Differential effects of habitat isolation and landscape composition on wasps, bees, and their enemies

Habitat loss and fragmentation are major threats to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Effects of these usually intercorrelated processes on biodiversity have rarely been separated at a landscape scale. We studied the independent effects of amount of woody habitat in the landscape and three levels of isolation from the next woody habitat (patch isolation) on trap nesting bees, wasps, and their enemies at 30 farmland sites in the Swiss plateau. Species richness of wasps was negatively affected by patch isolation and positively affected by the amount of woody habitat in the landscape. In contrast, species richness of bees was neither influenced by patch isolation nor by landscape composition. Isolation from woody habitats reduced species richness and abundance of natural enemies more strongly than of their hosts, so that parasitism rate was lowered by half in isolated sites compared to forest edges. Thus, population regulation of the hosts may be weakened by habitat fragmentation. We conclude that habitat amount at the landscape scale and local patch connectivity are simultaneously important for biodiversity conservatio

Isolation from forest reduces pollination, seed predation and insect scavenging in Swiss farmland

Habitat loss and fragmentation lead to changes in species richness and composition which may affect ecosystem services. Yet, few studies distinguish between the effects of habitat loss and isolation, or how multiple ecosystem services may be affected simultaneously. We investigated the effects of variation in cover of woody and open semi-natural habitats and isolation from forest on the relative functioning of pollination, seed predation and insect scavenging in agricultural landscapes. We established 30 sites in grassland locations in the Swiss plateau around Berne. The sites varied independently in their isolation from forest edges, in the percentage of woody habitats and in the percentage of open semi-natural habitats in the surrounding landscape (500m radius). We experimentally exposed primroses, sunflower seeds and cricket corpses during spring 2008. None of the three studied services was affected by variation in woody or open semi-natural habitat cover. However, the proportion of flowers setting seed was significantly reduced by isolation from forest. Further, seed predation and insect scavenging were significantly lower at isolated sites than at sites connected to woody habitat. This pattern was particularly pronounced for seeds and insect corpses that were enclosed by wire netting and thus inaccessible to vertebrates. Thus, all three studied services responded quite similarly to the landscape context. The observed small-scale determination of seed set, seed predation and insect scavenging contrasts with larger-scale determination of pollination and insect pest control found in other studie

Unique cellular organization in the oldest root meristem

Roots and shoots of plant bodies develop from meristems—cell populations that self-renew and produce cells that undergo differentiation—located at the apices of axes [1].The oldest preserved root apices in which cellular anatomy can be imaged are found in nodules of permineralized fossil soils called coal balls [2], which formed in the Carboniferous coal swamp forests over 300 million years ago [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9]. However, no fossil root apices described to date were actively growing at the time of preservation [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10]. Because the cellular organization of meristems changes when root growth stops, it has been impossible to compare cellular dynamics as stem cells transition to differentiated cells in extinct and extant taxa [11]. We predicted that meristems of actively growing roots would be preserved in coal balls. Here we report the discovery of the first fossilized remains of an actively growing root meristem from permineralized Carboniferous soil with detail of the stem cells and differentiating cells preserved. The cellular organization of the meristem is unique. The position of the Körper-Kappe boundary, discrete root cap, and presence of many anticlinal cell divisions within a broad promeristem distinguish it from all other known root meristems. This discovery is important because it demonstrates that the same general cellular dynamics are conserved between the oldest extinct and extant root meristems. However, its unique cellular organization demonstrates that extant root meristem organization and development represents only a subset of the diversity that has existed since roots first evolved.</p

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

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

Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases

Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises

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