Effect of invader removal: pollinators stay but some native plants miss their new friend

Removal of invasive species often benefits biological diversity allowing ecosystems’ recovery. However, it is important to assess the functional roles that invaders may have established in their new areas to avoid unexpected results from species elimination. Invasive animal-pollinated plants may affect the plant–pollination interactions by changing pollinator availability and/or behaviour in the community. Thus, removal of an invasive plant may have important effects on pollinator community that may then be reflected positive or negatively on the reproductive success of native plants. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of removing Oxalis pescaprae, an invasive weed widely spread in the Mediterranean basin, on plant–pollinator interactions and on the reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. For this, a disturbed area in central Portugal, where this species is highly abundant, was selected. Visitation rates, natural pollen loads, pollen tube growth and natural fruit set of native plants were compared in the presence of O. pes-caprae and after manual removal of their flowers. Our results showed a highly resilient pollination network but also revealed some facilitative effects of O. pes-caprae on the reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Reproductive success of the native plants seems to depend not only on the number and diversity of floral visitors, but also on their efficiency as pollinators. The information provided on the effects of invasive species on the sexual reproductive success of natives is essential for adequate management of invaded areas.This work is financed by FEDER funds through the COMPETE Program and by Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) funds in the ambit of the project PTDC/ BIA-BIC/110824/2009, by CRUP Acc¸o˜es Integradas Luso- Espanholas 2010 with the project E10/10, by MCI-Programa de Internacionalizacio´n de la I ? D (PT2009-0068) and by the Spanish DGICYT (CGL2009-10466), FEDER funds from the European Union, and the Xunta de Galicia (INCITE09- 3103009PR). FCT also supported the work of S. Castro (FCT/ BPD/41200/2007) and J. Costa (CB/C05/2009/209; PTDC/ BIA-BIC/110824/2009). The work of V. Ferrero was supported by the Fundacio´n Ramo´n Areces

Exploring or Avoiding Novel Food Resources? The Novelty Conflict in an Invasive Bird

For an animal invading a novel region, the ability to develop new behaviors should facilitate the use of novel food resources and hence increase its survival in the new environment. However, the need to explore new resources may entail costs such as exposing the animal to unfamiliar predators. These two opposing forces result in an exploration-avoidance conflict, which can be expected to interfere with the acquisition of new resources. However, its consequences should be less dramatic in highly urbanized environments where new food opportunities are common and predation risk is low. We tested this hypothesis experimentally by presenting three foraging tasks to introduced common mynas (Acridotheres tristis) from environments with low and high urbanization levels from Australia. Individuals from the highly urbanized environments, where mynas are both more opportunistic when foraging and less fearful to predators, resolved a technical task faster than those from less urbanized environments. These differences did not reflect innovative ‘personalities’ and were not confounded by sex, morphology or motivational state. Rather, the principal factors underlying differences in mynas' problem-solving ability were neophobic-neophilic responses, which varied across habitats. Thus, mynas seem to modulate their problem-solving ability according to the benefits and costs of innovating in their particular habitat, which may help us understand the great success of the species in highly urbanized environments

Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation

This is a report by the USDA as climate change relates to its affect on livestock and agriculture

Corrigendum: Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments

A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild andmanaged bees arewell documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.Peer Reviewe

National records of 3000 European bee and hoverfly species: A contribution to pollinator conservation

Pollinators play a crucial role in ecosystems globally, ensuring the seed production of most flowering plants. They are threatened by global changes and knowledge of their distribution at the national and continental levels is needed to implement efficient conservation actions, but this knowledge is still fragmented and/or difficult to access. As a step forward, we provide an updated list of around 3000 European bee and hoverfly species, reflecting their current distributional status at the national level (in the form of present, absent, regionally extinct, possibly extinct or non-native). This work was attainable by incorporating both published and unpublished data, as well as knowledge from a large set of taxonomists and ecologists in both groups. After providing the first National species lists for bees and hoverflies for many countries, we examine the current distributional patterns of these species and designate the countries with highest levels of species richness. We also show that many species are recorded in a single European country, highlighting the importance of articulating European and national conservation strategies. Finally, we discuss how the data provided here can be combined with future trait and Red List data to implement research that will further advance pollinator conservation

Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being

Wild and managed pollinators provide a wide range of benefits to society in terms of contributions to food security, farmer and beekeeper livelihoods, social and cultural values, as well as the maintenance of wider biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Pollinators face numerous threats, including changes in land-use and management intensity, climate change, pesticides and genetically modified crops, pollinator management and pathogens, and invasive alien species. There are well-documented declines in some wild and managed pollinators in several regions of the world. However, many effective policy and management responses can be implemented to safeguard pollinators and sustain pollination services