Hairiness: the missing link between pollinators and pollination

Background. Functional traits are the primary biotic component driving organism influence on ecosystem functions; in consequence, traits are widely used in ecological research. However, most animal trait-based studies use easy-to-measure characteristics of species that are at best only weakly associated with functions. Animal-mediated pollination is a key ecosystem function and is likely to be influenced by pollinator traits, but to date no one has identified functional traits that are simple to measure and have good predictive power. Methods. Here, we show that a simple, easy to measure trait (hairiness) can predict pollinator effectiveness with high accuracy. We used a novel image analysis method to calculate entropy values for insect body surfaces as a measure of hairiness. We evaluated the power of our method for predicting pollinator effectiveness by regressing pollinator hairiness (entropy) against single visit pollen deposition (SVD) and pollen loads on insects. We used linear models and AICC model selection to determine which body regions were the best predictors of SVD and pollen load. Results. We found that hairiness can be used as a robust proxy of SVD. The best models for predicting SVD for the flower species Brassica rapa and Actinidia deliciosa were hairiness on the face and thorax as predictors (R2 D0:98 and 0.91 respectively). The best model for predicting pollen load for B. rapa was hairiness on the face (R2 D0:81). Discussion. We suggest that the match between pollinator body region hairiness and plant reproductive structure morphology is a powerful predictor of pollinator effectiveness. We show that pollinator hairiness is strongly linked to pollination an important ecosystem function, and provide a rigorous and time-efficient method for measuring hairiness. Identifying and accurately measuring key traits that drive ecosystem processes is critical as global change increasingly alters ecological communities, and subsequently, ecosystem functions worldwide.University of Auckland PCIG14-GA- 2013-631653, MBIE C11X130

Evaluating the taxa that provide shared pollination services across multiple crops and regions

Many pollinator species visit multiple crops in multiple regions, yet we know little about their pollination service provisioning at local and regional scales. We investigated the floral visitors (n = 13,200), their effectiveness (n = 1718 single visits) and response to landscape composition across three crops avocado, mango and macadamia within a single growing region (1 year), a single crop (3 years) and across different growing regions in multiple years. In total, eight wild visitor groups were shared across all three crops. The network was dominated by three pollinators, two bees (Apis mellifera and Tetragonula spp.) and a fly, Stomorhina discolor. The visitation network for the three crops was relatively generalised but with the addition of pollen deposition data, specialisation increased. Sixteen managed and wild taxa were consistently present across three years in avocado, yet their contribution to annual network structure varied. Node specialisation (d’) analyses indicated many individual orchard sites across each of the networks were significantly more specialised compared to that predicted by null models, suggesting the presence of site-specific factors driving these patterns. Identifying the taxa shared across multiple crops, regions and years will facilitate the development of specific pollinator management strategies to optimize crop pollination services in horticultural systems

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

The role of insect pollinators in avocado production: a global review

Insect pollination increases the yield and quality of many crops and therefore, understanding the role of insect pollinators in crop production is necessary to sustainably increase yields. Avocado Persea americana benefits from insect pollination, however, a better understanding of the role of pollinators and their contribution to the production of this globally important crop is needed. In this study, we carried out a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the pollination ecology of avocado to answer the following questions: (a) Are there any research gaps in terms of geographic location or scientific focus? (b) What is the effect of insect pollinators on avocado pollination and production? (c) Which pollinators are the most abundant and effective and how does this vary across location? (d) How can insect pollination be improved for higher yields? (e) What are the current evidence gaps and what should be the focus of future research? Research from many regions of the globe has been published, however, results showed that there is limited information from key avocado producing countries such as Mexico and the Dominican Republic. In most studies, insects were shown to contribute greatly to pollination, fruit set and yield. Honeybees Apis mellifera were important pollinators in many regions due to their efficiency and high abundance, however, many wild pollinators also visited avocado flowers and were the most frequent visitors in over 50% of studies. This study also highlighted the effectiveness of stingless bees (Meliponini) and blow flies (Calliphoridae) as avocado pollinators although, for the majority of flower visitors, there is a lack of data on pollinator efficiency. For optimal yields, growers should ensure a sufficient abundance of pollinators in their orchards either through increasing honeybee hive density or, for a more sustainable approach, by managing wild pollinators through practices that protect or promote natural habitat

The HIPASS Catalogue - II. Completeness, Reliability, and Parameter Accuracy

The HI Parkes All Sky Survey (HIPASS) is a blind extragalactic HI 21-cm emission line survey covering the whole southern sky from declination -90 to +25. The HIPASS catalogue (HICAT), containing 4315 HI-selected galaxies from the region south of declination +2, is presented in Meyer et al. (2004a, Paper I). This paper describes in detail the completeness and reliability of HICAT, which are calculated from the recovery rate of synthetic sources and follow-up observations, respectively. HICAT is found to be 99 per cent complete at a peak flux of 84 mJy and an integrated flux of 9.4 Jy km/s. The overall reliability is 95 per cent, but rises to 99 per cent for sources with peak fluxes >58 mJy or integrated flux > 8.2 Jy km/s. Expressions are derived for the uncertainties on the most important HICAT parameters: peak flux, integrated flux, velocity width, and recessional velocity. The errors on HICAT parameters are dominated by the noise in the HIPASS data, rather than by the parametrization procedure.Comment: Accepted for publication in MNRAS. 12 pages, 11 figures. Paper with higher resolution figures can be downloaded from http://hipass.aus-vo.or

A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.

Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.University of Reading’s Building Outstanding Impact Support Programm

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

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild and managed bees are well 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

Biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation

Pollinators underpin sustainable livelihoods that link ecosystems, spiritual and cultural values, and customary governance systems with indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLC) across the world. Biocultural diversity is a short-hand term for this great variety of people-nature interlinkages that have developed over time in specific ecosystems. Biocultural approaches to conservation explicitly build on the conservation practices inherent in sustaining these livelihoods. We used the Conceptual Framework of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services to analyse the biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation by indigenous peoples and local communities globally. The analysis identified biocultural approaches to pollinators across all six elements of the Conceptual Framework, with conservation-related practices occurring in sixty countries, in all continents except Antarctica. Practices of IPLC that are significant for biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation can be grouped into three categories: the practice of valuing diversity and fostering biocultural diversity; landscape management practices; and diversified farming systems. Particular IPLCs may use some or all of these practices. Policies that recognise customary tenure over traditional lands, strengthen Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, promote heritage listing and support diversified farming within a food sovereignty approach, are among several identified that strengthen biocultural approaches to pollinator conservation, and thereby deliver mutual benefits for pollinators and people

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