Houseflies and Blowflies – Not Bees – Are Among South Africa’s Best Mango Pollinators, But Climate Change Threatens Future Harvests

Study introduces a new way to measure pollinator “effectiveness,” not just presence, revealing that climate change could shrink suitable habitat for key mango pollinators by more than 40% in coming decades

Some of the most important pollinators for South Africa’s mango industry aren’t bees at all – they’re houseflies and blowflies, according to a recently published study in Frontiers of Biogeography by scientists at University College London (UCL).

The study, led by Matthew Phillips Sánchez and Richard Pearson of UCL’s Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, set out to find not just which insects visit mango flowers, but which ones actually pollinate them effectively.

Not all visitors are pollinators

Visiting vs. pollinating species of mango in South Africa. Insect visitors of mango in South Africa (61), composed of five orders and 15 families (‘Visitors’). Compiled from global studies describing visitors to mango flowers, which are also present in South Africa with at least 20 occurrence records on GBIF. Thirty-eight of these are pollinators (pollen deposition effectiveness > 0), belonging to two orders and eight families (‘Pollinators’). Credit to Sánchez and Pearson, 2026.

Mango flowers attract a huge range of insect visitors, but many never touch the flower’s reproductive parts and so transfer no pollen at all. To separate the true pollinators from the freeloaders, the researchers used a Pollen Deposition Effectiveness (PDE) metric, which combines how often a species visits mango flowers, how often those visits make contact with the flower’s reproductive organs, and how much pollen is deposited per visit.

illustrative graphic on mango pollination size
Graphic credit to Matthew Phillips Sánchez, 2026.

Applying this method to 61 known mango-visiting insect species found in South Africa, the team identified 38 true pollinators – and found that flies, not bees, were the amongst the more effective pollinators. Blowflies (family Calliphoridae), the housefly (Musca domestica), and a tiny stingless bee species, Liotrigona bottegoi, ranked as the most effective pollinators identified in the study. Larger insects such as honeybees and carpenter bees (Xylocopa) were generally less effective per visit, likely because their bigger bodies make less consistent contact with the small mango flower’s reproductive structures.

Insects from the orders Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Coleoptera (beetles) and Hemiptera (true bugs) were found not to contribute meaningfully to pollination, either because they don’t make contact with the flower’s reproductive parts or because there wasn’t enough data to assess them.

A shrinking future for mango pollinators

The researchers combined their pollinator effectiveness data with species distribution models, statistical tools that predict where a species can survive based on climate, to project how pollinator habitat in South Africa’s main mango-growing provinces (Limpopo, Mpumalanga and KwaZulu-Natal) might change under future climate scenarios.

The results point to widespread declines. On average, pollinator species are projected to lose 42% (under a moderate-emissions scenario) to 43% (under a high-emissions scenario) of their currently suitable habitat by 2061-2080 or 66,663 km2 and 73,608 km2 respectively.

Mango pollinator species richness and potential pollination provision. Species richness and potential pollinator provision under present-day climate (left column) and SDM-predicted changes under two climate change scenarios (right columns). Credit to Sánchez and Pearson, 2026.

Flies were projected to be hit hardest, while some bee species were projected to gain ground in parts of the region. The study also found that pollinator communities are likely to undergo substantial species turnover, with many current pollinators potentially shifting toward the country’s south as the climate changes.

Encouragingly, the researchers found that potential pollination service didn’t decline much faster than pollinator numbers overall – a sign of what ecologists call “functional redundancy,” where many species contribute moderate pollination value rather than the community depending on one or two irreplaceable species. This suggests the loss of some species is less likely to cause a sudden pollination collapse, provided enough functionally similar species remain.

The mango industry

mangoes on a tree
Tomy mangoes by alexanruiz via Envato.

Mango is a significant industry in South Africa, valued at more than US$25 million annually and supporting over 13,000 jobs in processing and related trades, in addition to many smallholder and subsistence growers who rely heavily on wild, unmanaged pollinators.

The authors stress that their study is intended primarily as a proof-of-concept for this new modeling approach, rather than a definitive forecast of mango production. The models estimate climatically suitable habitat, not realised populations, and do not account for land use, habitat availability, or the timing of mango flowering relative to pollinator activity.

Practical steps for growers

pile of mangoes
Pile of Fresh Mangoes by elxeneize via Envato.

The researchers highlight several low-cost conservation measures that could help support wild pollinator populations in mango orchards, including reducing pesticide and herbicide use, setting up low-cost “stink stations” to attract pollinating blowflies, planting native flowering plants or allowing wildflowers to grow between orchard rows to provide food and nesting sites for pollinators, and increasing overall plant diversity within orchards.

Original source: 

Sánchez MP, Pearson R (2026) Biogeography of pollination under climate change: integrating pollinator effectiveness into species distribution models for mango in South Africa. Frontiers of Biogeography 19: e180771. https://doi.org/10.21425/fob.19.180771 

New improvements to how impacts of non-native species are assessed recommended

A farmer sets a pheromone trap to fight tomato leaf miner. Photo by CABI.

The Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI) has led an international team of non-native species (NNS) specialists who have compiled a list of recommendations to improve the way in which the impact of a range of invasive pests – such as the tomato leaf miner Tuta absoluta – are assessed, potentially helping towards ensuring greater global food security.

Lead authors Dr Pablo González-Moreno and Dr Marc Kenis, Senior Researchers at CABI are two of 89 NNS experts from around the world who have collaborated on the paper, published in NeoBiota, that calls for ‘more robust and user-friendly’ impact assessment protocols to predict the impacts of new or likely invaders as well as to assess the actual impact of established species.

The manuscript is the outcome of an enormous collective effort using 11 different protocols to assess the potential impact of 57 NNS to Europe yielding a total of 2614 separate assessments. This unique dataset has allowed the authors to identify which are the main factors increasing the robustness of protocols and provide recommendations on how the robustness and applicability of protocols could be enhanced for assessing NNS impacts.

As reported in the study, entitled ‘Consistency of impact assessment protocols for Non-Native Species’, Dr González-Moreno and fellow scientists – from 80 institutions including the UK-based Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH), University of Milan, University of Bern and Queens University Belfast – argue that ‘assessment of the realised or potential impacts of NNS is particularly important for the prioritization of management actions.’

Millions of the world’s most vulnerable people face problems with invasive weeds, insects and plant diseases, which are out of control and have a major impact on global prosperity, communities and the environment. Developing countries are disproportionately affected.

The global cost of the world’s 1.2 million invasive species is estimated at $1.4 trillion per year – close to 5 percent of global gross domestic product. In East Africa, five major invasive species alone cause $1 billion in economic losses to smallholder farmers each year.

The scientists believe that, currently, the large variety of metrics adopted to measure the impacts of invasive species undermines direct comparison of impacts across species, groups of taxa, localities or regions. They go on to argue that in general we have ‘little understanding of the patterns in consistency of impact scores across assessors and protocols, and more importantly, which factors contribute to high levels of consistency.’

Dr González-Moreno said,

“There is an increasing demand for robust and user-friendly impact assessment protocols to be used by professionals with different levels of expertise and knowledge.
Robust NNS impact protocols should ideally result in accurate and consistent impact scores for a species even if applied by different assessors, as long as they have the adequate expertise in the assessed species and context.
Several key factors should be taken into account when selecting or designing an NNS risk assessment protocol, such as the aim, the scope, the consistency and the accuracy of the outcomes, and the resources available to perform the assessment – for example time or information available.”

In compiling a list of recommendations for improved NNS impact protocols, Dr González-Moreno and the team of researchers used 11 different protocols to assess the potential impact of 57 species not native to Europe and belonging to a very large array of taxonomic groups (plants, animals, pathogens) from terrestrial to freshwater and marine environments.

They agree that using a ‘5-level scoring, maximum aggregation method and the moderation of expertise requirements’ offers a good compromise to reducing inconsistencies in research findings without losing discriminatory power or usability.

Dr González-Moreno added, “In general, we also advise protocol developers to perform sensibility tests of consistency before final release or adoption. This is crucial as if a protocol yields inconsistent outcomes when used by different assessors, then it is likely that decisions taken based on the results could be variable and disproportionate to the actual impacts.”

Original source:

González-Moreno P, Lazzaro L, Vilà M, Preda C, Adriaens T, Bacher S, Brundu G, Copp GH, Essl F, García-Berthou E, Katsanevakis S, Moen TL, Lucy FE, Nentwig W, Roy HE, Srėbalienė G, Talgø V, Vanderhoeven S, Andjelković A, Arbačiauskas K, Auger-Rozenberg M-A, Bae M-J, Bariche M, Boets P, Boieiro M, Borges PA, Canning-Clode J, Cardigos F, Chartosia N, Cottier-Cook EJ, Crocetta F, D’hondt B, Foggi B, Follak S, Gallardo B, Gammelmo Ø, Giakoumi S, Giuliani C, Guillaume F, Jelaska LS, Jeschke JM, Jover M, Juárez-Escario A, Kalogirou S, Kočić A, Kytinou E, Laverty C, Lozano V, Maceda-Veiga A, Marchante E, Marchante H, Martinou AF, Meyer S, Michin D, Montero-Castaño A, Morais MC, Morales-Rodriguez C, Muhthassim N, Nagy ZA, Ogris N, Onen H, Pergl J, Puntila R, Rabitsch W, Ramburn TT, Rego C, Reichenbach F, Romeralo C, Saul W-C, Schrader G, Sheehan R, Simonović P, Skolka M, Soares AO, Sundheim L, Tarkan AS, Tomov R, Tricarico E, Tsiamis K, Uludağ A, van Valkenburg J, Verreycken H, Vettraino AM, Vilar L, Wiig Ø, Witzell J, Zanetta A, Kenis M (2019) Consistency of impact assessment protocols for non-native species. NeoBiota 44: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.44.31650

Additional information:

The paper is based upon work from the COST Action TD1209: ALIEN Challenge. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is a pan-European intergovernmental framework. The mission of COST is to enable scientific and technological developments leading to new concepts and products and thereby contribute to strengthening Europe’s research and innovation capacities.

Dr Pablo González-Moreno was supported by the CABI Development Fund (with contributions from ACIAR (Australia) and DFID (UK) and by Darwin plus, DPLUS074 ‘Improving biosecurity in the SAUKOTs through Pest Risk Assessments’.

 

Text originally published by CABI.