Pollinator declines: reconciling scales and implications for ecosystem services

Despite the widespread concern about the fate of pollinators and the ecosystem services they deliver, we still have surprisingly scarce scientific data on the magnitude of pollinator declines and its actual contribution to crop pollination and food security. We use recently published data from northeastern North America to show that studies at both the local and regional scales are needed to understand pollinator declines, and that species-specific responses to global change are broadly consistent across scales. Second, we show that bee species that are currently delivering most of the ecosystem services (i.e. crop pollination) are not among the species showing declining trends, but rather appear to thrivein human-dominated landscapes. - See more at: http://f1000research.com/articles/2-146/v1#sthash.7jLf7zFE.dpu

CropPol: A dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination

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 mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], 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), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001–2005 (21 studies), 2006–2010 (40), 2011–2015 (88), and 2016–2020 (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).Fil: Allen Perkins, Alfonso. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; España. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Estación Biológica de Doñana; EspañaFil: Magrach, Ainhoa. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid; EspañaFil: Dainese, Matteo. Eurac Research. Institute for Alpine Environment; ItaliaFil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro; ArgentinaFil: Kleijn, David. Wageningen University & Research; Países BajosFil: Rader, Romina. University of New England; AustraliaFil: Reilly, James R.. Rutgers University; Estados UnidosFil: Winfree, Rachael. Rutgers University; Estados UnidosFil: Lundin, Ola. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; SueciaFil: McGrady, Carley M.. North Carolina State University; Estados UnidosFil: Brittain, Claire. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Biddinger, David J.. University of California Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Artz, Derek R.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Elle, Elizabeth. University Fraser Simon; CanadáFil: Hoffman, George. State University of Oregon; Estados UnidosFil: Ellis, James D.. University of Florida; Estados UnidosFil: Daniels, Jaret. University of Florida; Estados Unidos. University Of Florida. Florida Museum Of History; Estados UnidosFil: Gibbs, Jason. University of Manitoba; CanadáFil: Campbell, Joshua W.. University of Florida; Estados Unidos. Usda Ars Northern Plains Agricultural Research Laboratory; Estados UnidosFil: Brokaw, Julia. University of Minnesota; Estados UnidosFil: Wilson, Julianna K.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Mason, Keith. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Ward, Kimiora L.. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Gundersen, Knute B.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Bobiwash, Kyle. University of Manitoba; Canadá. University Fraser Simon; CanadáFil: Gut, Larry. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Rowe, Logan M.. Michigan State University; Estados UnidosFil: Boyle, Natalie K.. United States Department of Agriculture. Agriculture Research Service; Estados UnidosFil: Williams, Neal M.. University of California at Davis; Estados UnidosFil: Chacoff, Natacha Paola. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentin

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 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

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