![Sample our Environment & Agriculture journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5934/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Agriculture.jpg"})
Abstract
In the US central and southern Great Plains, canola (Brassica napus) is a winter annual crop. It is pollinated by insects, particularly native bees and introduced honeybees (Apis mellifera Linnaeus, 1758). Canola is beset by many insect pests. Producers rely on insecticides to kill harmful insects, however, these chemicals can negatively impact pollinators. Our purpose is to provide an economic analysis comparing the positive effects of native bees and introduced honeybees in combination with the pest suppression effects of selective and broad-spectrum insecticides in Oklahoma canola production. We identify the breakeven yield necessary to support the conservation of pollinator habitat in or adjacent to canola fields. Using yields from field experiments, we found that an increase in yield ranging from 28.02 to 162.53 kg/ha from pollination justifies the conservation of pollinator habitat. The number of refuge acres and canola acres dictates the necessary yield increase. Our findings suggest that introducing honeybees for pollination of canola may not be an economically viable choice as pollination services are costly. We include analysis with the base rate of pollination service rate reduced to more closely examine this issue. The breakeven analysis with the reduced rate shows a range of 2.43 to 19.06 hectares of refuge area was needed. This analysis varies with annual crop returns and acres of canola planted. This study provides a deeper understanding of the costs and potential benefits associated with pollinator refuges and canola production and allows producers to make more informed decisions about wild pollinators and reliance on introduced honeybees.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
Notes
1. Wheat prices were varied over a range of values with little difference in qualitative results.
2. Bees do not honor treatment boundaries.
3. Includes the added cost of harvest and transportation for the additional yield and interest on operating cost.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Abby ShalekBriski
Abby ShalekBriski is a PhD candidate in the Department of Agricultural Economics and a MS student in the Department of Statistics at Oklahoma State University. Additionally, she is the Assistant Director of Statistical and Data Analysis at the American Veterinary Medical Association. Her research areas includes production and veterinary economics.
Eric A. DeVuyst
Eric A. DeVuyst is a professor and Rainbolt Chair in the Department of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University. His research and extension focus on production economics and farm management.
Kirsten A. Baum
Kristen Baum is a Professor of Integrative Biology and Associate Dean for Research for the College of Arts and Sciences at Oklahoma State University. Her research focuses on the effects of land use and management practices on pollinators.
Kristopher L. Giles
Kristopher Giles is a Regents Professor, Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. His research works include studies on Integrated Pest Management, Insect Sampling and Biological Control.