Referral number 2005/1098. My response to the Australian Hydroponics and Greenhouse Association’s (AHGA) proposal to import Bombus terrestris audux.
I am strongly opposed to the idea proposed by the AHGA, which seeks to take bumblebee species to mainland Australia. It is worth noting that the position is based on a solid background of scientific aspects that must be considered when taking such an action. In fact, it is my view that such a move would result in major negative impacts on wildlife in Australia.
The views of the AHGA are based on the fact that mainland Australia is facing shortcomings with regard to pollination (Stout & Morales 2009). Therefore, the bees would be aimed at increasing the rates at which pollination takes place. The comments in this paper recognise that the importation of the B. Terrestris bees would be part of the approaches that would be aimed at encouraging people to adopt biological pest management and to focus on improving crop yields.
The initial proposal to manage bees in greenhouses was made in 1997 by two persons who thought that the move would result in significant improvements in harvests that farmers realise from greenhouse farming. The individuals were Goodwin and Steiner. Their proposal was motivated by the fact that the adoption of modern applications in the greenhouses in the nation would lead to higher levels of food sustainability (Jandt et al 2014). In fact, the growth of vegetables and other crops in the modern structures (greenhouses) is gaining momentum due to many advantages that are associated with the type of farming.
From a historical standpoint, people commenced rearing bumblebees commercially in the last half of the 1980s (Stelzer, Raine, Schmitt & Chittka 2010). To illustrate the interest that was generated by the move, it is estimated that there were nineteen firms across the world that focused on growing the organisms to sell to both small-scale and large-scale farmers (Stout & Morales 2009). The AHGA is quite positive about the economic gains that would be achieved by the nation.
Specifically, it is approximated that the economic benefits of using the pollinators would be equivalent to A$40 million yearly. The proponents of the initiative have also argued that Australia is the only nation across the world that does not have good access to various technologies that involve the use of bumblebees by farmers. Thus, it has been asserted that this has delayed the pace at which both local and foreign investors spend in the industry.
Studies that were conducted in Tasmania suggest that the approach would have more negative impacts than gains. A museum based in Tasmania was the focus of the studies that analysed the various aspects associated with the uptake of B. Terrestris bees by greenhouse farmers. It was conducted between 1999 and 2002. It was large and it involved many professionals from areas related to wildlife and ecology. Due to its adequate funding by the government, the study was successfully completed.
In fact, it achieved its objectives within the set timeframe. The study and other studies spearheaded by renowned scientists have highlighted concerns with regard to the uptake of bumblebees by farmers who use greenhouses (Stout & Morales 2009). Researchers from the UK have also conducted small-scale studies on the topic in Tasmania. Although their studies have been limited, they have also exhibited some concerns with regard to the move of importing the pollinators to mainland Australia.
It is notable that bumblebees are natural pollinators that are found in natural habitats (Stout & Morales 2009). Thus, any disturbance that would make them pollinate crops in closed settings would greatly disrupt their existence (Jandt et al 2014). Currently, there is an alarm over the pace at which the pollinators are declining across the globe. If the organisms would be captured at high rates from their natural habitats and taken to man-made settings, then it would be important to know that their rates of reproduction would significantly decline. As a result, reduced global population of the natural pollinators would also be recorded (Stout & Morales 2009).
If bumblebees would be brought to mainland Australia, then they would be involved in competition with bees and animals that are indigenous. The competition would be on the grounds of nectar and pollen. However, it is essential to note that B.Terrestris bees have been found to prefer foreign species of plants to plants that are naturally found within a natural habitat. This would mean that the organisms would drive native bees and animals, which rely on nectar and pollen, out of mainland Australia. The net result would be a disrupted ecosystem. Thus, the importation of the pollinators should not be a move at a time when there are increased global efforts to conserve ecosystems (Stout & Morales 2009).
Recent studies have established that bumblebees act as invasive pests that can damage crops. Crop damage would result in great losses, which can be both short-term and long-term. There has been a claim that the B. Terrestris bees have the potential of stimulating the growth of sleeper weeds. Increased cover of the weeds would imply that farmers would spend more money in farming, which would culminate in reduced profits. Farmers who would have no funds to purchase chemicals to clear such weeds would encounter significant losses that might discourage them from farming (Stout & Morales 2009).
Although the protocols adopted by the AHGA aim at preventing the escape of the bees from greenhouses, there might be massive escapes of the pollinators from the closed settings (Goulson, Lye & Darvill 2008). Thereafter, they would invade the whole of mainland Australia and result in major disturbances in wildlife settings. A few studies have raised an alarm over the possibility of the organisms carrying dangerous parasites and disease-causing organisms (pathogens) that would the lives of animals and crops (Stout & Morales 2009).
It would imply that governmental and non-governmental agencies would spend considerable amounts of money to carry out studies that would be utilised to find solutions to the parasites and pathogens. From a practical standpoint, it would not be feasible to quarantine and screen all the bees before they would be introduced into stocks that would be already in greenhouses (Goulson et al 2008).
There is a consensus among biological scientists that unique genetic features exemplify animal species. Thus, it would be expected that bumblebees would be different from native bees at their genetic levels. However, if B. Terrestris bees would be introduced into mainland Australia, then they would exchange their genes with native bees, through gene-flow events that characterise reproduction, to produce offspring with unique genetic features (Stelzer et al 2010). This would mean that the B. Terrestris bees would be endangered.
In conclusion, based on the views presented in this paper, it is evident that a decision to import B. Terrestris bees to Australia would have major negative impacts. Notably, the issues addressed herein have national environmental significance. Therefore, the proposal should be reviewed so that negative impacts in the future would not affect the environment.
References
Goulson, D, Lye, GC, & Darvill, B, 2008, ‘Decline and conservation of bumble bees’, Annu. Rev. Entomol., vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 191-208.
Jandt, JM, Bengston, S, Pinter‐Wollman, N, Pruitt, JN, Raine, NE, Dornhaus, A, & Sih, A, 2014, ‘Behavioural syndromes and social insects: personality at multiple levels’, Biological Reviews, vol. 89, no. 1, pp. 48-67.
Stelzer, RJ, Raine, NE, Schmitt, KD, & Chittka, L, 2010, ‘Effects of aposematic coloration on predation risk in bumblebees? A comparison between differently coloured populations, with consideration of the ultraviolet’, Journal of Zoology, vol. 282, no. 2, pp. 75-83.
Stout, JC, & Morales, CL, 2009, ‘Ecological impacts of invasive alien species on bees’, Apidologie, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 388-409.