TY - JOUR A1 - Bartomeus, Ignasi A1 - Potts, Simon G. A1 - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf A1 - Vaissiere, Bernard E. A1 - Woyciechowski, Michal A1 - Krewenka, Kristin M. A1 - Tscheulin, Thomas A1 - Roberts, Stuart P. M. A1 - Szentgyoergyi, Hajnalka A1 - Westphal, Catrin A1 - Bommarco, Riccardo T1 - Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensification JF - PEERJ N2 - Background. Up to 75% of crop species benefit at least to some degree from animal pollination for fruit or seed set and yield. However, basic information on the level of pollinator dependence and pollinator contribution to yield is lacking for many crops. Even less is known about how insect pollination affects crop quality. Given that habitat loss and agricultural intensification are known to decrease pollinator richness and abundance, there is a need to assess the consequences for different components of crop production. Methods. We used pollination exclusion on flowers or inflorescences on a whole plant basis to assess the contribution of insect pollination to crop yield and quality in four flowering crops (spring oilseed rape, field bean, strawberry, and buckwheat) located in four regions of Europe. For each crop, we recorded abundance and species richness of flower visiting insects in ten fields located along a gradient from simple to heterogeneous landscapes. Results. Insect pollination enhanced average crop yield between 18 and 71% depending on the crop. Yield quality was also enhanced in most crops. For instance, oilseed rape had higher oil and lower chlorophyll contents when adequately pollinated, the proportion of empty seeds decreased in buckwheat, and strawberries' commercial grade improved; however, we did not find higher nitrogen content in open pollinated field beans. Complex landscapes had a higher overall species richness of wild pollinators across crops, but visitation rates were only higher in complex landscapes for some crops. On the contrary, the overall yield was consistently enhanced by higher visitation rates, but not by higher pollinator richness. Discussion. For the four crops in this study, there is clear benefit delivered by pollinators on yield quantity and/or quality, but it is not maximized under current agricultural intensification. Honeybees, the most abundant pollinator, might partially compensate the loss of wild pollinators in some areas, but our results suggest the need of landscape-scale actions to enhance wild pollinator populations. KW - biodiversity KW - pollination KW - honeybee KW - wild bees KW - agroecosystems KW - native pollinators KW - species richness KW - bee pollinators KW - wild KW - ecosystemservices KW - fruit-quality KW - oilseed rape KW - land-use KW - honey KW - patterns Y1 - 2014 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-116928 SN - 2167-9843 VL - 2 IS - e328 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - De Palma, Adriana A1 - Abrahamczyk, Stefan A1 - Aizen, Marcelo A. A1 - Albrecht, Matthias A1 - Basset, Yves A1 - Bates, Adam A1 - Blake, Robin J. A1 - Boutin, Céline A1 - Bugter, Rob A1 - Connop, Stuart A1 - Cruz-López, Leopoldo A1 - Cunningham, Saul A. A1 - Darvill, Ben A1 - Diekötter, Tim A1 - Dorn, Silvia A1 - Downing, Nicola A1 - Entling, Martin H. A1 - Farwig, Nina A1 - Felicioli, Antonio A1 - Fonte, Steven J. A1 - Fowler, Robert A1 - Franzen, Markus Franzén A1 - Goulson, Dave A1 - Grass, Ingo A1 - Hanley, Mick E. A1 - Hendrix, Stephen D. A1 - Herrmann, Farina A1 - Herzog, Felix A1 - Holzschuh, Andrea A1 - Jauker, Birgit A1 - Kessler, Michael A1 - Knight, M. E. A1 - Kruess, Andreas A1 - Lavelle, Patrick A1 - Le Féon, Violette A1 - Lentini, Pia A1 - Malone, Louise A. A1 - Marshall, Jon A1 - Martínez Pachón, Eliana A1 - McFrederick, Quinn S. A1 - Morales, Carolina L. A1 - Mudri-Stojnic, Sonja A1 - Nates-Parra, Guiomar A1 - Nilsson, Sven G. A1 - Öckinger, Erik A1 - Osgathorpe, Lynne A1 - Parra-H, Alejandro A1 - Peres, Carlos A. A1 - Persson, Anna S. A1 - Petanidou, Theodora A1 - Poveda, Katja A1 - Power, Eileen F. A1 - Quaranta, Marino A1 - Quintero, Carolina A1 - Rader, Romina A1 - Richards, Miriam H. A1 - Roulston, T’ai A1 - Rousseau, Laurent A1 - Sadler, Jonathan P. A1 - Samnegård, Ulrika A1 - Schellhorn, Nancy A. A1 - Schüepp, Christof A1 - Schweiger, Oliver A1 - Smith-Pardo, Allan H. A1 - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf A1 - Stout, Jane C. A1 - Tonietto, Rebecca K. A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Tylianakis, Jason M. A1 - Verboven, Hans A. F. A1 - Vergara, Carlos H. A1 - Verhulst, Jort A1 - Westphal, Catrin A1 - Yoon, Hyung Joo A1 - Purvis, Andy T1 - Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases JF - Scientific Reports N2 - 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. KW - bee community KW - land-use change KW - intensification KW - geographic biases KW - taxonomic biases KW - global dataset Y1 - 2016 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-167642 VL - 6 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Gámez-Virués, Sagrario A1 - Perović, David J. A1 - Gossner, Martin M. A1 - Börschig, Carmen A1 - Blüthgen, Nico A1 - de Jong, Heike A1 - Simons, Nadja K. A1 - Klein, Alexandra-Maria A1 - Krauss, Jochen A1 - Maier, Gwen A1 - Scherber, Christoph A1 - Steckel, Juliane A1 - Rothenwöhrer, Christoph A1 - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf A1 - Weiner, Christiane N. A1 - Weisser, Wolfgang A1 - Werner, Michael A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Westphal, Catrin T1 - Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization JF - Nature Communications N2 - Biodiversity loss can affect the viability of ecosystems by decreasing the ability of communities to respond to environmental change and disturbances. Agricultural intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss and has multiple components operating at different spatial scales: from in-field management intensity to landscape-scale simplification. Here we show that landscape-level effects dominate functional community composition and can even buffer the effects of in-field management intensification on functional homogenization, and that animal communities in real-world managed landscapes show a unified response (across orders and guilds) to both landscape-scale simplification and in-field intensification. Adults and larvae with specialized feeding habits, species with shorter activity periods and relatively small body sizes are selected against in simplified landscapes with intense in-field management. Our results demonstrate that the diversity of land cover types at the landscape scale is critical for maintaining communities, which are functionally diverse, even in landscapes where in-field management intensity is high. KW - land-use intensity KW - community functional-responses KW - body-size KW - agricultural intensification KW - sustainable intensification KW - managed grasslands KW - biodiversity KW - diversity KW - heterogenity KW - butterflies Y1 - 2015 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-141925 VL - 6 IS - 8568 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Klatt, Björn K. A1 - Holzschuh, Andrea A1 - Westphal, Catrin A1 - Clough, Yann A1 - Smit, Inga A1 - Pawelzik, Elke A1 - Tscharntke, Teja T1 - Bee pollination improves crop quality, shelf life and commercial value JF - Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences N2 - Pollination improves the yield of most crop species and contributes to one-third of global crop production, but comprehensive benefits including crop quality are still unknown. Hence, pollination is underestimated by international policies, which is particularly alarming in times of agricultural intensification and diminishing pollination services. In this study, exclusion experiments with strawberries showed bee pollination to improve fruit quality, quantity and market value compared with wind and self-pollination. Bee-pollinated fruits were heavier, had less malformations and reached higher commercial grades. They had increased redness and reduced sugar–acid–ratios and were firmer, thus improving the commercially important shelf life. Longer shelf life reduced fruit loss by at least 11%. This is accounting for 0.32 billion US$ of the 1.44 billion US$ provided by bee pollination to the total value of 2.90 billion US$ made with strawberry selling in the European Union 2009. The fruit quality and yield effects are driven by the pollination-mediated production of hormonal growth regulators, which occur in several pollination-dependent crops. Thus, our comprehensive findings should be transferable to a wide range of crops and demonstrate bee pollination to be a hitherto underestimated but vital and economically important determinant of fruit quality. KW - commercial grades KW - ecosystem services KW - post-harvest quality KW - shelf life KW - strawberry KW - crop yield KW - ecology Y1 - 2014 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-120797 VL - 281 IS - 1775 ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Kleijn, David A1 - Winfree, Rachael A1 - Bartomeus, Ignasi A1 - Carvalheiro, Luísa G. A1 - Henry, Mickael A1 - Isaacs, Rufus A1 - Klein, Alexandra-Maria A1 - Kremen, Claire A1 - M'Gonigle, Leithen K. A1 - Rader, Romina A1 - Ricketts, Taylor H. A1 - Williams, Neal M. A1 - Adamson, Nancy Lee A1 - Ascher, John S. A1 - Báldi, András A1 - Batáry, Péter A1 - Benjamin, Faye A1 - Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. A1 - Blitzer, Eleanor J. A1 - Bommarco, Riccardo A1 - Brand, Mariette R. A1 - Bretagnolle, Vincent A1 - Button, Lindsey A1 - Cariveau, Daniel P. A1 - Chifflet, Rémy A1 - Colville, Jonathan F. A1 - Danforth, Bryan N. A1 - Elle, Elizabeth A1 - Garratt, Michael P. D. A1 - Herzog, Felix A1 - Holzschuh, Andrea A1 - Howlett, Brad G. A1 - Jauker, Frank A1 - Jha, Shalene A1 - Knop, Eva A1 - Krewenka, Kristin M. A1 - Le Féon, Violette A1 - Mandelik, Yael A1 - May, Emily A. A1 - Park, Mia G. A1 - Pisanty, Gideon A1 - Reemer, Menno A1 - Riedinger, Verena A1 - Rollin, Orianne A1 - Rundlöf, Maj A1 - Sardiñas, Hillary S. A1 - Scheper, Jeroen A1 - Sciligo, Amber R. A1 - Smith, Henrik G. A1 - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf A1 - Thorp, Robbin A1 - Tscharntke, Teja A1 - Verhulst, Jort A1 - Viana, Blandina F. A1 - Vaissière, Bernard E. A1 - Veldtman, Ruan A1 - Ward, Kimiora L. A1 - Westphal, Catrin A1 - Potts, Simon G. T1 - Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation JF - Nature Communications N2 - 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. KW - ecosystem services KW - european countries KW - abundance KW - native bees KW - biodiversity conservation KW - plant diversity KW - fruit set KW - productivity KW - decline KW - pollen Y1 - 2015 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151879 VL - 6 IS - 7414 ER -