Improving a global model from the boundary layer: total turbulent energy and the neutral limit Prandtl number

Model intercomparisons have identified important deficits in the representation of the stable boundary layer by turbulence parametrizations used in current weather and climate models. However, detrimental impacts of more realistic schemes on the large-scale flow have hindered progress in this area. Here we implement a total turbulent energy scheme into the climate model ECHAM6. The total turbulent energy scheme considers the effects of Earth’s rotation and static stability on the turbulence length scale. In contrast to the previously used turbulence scheme, the TTE scheme also implicitly represents entrainment flux in a dry convective boundary layer. Reducing the previously exaggerated surface drag in stable boundary layers indeed causes an increase in southern hemispheric zonal winds and large-scale pressure gradients beyond observed values. These biases can be largely removed by increasing the parametrized orographic drag. Reducing the neutral limit turbulent Prandtl number warms and moistens low-latitude boundary layers and acts to reduce longstanding radiation biases in the stratocumulus regions, the Southern Ocean and the equatorial cold tongue that are common to many climate models.

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.