Creating patches of native flowers facilitates crop pollination in large agricultural fields : mango as a case study

1. As cropland increases, fields become progressively isolated from pollinators, leading to declines in pollinator-dependent crop productivity. With the rise in demand for pollinatordependent foods, such productivity losses may accelerate conversion of natural areas to cropland. Pollination–compensation measures involving managed pollinators or hand pollination are not always optimal or are too costly. Introducing areas of native vegetation within cropland has been proposed as a way to supplement crop pollinators, but this measure is perceived by farmers to carry costs outweighing benefits to agricultural production. Studies quantifying benefits of small patches of native flowers to crop pollination are therefore necessary to encourage such practices. 2. To ascertain whether provision of floral resources within farmlands can facilitate pollination, and hence, crop yields, small experimental patches of perennial native plants (native flower compensation areas, NFCAs) were created in nonproductive areas of large commercial fields of several cultivars of mango Mangifera indica. 3. Pesticide use and isolation from natural habitat were associated with declines in flying visitors and in mango production (kg of marketable fresh fruit), but presence of NFCAs ameliorated these declines, and NFCAs did not harbour any mango pests. In areas far from natural vegetation, orchards near NFCAs had significantly higher diversity and abundance of mango flying visitors, as well as mango production, than orchards far from NFCAs, although these measures were still lower than in orchards close to natural areas. 4. Neither the most abundant flower visitors to mango (ants) nor initial fruit set was significantly affected by distance, pesticides or NFCAs, suggesting that although fertilization is associated with factors unaffected by isolation from natural habitat and pesticide use (i.e. selfand ant-pollination), viable fruit set (and ultimately, production) requires cross-pollination, for which flying visitors are essential. 5. Synthesis and applications. Our results show that the presence of small patches of native flowers within large farms can increase pollinator-dependent crop production if combined with preservation of remaining fragments of natural habitat and judicious use of pesticides. Native flower compensation areas represent a profitable management measure for farmers, increasing cost-effectiveness of cropland while indirectly contributing to preservation of natural habitat.South African National Biodiversity Institute,The University of Pretoria and STEP (Status and Trends of European Pollinators, grant no244090).http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2664hb2013ab201

Economic and ecological implications of geographic bias in pollinator ecology in the light of pollinator declines

Understanding the causes and consequences of pollinator declines is a priority in ecological research. However, across much of the globe we have a poor understanding of pollinator assemblages, population trends and the ecological and economic importance of particular pollinators, due to a marked geographic bias in research eff ort. Here, we show that almost half the data cited in thirteen recent meta-analyses, which ask important and diverse questions in pollination ecology, were collected in just fi ve countries: Australia, Brazil, Germany, Spain and the USA. In contrast, the entire continent of Africa contributed only 4% of the data. We believe that the consequences of this geographic bias are severe. Foremost, pollinator assemblages (and possibly their sensitivity to ecological drivers) can greatly vary among these regions. In addition, many communities that rely on pollinators, bees in particular, for food security and wealth generation are in geographic regions where our understanding of pollination is poor. Collecting accurate information on pollinator populations in data defi cient areas will allow us to identify vulnerable populations and species and so better target conservation measures. Moreover, it will help us to determine if our current understanding of pollinator losses, based on data collected in a few locations and on the species that predominate in those regions, is representative of the wide diversity of ecosystems. We propose means of collecting such data given socioeconomic constraints.The BBSRC, NERC, the Wellcome Trust, Defra, and the Scottish Government under the Insect Pollinators Initiative (BB/I000968/1). National Research Foundation of South Africa and the University of Pretoria. LGC is funded by the EU FP7 projects.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1600-0706hb201

Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type

Species distribution models (SDM) are increasingly used to understand the factors that regulate variation in biodiversity patterns and to help plan conservation strategies. However, these models are rarely validated with independently collected data and it is unclear whether SDM performance is maintained across distinct habitats and for species with different functional traits. Highly mobile species, such as bees, can be particularly challenging to model. Here, we use independent sets of occurrence data collected systematically in several agricultural habitats to test how the predictive performance of SDMs for wild bee species depends on species traits, habitat type, and sampling technique. We used a species distribution modeling approach parametrized for the Netherlands, with presence records from 1990 to 2010 for 193 Dutch wild bees. For each species, we built a Maxent model based on 13 climate and landscape variables. We tested the predictive performance of the SDMs with independent datasets collected from orchards and arable fields across the Netherlands from 2010 to 2013, using transect surveys or pan traps. Model predictive performance depended on species traits and habitat type. Occurrence of bee species specialized in habitat and diet was better predicted than generalist bees. Predictions of habitat suitability were also more precise for habitats that are temporally more stable (orchards) than for habitats that suffer regular alterations (arable), particularly for small, solitary bees. As a conservation tool, SDMs are best suited to modeling rarer, specialist species than more generalist and will work best in long-term stable habitats. The variability of complex, short-term habitats is difficult to capture in such models and historical land use generally has low thematic resolution. To improve SDMs’ usefulness, models require explanatory variables and collection data that include detailed landscape characteristics, for example, variability of crops and flower availability. Additionally, testing SDMs with field surveys should involve multiple collection techniques

The impact of over 80 years of land cover changes on bee and wasp pollinator communities in England

Change in land cover is thought to be one of the key drivers of pollinator declines, and yet there is a dearth of studies exploring the relationships between historical changes in land cover and shifts in pollinator communities. Here, we explore, for the first time, land cover changes in England over more than 80 years, and relate them to concurrent shifts in bee and wasp species richness and community composition. Using historical data from 14 sites across four counties, we quantify the key land cover changes within and around these sites and estimate the changes in richness and composition of pollinators. Land cover changes within sites, as well as changes within a 1 km radius outside the sites, have significant effects on richness and composition of bee and wasp species, with changes in edge habitats between major land classes also having a key influence. Our results highlight not just the land cover changes that may be detrimental to pollinator communities, but also provide an insight into how increases in habitat diversity may benefit species diversity, and could thus help inform policy and practice for future land management

Soil-derived Nature’s Contributions to People and their contribution to the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Acknowledgments The input of PS contributes to Soils-R-GRREAT (NE/P019455/1) and the input of PS and SK contributes to the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme through project CIRCASA (grant agreement no. 774378). PR acknowledges funding from UK Greenhouse Gas Removal Programme (NE/P01982X/2). GB De Deyn acknowledges FoodShot Global for its support. TKA acknowledges the support of “Towards Integrated Nitrogen Management System (INMS) funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), executed through the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). The input of DG was supported by the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) strategic science investment fund (SSIF). PMS acknowledges support from the Australian Research Council (Project FT140100610). PM’s work on ecosystem services is supported by a National Science Foundation grant #1853759, “Understanding the Use of Ecosystem Services Concepts in Environmental Policy”. LGC is funded by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil – grants 421668/2018-0 and 305157/2018-3) and by Lisboa2020 FCT/EU (project 028360). BS acknowledges support from the Lancaster Environment Centre Project.Peer reviewedPostprin

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

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

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

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

Wild insect diversity increases inter-annual stability in global crop pollinator communities.

While an increasing number of studies indicate that range, diversity and abundance of many wild pollinators has declined, the global area of pollinator-dependent crops has significantly increased over the last few decades. Crop pollination studies to date, have mainly focused on either identifying different guilds pollinating various crops, or on factors driving spatial changes and turnover observed in these communities. The mechanisms driving temporal stability for ecosystem functioning and services, however, remain poorly understood. Our study quantifies temporal variability observed in crop pollinators in 21 different crops across multiple years at a global scale. Using data from 43 studies from six continents, we show that (i) higher pollinator diversity confers greater inter-annual stability in pollinator communities, (ii) temporal variation observed in pollinator abundance is primarily driven by the three most dominant species, and (iii) crops in tropical regions demonstrate higher inter-annual variability in pollinator species richness than crops in temperate regions. We highlight the importance of recognising wild pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes to stabilize pollinator persistence across years to protect both biodiversity and crop pollination services. Short-term agricultural management practices aimed at dominant species for stabilising pollination services need to be considered alongside longer-term conservation goals focussed on maintaining and facilitating biodiversity to confer ecological stability