Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield–related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

79 40 INRA, UR 1115, Plantes et Systèmes de culture horticoles, ABSTRACT 138

Understanding how ecosystem services interact to support crop yield is essential for achieving food security. Here we evaluate the interactions among biotic pest regulation, pollination, and nutrient cycling. We found only 16 studies providing 20 analyses of two-way interactions. These studies show that multiple services limit crop yield simultaneously. Complementary effects (no interactions) between ecosystem services were the most common, followed by synergistic effects (positive interactions), while evidence for negative interactions was weak. Most studies evaluated two levels of service delivery, thus did not quantify the functional response of crop yield. Although this function is expected to be non-linear, most studies assume linear relations. We conclude that the lack of evidence for negative interactions has important implications for agricultural management.

No abstract

The alarming loss of pollinator diversity world‐wide can reduce the productivity of pollinator‐dependent crops, which could have economic impacts. However, it is unclear to what extent the loss of a key native pollinator species affects crop production and farmer's profits. By experimentally manipulating the presence of colonies of a native bumblebee species Bombus pauloensis in eight apple orchards in South Argentina, we evaluated the impact of losing natural populations of a key native pollinator group on (a) crop yield, (b) pollination quality, and (c) farmer's profit. To do so, we performed a factorial experiment of pollinator exclusion (yes/no) and hand pollination (yes/no). Our results showed that biotic pollination increased ripe fruit set by 13% when compared to non‐biotic pollination. Additionally, fruit set and the number of fruits per apple tree was reduced by less than a half in those orchards where bumblebees were absent, even when honeybees were present at high densities. Consequently, farmer's profit was 2.4‐fold lower in farms lacking bumblebees than in farms hosting both pollinator species. The pollination experiment further suggested that the benefits of bumblebees could be mediated by improved pollen quality rather than quantity. Synthesis and applications. This study highlights the pervasive consequences of losing key pollinator functional groups, such as bumblebees, for apple production and local economies. Adopting pollinator‐friendly practices such as minimizing the use of synthetic inputs or restoring/maintaining semi‐natural habitats at farm and landscape scales, will have the double advantage of promoting biodiversity conservation, and increasing crop productivity and profitability for local farmers. Yet because the implementation of these practices can take time to deliver results, the management of native pollinator species can be a provisional complementary strategy to increase economic profitability of apple growers in the short term.

No abstract

Spatial and temporal variation in volatile composition suggests olfactory division of labor within the trap flowers of Aristolochia gigantea.Flora http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.flora. 2016.09.005 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. AbstractThe

No abstract