genetics of Grevillea (Proteaceae): implications for conservation of fragmented populations. In Young, A. (ed)  Genetics of Fragmented Populations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Wood, M.S. and Wallis, R.L. (1998) Potential competition for nest sites between feral European Honeybees (Apis mellifera) and Common Brushtail Possums ( Trichosurus  vulpecula).  Australian Mammalogy 20: 377-381.