Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009

Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009

  • Nicholas W. Calderone
PLOS
x
  • Published: May 22, 2012
  • DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037235

Abstract

In the US, the cultivated area (hectares) and production (tonnes) of crops that require or benefit from insect pollination (directly dependent crops: apples, almonds, blueberries, cucurbits, etc.) increased from 1992, the first year in this study, through 1999 and continued near those levels through 2009; aggregate yield (tonnes/hectare) remained unchanged. The value of directly dependent crops attributed to all insect pollination (2009 USD) decreased from $14.29 billion in 1996, the first year for value data in this study, to $10.69 billion in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $15.12 billion by 2009. The values attributed to honey bees and non-Apis pollinators followed similar patterns, reaching $11.68 billion and $3.44 billion, respectively, by 2009. The cultivated area of crops grown from seeds resulting from insect pollination (indirectly dependent crops: legume hays, carrots, onions, etc.) was stable from 1992 through 1999, but has since declined. Production of those crops also declined, albeit not as rapidly as the decline in cultivated area; this asymmetry was due to increases in aggregate yield. The value of indirectly dependent crops attributed to insect pollination declined from $15.45 billion in 1996 to $12.00 billion in 2004, but has since trended upward. The value of indirectly dependent crops attributed to honey bees and non-Apis pollinators, exclusive of alfalfa leafcutter bees, has declined since 1996 to $5.39 billion and $1.15 billion, respectively in 2009. The value of alfalfa hay attributed to alfalfa leafcutter bees ranged between $4.99 and $7.04 billion. Trend analysis demonstrates that US producers have a continued and significant need for insect pollinators and that a diminution in managed or wild pollinator populations could seriously threaten the continued production of insect pollinated crops and crops grown from seeds resulting from insect pollination.

Introduction

Flowering plants (Angiosperms) play critical roles in many natural and agricultural ecosystems, providing food, fiber and shelter for wildlife and humankind alike [1]. In humans, high levels of fruit and vegetable consumption are associated with decreased risk of chronic disease [2][5]. Additionally, there is growing interest in the use of plants as fuel sources [6][11]. Pollination is an essential step in the reproductive process of the world's nearly 300,000 species of flowering plants because it is usually required for the production of seeds [1], [12][17]. Pollination is the transfer of pollen, bearing the male gamete, from the anther of a flower to the stigma of a flower. After landing on a receptive stigma, a pollen grain germinates and a pollen tube develops, growing through the supporting style to the ovary. Genetic material in the pollen grain travels through the pollen tube to the ovary where it unites with an egg, the female gamete, in a process called fertilization. The fertilized egg develops into a seed, and that process is often accompanied by the development of fruit from surrounding tissue [18]. Depending on the species, from one to several hundred eggs must be fertilized to ensure a high quality fruit because each egg requires a separate pollen grain for fertilization. Plants with incompletely pollinated flowers have fewer seeds and reduced fitness, and they produce inferior fruit with reduced market value [19], [20].

Pollination can result from the action of abiotic forces such as wind and water, but 80% of the Angiosperms rely on animals, including bats, flies, butterflies, beetles and other insects [1]. The majority of pollinators are insects, and the majority of those are bees (Anthophila) [13], of which there are approximately 17,000 described species and as many as 30,000 species worldwide [1], [21]. With rare exception, bees collect pollen and nectar from flowers for food, transferring pollen in the process. North America is home to nearly 4,500 species of bees [21]. Most are solitary, but there are 49 known species of the primitively eusocial bumble bee in the US, 41 of which are also found in Canada; an additional 11 species are found in Mexico. The highly eusocial western honey bee, Apis mellifera, was introduced to North America from Europe and Africa beginning in 1622 [22], [23]. It is the only species of honey bee in North America.

Recent events affecting the health of honey bees and other insect pollinators [1], both in the US and abroad, have renewed interest in the pollination services they provide in both natural and agricultural ecosystems [14], [24][28]. This concern is driven, in part, by data showing that the global cultivation of pollinator-dependent crops is increasing [29][31] while certain populations of native and managed pollinator species are declining or at risk [1], [32], [33]. Threats to native pollinator populations include agricultural intensification, habitat alteration and fragmentation, exotic pathogens, nutritional stress, pesticides and the loss of genetic variability, the latter being especially significant for the haplodiploid bees [25], [34][47]; however, the impact of anthropogenic disturbances on bee abundance and species richness has not been well documented on a global level [48]. Additionally, the nature of the impact of declining pollinator populations is controversial. Crops that provide the majority of global calories do not require pollination [49], [50] while those that provide other nutrients do require pollination [51].

Globally, the population of managed honey bees is increasing, albeit not at a rate that matches the global growth in the production of pollinator-dependent crops [30]; however, that growth is not shared by managed honey bees in the US [52]. Although the US honey bee population has a history of occasional precipitous, short-term losses [53], there has been a gradual, sustained decline since the peak of 5.9 million colonies in 1947 [52]. The number of managed colonies in the US reached a low of 2.3 million in 2008, although there were increases in 2009 and 2010 (methods for estimating colony numbers are discussed elsewhere [54]).

Because honey bees and other insects play a pivotal role in many agricultural cropping systems, several estimates of the value they contribute to US agriculture have been published (Fig. 1; billion = B): $4.5 B in 1957 [55] (Metcalf), $7.9 B in 1972 [56] (Ware), $18.9 B in 1980 [57] (Levin), $1.6–5.7 B in 1986 [58] (Southwick and Southwick), $9.3 B in 1985 [59], [60] (Robinson, Nowogrodzki, Morse), $14.6 B in 1996–1998 [61] (Morse and Calderone) and $150 million in 2004 [62] (Burgett, Rucker and Thurman). Inflation adjusted equivalents (2009 USD) are $34.36 B (Metcalf), $40.55 B (Ware), $49.21 B (Levin), $3.13 B–$11.16 B (Southwick and Southwick), $18.54 B (Robinson, Nowogrodzki, Morse), $19.22 B (Morse and Calderone) and $170.36 million (Burgett, Rucker and Thurman). The annual value of native pollinators for the period 2001–2003 is estimated at $3.07 B (∼$3.66 B 2009 USD) [63] (Losey and Vaughan).

thumbnail
Figure 1. Historical estimates of the value of honey bees to US agriculture.

1Includes both directly dependent crops (apples, almonds, cherries, oranges, squash, vegetable and legume seeds, etc.) and indirectly dependent crops (field crops and vegetables); 2present study.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g001

The variation in the above estimates can be attributed to the different approaches taken by the various authors. Metcalf [55] reported the total gross value of a group of 30 insect pollinated crops deemed to depend ‘almost exclusively’ upon insects for production but did not differentiate among the contributions of honey bees, non-Apis bees and other insects. Levin [57] included the total gross value of crops that require or benefit directly from bee pollination (directly dependent crops, hereafter DD crops: e.g. apples, almonds, cherries, oranges, squash, vegetable and legume seeds, etc.), the total value of crops that do not require pollination but that are grown from seeds that result from pollination (indirectly dependent crops, hereafter ID crops: including field crops (legume hay, sugar beets, etc.) and vegetables (asparagus, broccoli, carrots, onions, etc.)) and 10% of the value of beef and dairy production resulting from the consumption of legume hay by cattle. Robinson, Nowogrodzki and Morse [59], [60] and Morse and Calderone [61] present combined values for DD and ID crops but reduce the total gross values to reflect the estimated proportion due to honey bees; they do not include commodities further along the food chain. Southwick and Southwick [58] base their estimate of value on an analysis of supply and demand functions, defining value as “the surplus realized by consumers of these crops that would be lost if honey bees were depleted.” Burgett, Rucker and Thurman [62] count only the value of pollination fees paid to beekeepers.

Several studies document the increasing cultivation and production of animal-pollinated crops on a global level [29][31], [64]; however, studies specific to the US are lacking. Previous studies of insect pollination and US agriculture focus primarily on honey bees, a single year, or both. While those studies provide snapshots of the relationships between insect pollinators and US agriculture, they do not reveal trends in those relationships. Here, I present a comprehensive analysis of trends in aggregate production, cultivated area and farmgate value for 58 pollinator-dependent crops over an 18 year period from 1992–2009. I distinguish between, and report separately, statistics for DD and ID crops; and I present values for both honey bees and non-Apis pollinators. The primary goal in modeling these trends is to quantify the degree of dependence of US agriculture on insect pollinators and to determine if that dependence is declining, stable or increasing. To illuminate the contributions of individual crops, I present three, single-year snapshots (2002, 2007 and 2010). Additionally, I discuss dependency coefficients and valuation methods, two issues relevant to efforts to quantify the contributions of insect pollinators to agriculture. Lastly, I examine the question of a pollinator shortage in the US.

Materials and Methods

US population and farm data

General methods and sources of US population and farm data.

Data on land in farms and the value of cropland were obtained from USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS: Farms and Land in Farms - Final Estimates 1993–97, 1998–2002, 2003–2007; Farms and Land in Farms 02-26-1999, 02-12-2010; Agricultural Land Values and Cash Rents – Final Estimates 1993–2003, 2004–2008; Land Values and Cash Rents 2010 Summary; and the 1997, 2002 and 2007 NASS Census of Agriculture reports) [65][87]. Acres were converted to hectares. Nominal values in USD were converted to 2009 USD (Table 1) using the CPI Index from the US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics [88].

thumbnail
Table 1. General farm and US population data.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t001

Trend analysis for US population and general farm data.

I examined trends for the following variables for general farm and population data: 1) US population; 2) total hectares in farms; and 3) value of US cropland (2009 USD).

Crop data

General methods and sources of crop data.

I obtained data for 58 pollinator-dependent crops from 1992 to 2009. Data for production, units of production, cultivated acres (planted acres when available, otherwise harvested/bearing acres) and the value of production were obtained from NASS (Final Estimates for 1986–2007, Annual Reports for 2008 and 2009, and the 2002 and 2007 Census of Agriculture (COA) reports) [89][108]. Production data for each crop in crop-specific units (e.g. cwt, boxes, etc.) were converted to common units (tonnes); cultivated acres were converted to hectares. Aggregate yield for each year was estimated by dividing total aggregate production in tonnes summed over all crops by the corresponding total aggregate number of cultivated hectares. Nominal values in USD were converted to 2009 USD.

For each year, the number of hectares of DD crops expressed as a percentage of total hectares in farms (Table 2) was calculated by dividing the annual aggregate number of hectares of DD crops by the corresponding total number of hectares in farms. For each year, the total number of hectares of DD crops expressed as hectares per person was calculated by dividing the aggregate number of hectares of DD crops by the corresponding estimate for the US population (Table 2). Corresponding estimates for production were calculated using the same method (Table 3). Equivalent estimates were calculated for ID crops (Table 2 and Table 3).

thumbnail
Table 2. Hectares of Directly and Indirectly Dependent Crops.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t002

thumbnail
Table 3. Production of Directly and Indirectly Dependent Crops.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t003

Partitioning value data.

Partitioning value among honey bees and non-Apis pollinators was based on published coefficients of dependency [59], [60]. The proportion attributed to non-Apis pollinators was calculated as the difference between the portion of total crop value attributed to all insect pollinators and the portion attributed to honey bees [63]. In the case of ID crops, the assignment was based on the dependency coefficients for the production of the seeds used to produce those crops [59], [60]. For alfalfa hay, I generated a preliminary revision of the estimated proportions of value due to honey bees, leafcutter bees and other insect pollinators based on a review of production data for alfalfa seed (see Text S1).

Trend analysis for annual US crop and colony data

I examined trends for the following variables aggregated over all crops on an annual basis: 1–2) total number of cultivated hectares for both DD crops and ID crops; 3–4) total number of cultivated hectares for both crop groups as a percentage of total hectares in farms; 5–6) total production in tonnes for both groups; 7–8) aggregate yield for both groups; 9–10) number of cultivated hectares per person for both groups; 11–12) total production in tonnes per person for both groups; 13–14) total value (2009 USD) of production for both groups; 15–21) portions of total value for both groups attributed to insect pollination, honey bees, alfalfa leafcutter bees and other insects.

General analysis

Trends.

Data were analyzed using regression analysis (PROC AUTOREG [109] with corrections for serial autocorrelation and/or heteroscedacity of variances where required to satisfy the assumptions of the analysis) with year as the independent variable. Trend analysis was limited to the period from 1992 through 2009 when there were no changes in the actual crops considered. Analysis of crop values was further limited to the period from 1996 to 2009 due to the inability to model data over the entire period from 1992 to 2009 (data for 1992–1995 are provided for informational purposes). Separate analyses were performed for DD and ID crops.

Data for individual crops.

I report data for individual crops for the years 2002 and 2007 to illuminate the contributions of individual crops. Those years were selected because they are the most recent for which NASS Final Estimates and COA data were available [86], [87]. Using COA data allowed for the inclusion of data for crops not available on an annual basis (alfalfa and non-alfalfa legume seed production, pumpkins and squash) and makes totals for most variables slightly higher than corresponding values presented in the trend analyses for those years. Data for individual crops for 2010 [107], [108], [110][112] are also presented.

Decline in the number of honey bee colonies and the pollinator shortage

The decline in the number of honey bee colonies [113][119], the number of colonies required to meet current recommendations (colonies per hectare) and their relationship to the adequacy of pollination services are analyzed.

Other issues and underestimates

Vegetable seeds.

Data for vegetable seeds are no longer collected by NASS and are not included in any current estimates. Previous estimates [59], [60] attribute 100% of vegetable seed production to insect pollination, with 90% of that due to honey bee pollination and 10% to other insects.Morse and Calderone [61] estimated that vegetable seed was worth an average of $61 million between 1996 and 1998.This could translate into an underestimate of $81.19 million (2009 USD) for DD crops for 2009, assuming no change in production.

Cotton lint.

Cotton lint is produced from seed that requires insect pollination, making it a crop that benefits indirectly from pollination. However, lint production also benefits directly from having honey bees and other pollinators present during bloom [120], [121]. Therefore, value data are included for both direct and indirect contributions; however, to avoid duplication of data for production and cultivated hectares, those metrics are reported only as an indirect crop.

Tomatoes.

Tomatoes are not included in the present study; however, fresh and processed tomatoes were valued at approximately $2.5 billion in 2009 [122] (2009 USD) with some undetermined proportion due to non-Apis insect pollinators [123].

Bumblebees.

Bumblebees are a major pollinator of many greenhouse crops, including tomatoes [124], [125], peppers [126] and some berries [127][129]. They are also highly efficient pollinators of many field crops, including blueberries and cranberries (Vaccinium spp.) [130], [131]. Bumblebees are available commercially, typically as nests of 150 or 300 workers or as ‘quads’ with 600–1,200 bees; however, national data on the economic contributions of wild and managed bumblebees are not available. This results in an underestimate of the value of insect pollination and the value of non-Apis pollinators in particular.

Results

Results of Trend Analysis for US population and general farm data

Between 1992 and 2009, the US population increased in a linear manner from 256.51 million to 307.01 million, an increase of 19.69% (Fig. 2; Table 4). Between 1992 and 2009, the total number of hectares in farms declined from 395.99 million to 372.23 million, a decline of 6.00% (Fig. 3; Table 4). The value (2009 USD) of cropland rose from $4,194.81 per hectare in 1997 to $6,597.71 in 2009 (Fig. 4; Table 4), an increase of 57.28%.

thumbnail
Figure 2. Estimates for the US population.

Predicted values (pink) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation. Predicted – structural values (blue) are based solely on the structural elements of the model.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g002

thumbnail
Figure 3. Total hectares in farms in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g003

thumbnail
Figure 4. Value of cropland (2009 USD/hectare) in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g004

thumbnail
Table 4. Results of the analyses of farm data in Table 1.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t004

Results of Trend Analysis for Crops

Total number of cultivated hectares.

The number of hectares of DD crops increased from 26.65 million in 1992 to 34.07 million in 2009, an increase of 27.84% (Fig. 5; Table 5) with most of that increase coming between 1992 and 2004 followed by a slight decline. The reduction in 2007 (data not included in analysis) was due to a transient reduction in hectares in soybeans and, to a lesser extent, peanuts. The percentage of total hectares in farms used for the production of DD crops increased from 6.73% in 1992 to 9.15% in 2009, an increase of 35.96% (Fig. 6; Table 5). The rate of increase slowed around 1999 but maintains an upward trend.

thumbnail
Figure 5. Number of hectares of directly dependent crops in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g005

thumbnail
Figure 6. Hectares of directly dependent crops as a percentage of total hectares in farms.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g006

thumbnail
Table 5. Results of the analyses of aggregate data summed over all crops for each year.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t005

Over the same period, the number of hectares of ID crops declined from 15.03 million to 12.35 million, a decline of 17.83%. There was a slight increase between 1992 and 1996 followed by an accelerating decline thereafter (Fig. 7; Table 5). The number of hectares used for ID crops as a percentage of total hectares in farms declined from 3.80% in 1992 to 3.32% in 2009, a decline of 12.63% (Fig. 8; Table 5).

thumbnail
Figure 7. Number of hectares of indirectly dependent crops in the United States.

Predicted values (pink) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation. Predicted – structural values (blue) are based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g007

thumbnail
Figure 8. Hectares of indirectly dependent crops as a percentage of total hectares in farms.

Predicted values (pink) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation. Predicted – structural values (also blue) are based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g008

Total production.

There was an increase in the production of DD crops from 98.93 million tonnes in 1992 to 130.34 million tonnes in 2009, an increase of 31.75% (Fig. 9; Table 5), although the rate of increase slowed around 1999. Production of ID crops decreased over the same period from 107.67 million tonnes in 1992 to 100.74 million tonnes in 2009, a decline of 6.44% (Fig. 10; Table 5). Production increased between 1992 and 1999 but declined thereafter.

thumbnail
Figure 9. Total production (tonnes) of directly dependent crops.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g009

thumbnail
Figure 10. Total production (tonnes) of indirectly dependent crops.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g010

Yield.

For the period from 1992–2009, the yield of DD crops ranged between 3.97 tonnes per hectare (1994) and 3.36 tonnes per hectare (2003); but there was no significant trend (Fig. 11; Table 6). For the same period, the yield of ID crops exhibited a significant increasing linear trend from 7.16 tonnes per hectare in 1992 to 8.16 tonnes/hectare in 2009 (Fig. 12; Table 6).

thumbnail
Figure 11. Yield of directly dependent crops.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g011

thumbnail
Figure 12. Yield of indirectly dependent crops.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g012

thumbnail
Table 6. Results of the analyses of aggregate data summed over all crops for each year.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t006

Response to changes in US population.

The number of hectares of DD crops expressed as hectares per person (Table 2) rose from 1992 to 1999 when it peaked at 0.1198, but declined to 0.1110 by 2009 (Fig. 13; Table 7). The production of DD crops expressed as tonnes per person (Table 3) rose from 1992 to 2001 when it reached 0.48, but has since trended downward (Fig. 14; Table 7). The number of hectares of ID crops expressed as hectares per person (Table 2) declined steadily from 1992 through 2009 from 0.06 to 0.04 (Fig. 15; Table 7). Production of ID crops expressed as tonnes per person followed a similar pattern, reaching a high of 0.48 in 1994 and declining to 0.36 by 2009 (Fig. 16; Table 7).

thumbnail
Figure 13. Hectares of directly dependent crops per person in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g013

thumbnail
Figure 14. Tonnes of directly dependent crops per person in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g014

thumbnail
Figure 15. Hectares of indirectly dependent crops per person in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g015

thumbnail
Figure 16. Tonnes of indirectly dependent crops per person in the United States.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g016

thumbnail
Table 7. Results of analyses of aggregate date summed over all crops for each year.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t007

Total value (2009 USD).

The total value of DD crops decreased from $52.18 B in 1996 to $36.30 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $55.99 B in 2009, an increase of 7.30% since 1996 and 54.24% from the low in 2001 (Fig. 17; Table 8). The total value of ID crops declined from $23.95 B in 1996 through 2001, but has since increased, reaching $16.03 B in 2009. Overall, this reflects a decline of 33.07% (Fig. 18; Table 8); however, the value of $16.03 B in 2009 was well below the trend line, and the value in 2008 was $18.31 B.

thumbnail
Figure 17. Total value of directly dependent crops.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g017

thumbnail
Figure 18. Total value of indirectly dependent crops.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g018

thumbnail
Table 8. Statistics for aggregate values from 1996–2009.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t008

Total value attributed to insect pollination (2009 USD).

The value of DD crops attributed to insect pollination decreased from $14.29 B in 1996 to $10.69 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $15.12 B in 2009, an increase of 41.44% since the low in 2001 (Fig. 19; Table 8). The value of ID crops attributed to insect pollination declined from $15.45 B in 1996 to $11.80 B in 2009, a decline of 23.63% (Fig. 20; Table 8); although the 2009 value was below the trend line. This metric has increased since 2004.

thumbnail
Figure 19. Value of directly dependent crops attributed to insect pollination.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g019

thumbnail
Figure 20. Value of indirectly dependent crops attributed to insect pollination.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g020

Total value attributed to honey bees (2009 USD).

The value of DD crops attributed to honey bee pollination decreased from $11.20 B in 1996 to $8.33 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $11.68 B in 2009, an increase of 40.22% from the low in 2001 (Fig. 21; Table 9). The value of ID crops attributed to honey bees decreased from $7.33 B in 1996 to $5.39 B in 2009, a decrease of 26.47% (Fig. 22; Table 9). The decline occurred between 1996 and 2004 and values trended upward thereafter with the exception of 2009 which was below the trend line.

thumbnail
Figure 21. Value of directly dependent crops attributed to honey bees (A. mellifera).

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g021

thumbnail
Figure 22. Value of indirectly dependent crops attributed to honey bees (A. mellifera).

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g022

thumbnail
Table 9. Statistics for aggregate values from 1996–2009.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.t009

Total value attributed to M. rotundata (2009 USD).

The leafcutter bee is responsible for the major portion of alfalfa seed (data not available on annual basis) and, indirectly, alfalfa hay. The value of alfalfa hay attributed to leafcutter bees ranged between $4.99 B (2003) and $7.04 B (2008) (Fig. 23; Table 9) with a decline to $5.26 B in 2009. With that exception, the overall trend has been increasing since 2003.

thumbnail
Figure 23. Value of indirectly dependent crops attributed to alfalfa leafcutter bees (M. rotundata).

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g023

Total value attributed to other insects (2009 USD).

The value of DD crops attributable to insect pollinators other than honey bees or leafcutter bees decreased from $3.09 B in 1996 to $2.36 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $3.44 B in 2009, increase of 45.76% from the low in 2001 (Fig. 24; Table 9). The value of ID crops attributable to insect pollination other than honey bees or leafcutter bees decreased over the same period from $1.55 B to $1.15 B, a decline of 25.81% (Fig. 25; Table 9). The decline occurred between 1996 and 2000; values have been relatively stable or increasing since.

thumbnail
Figure 24. Value of directly dependent crops attributed to other insects.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g024

thumbnail
Figure 25. Value of indirectly dependent crops attributed to other insects.

Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model. ID = indirectly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.g025

Statistics for individual crops for 2002 and 2007

Data for individual crops for 2002 and 2007 are presented as Text S2. Values for production, cultivated hectares and value of production are slightly greater than those shown in the trend analyses because they include data on alfalfa and non-alfalfa legume seed, pumpkins and squash, none of which were available for the trend analyses. Data for 2010 (data for legume seed production not available) are presented as Text S3.

Decline in the number of honey bee colonies and the pollinator shortage

An analysis of the decline in the number of honey bee colonies, the number of colonies required to meet current recommendations (colonies/hectare) and their relationship to the adequacy of pollination services are presented as Text S4.

Other hive products.

National data on the US honey bee queen and package industries, nucs (starter colonies), pollination rental fees and hive products other than honey are not available. I place a tentative estimate of $300–$500 million (2009 USD) on the value of those products and services but do not include that estimate in any calculation.

Discussion

Summary of data for DD Crops

The number of cultivated hectares of DD crops increased from 26.65 million in 1992 (first year for production, cultivated area and yield data in this study) to 34.07 million in 2009, an increase of 27.84% (Fig. 5). As a percentage of total farm hectares, this represents an absolute increase from 6.73% to 9.15% and a relative increase of 35.96% (Fig. 6); this growth occurred as the price of cropland was also rising (Fig. 4), reflecting the relatively high value of those crops [28]. Production increased from 98.93 million tonnes in 1992 to 130.34 million tonnes in 2009, an increase of 31.75% (Fig. 9). The majority of increases in each metric occurred between 1992 and 2000/2001 with flat or significantly reduced rates of increase thereafter. Aggregate yield was flat over the study period (Fig. 11). US trends differ somewhat from those in other developed countries that show steady increases in yield and cultivated acres and more modest but continuing increases in production over the same period. They differ significantly from trends in the developing world where those metrics continue to increase rapidly [29], [31]. The cultivated area and production of DD crops in the US, measured as hectares or tonnes per person, kept pace with growth in the population through 2000–2001, but neither kept pace thereafter (Fig. 13 and Fig. 14) even though per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables remained relatively steady [2][5]. These results are consistent with land use patterns reflecting rising cropland values and growing access to imported food [132][135].

The total value (2009 USD) of DD crops declined between 1996 (first year for value data in this study) and 2001 from $52.18 B to $36.30 B, but rose thereafter, reaching $55.99 B in 2009 (Fig. 17), an increase of 54.24% from 2001. Revenues attributed to insect pollination decreased from $14.29 B in 1996 to $10.69 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $15.12 B in 2009 (Fig. 19), an increase of 41.44% from 2001. Revenues attributed to honey bees decreased from $11.20 B in 1996 to $8.33 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $11.68 B in 2009 (Fig. 21), an increase of 40.22% since 2001. Revenues attributed to insect pollinators other than honey bees decreased from $3.09 B in 1996 to $2.36 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, reaching $3.44 B in 2009 (Fig. 24), an increase of 45.76% from 2001.

Summary of data for ID Crops

The number of hectares used for production of ID crops was relatively steady between 1992 and the early 2000's, but declined from a high of 16.03 million hectares in 1999 to 12.35 million in 2009, a reduction of 22.96% (Fig. 7). As a percentage of total farm hectares, this represents an absolute decline from 3.80% to 3.32% and a relative decline of 12.63% (Fig. 8). This may be due, in part, to the rising value of cropland (Fig. 4) and the fact that the value of ID crops tends to be less than that of DD crops [28]. Total production followed a similar pattern, declining from a high of 117.94 tonnes in 1999 to 100.74 tonnes in 2009, a reduction of 14.58% (Fig. 10). The fact that the decline in production (14.58%) was less than the decline in hectares (22.96%) can be explained, in part, by the increase in yield over the same period (Fig. 12). US trends are similar to those in other developed countries that show steady increases in yields of ID crops with declines in both production and cultivated area over the same period. They differ significantly from trends in the developing world where yield and production continue to increase rapidly while cultivated area also continues to increase, albeit at a somewhat slower rate [29], [31]. Trend analysis revealed that neither hectares nor production of ID crops, measured as hectares or tonnes per person, kept pace with the growth in the US population (Fig. 15 and Fig. 16). As with DD crops, these results are consistent with land use patterns reflecting increasing cropland values and the availability of imported food [132][135].

The total value of ID crops declined from $23.95 B in 1996 to $17.01 B in 2001, but increased thereafter, ranging between $16.02 B (2009) and $19.32 B (2007) (Fig. 18). Revenues attributed to insect pollination declined from $15.45 B to $11.99 B between 1996 and 2004, but have since risen with the exception of 2009 which saw a large decline from $14.48 B in 2008 to $11.80 B in 2009 (Fig. 20). Revenues attributed to honey bees declined from $7.33 B in 1996 to $5.39 B in 2009 with values otherwise running between $6.40 B and $5.39 B since 1998 (Fig. 22). The value attributed to insect pollinators other than honey bees or leafcutter bees decreased over the same period from $1.55 B to $1.15 B (Fig. 25), although 2009 was well below the trend line. The value of alfalfa hay attributed to leafcutter bees ranged between $4.99 B (2003) and $ 7.04 B (2008) with decreasing values between 1996 and 2003 and increasing values thereafter (Fig. 23).

Dependency coefficients and value estimates

Two topics that influence efforts to quantify the contributions of insect pollinators to US agriculture are: 1) the accuracy of the dependency coefficients for partitioning value among the various pollinators [16], [136], and 2) the interpretation of value [58], [137]. With the exception of the coefficients for alfalfa seed and hay production, dependency coefficients used here come from Robinson, Nowogrodzki and Morse [59], [60] who based estimates on a review of 275 studies conducted prior to 1989. To the degree that those estimates are sensitive to changes in management practices (e.g., selection of crop varieties; the use of pesticides, fertilizers and growth regulators; the size of fields or orchards) and local environmental factors (e.g., land-use patterns; the abundance and diversity of non-Apis pollinators), they may not reflect the current contributions of the various pollinator groups. In addition, the methodology of those studies was not usually designed to capture the contributions of non-Apis bees and other insects. Current research emphasizes the diversity and abundance of pollinator species combined with measures of blossom density, visits per blossom, pollen grains deposited per visit and yield [138][140]. Such studies promise to increase the accuracy of estimates of dependency coefficients in a variety of landscape situations.

The second topic involves the estimation of value. Most studies estimate the value of honey bee pollination as the increase in gross farmgate value over and above that expected in the absence of honey bees (see Mburu and colleagues [137] for discussion of valuation methods). However, this method has certain limitations. It focuses on gross rather than net income [141]; and it neglects to account for other inputs such as chemicals, fuel, equipment, labor, water and land [142]. Further, it differs from the way value is often used by economists because it does not account for the response of markets to changes in supply [28], [58], [142][144]. If honey bee populations were reduced or eliminated, it is argued, markets would adjust through some combination of factors, including the use of alternative pollinators, changes in the price of goods, and other changes in grower and consumer behavior, until a new equilibrium is established. The actual value of honey bees would be the difference between the original farmgate revenues and the new farmgate revenues received after market adjustments had produced a new steady state; therefore, a simple accounting approach provides only one perspective on value. It may be useful to think of value as used herein as an historical accounting of the additional gross revenues that have accrued to growers as a result of their having used honey bees, caeteris paribus.

A reduction in the availability of pollinators and pollinator dependent crops may have other consequences that are difficult to value. While a change in pollinator availability may lead to market adjustments involving changes in grower production and consumer consumption patterns, all such patterns are not equivalent. Assuming that current patterns without pollinator shortages reflect consumer preferences, changes in those patterns imposed by a loss of pollinators would necessarily reflect less desirable choices. Additionally, while the majority of calories are derived from crops that do not require animal pollination [29], [145], the elimination of crops that do require animal pollination would result in a diet that is culturally impoverished and nutritionally inadequate due to a loss of micronutrients [51], [146].

Non-Apis options for growers

One option available to growers in the event of a sustained loss of honey bees would be to use other pollinators. Non-Apis bees, both managed and wild, have great potential as commercial pollinators. Some are more efficient than honey bees on certain crops [145]; management systems for a few are well developed; and protocols for the development of systems for additional species have been proposed [147], [148]. The horned-faced bee, Osmia cornifrons, was introduced to the US in 1977 from Japan [149] where it has been successfully used for apple pollination [150], [151]. The blue orchard bee, O. lignaria, is useful on a variety of crops including almonds and cherries [147], [152], [153]. Management systems for both are well-developed; however, as with the honey bee, each has its own suite of pests, pathogens, predators and parasites. Scaling production to levels sufficient to replace honey bees on selected crops will take time, and difficulties may arise along the way.

Bumble bees are excellent generalist pollinators and are available commercially. Bumble bees forage at lower temperatures [154] and provide superior pollination on a bee-for-bee basis for some crops, including blueberries and cranberries [130]; however, they are expensive compared to honey bees (approximately 1.00–2.00 USD per bumble bee versus 0.01–0.02 USD per honey bee). As with other non-Apis managed pollinators, supply questions remain unanswered.

If production of alfalfa leafcutter bees could be increased, they may increase their contribution to alfalfa seed production and possibly other crops [155][157]. However, leafcutter bee production is hampered by a number of parasites and pathogens, production is difficult to sustain in the US [158], [159] and reserve capacity in Canada, the primary source of leafcutter bees for US alfalfa seed growers, is not known. The other commercial alfalfa seed pollinator, N. melanderi, requires conditions that would be expensive to duplicate outside of the Pacific Northwest.

If losses extended to other insect pollinators, grower options are very limited. A recent study valued insect pollination for deciduous fruit tree crops in South Africa as equal to the change in net income that growers would receive if insect pollinators were replaced by other means - the replacement cost method [160]. Substituting pollen dusting and hand pollination for insect pollinators was found to be effective, albeit more expensive. Replacement costs using these methods are sensitive to crop values and local labor rates, making them more or less attractive for different cropping systems and different countries. In addition, it may not be possible to collect and distribute pollen from some crops in the manner used for deciduous fruit trees.

Clearly, markets would adjust to a loss of honey bees and other insect pollinators; however, the above discussion suggests that the nature of those adjustments and the time-scale over which they would occur are difficult to predict and would vary from crop to crop. The use of managed non-Apis pollinators may be possible for some crops but not for others; and where such use is possible, it may take considerable time to develop reliable, cost-effective management systems and sufficient populations. Further, there is no guarantee that the new equilibrium would include either the same diversity and abundance of insect-pollinated crops or the same level of affordability for those products. In brief, marketplace options for pollinators are simply not equivalent to grower options for most other inputs or most commodities in general. Hence, a precipitous loss of pollinators would likely have a major impact on production and prices, at least in the near term, with crops grown in large monocultures most seriously affected [161].

The concern over the sustainable production of insect-pollinated crops arises in part from the fact that the total number of colonies in the US has trended downward since 1947 [52]. This trend has continued in recent years. The number of colonies declined from 3.53 million in 1989 (five years after detection of the tracheal mite A. woodi in the US [162] and two years after detection of V. destructor [163]) to 2.30 million in 2008, a decline of 34.81% (Fig. S1 in Text S4); however, there were increases to 2.46 and 2.68 million colonies in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Despite those increases, the overall trajectory maintains a downward trend; and the numbers are already well below the number required to satisfy estimated number of recommended colony rentals (8.98 million in 2009 not including colonies for cotton lint, and 30.40 million including colonies for cotton lint (see Fig. S2 and Text S4 for discussion of underestimates of the contributions of wild bees). Interestingly, the long-term downward trend was underway well before the arrival of parasitic mites CCD. This suggests that the downward trend may be independent of recent, large losses being reported with the primary impact of those losses being an increase in operating costs for beekeepers and pollination rental fees [164][169].

Regardless of the cause, the decline in colony numbers does not yet appear to have reduced the production or yield of insect-pollinated crops. The cultivated area of DD crops increased from 1992 through 2004, declining slightly thereafter (Fig. S3 and Text S4). That might suggest a response by growers to maintain production in the face of a decline in the honey bee population [58], [64]; however, other data do not support that hypothesis. The production of DD crops actually increased between 1992 and 2003, after which there was a slight downward trend (Fig. S4 and Text S4). The most rapid growth occurred as the number of colonies declined most rapidly. Additionally, the aggregate yield of DD crops remained steady from 1992 through 2009 despite a declining number of colonies (Fig. S5 and Text S4). These findings suggest that the decline of managed honey bee colonies has not yet resulted in a pollinator shortage. However, aggregate data mask variation among crops; and shortages may disproportionately affect crops with differing degrees of dependency on insect pollinators [64]; therefore, this conclusion should be considered tentative pending further analysis.

Honey bees provide the major share of crop pollination in the US, especially in large cropping systems. There are several reasons for this. Honey bees are an established commodity that fit into a familiar business model in which producers purchase inputs rather than relying on natural ecosystem services [170]. In addition, each colony provides thousands of pollinators; colony management is well developed, so numbers have been adequate and reliable; honey bees are available any time crops are in bloom; honey bees pollinate a large number of crops; honey bees have extended foraging ranges making them suitable for large monocultures; foragers exhibit floral constancy on any single trip to the field; and colonies are easily transported by truck.

While those same factors support a continuing and prominent role for honey bees, the increase in colony rental fees and concerns over possible shortages have provided growers with considerable impetus to diversify their pollinator portfolio. Many growers are experimenting with bumble bees; interest in protecting and enhancing populations of native bees has increased; and recently, one major almond grower established a program to develop a population of several million O. lignaria. From a systems perspective, pollinator diversification is highly desirable because it provides redundancy in a critical component of all pollinator-dependent cropping systems, thereby increasing system reliability. To maintain its competitive position, the beekeeping industry will need to develop a sustainable, market-based system of bee breeding and colony management that can continue to provide an adequate and reliable supply of high quality, healthy pollinators at competitive prices.

Supporting Information

Text S1.

Alfalfa production: supporting text for “Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009.”

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s001

(PDF)

Text S2.

Individual crops for 2002 and 2007: supporting text for “Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009.”

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s002

(PDF)

Text S3.

Update for individual crops for 2010: supporting text for “Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009.”

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s003

(PDF)

Text S4.

Decline in number of honey bee colonies and the pollinator shortage: supporting text for “Insect pollinated crops, insect pollinators and US agriculture: Trend analysis of aggregate data for the period 1992–2009.”

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s004

(PDF)

Figure S1.

Number of managed colonies of honey bees in the United States. Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s005

(TIF)

Figure S2.

Number of managed colonies required to meet current recommendations for pollination. Data includes recommendations for all crops except cotton lint. Predicted values (blue) include adjustments for serial autocorrelation and are the same as the predicted – structural values (also blue) based solely on the structural elements of the model.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s006

(TIF)

Figure S3.

Predicted values for the number of managed colonies and hectares of directly dependent crops. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s007

(TIF)

Figure S4.

Predicted values for the number of managed colonies and tonnes of directly dependent crops. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s008

(TIF)

Figure S5.

Predicted values for the number of managed colonies and yield of directly dependent crops. DD = directly dependent.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235.s009

(TIF)

Acknowledgments

I thank Mark Jandricic for developing the crop database and for data entry, Francoise Vermeylen and the Cornell Statistical Consulting Unit for advice on data analysis and three anonymous reviewers for helping to improve the manuscript.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: NWC. Analyzed the data: NWC. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: NWC. Wrote the paper: NWC.

References

  1. 1. Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America NRC (2007) Status of pollinators in North America. National Academies Press. Washington, D.C.
  2. 2. Serdula MK, Byers T, Mokdad AH, Simoes E, Mendlein JM, et al. (1996) The association between fruit and vegetable intake and chronic disease risk factors. Epidemiology 7: 161–165.
  3. 3. Li RW, Serdula M, Bland S, Mokdad A, Bowman B, et al. (2000) Trends in fruit and vegetable consumption among adults in 16 US states: Behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 1990–1996. Am J Public Health 90: 777–781.
  4. 4. Serdula MK, Gillespie C, Kettel-Khan L, Farris R, Seymour J, et al. (2004) Trends in fruit and vegetable consumption among adults in the united states: Behavioral risk factor surveillance system, 1994–2000. Am J Public Health 94: 1014–1018.
  5. 5. Blanck HM, Gillespie C, Kimmons JE, Seymour JD, Serdula MK (2008) Trends in fruit and vegetable consumption among U.S. Men and women, 1994–2005. Preventing chronic disease 5: A35.
  6. 6. Collins GS, Griffin RC, Lacewell RD (1982) National economic implications of substituting plant oils for diesel fuel. Proceedings of the International Conference on Plant and Vegetable Oils As Fuels, August 2–4, 1982.
  7. 7. Adams JW, Cassarino C, Lindstrom JD, Spangler L, Binder MJ, et al. (2004) Canola oil fuel cell demonstration: Volume I –literature review of current reformer technologies ERDC/CERL SR-04-24/ADA432205 Champaign, IL.
  8. 8. Adams JW, Cassarino C, Lindstrom JD, Spangler L, Johnson D, et al. (2006) Canola oil fuel cell demonstration, volume II – market availability of agricultural crops for fuel cell applications. ERDC/CERL SR-06-28 Champaign, IL: ERDC-CERL.
  9. 9. Thompson W, Meyer S, Green T (2010) The US biodiesel use mandate and biodiesel feedstock markets. Biomass Bioenergy 34: 883–889.
  10. 10. Kralova I, Sjoblom J (2010) Biofuels-renewable energy sources: A review. J Dispersion Sci Technol 31: 409–425.
  11. 11. Gunstone FD (2011) Supplies of vegetable oils for non-food purposes. European J Lipid Sci Technol 113: 3–7.
  12. 12. Axelrod D (1960) The evolution of flowering plants. In: Tax S, editor. Evolution after Darwin.1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. pp. 227–305.
  13. 13. Grimaldi D, Engel M (2005) Evolution of the insects. New York: Cambridge University Press. 755 p.
  14. 14. Kevan PG, Viana BF (2003) The global decline of pollination services. Biodiversity (Ottawa) 4: 3–8.
  15. 15. Davies TJ, Barraclough TG, Chase MW, Soltis PS, Soltis DE, et al. (2004) Darwin's abominable mystery: Insights from a supertree of the angiosperms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 1904–1909.
  16. 16. Klein A-M, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, et al. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Ser B 274: 303–313.
  17. 17. Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120: 321–326.
  18. 18. Raghavan V (2000) Developmental biology of flowering plants. 354 p. New York Inc. Springer-Verlag GmbH and Co. KG; Springer-Verlag.
  19. 19. Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Michener CD (2004) Economic value of tropical forest to coffee production. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 12579–12582.
  20. 20. Kasina JM, Mburu J, Kraemer M, Holm-Mueller K (2009) Economic benefit of crop pollination by bees: A case of kakamega small-holder farming in western Kenya. J Econ Entomol 102: 467–473.
  21. 21. Michener CD (2000) The bees of the world. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. 913 p.
  22. 22. Sheppard WS (1989) A history of the introduction of honey bee races into the USA. Part I of a two-part series. Am Bee J 129: 617–619.
  23. 23. Sheppard WS (1989) A history of the introduction of honey bee races into the USA. Part II of a two-part series. Am Bee J 129: 664–667.
  24. 24. Buchmann SL, Nabhan GP (1996) The forgotten pollinators. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 292 p.
  25. 25. Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1997) Pollinators, flowering plants, and conservation biology. Bioscience 47: 297–307.
  26. 26. Allen Wardell G, Bernhardt P, Bitner R, Burquez A, Buchmann S, et al. (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv Biol 12(1): 8–17.
  27. 27. Kremen C, Ricketts T (2000) Global perspectives on pollination disruptions. Conserv Biol 14: 1226–1228.
  28. 28. Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissiere BE (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68: 810–821.
  29. 29. Aizen MA, Garibaldi LA, Cunningham SA, Klein AM (2008) Long-term global trends in crop yield and production reveal no current pollination shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Curr Biol 18: 1572–1575.
  30. 30. Aizen MA, Harder LD (2009) The global stock of domesticated honey bees is growing slower than agricultural demand for pollination. Curr Biol 19: 915–918.
  31. 31. Aizen MA, Garibaldi LA, Cunningham SA, Klein AM (2009) How much does agriculture depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop production. Ann Bot 103: 1579–1588.
  32. 32. Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemueller R, Edwards M, et al. (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science (Wash D C) 313: 351–354.
  33. 33. Kluser SPP (2007) Global pollinator decline: A literature review. UNEP/GRID Europe.
  34. 34. Ingram M, Nabhan GP, Buchmann S (1996) Impending pollination crisis threatens biodiversity and agriculture. Tropinet 7: 1.
  35. 35. Packer L, Owen R (2001) Population genetic aspects of pollinator decline. Conserv Ecol 5: 1–35.
  36. 36. Cane JH, Tepedino VJ (2001) Causes and extent of declines among native north american invertebrate pollinators: Detection, evidence, and consequences. Conserv Ecol 5: 1–10.
  37. 37. Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: Crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol Lett 7: 1109–1119.
  38. 38. Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99: 16812–16816.
  39. 39. Zayed A, Packer L (2005) Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 10742–10746.
  40. 40. Zayed A, Roubik DW, Packer L (2004) Use of diploid male frequency data as an indicator of pollinator decline. Proc R Soc Biol Sci Ser B 271: S9–S12.
  41. 41. Desneux N, Decourtye A, Delpuech JM (2007) The sublethal effects of pesticides on beneficial arthropods. Annu Rev Entomol 52: 81–106.
  42. 42. Brosi BJ, Daily GC, Shih TM, Oviedo F, Duran G (2008) The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside. J Appl Ecol 45: 773–783.
  43. 43. Stout JC, Morales CL (2009) Ecological impacts of invasive alien species on bees. Apidologie 40: 388–409.
  44. 44. Naug D (2009) Nutritional stress due to habitat loss may explain recent honeybee colony collapses. Biol Conserv 142: 2369–2372.
  45. 45. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, et al. (2010) Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25: 345–353.
  46. 46. Carvalheiro LG, Seymour CL, Veldtman R, Nicolson SW (2010) Pollination services decline with distance from natural habitat even in biodiversity-rich areas. J Appl Ecol 47: 810–820.
  47. 47. Tuell JK, Isaacs R (2010) Community and species-specific responses of wild bees to insect pest control programs applied to a pollinator-dependent crop. J Econ Entomol 103: 668–675.
  48. 48. Winfree R, Aguilar R, Vazquez DP, Lebuhn G, Aizen MA (2009) A meta-analysis of bees' responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology (Wash D C) 90: 2068–2076.
  49. 49. Ghazoul J (2005) Buzziness as usual? Questioning the global pollination crisis. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 367–373.
  50. 50. Ghazoul J (2005) Response to Steffan-Dewenter et al.: Questioning the global pollination crisis. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 652–653.
  51. 51. Steffan-Dewenter I, Potts SG, Packer L (2005) Pollinator diversity and crop pollination services are at risk. Trends Ecol Evol 20: 651–652.
  52. 52. Vanengelsdorp D, Meixner MD (2010) A historical review of managed honey bee populations in Europe and the United States and the factors that may affect them. J Invertebr Pathol 103: S80–S95.
  53. 53. Underwood R, Vanengelsdorp D (2007) Colony collapse disorder: Have we seen this before? Bee Culture 35: 13–18.
  54. 54. Daberkow S, Korb P, Hoff F (2009) Structure of the U.S. Beekeeping industry: 1982–2002. J Econ Entomol 102: 868–886.
  55. 55. Metcalf C, Flint W (1962) The value of insects to man. In: Metcalf C, Flint W, Metcalf R, editors. Destructive and useful insects.4th ed. NY: MacGraw-Hill Book Co.
  56. 56. Ware G (1973) Bees in agriculture: Their problems and importance. Beltsville, MD.
  57. 57. Levin MD (1983) Value of bee pollination to U.S. Agriculture [Apis mellifera]. Bull Entomol Soc Am 29(4): 50–51.
  58. 58. Southwick EE, Southwick L Jr (1992) Estimating the economic value of honey bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as agricultural pollinators in the United States. J Econ Entomol 85(3): 621–633.
  59. 59. Robinson WS, Nowogrodzki R, Morse RA (1989) The value of honey bees as pollinators of USA crops. Part II of a two-part series. Am Bee J 129: 477–487.
  60. 60. Robinson WS, Nowogrodzki R, Morse RA (1989) The value of honey bees as pollinators of USA crops. Part I of a two-part series. Am Bee J 129: 411–423.
  61. 61. Morse RA, Calderone NW (2000) The value of honey bees as pollinators of U.S. Crops in 2000. Bee Culture 128: 15 pp insert.
  62. 62. Burgett M, Rucker R, Thurman W (2004) Economics and honey bee pollination markets. Am Bee J 144: 269–271.
  63. 63. Losey J, Vaughan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56: 311–323.
  64. 64. Garibaldi LA, Aizen MA, Cunningham S, Klein AM (2009) Pollinator shortage and global crop yield: Looking at the whole spectrum of pollinator dependency. Communicative & Integrative Biology 2: 37–39.
  65. 65. NASS (1995) Farms and land in farms final estimates 1988–92. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 30 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB991/sb895.txt. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  66. 66. NASS (1997) Agricultural land values and agricultural cash rents. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 30 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//1990s/1997/AgriLandVa-10-01-1997_Land%20Values_Cash%20Rents.txt. Accessed: 11August 2011.
  67. 67. NASS (1998) Agricultural land values. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 6 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//1990s/1998/AgriLandVa-03-17-1998_Land_Values.txt. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  68. 68. NASS (1999) Farms and land in farms - final estimates 1993–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 955. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 22 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB991/sb955.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  69. 69. NASS (1999) Agricultural land values, sp sy 3 (99). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 11 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//1990s/1999/AgriLandVa-04-06-1999_Land_Values.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  70. 70. NASS (2000) Agricultural land values, sp sy 3 (00)a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 12 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2000/AgriLandVa-03-23-2000_Land_Values.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  71. 71. NASS (2001) Agricultural land values, sp sy 3 (01). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 12 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2001/AgriLandVa-08-02-2001_Land_Values.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  72. 72. NASS (2002) Agricultural land values, sp sy 3 (02). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 11 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2002/AgriLandVa-08-02-2002_Land_Values.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  73. 73. NASS (2003) Agricultural land values and cash rents, sp sy 3 (03). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 18 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2003/AgriLandVa-08-07-2003_Land_Values_Cash_Rents.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  74. 74. NASS (2004) Farm numbers and land in farms final estimates 1998–2002, Statistical Bulletin Number sb-991 (04) a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 24 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB991/sb991.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  75. 75. NASS (2004) Land values and cash rents 2004 summary, sp sy 3 (04). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 21 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2004/AgriLandVa-08-06-2004_Land_Values_Cash_Rents.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  76. 76. NASS (2005) Land values and cash rents 2005 summary, sp sy 3 (05). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 22 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2005/AgriLandVa-08-05-2005_Land_Values_Cash_Rents.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  77. 77. NASS (2006) Farms, land in farms, and livestock operations 2005 summary, sp sy 4 (06). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 41 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLandIn//2000s/2006/FarmLandIn-01-31-2006.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  78. 78. NASS (2006) Land values and cash rents 2006 summary, sp sy 3 (06). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 22 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2006/AgriLandVa-08-04-2006.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  79. 79. NASS (2007) Land values and cash rents 2007 summary, sp sy 3 (07). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 23 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2007/AgriLandVa-08-03-2007.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  80. 80. NASS (2008) Land values and cash rents 2008 summary, sp sy 3 (08). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 23 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2008/AgriLandVa-08-04-2008.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  81. 81. NASS (2009) Farms and land in farms final estimates 2003–2007, Statistical Bulletin Number 1018. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 24 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB991/sb1017.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  82. 82. NASS (2009) Farms, land in farms, and livestock operations 2008 summary sp sy 4 (09). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 36 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FarmLandIn//2000s/2009/FarmLandIn-02-12-2009.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  83. 83. NASS (2009) Land values and cash rents 2009 summary, ISSN: 1949–1867. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 28 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2000s/2009/AgriLandVa-08-04-2009_new_format.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  84. 84. NASS (2010) Land values and cash rents 2010 summary, ISSN: 1949–1867. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 29 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2010s/2010/AgriLandVa-08-04-2010.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  85. 85. NASS (2011) Land values 2011 summary National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 22 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/AgriLandVa//2010s/2011/AgriLandVa-08-04-2011.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  86. 86. NASS (2004) 2002 Census of Agriculture ac-02-a-51. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 663 p. USDA NASS Agriculture Census website. Available: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2002/USVolume104.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  87. 87. NASS (2009) 2007 Census of Agriculture ac-07-a-51. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 739 p. USDA NASS Agriculture Census website. Available: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  88. 88. U.S. Department of Labor BOLS (2011) Consumer price index. U.S. Department Of Labor Washington, D.C. 4 p. United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website. Available: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  89. 89. NASS (2004) Crop values - final estimates 1997–2002, Statistical Bulletin Number 999 a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 11 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB999/sb999.txt. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  90. 90. NASS (2004) Citrus fruits - final estimates 1997–2002, Statistical Bulletin Number 997 (04). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 30 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: hhttp://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB997/sb997.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  91. 91. NASS (1998) Noncitrus fruits and nuts - final estimates 1992–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 950 a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 136 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/b9501298.pdf. Accessed: 21 April 2012.
  92. 92. NASS (1998) Field crops - final estimates 1992–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 947 a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 150 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/b9471298.pdf. Accessed: 21 April 2012.
  93. 93. NASS (1999) Crop values - final estimates 1992–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 963. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 69 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/b9631099.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  94. 94. NASS (1999) Citrus fruits - final estimates 1992–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 961. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 24 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB997/sb961.pdf. Accessed: 14 August 2011.
  95. 95. NASS (1999) Vegetables final estimates, 1992–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 946c. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 125 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/b9460199.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  96. 96. NASS (1999) Citrus fruits - final estimates 1986–92, Statistical Bulletin Number 961. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 24 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/b9610899.pdf. Accessed: 12 April 2012.
  97. 97. NASS (2004) Vegetables final estimates, 1997–2002, statistical number 987. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 138 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/sb987.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  98. 98. NASS (2004) Noncitrus fruits and nuts - final estimates 1997–2002, Statistical Bulletin Number 985 (03). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 143 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/sb985.pdf. Accessed: 21 April 2012.
  99. 99. NASS (2004) Field crops - final estimates 1997–2002, Statistical Bulletin Number 982 a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 152 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/reports/general/sb/sb982.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  100. 100. NASS (2008) Vegetables final estimates, 2003–2007, Statistical Bulletin Number 1014. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 96 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB987/sb1014.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  101. 101. NASS (2008) Noncitrus fruits and nuts - final estimates 2002–2007, Statistical Bulletin Number 1011. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 139 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB985/sb1011.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  102. 102. NASS (2008) Field crops - final estimates 2002–2007, Statistical Bulletin Number 1010 a. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 164 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB982/sb1010.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  103. 103. NASS (2008) Citrus fruits - final estimates 2003–2007, Statistical Bulletin Number 1009. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 29 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB997/sb1009.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  104. 104. NASS (2010) Citrus fruits 2010 summary, ISSN: 1948–9048. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 37 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CitrFrui/CitrFrui-09-23-2010_new_format.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  105. 105. NASS (2011) Vegetables 2010 summary, ISSN: 0884-6413. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 89 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/VegeSumm/VegeSumm-01-27-2011_new_format.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  106. 106. NASS (2011) Crop values 2010 summary, ISSN: 1949–0372. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 50 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-16-2011.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  107. 107. NASS (2011) Noncitrus fruits and nuts 2010 summary, ISSN: 1948–2698. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 83 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/NoncFruiNu/NoncFruiNu-07-07-2011.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  108. 108. NASS (2011) Crop production 2010 summary, ISSN: 1057-7823. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 99 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProdSu/CropProdSu-01-12-2011_new_format.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  109. 109. SAS (1999) SAS/ETS user's guide, version 8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
  110. 110. NASS (2011) Crop values 2010 summary. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 50 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropValuSu/CropValuSu-02-16-2011.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  111. 111. NASS (2011) Crop production. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 18 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropProd//2010s/2011/CropProd-01-12-2011.pdf. Accessed: 21 April 2012.
  112. 112. NASS (2011) Vegetables. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 13 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/Vege/Vege-10-04-2011.pdf. Accessed: 21 April 2012.
  113. 113. NASS (1995) Honey: Final estimates for 1986–1992, Statistical Bulletin Number 912. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 12 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB992/sb912.txt. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  114. 114. NASS (1999) Honey final estimates 1993–97, Statistical Bulletin Number 956. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 10 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB992/sb956.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  115. 115. NASS (2004) Honey final estimates 1998–2002, Statistical Bulletin Number 992. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 11 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB992/sb992.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  116. 116. NASS (2009) Honey, hny 1 (2-09). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 6 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Hone/2000s/2009/Hone-02-27-2009.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  117. 117. NASS (2009) Honey final estimates 2003–2007, Statistical Bulletin Number 1025. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 13 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SB992/sb1025.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  118. 118. NASS (2010) Honey, hny 1 (2-10). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 6 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Hone//2010s/2010/Hone-02-26-2010.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  119. 119. NASS (2011) Honey, hny 1 (2-11). National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 6 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Hone/Hone-02-25-2011.pdf. Accessed: 11 August 2011.
  120. 120. Mcgregor SE (1976) Insect pollination of cultivated crop plants: Agriculture handbook 496. Washington, D.C.: USDA - ARS. 411 p.
  121. 121. Delaplane KS, Mayer DF (2000) Crop pollination by bees. NY: CABI. 344 p.
  122. 122. NASS (2010) Table003.Xls U.S. Total tomatoes: Area, yield, production, and value, 1960–2009. National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Washington, D.C. 1 p. Mann Library, USDA-ESMIS website. Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1210. Accessed: 2 September 2011.
  123. 123. Greenleaf SS, Kremen C (2006) Wild bee species increase tomato production and respond differently to surrounding land use in northern California. Biol Conserv 133: 81–87.
  124. 124. Chen C-T, Hsieh F-K (1996) Evaluation of pollination efficiency of the bumblebee (Bombus terrestris L.) on greenhouse tomatoes. Zhonghua Kunchong 16: 167–175.
  125. 125. Palumbo AD, Morra L, Sanaja VO, Picascia S (1996) Effetto dei bombi sull'allegagione del pomodoro. Colture Protette 25: 61–65.
  126. 126. Kwon YJ, Saeed S (2003) Effect of temperature on the foraging activity of Bombus terrestris L. (Hymenoptera : Apidae) on greenhouse hot pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Appl Entomol Zool 38: 275–280.
  127. 127. Dimou M, Taraza S, Thrasyvoulou A, Vasilakakis M (2008) Effect of bumble bee pollination on greenhouse strawberry production. J Apic Res 47: 99–101.
  128. 128. Pritts MP, Langhans RW, Whitlow TH, Kelly MJ, Roberts A (1999) Winter raspberry production in greenhouses. HortTechnology 9: 13–15.
  129. 129. Li J, Peng W, Wu J, An J, Guo Z, et al. (2006) Strawberry pollination by Bombus lucorum and Apis mellifera in greenhouses. Acta Entomol Sin 49: 342–348.
  130. 130. Javorek SK, Mackenzie KE, Vander Kloet SP (2002) Comparative pollination effectiveness among bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) on lowbush blueberry (Ericaceae: Vaccinium angustifolium). Ann Entomol Soc Am 95(3): 345–351.
  131. 131. Mackenzie KE (1994) The foraging behaviour of honey bees (Apis mellifera L) and bumble bees (Bombus spp) on cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon AIT). Apidologie 25: 375–383.
  132. 132. Hendrickson MK, James HS, Heffernan WD (2008) Does the world need US farmers even if Americans don't? J Agric Environ Ethics 21: 311–328.
  133. 133. Nzaku K, Houston JE, Fonsah EG (2010) Analysis of U.S. Demand for fresh fruit and vegetable imports. Journal of Agribusiness 28: 163–181.
  134. 134. Brooks N, Buzby JC, Regmi A (2009) Globalization and evolving preferences drive U.S. Food-import growth. Journal of Food Distribution Research 40: 39–46.
  135. 135. Mattson JW, Koo WW (2005) Characteristics of the declining U.S. Agricultural trade surplus. Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report - Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University.
  136. 136. Gallai N, Salles J-M, Settele J, Vaissiere BE (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68: 810–821.
  137. 137. Mburu J, Hein LG, Gemmill B, Collette L (2006) Economic valuation of pollination services: Review of methods. 12th Annual BIOECON Conference “From the Wealth of Nations to the Wealth of Nature: Rethinking Economic Growth” Centro Culturale Don Orione Artigianelli Venice, Italy.
  138. 138. Winfree R, Williams NM, Dushoff J, Kremen C (2007) Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses. Ecol Lett 10: 1105–1113.
  139. 139. Winfree R, Williams NM, Gaines H, Ascher JS, Kremen C (2008) Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J Appl Ecol 45: 793–802.
  140. 140. Greenleaf SS, Kremen C (2006) Wild bees enhance honey bees' pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103: 13890–13895.
  141. 141. Olschewski R, Tscharntke T, Benitez PC, Schwarze S, Klein AM (2006) Economic evaluation of pollination services comparing coffee landscapes in ecuador and indonesia. Ecol Soc 11: article 7.
  142. 142. Bauer D, Wing I (2010) Economic consequences of pollinator declines: A synthesis. Agr Resource Econ Rev 39: 368–383.
  143. 143. Muth MK, Thurman WN (1995) Why support the price of honey? Choices The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resources Issues 2: 19–22.
  144. 144. Kevan P, Phillips T (2001) The economic impacts of pollinator declines: An approach to assessing the consequences. Conserv Ecol 8.
  145. 145. Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, et al. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc Roy Soc Lon Ser B, Biol Sci 274: 303–313.
  146. 146. Eilers EJ, Kremen C, Greenleaf SS, Garber AK, Klein A-M (2011) Contribution of pollinator-mediated crops to nutrients in the human food supply. PLoS ONE 6: e21363.
  147. 147. Bosch J, Kemp WP (2002) Developing and establishing bee species as crop pollinators: The example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees. Bull Entomol Res 92: 3–16.
  148. 148. Richards KW (1993) Non-apis bees as crop pollinators. Rev Suisse Zool 100: 807–822.
  149. 149. Batra SWT (1978) Osmia cornifrons and Pithitis smaragdula, two Asian bees introduced into the United States for crop pollination. pp. 307–312. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Pollination, Maryland.
  150. 150. Sekita N, Watanabe T, Yamada M (1996) Population ecology of Osmia cornifrons (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in natural habitats. Bull Aomori Apple Exp Stn 17–36.
  151. 151. Matsumoto S, Maejima T, Abe A (2009) Foraging behavior of Osmia cornifrons in an apple orchard. Sci hortic-Amsterdam 121: 73–79.
  152. 152. Bosch J, Kemp WP (1999) Exceptional cherry production in an orchard pollinated with blue orchard bees. Bee Wld 80(4): 163–173.
  153. 153. Bosch J, Kemp WP (2000) Development and emergence of the orchard pollinator Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Environ Entomol 29: 8–13.
  154. 154. Corbet SA, Fussell M, Ake R, Fraser A, Gunson C, et al. (1993) Temperature and the pollinating activity of social bees. Ecol Entomol 18: 17–30.
  155. 155. Stubbs CS, Drummond FA (1997) Management of the alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), for pollination of wild lowbush blueberry. J Kans Entomol Soc 70: 81–93.
  156. 156. Stubbs CS, Drummond FA (1997) Pollination of wild lowbush blueberry, Vaccinium angustifolium by the alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata. Acta Horticult 446: 189–196.
  157. 157. Stubbs CS, Drummond FA (2001) Bombus impatiens (Hymenoptera:Apidae): An alternative to Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) for lowbush blueberry pollination. J Econ Entomol 94(3): 609–616.
  158. 158. Stephen WP, Vandenberg JD, Fichter BL (1981) Etiology and epizootiology of chalkbrood in the leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata (Fabricius), with notes on Ascosphaera species. Station Bulletin, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University 653: 10.
  159. 159. Pitts-Singer TL, Cane JH (2011) The alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata: The world's most intensively managed solitary bee. In: Berenbaum MR, Carde RT, Robinson GE, editors. Ann Rev Entomol.56. Annual Reviews. pp. 221–237.
  160. 160. Allsopp MH, De Lange WJ, Veldtman R (2008) Valuing insect pollination services with cost of replacement. PLoS ONE 3: Article No.: e3128.
  161. 161. Rader R, Howlett BG, Cunningham SA, Westcott DA, Newstrom-Lloyd LE, et al. (2009) Alternative pollinator taxa are equally efficient but not as effective as the honeybee in a mass flowering crop. J Appl Ecol 46: 1080–1087.
  162. 162. Delfinado-Baker M (1984) Acarapis woodi in the United States. Am Bee J 124: 805–806.
  163. 163. Anon (1987) Varroa mites found in the USA. Am Bee J 127: 745–746.
  164. 164. Stokstad E (2007) The case of the empty hives. Science 316: 970–972.
  165. 165. Sumner D, Boriss H (2006) Bee-conomics and the leap in pollination fees. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics 11.
  166. 166. Burgett M (2009) Pacific Northwest honey bee pollination economics survey 2009. National Honey Report 29: 10–16.
  167. 167. Caron D (2010) Bee colony pollination rental prices, Eastern US with comparison to west coast. 4 p. MAAREC website. Available: https://agdev.anr.udel.edu/maarec/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Pollination-rentals-PNWEAST.pdf. Accessed: 8/14/2011.
  168. 168. Caron D (2010) Eastern beekeeper pollination survey. 4 p. MAAREC website. Available: https://agdev.anr.udel.edu/maarec/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/2010-Pollination-rentals-MAAREC.pdf. Accessed: 8/11/2011.
  169. 169. Champetier A, Sumner D, Wilen J (2010) The bioeconomics of honey bees and pollination. Working paper August 2010. University of California, Davis, Agricultural Issues Center.
  170. 170. Kremen C, Chaplin-Kramer R (2007) pp. 349–382. Insects as providers of ecosystem services: Crop pollination and pest control; Stewart AJaNTRLOT, editor.