45 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
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
CropPol: a dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination
This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record The original dataset (v1.1.0) of the CropPol database can be accessed from the ECOLOGY repository. Main upgrades of these datasets will be versioned and deposited in Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5546600)Data availability. V.C. Computer programs and data-processing algorithms: The algorithms used in deriving, processing, or transforming data can be accessed in the DataS1.zip file and the Zenodo repository (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5546600). V.D. Archiving: The data is archived for long-term storage and access in Zenodo (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5546600)Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e. berry weight, number of fruits and kg per hectare, among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), Northern America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001-05 (21 studies), 2006-10 (40), 2011-15 (88), and 2016-20 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA). This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.OBServ Projec
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