Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits

Sustainable agricultural landscapes by definition provide high magnitude and stability of ecosystem services, biodiversity and crop productivity. However, few studies have considered landscape effects on the stability of ecosystem services. We tested whether isolation from florally diverse natural and semi-natural areas reduces the spatial and temporal stability of flower-visitor richness and pollination services in crop fields. We synthesised data from 29 studies with contrasting biomes, crop species and pollinator communities. Stability of flower-visitor richness, visitation rate (all insects except honey bees) and fruit set all decreased with distance from natural areas. At 1 km from adjacent natural areas, spatial stability decreased by 25, 16 and 9% for richness, visitation and fruit set, respectively, while temporal stability decreased by 39% for richness and 13% for visitation. Mean richness, visitation and fruit set also decreased with isolation, by 34, 27 and 16% at 1 km respectively. In contrast, honey bee visitation did not change with isolation and represented > 25% of crop visits in 21 studies. Therefore, wild pollinators are relevant for crop productivity and stability even when honey bees are abundant. Policies to preserve and restore natural areas in agricultural landscapes should enhance levels and reliability of pollination services.

Quantifying the value of ecosystem services: a case study of honeybee pollination in the UK

There is concern that insect pollinators, such as honey bees, are currently declining in abundance, and are under serious threat from environmental changes such as habitat loss and climate change; the use of pesticides in intensive agriculture, and emerging diseases. This paper aims to evaluate how much public support there would be in preventing further decline to maintain the current number of bee colonies in the UK. The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to obtain the willingness to pay (WTP) for a theoretical pollinator protection policy. Respondents were asked whether they would be WTP to support such a policy and how much would they pay? Results show that the mean WTP to support the bee protection policy was £1.37/week/household. Based on there being 24.9 million households in the UK, this is equivalent to £1.77 billion per year. This total value can show the importance of maintaining the overall pollination service to policy makers. We compare this total with estimates obtained using a simple market valuation of pollination for the UK.

Assessing bee species richness in two Mediterranean communities: importance of habitat type and sampling techniques

The decline of bees has raised concerns regarding their conservation and the maintenance of ecosystem services they provide to bee-pollinated wild flowers and crops. Although the Mediterranean region is a hotspot for bee species richness, their status remains poorly studied. There is an urgent need for cost-effective, reliable, and unbiased sampling methods that give good bee species richness estimates. This study aims: (a) to assess bee species richness in two common Mediterranean habitat types: semi-natural scrub (phrygana) and managed olive groves; (b) to compare species richness in those systems to that of other biogeographic regions, and (c) to assess whether six different sampling methods (pan traps, variable and standardized transect walks, observation plots and trap nests), previously tested in other European biogeographic regions, are suitable in Mediterranean communities. Eight study sites, four per habitat type, were selected on the island of Lesvos, Greece. The species richness observed was high compared to other habitat types worldwide for which comparable data exist. Pan traps collected the highest proportion of the total bee species richness across all methods at the scale of a study site. Variable and standardized transect walks detected the highest total richness over all eight study sites. Trap nests and observation plots detected only a limited fraction of the bee species richness. To assess the total bee species richness in bee diversity hotspots, such as the studied habitats, we suggest a combination of transect walks conducted by trained bee collectors and pan trap sampling

Pollinator community responses to the spatial population structure of wild plants: A pan-European approach

Land-use changes can alter the spatial population structure of plant species, which may in turn affect the attractiveness of flower aggregations to different groups of pollinators at different spatial scales. To assess how pollinators respond to spatial heterogeneity of plant distributions and whether honeybees affect visitation by other pollinators we used an extensive data set comprising ten plant species and their flower visitors from five European countries. In particular we tested the hypothesis that the composition of the flower visitor community in terms of visitation frequencies by different pollinator groups were affected by the spatial plant population structure, viz. area and density measures, at a within-population (‘patch’) and among-population (‘population’) scale. We found that patch area and population density were the spatial variables that best explained the variation in visitation frequencies within the pollinator community. Honeybees had higher visitation frequencies in larger patches, while bumblebees and hoverflies had higher visitation frequencies in sparser populations. Solitary bees had higher visitation frequencies in sparser populations and smaller patches. We also tested the hypothesis that honeybees affect the composition of the pollinator community by altering the visitation frequencies of other groups of pollinators. There was a positive relationship between visitation frequencies of honeybees and bumblebees, while the relationship with hoverflies and solitary bees varied (positive, negative and no relationship) depending on the plant species under study. The overall conclusion is that the spatial structure of plant populations affects different groups of pollinators in contrasting ways at both the local (‘patch’) and the larger (‘population’) scales and, that honeybees affect the flower visitation by other pollinator groups in various ways, depending on the plant species under study. These contrasting responses emphasize the need to investigate the entire pollinator community when the effects of landscape change on plant–pollinator interactions are studied.

Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance

Diversity and abundance of wild-insect pollinators have declined in many agricultural landscapes. Whether such declines reduce crop yields, or are mitigated by managed pollinators such as honey bees, is unclear. Here, we show universally positive associations of fruit set with wild-insect visits to flowers in 41 crop systems worldwide, and thus clearly demonstrate their agricultural value. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively, because increase in their visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation. Further, visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so high abundance of managed honey bees supplemented, rather than substituted for, pollination by wild insects. Our results suggest that new practices for integrated management of both honey bees and diverse wild-insect assemblages will enhance global crop yields.

Detecting insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales.

Recently there has been considerable concern about declines in bee communities in agricultural and natural habitats. The value of pollination to agriculture, provided primarily by bees, is >$200 billion/year worldwide, and in natural ecosystems it is thought to be even greater. However, no monitoring program exists to accurately detect declines in abundance of insect pollinators; thus, it is difficult to quantify the status of bee communities or estimate the extent of declines. We used data from 11 multiyear studies of bee communities to devise a program to monitor pollinators at regional, national, or international scales. In these studies, 7 different methods for sampling bees were used and bees were sampled on 3 different continents. We estimated that a monitoring program with 200–250 sampling locations each sampled twice over 5 years would provide sufficient power to detect small (2–5%) annual declines in the number of species and in total abundance and would cost U.S.$2,000,000. To detect declines as small as 1% annually over the same period would require >300 sampling locations. Given the role of pollinators in food security and ecosystem function, we recommend establishment of integrated regional and international monitoring programs to detect changes in pollinator communities.

Enhancement of buffer strips can improve provision of multiple ecosystem services

Farmland invertebrates play a pivotal role in the provision of ecosystem services, i.e. services that benefit humans. For example, bumblebees, solitary bees and honeybees, are crucial to the pollination of many of the world's crops and wildflowers, with over 70% of the world's major food crops dependent on the pollination services provided by these insects. The larvae of some butterfly species are considered to be pests; however, together with moth and sawfly larvae, they represent a key dietary component for many farmland birds. Spiders and ground beetles predate on crop pests including aphids, whilst soil macrofauna such as earthworms are vital for soil fertility services and nutrient recycling. Despite their importance, population declines of invertebrates have been observed during the last sixty years in the UK and NW Europe. For example, seven UK bumblebee species are in decline, and in the last 20 years, the species Bombus subterraneus (short-haired bumblebee) has become extinct, whilst there was a 54% decline in honeybee colony numbers in England from 1985 to 2005. Comparable trends have been documented for butterflies with a 23% decline in UK farmland species such as Anthocharis cardamines (orange tip) between 1990 and 2007. These declines have been widely attributed to the modern intensive arable management practices that have been developed to maximise crop yield. For example, loss and fragmentation of foraging and nesting habitats, including species-rich meadows and hedgerows, have been implicated in the decline of bees and butterflies. Increased use of herbicides and fertilisers has caused detrimental effects on many plant species with negative consequences for predatory invertebrates such as spiders and beetles which rely on plants for food and shelter.

Assessing continental-scale risks for generalist and specialist pollinating bee species under climate change

Increased risks of extinction to populations of animals and plants under changing climate have now been demonstrated for many taxa. This study assesses the extinction risks to species within an important genus of pollinating bees (Colletes: Apidae) by estimating the expected changes in the area and isolation of suitable habitat under predicted climatic condition for 2050. Suitable habitat was defined on the basis of the presence of known forage plants as well as climatic suitability. To investigate whether ecological specialisation was linked to extinction risk we compared three species which were generalist pollen foragers on several plant families with three species which specialised on pollen from a single plant species. Both specialist and generalist species showed an increased risk of extinction with shifting climate, and this was particularly high for the most specialised species (Colletes anchusae and C. wolfi). The forage generalist C. impunctatus, which is associated with Boreo-Alpine environments, is potentially threatened through significant reduction in available climatic niche space. Including the distribution of the principal or sole pollen forage plant, when modelling the distribution of monolectic or narrowly oligolectic species, did not improve the predictive accuracy of our models as the plant species were considerably more widespread than the specialised bees associated with them.

A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems

Bees provide essential pollination services that are potentially affected both by local farm management and the surrounding landscape. To better understand these different factors, we modelled the relative effects of landscape composition (nesting and floral resources within foraging distances), landscape configuration (patch shape, interpatch connectivity and habitat aggregation) and farm management (organic vs. conventional and local-scale field diversity), and their interactions, on wild bee abundance and richness for 39 crop systems globally. Bee abundance and richness were higher in diversified and organic fields and in landscapes comprising more high-quality habitats; bee richness on conventional fields with low diversity benefited most from high-quality surrounding land cover. Landscape configuration effects were weak. Bee responses varied slightly by biome. Our synthesis reveals that pollinator persistence will depend on both the maintenance of high-quality habitats around farms and on local management practices that may offset impacts of intensive monoculture agriculture.

Species richness declines and biotic homogenization have slowed down for NW-European pollinators and plants

Concern about biodiversity loss has led to increased public investment in conservation. Whereas there is a widespread perception that such initiatives have been unsuccessful, there are few quantitative tests of this perception. Here, we evaluate whether rates of biodiversity change have altered in recent decades in three European countries (Great Britain, Netherlands and Belgium) for plants and flower visiting insects. We compared four 20-year periods, comparing periods of rapid land-use intensification and natural habitat loss (1930–1990) with a period of increased conservation investment (post-1990). We found that extensive species richness loss and biotic homogenisation occurred before 1990, whereas these negative trends became substantially less accentuated during recent decades, being partially reversed for certain taxa (e.g. bees in Great Britain and Netherlands). These results highlight the potential to maintain or even restore current species assemblages (which despite past extinctions are still of great conservation value), at least in regions where large-scale land-use intensification and natural habitat loss has ceased.

Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops

To manage agroecosystems for multiple ecosystem services, we need to know whether the management of one service has positive, negative, or no effects on other services. We do not yet have data on the interactions between pollination and pest-control services. However, we do have data on the distributions of pollinators and natural enemies in agroecosystems. Therefore, we compared these two groups of ecosystem service providers, to see if the management of farms and agricultural landscapes might have similar effects on the abundance and richness of both. In a meta-analysis, we compared 46 studies that sampled bees, predatory beetles, parasitic wasps, and spiders in fields, orchards, or vineyards of food crops. These studies used the proximity or proportion of non-crop or natural habitats in the landscapes surrounding these crops (a measure of landscape complexity), or the proximity or diversity of non-crop plants in the margins of these crops (a measure of local complexity), to explain the abundance or richness of these beneficial arthropods. Compositional complexity at both landscape and local scales had positive effects on both pollinators and natural enemies, but different effects on different taxa. Effects on bees and spiders were significantly positive, but effects on parasitoids and predatory beetles (mostly Carabidae and Staphylinidae) were inconclusive. Landscape complexity had significantly stronger effects on bees than it did on predatory beetles and significantly stronger effects in non-woody rather than in woody crops. Effects on richness were significantly stronger than effects on abundance, but possibly only for spiders. This abundance-richness difference might be caused by differences between generalists and specialists, or between arthropods that depend on non-crop habitats (ecotone species and dispersers) and those that do not (cultural species). We call this the ‘specialist-generalist’ or ‘cultural difference’ mechanism. If complexity has stronger effects on richness than abundance, it might have stronger effects on the stability than the magnitude of these arthropod-mediated ecosystem services. We conclude that some pollinators and natural enemies seem to have compatible responses to complexity, and it might be possible to manage agroecosystems for the benefit of both. However, too few studies have compared the two, and so we cannot yet conclude that there are no negative interactions between pollinators and natural enemies, and no trade-offs between pollination and pest-control services. Therefore, we suggest a framework for future research to bridge these gaps in our knowledge.

Survival, reproduction and population growth of the bee pollinator, Osmia rufa (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), along gradients of heavy metal pollution

1. Bees are one of the most important groups of pollinators in the temperate zone. Although heavy metal pollution is recognised to be a problem affecting large parts of the European Union, we currently lack insights into the effects of heavy metals on wild bee survival and reproduction. 2. We investigated the impact of heavy metal pollution on the wild bee Osmia rufa (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) by comparing their survival, reproduction and population dynamics along two independent gradients of heavy metal pollution, one in Poland and the other in the United Kingdom. We used trap nests to evaluate the response of fitness and survival parameters of O. rufa. To quantify the levels of pollution, we directly measured the heavy metal concentration in provisions collected by O. rufa. 3. We found that with increasing heavy metal concentration, there was a steady decrease in number of brood cells constructed by females and an increase in the proportion of dead offspring. In the most polluted site, there were typically 3–4 cells per female with 50–60% dead offspring, whereas in unpolluted sites there were 8 to 10 cells per female and only 10–30% dead offspring. Moreover, the bee population growth rate (R0) decreased along the heavy metal pollution gradients. In unpolluted sites, R0 was above 1, whereas in contaminated sites, the values tended to be below 1. 4. Our findings reveal a negative relationship between heavy metal pollution and several fitness parameters of the wild bee O. rufa, and highlight a mechanism whereby the detrimental effects of heavy metal pollution may severely impact wild bee communities.

Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2013 Annual Checklist

This release of the Catalogue of Life contains contributions from 132 databases with information on 1,352,112 species, 114,069 infraspecific taxa and also includes 928,147 synonyms and 408,689 common names covering the following groups: Viruses • Viruses and Subviral agents from ICTV_MSL UPDATED! Bacteria and Archaea from BIOS Chromista • Chromistan fungi from Species Fungorum Protozoa • Major groups from ITIS Regional, • Ciliates from CilCat, • Polycystines from WoRMS Polycystina UPDATED!, • Protozoan fungi from Species Fungorum and Trichomycetes database • Slime moulds from Nomen.eumycetozoa.com Fungi • Various taxa in whole or in part from CABI Bioservices databases (Species Fungorum, Phyllachorales, Rhytismatales, Saccharomycetes and Zygomycetes databases) and from three other databases covering Xylariaceae, Glomeromycota, Trichomycetes, Dothideomycetes • Lichens from LIAS UPDATED! Plantae (Plants) • Mosses from MOST • Liverworts and hornworts from ELPT • Conifers from Conifer Database • Cycads and 6 flowering plant families from IOPI-GPC, and 99 families from WCSP • Plus individual flowering plants families from AnnonBase, Brassicaceae, ChenoBase, Droseraceae Database, EbenaBase, GCC UPDATED!, ILDIS UPDATED!, LecyPages, LHD, MELnet UPDATED!, RJB Geranium, Solanaceae Source, Umbellifers. Animalia (Animals) • Marine groups from URMO, ITIS Global, Hexacorals, ETI WBD (Euphausiacea), WoRMS: WoRMS Asteroidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Bochusacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Brachiopoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Brachypoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Brachyura UPDATED!, WoRMS Bryozoa UPDATED!, WoRMS Cestoda NEW!, WoRMS Chaetognatha UPDATED!, WoRMS Cumacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Echinoidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Gastrotricha NEW!, WoRMS Gnathostomulida NEW!, WoRMS Holothuroidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Hydrozoa UPDATED!, WoRMS Isopoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Leptostraca UPDATED!, WoRMS Monogenea NEW!, WoRMS Mystacocarida UPDATED!, WoRMS Myxozoa NEW!, WoRMS Nemertea UPDATED!, WoRMS Oligochaeta UPDATED!, WoRMS Ophiuroidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Phoronida UPDATED!, WoRMS Placozoa NEW!, WoRMS Polychaeta UPDATED!, WoRMS Polycystina UPDATED!, WoRMS Porifera UPDATED!, WoRMS Priapulida NEW!, WoRMS Proseriata and Kalyptorhynchia UPDATED!, WoRMS Remipedia UPDATED!, WoRMS Scaphopoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Tanaidacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Tantulocarida UPDATED!, WoRMS Thermosbaenacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Trematoda NEW!, WoRMS Xenoturbellida UPDATED! • Rotifers, mayflies, freshwater hairworms, planarians from FADA databases: FADA Rotifera UPDATED!, FADA Ephemeroptera NEW!, FADA Nematomorpha NEW! & FADA Turbellaria NEW! • Entoprocts, water bears from ITIS Global • Spiders, scorpions, ticks & mites from SpidCat via ITIS UPDATED!, SalticidDB , ITIS Global, TicksBase, SpmWeb BdelloideaBase UPDATED! & Mites GSDs: OlogamasidBase, PhytoseiidBase, RhodacaridBase & TenuipalpidBase • Diplopods, centipedes, pauropods and symphylans from SysMyr UPDATED! & ChiloBase • Dragonflies and damselflies from Odonata database • Stoneflies from PlecopteraSF UPDATED! • Cockroaches from BlattodeaSF UPDATED! • Praying mantids from MantodeaSF UPDATED! • Stick and leaf insects from PhasmidaSF UPDATED! • Grasshoppers, locusts, katydids and crickets from OrthopteraSF UPDATED! • Webspinners from EmbiopteraSF UPDATED! • Bark & parasitic lices from PsocodeaSF NEW! • Some groups of true bugs from ScaleNet, FLOW, COOL, Psyllist, AphidSF UPDATED! , MBB, 3i Cicadellinae, 3i Typhlocybinae, MOWD & CoreoideaSF NEW!• Twisted-wing parasites from Strepsiptera Database UPDATED! • Lacewings, antlions, owlflies, fishflies, dobsonflies & snakeflies from LDL Neuropterida • Some beetle groups from the Scarabs UPDATED!, TITAN, WTaxa & ITIS Global • Fleas from Parhost • Flies, mosquitoes, bots, midges and gnats from Systema Dipterorum, CCW & CIPA • Butterflies and moths from LepIndex UPDATED!, GloBIS (GART) UPDATED!, Tineidae NHM, World Gracillariidae • Bees & wasps from ITIS Bees, Taxapad Ichneumonoidea, UCD, ZOBODAT Vespoidea & HymIS Rhopalosomatidae NEW!• Molluscs from WoRMS Mollusca NEW!, FADA Bivalvia NEW!, MolluscaFW NEW! & AFD (Pulmonata) • Fishes from FishBase UPDATED! • Reptiles from TIGR Reptiles • Amphibians, birds and mammals from ITIS Global PLUS additional species of many groups from ITIS Regional, NZIB and CoL China NEW!