@article{MoreauxMeirelesSonneetal.2022, author = {Moreaux, C{\´e}line and Meireles, Desir{\´e}e A. L. and Sonne, Jesper and Badano, Ernesto I. and Classen, Alice and Gonz{\´a}lez-Chaves, Adrian and Hip{\´o}lito, Juliana and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Maruyama, Pietro K. and Metzger, Jean Paul and Philpott, Stacy M. and Rahbek, Carsten and Saturni, Fernanda T. and Sritongchuay, Tuanjit and Tscharntke, Teja and Uno, Shinsuke and Vergara, Carlos H. and Viana, Blandina F. and Strange, Niels and Dalsgaard, Bo}, title = {The value of biotic pollination and dense forest for fruit set of Arabica coffee: A global assessment}, series = {Agriculture, Ecosystems \& Environment}, volume = {323}, journal = {Agriculture, Ecosystems \& Environment}, doi = {10.1016/j.agee.2021.107680}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-370982}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Animal pollinators are globally threatened by anthropogenic land use change and agricultural intensification. The yield of many food crops is therefore negatively impacted because they benefit from biotic pollination. This is especially the case in the tropics. For instance, fruit set of Coffea arabica has been shown to increase by 10-30\% in plantations with a high richness of bee species, possibly influenced by the availability of surrounding forest habitat. Here, we performed a global literature review to (1) assess how much animal pollination enhances coffee fruit set, and to (2) examine the importance of the amount of forest cover, distance to nearby forest and forest canopy density for bee species richness and coffee fruit set. Using a systematic literature review, we identified eleven case studies with a total of 182 samples where fruit set of C. arabica was assessed. We subsequently gathered forest data for all study sites from satellite imagery. We modelled the effects of open (all forest with a canopy density of ≥25\%), closed (≥50\%) and dense (≥75\%) forests on pollinator richness and fruit set of coffee. Overall, we found that animal pollination increases coffee fruit set by ~18\% on average. In only one of the case studies, regression results indicate a positive effect of dense forest on coffee fruit set, which increased with higher forest cover and shorter distance to the forest. Against expectations, forest cover and distance to open forest were not related to bee species richness and fruit set. In summary, we provide strong empirical support for the notion that animal pollinators increase coffee fruit set. Forest proximity had little overall influence on bee richness and coffee fruit set, except when farms were surrounded by dense tropical forests, potentially because these may provide high-quality habitats for bees pollinating coffee. We, therefore, advocate that more research is done to understand the biodiversity value of dense forest for pollinators, notably assessing the mechanisms underlying the importance of forest for pollinators and their pollination services.}, language = {en} } @article{KleijnWinfreeBartomeusetal.2015, author = {Kleijn, David and Winfree, Rachael and Bartomeus, Ignasi and Carvalheiro, Lu{\´i}sa G. and Henry, Mickael and Isaacs, Rufus and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kremen, Claire and M'Gonigle, Leithen K. and Rader, Romina and Ricketts, Taylor H. and Williams, Neal M. and Adamson, Nancy Lee and Ascher, John S. and B{\´a}ldi, Andr{\´a}s and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Benjamin, Faye and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Blitzer, Eleanor J. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Brand, Mariette R. and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Button, Lindsey and Cariveau, Daniel P. and Chifflet, R{\´e}my and Colville, Jonathan F. and Danforth, Bryan N. and Elle, Elizabeth and Garratt, Michael P. D. and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Howlett, Brad G. and Jauker, Frank and Jha, Shalene and Knop, Eva and Krewenka, Kristin M. and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Mandelik, Yael and May, Emily A. and Park, Mia G. and Pisanty, Gideon and Reemer, Menno and Riedinger, Verena and Rollin, Orianne and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Sardi{\~n}as, Hillary S. and Scheper, Jeroen and Sciligo, Amber R. and Smith, Henrik G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Thorp, Robbin and Tscharntke, Teja and Verhulst, Jort and Viana, Blandina F. and Vaissi{\`e}re, Bernard E. and Veldtman, Ruan and Ward, Kimiora L. and Westphal, Catrin and Potts, Simon G.}, title = {Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation}, series = {Nature Communications}, volume = {6}, journal = {Nature Communications}, number = {7414}, doi = {10.1038/ncomms8414}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151879}, year = {2015}, abstract = {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.}, language = {en} }