The identity of crop pollinators helps target conservation for improved ecosystem services

Insect pollinated mass flowering crops are becoming more widespread and there is a need to understand which insects are primarily responsible for the pollination of these crops so conservation measures can be appropriately targeted in the face of pollinator declines. This study used field surveys in conjunction with cage manipulations to identify the relative contributions of different pollinator taxa to the pollination of two widespread flowering crops, field beans and oilseed rape. Flower visiting pollinator communities observed in the field were distinct for each crop; while field beans were visited primarily by a few bumblebee species, multiple pollinator taxa visited oilseed, and the composition of this pollinator community was highly variable spatially and temporally. Neither pollinator community, however, appears to be meeting the demands of crops in our study regions. Cage manipulations showed that multiple taxa can effectively pollinate both oilseed and field beans, but bumblebees are particularly effective bean pollinators. Combining field observations and cage manipulations demonstrated that the pollination demands of these two mass flowering crops are highly contrasting, one would benefit from management to increase the abundance of some key taxa, whilst for the other, boosting overall pollinator abundance and diversity would be more appropriate. Our findings highlight the need for crop specific mitigation strategies that are targeted at conserving specific pollinator taxa (or group of taxa) that are both active and capable of crop pollination in order to reduce pollination deficits and meet the demands of future crop production

Editorial: summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production

Values of pollinators and pollination 1. Animal pollination plays a vital role as a regulating ecosystem service in nature. Globally, nearly 90 per cent of wild flowering plant species depend, at least in part, on the transfer of pollen by animals. These plants are critical for the continued functioning of ecosystems as they provide food, form habitats, and provide other resources for a wide range of other species. 2. More than three quarters of the leading types of global food crops rely to some extent on animal pollination for yield and/or quality. Pollinator-dependent crops contribute to 35 per cent of global crop production volume. 3. Given that pollinator-dependent crops rely on animal pollination to varying degrees, it is estimated that 5–8 per cent of current global crop production is directly attributed to animal pollination with an annual market value of $235 billion–$577 billion (in 2015, United States dollars1) worldwide

Global trends in the number and diversity of managed pollinator species

Cultivation of pollinator-dependent crops has expanded globally, increasing our reliance on insect pollination. This essential ecosystem service is provided by a wide range of managed and wild pollinators whose abundance and diversity are thought to be in decline, threatening sustainable food production. The Western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is amongst the best-monitored insects but the state of other managed pollinators is less well known. Here, we review the status and trends of all managed pollinators based on publicly accessible databases and the published literature. We found that, on a global scale, the number of managed A. mellifera colonies has increased by 85% since 1961, driven mainly by Asia. This contrasts with high reported colony overwinter mortality, especially in North America (average 26% since 2007) and Europe (average 16% since 2007). Increasing agricultural dependency on pollinators as well as threats associated with managing non-native pollinators have likely spurred interest in the management of alternative species for pollination, including bumble bees, stingless bees, solitary bees, and flies that have higher efficiency in pollinating specific crops. We identify 66 insect species that have been, or are considered to have the potential to be, managed for crop pollination, including seven bumble bee species and subspecies currently commercially produced mainly for the pollination of greenhouse-grown tomatoes and two species that are trap-nested in New Zealand. Other managed pollinators currently in use include eight solitary bee species (mainly for pollination services in orchards or alfalfa fields) and three fly species (mainly used in enclosures and for seed production). Additional species in each taxonomic category are under consideration for pollinator management. Examples include 15 stingless bee species that are able to buzz-pollinate, will fly in enclosures, and some of which have a history of management for honey production; their use for pollination is not yet established. To ensure sustainable, integrated pollination management in agricultural landscapes, the risks, as well as the benefits of novel managed pollinator species must be considered. We, therefore, urge the prioritization of biodiversity-friendly measures maintaining native pollinator species diversity to provide ecosystem resilience to future environmental changes.Fil: Osterman, Julia. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemania. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; AlemaniaFil: Aizen, Marcelo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina. Institute for Advanced Study; AlemaniaFil: Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.. Leiden University; Países Bajos. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Bosch, Jordi. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; EspañaFil: Howlett, Brad G.. The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd.; Nueva ZelandaFil: Inouye, David W.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos. Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Jung, Chuleui. Andong National University; Corea del SurFil: Martins, Dino J.. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Medel, Rodrigo. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Pauw, Anton. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Seymour, Colleen L.. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica. South African National Biodiversity Institute; SudáfricaFil: Paxton, Robert J. German Centre for integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg; Alemani

Summary for policymakers of the thematic assessment on pollinators, pollination and food production

The thematic assessment of pollinators, pollination and food production carried out under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to assess animal pollination as a regulating ecosystem service underpinning food production in the context of its contribution to nature’s gifts to people and supporting a good quality of life. To achieve this, it focuses on the role of native and managed pollinators, the status and trends of pollinators and pollinator-plant networks and pollination, drivers of change, impacts on human well-being, food production in response to pollination declines and deficits and the effectiveness of responses. The chapters and their executive summaries of this assessment are available as document IPBES/4/INF/1/Rev.2 (www.ipbes.net). The present document is a summary for policymakers of the information presented in these chapters

Apple pollination: demand depends on variety and supply depends on pollinator identity

Insect pollination underpins apple production but the extent to which different pollinator guilds supply this service, particularly across different apple varieties, is unknown. Such information is essential if appropriate orchard management practices are to be targeted and proportional to the potential benefits pollinator species may provide. Here we use a novel combination of pollinator effectiveness assays (floral visit effectiveness), orchard field surveys (flower visitation rate) and pollinator dependence manipulations (pollinator exclusion experiments) to quantify the supply of pollination services provided by four different pollinator guilds to the production of four commercial varieties of apple. We show that not all pollinators are equally effective at pollinating apples, with hoverflies being less effective than solitary bees and bumblebees, and the relative abundance of different pollinator guilds visiting apple flowers of different varieties varies significantly. Based on this, the taxa specific economic benefits to UK apple production have been established. The contribution of insect pollinators to the economic output in all varieties was estimated to be £92.1M across the UK, with contributions varying widely across taxa: solitary bees (£51.4M), honeybees (£21.4M), bumblebees (£18.6M) and hoverflies (£0.7M). This research highlights the differences in the economic benefits of four insect pollinator guilds to four major apple varieties in the UK. This information is essential to underpin appropriate investment in pollination services management and provides a model that can be used in other entomolophilous crops to improve our understanding of crop pollination ecology

Global agricultural productivity is threatened by increasing pollinator dependence without a parallel increase in crop diversification

The global increase in the proportion of land cultivated with pollinator-dependent crops implies increased reliance on pollination services. Yet agricultural practices themselves can profoundly affect pollinator supply and pollination. Extensive monocultures are associated with a limited pollinator supply and reduced pollination, whereas agricultural diversification can enhance both. Therefore, areas where agricultural diversity has increased, or at least been maintained, may better sustain high and more stable productivity of pollinator-dependent crops. Given that >80% of all crops depend, to varying extents, on insect pollination, a global increase in agricultural pollinator dependence over recent decades might have led to a concomitant increase in agricultural diversification. We evaluated whether an increase in the area of pollinator-dependent crops has indeed been associated with an increase in agricultural diversity, measured here as crop diversity, at the global, regional, and country scales for the period 1961–2016. Globally, results show a relatively weak and decelerating rise in agricultural diversity over time that was largely decoupled from the strong and continually increasing trend in agricultural dependency on pollinators. At regional and country levels, there was no consistent relationship between temporal changes in pollinator dependence and crop diversification. Instead, our results show heterogeneous responses in which increasing pollinator dependence for some countries and regions has been associated with either an increase or a decrease in agricultural diversity. Particularly worrisome is a rapid expansion of pollinator-dependent oilseed crops in several countries of the Americas and Asia that has resulted in a decrease in agricultural diversity. In these regions, reliance on pollinators is increasing, yet agricultural practices that undermine pollination services are expanding. Our analysis has thereby identified world regions of particular concern where environmentally damaging practices associated with large-scale, industrial agriculture threaten key ecosystem services that underlie productivity, in addition to other benefits provided by biodiversity.Fil: Aizen, Marcelo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Aguiar, Sebastián. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura; ArgentinaFil: Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.. Leiden University; Países Bajos. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países BajosFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Sede Andina. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte; ArgentinaFil: Inouye, David W.. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos. Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Jung, Chuleui. Andong National University; Corea del SurFil: Martins, Dino J.. University of Princeton; Estados UnidosFil: Medel, Rodrigo. Universidad de Chile; ChileFil: Morales, Carolina Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Ngo, Hien. UN Campus Platz der Vereinten Nationen. Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; AlemaniaFil: Pauw, Anton. Stellenbosch University; SudáfricaFil: Paxton, Robert J. Martin Luther University Halle Wittenberg; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; AlemaniaFil: Sáez, Agustín. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; ArgentinaFil: Seymour, Colleen L.. South African National Biodiversity Institute; Sudáfrica. University of Cape Town; Sudáfric

Climate-driven spatial mismatches between British orchards and their pollinators: increased risks of pollination deficits

Understanding how climate change can affect crop-pollinator systems helps predict potential geographical mismatches between a crop and its pollinators, and therefore identify areas vulnerable to loss of pollination services. We examined the distribution of orchard species (apples, pears, plums and other top fruits) and their pollinators in Great Britain, for present and future climatic conditions projected for 2050 under the SRES A1B Emissions Scenario. We used a relative index of pollinator availability as a proxy for pollination service. At present there is a large spatial overlap between orchards and their pollinators, but predictions for 2050 revealed that the most suitable areas for orchards corresponded to low pollinator availability. However, we found that pollinator availability may persist in areas currently used for fruit production, but which are predicted to provide sub-optimal environmental suitability for orchard species in the future. Our results may be used to identify mitigation options to safeguard orchard production against the risk of pollination failure in Great Britain over the next 50 years; for instance choosing fruit tree varieties that are adapted to future climatic conditions, or boosting wild pollinators through improving landscape resources. Our approach can be readily applied to other regions and crop systems, and expanded to include different climatic scenarios

How Do Honeybees Attract Nestmates Using Waggle Dances in Dark and Noisy Hives?

It is well known that honeybees share information related to food sources with nestmates using a dance language that is representative of symbolic communication among non-primates. Some honeybee species engage in visually apparent behavior, walking in a figure-eight pattern inside their dark hives. It has been suggested that sounds play an important role in this dance language, even though a variety of wing vibration sounds are produced by honeybee behaviors in hives. It has been shown that dances emit sounds primarily at about 250–300 Hz, which is in the same frequency range as honeybees' flight sounds. Thus the exact mechanism whereby honeybees attract nestmates using waggle dances in such a dark and noisy hive is as yet unclear. In this study, we used a flight simulator in which honeybees were attached to a torque meter in order to analyze the component of bees' orienting response caused only by sounds, and not by odor or by vibrations sensed by their legs. We showed using single sound localization that honeybees preferred sounds around 265 Hz. Furthermore, according to sound discrimination tests using sounds of the same frequency, honeybees preferred rhythmic sounds. Our results demonstrate that frequency and rhythmic components play a complementary role in localizing dance sounds. Dance sounds were presumably developed to share information in a dark and noisy environment

Biodiversity Loss and the Taxonomic Bottleneck: Emerging Biodiversity Science

Human domination of the Earth has resulted in dramatic changes to global and local patterns of biodiversity. Biodiversity is critical to human sustainability because it drives the ecosystem services that provide the core of our life-support system. As we, the human species, are the primary factor leading to the decline in biodiversity, we need detailed information about the biodiversity and species composition of specific locations in order to understand how different species contribute to ecosystem services and how humans can sustainably conserve and manage biodiversity. Taxonomy and ecology, two fundamental sciences that generate the knowledge about biodiversity, are associated with a number of limitations that prevent them from providing the information needed to fully understand the relevance of biodiversity in its entirety for human sustainability: (1) biodiversity conservation strategies that tend to be overly focused on research and policy on a global scale with little impact on local biodiversity; (2) the small knowledge base of extant global biodiversity; (3) a lack of much-needed site-specific data on the species composition of communities in human-dominated landscapes, which hinders ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation; (4) biodiversity studies with a lack of taxonomic precision; (5) a lack of taxonomic expertise and trained taxonomists; (6) a taxonomic bottleneck in biodiversity inventory and assessment; and (7) neglect of taxonomic resources and a lack of taxonomic service infrastructure for biodiversity science. These limitations are directly related to contemporary trends in research, conservation strategies, environmental stewardship, environmental education, sustainable development, and local site-specific conservation. Today’s biological knowledge is built on the known global biodiversity, which represents barely 20% of what is currently extant (commonly accepted estimate of 10 million species) on planet Earth. Much remains unexplored and unknown, particularly in hotspots regions of Africa, South Eastern Asia, and South and Central America, including many developing or underdeveloped countries, where localized biodiversity is scarcely studied or described. ‘‘Backyard biodiversity’’, defined as local biodiversity near human habitation, refers to the natural resources and capital for ecosystem services at the grassroots level, which urgently needs to be explored, documented, and conserved as it is the backbone of sustainable economic development in these countries. Beginning with early identification and documentation of local flora and fauna, taxonomy has documented global biodiversity and natural history based on the collection of ‘‘backyard biodiversity’’ specimens worldwide. However, this branch of science suffered a continuous decline in the latter half of the twentieth century, and has now reached a point of potential demise. At present there are very few professional taxonomists and trained local parataxonomists worldwide, while the need for, and demands on, taxonomic services by conservation and resource management communities are rapidly increasing. Systematic collections, the material basis of biodiversity information, have been neglected and abandoned, particularly at institutions of higher learning. Considering the rapid increase in the human population and urbanization, human sustainability requires new conceptual and practical approaches to refocusing and energizing the study of the biodiversity that is the core of natural resources for sustainable development and biotic capital for sustaining our life-support system. In this paper we aim to document and extrapolate the essence of biodiversity, discuss the state and nature of taxonomic demise, the trends of recent biodiversity studies, and suggest reasonable approaches to a biodiversity science to facilitate the expansion of global biodiversity knowledge and to create useful data on backyard biodiversity worldwide towards human sustainability