The 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. We found universally positive associations of fruit set with flower visitation by wild insects in 41 crop systems worldwide. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with flower visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation. Visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so pollination by 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.

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 flowervisitor 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.

Bee pollinators are currently recorded with many different sampling methods. However, the relative performances of these methods have not been systematically evaluated and compared. In response to the strong need to record ongoing shifts in pollinator diversity and abundance, global and regional pollinator initiatives must adopt standardized sampling protocols when developing large‐scale and long‐term monitoring schemes. We systematically evaluated the performance of six sampling methods (observation plots, pan traps, standardized and variable transect walks, trap nests with reed internodes or paper tubes) that are commonly used across a wide range of geographical regions in Europe and in two habitat types (agricultural and seminatural). We focused on bees since they represent the most important pollinator group worldwide. Several characteristics of the methods were considered in order to evaluate their performance in assessing bee diversity: sample coverage, observed species richness, species richness estimators, collector biases (identified by subunit‐based rarefaction curves), species composition of the samples, and the indication of overall bee species richness (estimated from combined total samples). The most efficient method in all geographical regions, in both the agricultural and seminatural habitats, was the pan trap method. It had the highest sample coverage, collected the highest number of species, showed negligible collector bias, detected similar species as the transect methods, and was the best indicator of overall bee species richness. The transect methods were also relatively efficient, but they had a significant collector bias. The observation plots showed poor performance. As trap nests are restricted to cavity‐nesting bee species, they had a naturally low sample coverage. However, both trap nest types detected additional species that were not recorded by any of the other methods. For large‐scale and long‐term monitoring schemes with surveyors with different experience levels, we recommend pan traps as the most efficient, unbiased, and cost‐effective method for sampling bee diversity. Trap nests with reed internodes could be used as a complementary sampling method to maximize the numbers of collected species. Transect walks are the principal method for detailed studies focusing on plant–pollinator associations. Moreover, they can be used in monitoring schemes after training the surveyors to standardize their collection skills.

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.unmanaged pollinator | insect pollinator | fly | bee | beetle