Despite widespread concern about declines in pollination services, little is known about the patterns of change in most pollinator assemblages. By studying bee and hoverfly assemblages in Britain and the Netherlands, we found evidence of declines (pre-versus post-1980) in local bee diversity in both countries; however, divergent trends were observed in hoverflies. Depending on the assemblage and location, pollinator declines were most frequent in habitat and flower specialists, in univoltine species, and/or in nonmigrants. In conjunction with this evidence, outcrossing plant species that are reliant on the declining pollinators have themselves declined relative to other plant species. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest a causal connection between local extinctions of functionally linked plant and pollinator species.

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.

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

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.

No abstract

Evidence for declining populations of both wild and managed bees has raised concern about a potential global pollination crisis. Strategies to mitigate bee loss generally aim to enhance floral resources. However, we do not really know whether loss of preferred floral resources is the key driver of bee decline because accurate assessment of host plant preferences is difficult, particularly for species that have become rare. Here we examine whether population trends of wild bees in The Netherlands can be explained by trends in host plants, and how this relates to other factors such as climate change. We determined host plant preference of bee species using pollen loads on specimens in entomological collections that were collected before the onset of their decline, and used atlas data to quantify population trends of bee species and their host plants. We show that decline of preferred host plant species was one of two main factors associated with bee decline. Bee body size, the other main factor, was negatively related to population trend, which, because larger bee species have larger pollen requirements than smaller species, may also point toward food limitation as a key factor driving wild bee loss. Diet breadth and other potential factors such as length of flight period or climate change sensitivity were not important in explaining twentieth century bee population trends. These results highlight the species-specific nature of wild bee decline and indicate that mitigation strategies will only be effective if they target the specific host plants of declining species.bee decline | land use change | floral resources | pollen preference | crop pollination P ollinating insects such as bees play an essential role in the pollination of wild plants (1) and crops (2). However, reported population declines in both wild and managed bees (3-5) have raised concerns about loss of pollination services and triggered interest in identifying the underlying causes for bee decline (6). Land use change and agricultural intensification are major drivers of biodiversity loss in general (7,8) and are considered the most important environmental drivers of loss of wild bee diversity in particular (6, 9). It is generally believed that these drivers affect bees, which depend on floral resources in both their larval and adult life stages, through repercussions on the availability of floral resources in contemporary anthropogenic landscapes (9-11), but, so far, scientific evidence that loss of floral resources is driving bee decline is lacking. Nevertheless, current strategies to mitigate bee decline focus primarily on enhancing floral resources (12). To prioritize and develop effective mitigation strategies, it is essential to identify the mechanisms underlying bee population trends and assess whether these are mediated by floral resources.Although bees as a group are declining, individual species show more variable responses, with some species declining sharply while others remain stable or even increase under current land use change and ag...

Understanding species distributions and the factors limiting them is an important topic in ecology and conservation, including in nature reserve selection and predicting climate change impacts. While Species Distribution Models (SDM) are the main tool used for these purposes, choosing the best SDM algorithm is not straightforward as these are plentiful and can be applied in many different ways. SDM are used mainly to gain insight in 1) overall species distributions, 2) their past-present-future probability of occurrence and/or 3) to understand their ecological niche limits (also referred to as ecological niche modelling). The fact that these three aims may require different models and outputs is, however, rarely considered and has not been evaluated consistently. Here we use data from a systematically sampled set of species occurrences to specifically test the performance of Species Distribution Models across several commonly used algorithms. Species range in distribution patterns from rare to common and from local to widespread. We compare overall model fit (representing species distribution), the accuracy of the predictions at multiple spatial scales, and the consistency in selection of environmental correlations all across multiple modelling runs. As expected, the choice of modelling algorithm determines model outcome. However, model quality depends not only on the algorithm, but also on the measure of model fit used and the scale at which it is used. Although model fit was higher for the consensus approach and Maxent, Maxent and GAM models were more consistent in estimating local occurrence, while RF and GBM showed higher consistency in environmental variables selection. Model outcomes diverged more for narrowly distributed species than for widespread species. We suggest that matching study aims with modelling approach is essential in Species Distribution Models, and provide suggestions how to do this for different modelling aims and species’ data characteristics (i.e. sample size, spatial distribution).

BackgroundAnchored hybrid enrichment is a form of next-generation sequencing that uses oligonucleotide probes to target conserved regions of the genome flanked by less conserved regions in order to acquire data useful for phylogenetic inference from a broad range of taxa. Once a probe kit is developed, anchored hybrid enrichment is superior to traditional PCR-based Sanger sequencing in terms of both the amount of genomic data that can be recovered and effective cost. Due to their incredibly diverse nature, importance as pollinators, and historical instability with regard to subfamilial and tribal classification, Syrphidae (flower flies or hoverflies) are an ideal candidate for anchored hybrid enrichment-based phylogenetics, especially since recent molecular phylogenies of the syrphids using only a few markers have resulted in highly unresolved topologies. Over 6200 syrphids are currently known and uncovering their phylogeny will help us to understand how these species have diversified, providing insight into an array of ecological processes, from the development of adult mimicry, the origin of adult migration, to pollination patterns and the evolution of larval resource utilization.ResultsWe present the first use of anchored hybrid enrichment in insect phylogenetics on a dataset containing 30 flower fly species from across all four subfamilies and 11 tribes out of 15. To produce a phylogenetic hypothesis, 559 loci were sampled to produce a final dataset containing 217,702 sites. We recovered a well resolved topology with bootstrap support values that were almost universally >95 %. The subfamily Eristalinae is recovered as paraphyletic, with the strongest support for this hypothesis to date. The ant predators in the Microdontinae are sister to all other syrphids. Syrphinae and Pipizinae are monophyletic and sister to each other. Larval predation on soft-bodied hemipterans evolved only once in this family.ConclusionsAnchored hybrid enrichment was successful in producing a robustly supported phylogenetic hypothesis for the syrphids. Subfamilial reconstruction is concordant with recent phylogenetic hypotheses, but with much higher support values. With the newly designed probe kit this analysis could be rapidly expanded with further sampling, opening the door to more comprehensive analyses targeting problem areas in syrphid phylogenetics and ecology.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12862-016-0714-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.