New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Bee and Flower Diversity Decline in Tandem

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The field scabious is a multipetaled blue--sometimes purple--ball of a flower. It provides sustenance to a host of pollinators, but one bee--the scabious bee, or Andrena hattorfiana--relies exclusively on the plant's bounty to feed her young. Such specialized matches are common for bees, whose size, shape, range and even breeding schedule can be influenced by the lifestyle of the paired plant. Now a new study shows that such bees and the plants that sustain them are declining in tandem--for reasons unknown.

Biologist Koos Biesmeijer of the University of Leeds in England and an international team of colleagues patiently compiled more than one million records of when and where particular bees had been collected in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands over the preceding decades. Dividing the samples into those from before 1980 and after, the researchers used rarefaction to be able to compare samples collected using different methods and under divergent conditions. They found that the number of distinct species of bees declined by 52 percent in the British countryside and by roughly 67 percent in the Dutch. Of the hundreds of sites surveyed, nearly 80 percent saw declines in bee diversity.

The researchers also looked at another pollinating species, hoverflies, and found conflicting overall results. But both bees and hoverflies that depended on particular plants or habitats suffered while their more migratory or generalist brethren prospered. "In Britain, pollinator species that were relatively rare in the past have tended to become rarer still, while the commoner species have become more plentiful," explains team member Stuart Roberts of the University of Reading in England. "Even in insects, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The team examined floral inventories as well to see if this might explain the pattern in pollinators. Insect-pollinated plants in the U.K. and bee-pollinated plants in the Netherlands have both declined. The research does not reveal the root cause of these declines or whether changes in plants or insects are causing them, but any decline in natural pollinators could have tremendous economic impacts. Bee pollination alone has been estimated to contribute at least $36 billion to the world economy. "It is important to begin mechanistic studies of these declines," the team concludes in a paper presenting the finding published in today's Science, "with habitat alteration, climate change and agricultural chemical usage being potential key drivers of observed shifts."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe