Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) and Wild Bee Resource Competition: How Big Is This Problem?

Wade A. Pike, Clare C. Rittschof

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Synopsis The Western honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) has been managed by humans for centuries for honey, wax, and most recently, crop pollination. The deep history of human association with this species has enabled agricultural practices that reduce biodiversity of pollinating wild bees, largely through habitat modification. However, there is also interest in determining if A. mellifera presence itself contributes significantly to wild bee population declines. Here, we review the evidence of A. mellifera effects on wild bees, with a particular emphasis on critically evaluating the evidence for detrimental impacts associated with resource competition. Despite accelerated research in this area, only ∼13% of resource competition studies evaluated fitness effects of A. mellifera on wild bees, a research gap that has persisted for over 20 years. About three times as many studies have evaluated effects of A. mellifera on wild bee community parameters, including wild bee abundance, which provides a measure of a landscape’s “bee carrying capacity.” Just over 20% of these studies show a negative correlation with A. mellifera abundance. In a novel analysis of 68 additional studies measuring bee communities for a variety of other reasons, we found negative correlations between A. mellifera abundance and any measure of the wild bee community (richness, abundance, etc.) for nine, and the measures showing A. mellifera impacts were varied. For example, only two of these studies showed negative correlations between A. mellifera and wild bee abundances. In contrast, we also found similar numbers of positive relationships between A. mellifera and various wild bee community parameters, including ten studies that showed positive relationships between A. mellifera and wild bee abundances. Most studies (64%) showed no relationship with any factor. We found no clear pattern to explain which habitat types are more vulnerable to A. mellifera competition, nor is the literature clear on impactful densities of managed hives in particular environment types. We discuss suggestions for future research, as well as ways the research community could clarify its conservation priorities with respect to resource competition. Resource competition between A. mellifera and wild bees is clearly a concern in some cases. However, more work is needed to identify and predict where A. mellifera poses a significant threat to wild bee populations. Overall, the data do not support a generalized and widespread negative relationship between A. mellifera abundance and wild bee community health. Rather, conservation measures that reliably improve wild bee health (habitat preservation and restoration) will likely have positive effects on A. mellifera, and vice versa.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)893-918
Number of pages26
JournalIntegrative and Comparative Biology
Volume65
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. All rights reserved.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Science Foundation (IOS-2045901 to CCR and a GRFP fellowship to WAP), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, the US Department of Agriculture Hatch Program (1012993), and the Bill Gatton Foundation.

FundersFunder number
Bill Gatton Foundation
US Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
National Science Foundation Arctic Social Science ProgramIOS-2045901
U.S. Department of Agriculture1012993

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Animal Science and Zoology
    • Plant Science

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) and Wild Bee Resource Competition: How Big Is This Problem?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this