Are native and non‐native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for native wild bee communities?

Seitz, Nicola; vanEngelsdorp, Dennis; Leonhardt, Sara D.

doi:10.1002/ece3.6826

Cited by 47 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Temperate pollination systems tend to be fairly generalised in nature (Memmott, 1999;Waser et al, 1996) (Garbuzov & Ratnieks, 2014;Majewska & Altizer, 2018;Matteson & Langellotto, 2011), although their prevalence in urban areas could drive changes in pollinator community composition (Seitz et al, 2020;Urbanowicz et al, 2020;Wenzel et al, 2020) and further research into nectar chemistry is needed to establish whether non-natives provide nectar of comparable nutritional quality (Tiedeken et al, 2017;Vaudo et al, 2015).…”

Section: Implications For Pollinator Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floral resources (nectar and pollen) provide food for insect pollinators but have declined in the countryside due to land use change. Given widespread pollinator loss, it is important that we quantify their food supply to help develop conservation actions. While nectar resources have been measured in rural landscapes, equivalent data are lacking for urban areas, an important knowledge gap as towns and cities often host diverse pollinator populations. We quantified the nectar supply of urban areas, farmland and nature reserves in the UK by combining floral abundance and nectar sugar production data for 536 flowering plant taxa, allowing us to compare landscape types and assess the spatial distribution of nectar sugar among land uses within cities. The magnitude of nectar sugar production did not differ significantly among the three landscapes. In urban areas the nectar supply was more diverse in origin and predominantly delivered by non‐native flowering plants. Within cities, urban land uses varied greatly in nectar sugar production. Gardens provided the most nectar sugar per unit area and 85% of all nectar at a city scale, while gardens and allotments produced the most diverse supplies of nectar sugar. Floral abundance, commonly used as a proxy for pollinators’ food supply, correlated strongly with nectar resources, but left a substantial proportion of the variation in nectar supply unexplained. Synthesis. We show that urban areas are hotspots of floral resource diversity rather than quantity and their nectar supply is underpinned by the contribution of residential gardens. Individual gardeners have an important role to play in pollinator conservation as ornamental plants, usually non‐native in origin, are a key source of nectar in towns and cities.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Pollinator Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Lópezaraiza‐Mikel et al ., 2007: Hernández‐Castellano et al ., 2020), manipulate floral trait diversity and composition (e.g. generalized/specialized; see Seitz et al ., 2020) or that manipulate the degree of floral trait similarity between native and invasive species. For example, common garden experiments in which native species are grown alongside invasive species with similar and contrasting flowers traits (e.g.…”

Section: Invasive Plant Species Integration Into Plant–pollinator Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although logistically daunting, such community‐wide experiments are necessary to fully understand the factors that mediate invasive plant integration into PPN, and their contribution to network structure (e.g. Lopezaraiza‐Mikel et al ., 2007; Goodell & Parker, 2017; Hernández‐Castellano et al ., 2020; Maia et al ., 2020; Seitz et al ., 2020).…”

Section: Invasive Plant Species Integration Into Plant–pollinator Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, invasive plants have been considered well‐integrated when they share pollinators with native plants, and/or if they receive equal or higher visitation rates than natives (e.g. Aizen & Morales, 2008; Maruyama et al ., 2016; Montero‐Castaño & Vilà, 2017; Seitz et al ., 2020; Table 1). However, these metrics only describe one component of invasive plant ‘integration’, i.e.…”

Section: Invasive Plant Species Integration Into Plant–pollinator Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Impacts of plant invasions in native plant–pollinator networks

Parra-Tabla¹,

Arceo‐Gómez

2021

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The disruption of mutualisms by invasive species has consequences for biodiversity loss and ecosystem function. Although invasive plant effects on the pollination of individual native species has been the subject of much study, their impacts on entire plant–pollinator communities are less understood. Community‐level studies on plant invasion have mainly focused on two fronts: understanding the mechanisms that mediate their integration; and their effects on plant–pollinator network structure. Here we briefly review current knowledge and propose a more unified framework for evaluating invasive species integration and their effects on plant–pollinator communities. We further outline gaps in our understanding and propose ways to advance knowledge in this field. Specifically, modeling approaches have so far yielded important predictions regarding the outcome and drivers of invasive species effects on plant communities. However, experimental studies that test these predictions in the field are lacking. We further emphasize the need to understand the link between invasive plant effects on pollination network structure and their consequences for native plant population dynamics (population growth). Integrating demographic studies with those on pollination networks is thus key in order to achieve a more predictive understanding of pollinator‐mediated effects of invasive species on the persistence of native plant biodiversity.

show abstract

“…Ironically, WBHs' unique assembly of species and ecosystem services are being jeopardized by IA practices and its associated globalized market schemes 6,68,69 . As irreplaceable resource biota, native pollinator biodiversity could contribute to a sustainable long-term food production model 39,[70][71][72][73] , therefore it merits a place in the design of a modern food production system. In this study we briefly outline the main effects of IA on native pollinators and its implication on insect decline.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study

Henríquez-Piskulich¹,

Schapheer²,

Vereecken³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industrial agriculture (IA) is the predominant model of food production since the Green Revolution in the 1950s. IA has been recognized among the main drivers of biodiversity loss, climate change and native pollinator decline. This is controversial, given that native agricultural pollinators are an important resource biota already contributing to crop yield, especially in areas defined as "world biodiversity hotspots” (WBH). These areas often overlap with agricultural zones hosting a significant proportion of cultivated land, mainly through intensive agricultural practices. Pollinator biodiversity and pollination services in these places are currently under threat due to the negative consequences of IA. The dual role of insects as key players allowing the maintenance of the natural ecosystem, as well as main crop pollinators, is particularly exacerbated and urgently requires conservation actions in WBH and food-producing zones. Here we summarize the known negative effects of IA on pollinator biodiversity and illustrate these problems by considering the case of Chile. Food exports represent a considerable part of the economy in this OECD “developing country” in the “Global South”, and a large part of its surface has been highlighted as a unique WBH. This area is currently being replaced by IA businesses at a fast pace, threatening local biodiversity. We present agroecological strategies for sustainable food production and pollinator conservation in food-producing WBHs like Chile. These alternatives recognize native pollinators as internal inputs that cannot be replaced by IA technological packages or external inputs and support the development of agroecological and biodiversity restoration practices to protect their existing biodiversity. We suggest a strategy that integrates four fundamental pillars for producing food in a sustainable way, recognizing biodiversity and local cultural heritage: 1) Share the land, restore and protect; 2) Ecological intensification; 3) Localized knowledge, research and technological development; and 4) Territorial planning and implementation of socio-agroecological policies. We suggest that this approach does not need greater modification of native pollination services that sustain the world with food and basic subsistence goods, but a paradigm change where the interdependency of nature and human wellbeing are recognized for ensuring the present and future of the world’s food security and sovereignty as well as considering the reduction of consumerism and food waste.

show abstract

Are native and non‐native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for native wild bee communities?

Cited by 47 publications

References 61 publications

Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes

Quantifying nectar production by flowering plants in urban and rural landscapes

Impacts of plant invasions in native plant–pollinator networks

Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About