The interplay of landscape composition and configuration: new pathways to manage functional biodiversity and agroecosystem services across Europe

Managing agricultural landscapes to support biodiversity and ecosystem services is a key aim of a sustainable agriculture. However, how the spatial arrangement of crop fields and other habitats in landscapes impacts arthropods and their functions is poorly known. Synthesising data from 49 studies (1515 landscapes) across Europe, we examined effects of landscape composition (% habitats) and configuration (edge density) on arthropods in fields and their margins, pest control, pollination and yields. Configuration effects interacted with the proportions of crop and non‐crop habitats, and species’ dietary, dispersal and overwintering traits led to contrasting responses to landscape variables. Overall, however, in landscapes with high edge density, 70% of pollinator and 44% of natural enemy species reached highest abundances and pollination and pest control improved 1.7‐ and 1.4‐fold respectively. Arable‐dominated landscapes with high edge densities achieved high yields. This suggests that enhancing edge density in European agroecosystems can promote functional biodiversity and yield‐enhancing ecosystem services

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

Ecological network complexity scales with area

Larger geographical areas contain more species—an observation raised to a law in ecology. Less explored is whether biodiversity changes are accompanied by a modification of interaction networks. We use data from 32 spatial interaction networks from different ecosystems to analyse how network structure changes with area. We find that basic community structure descriptors (number of species, links and links per species) increase with area following a power law. Yet, the distribution of links per species varies little with area, indicating that the fundamental organization of interactions within networks is conserved. Our null model analyses suggest that the spatial scaling of network structure is determined by factors beyond species richness and the number of links. We demonstrate that biodiversity–area relationships can be extended from species counts to higher levels of network complexity. Therefore, the consequences of anthropogenic habitat destruction may extend from species loss to wider simplification of natural communities.This work was supported by the TULIP Laboratory of Excellence (ANR-10-LABX-41 and 394 ANR-11-IDEX-002-02) to J.M.M., by a Region Midi-Pyrenees project (CNRS 121090) to J.M.M., and by the FRAGCLIM Consolidator Grant (726176) to J.M.M. from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program. The study was also supported by Spanish MICINN projects CGL2009-12646, CSD2008-0040 and CGL2013-41856 to J.B. and A.R. C.E. was funded through the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP 2015/15172-7). V.A.G.B. was funded by National Funds through FCT—Foundation for Science and Technology under the Project UIDB/05183/2020. W.T. received funding from the ERA-Net BiodivERsA—Belmont Forum, with the national funder Agence National pour la Recherche (FutureWeb: ANR-18-EBI4–0009 and BearConnect: ANR-16-EBI3-0003).Peer reviewe

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

The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts

Biodiversity continues to decline in the face of increasing anthropogenic pressures such as habitat destruction, exploitation, pollution and introduction of alien species. Existing global databases of species’ threat status or population time series are dominated by charismatic species. The collation of datasets with broad taxonomic and biogeographic extents, and that support computation of a range of biodiversity indicators, is necessary to enable better understanding of historical declines and to project – and avert – future declines. We describe and assess a new database of more than 1.6 million samples from 78 countries representing over 28,000 species, collated from existing spatial comparisons of local-scale biodiversity exposed to different intensities and types of anthropogenic pressures, from terrestrial sites around the world. The database contains measurements taken in 208 (of 814) ecoregions, 13 (of 14) biomes, 25 (of 35) biodiversity hotspots and 16 (of 17) megadiverse countries. The database contains more than 1% of the total number of all species described, and more than 1% of the described species within many taxonomic groups – including flowering plants, gymnosperms, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, beetles, lepidopterans and hymenopterans. The dataset, which is still being added to, is therefore already considerably larger and more representative than those used by previous quantitative models of biodiversity trends and responses. The database is being assembled as part of the PREDICTS project (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems – www.predicts.org.uk). We make site-level summary data available alongside this article. The full database will be publicly available in 2015

Contrasting Pollination Efficiency and Effectiveness among Flower Visitors of Malva Sylvestris, Borago Officinalis and Onobrychis Viciifolia

Biotic pollination is an important factor for ecosystem functioning and provides a substantial ecosystem service to human food security. Not all flower visitors are pollinators, however, and pollinators differ in their pollination performances. In this study, we determined the efficiencies of flower visitors to the plant species Malva sylvestris, Borago officinalis and Onobrychis viciifolia by analysing stigmatic pollen deposition. We further calculated pollinator effectiveness by scaling up single-visit pollen deposition using visitation frequency. Flower-visitor groups differed in their efficiencies at the single-visit level and not all of them deposited more pollen compared to unvisited stigmas. Bumblebees tended to be most efficient in depositing pollen per single visit across the three plant species. Due to the by far highest visitation frequencies, Apis mellifera showed the highest effectiveness in depositing pollen per hour for M. sylvestris and B. officinalis, but not for O. viciifolia, for which the Bombus lapidarius complex was both the most frequent and the most effective pollinator group. Hence, the most frequent flower visitors were most effective in our study. For non-dominant pollinator groups, however, visitation frequencies contributed disproportionally to pollinator effectiveness. Thus, combining pollen deposition per single-visit with visitation frequency is necessary to reveal true pollinator performance and to better understand flower-visitor interactions.publishe

Wild pollinators enhance oilseed rape yield in small-holder farming systems in China

Background: Insect pollinators play an important role in crop pollination, but the relative contribution of wild pollinators and honey bees to pollination is currently under debate. There is virtually no information available on the strength of pollination services and the identity of pollination service providers from Asian smallholder farming systems, where fields are small, and variation among fields is high. We established 18 winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) fields along a large geographical gradient in Jiangxi province in China. In each field, oilseed rape plants were grown in closed cages that excluded pollinators and open cages that allowed pollinator access. The pollinator community was sampled by pan traps for the entire oilseed rape blooming period. Results: Oilseed rape plants from which insect pollinators were excluded had on average 38% lower seed set, 17% lower fruit set and 12% lower yield per plant, but the seeds were 17% heavier, and the caged plants had 28% more flowers and 18% higher aboveground vegetative biomass than plants with pollinator access. Oilseed rape plants thus compensate for pollination deficit by producing heavier seeds and more flowers. Regression analysis indicated that local abundance and diversity of wild pollinators were positively associated with seed set and yield/straw ratio, while honey bee abundance was not related to yield parameters. Conclusions: Wild pollinator abundance and diversity contribute to oilseed rape yield by enhancing plant resource allocation to seeds rather than to above-ground biomass. This study highlights the importance of the conservation of wild pollinators to support oilseed rape production in small-holder farming systems in China.</p