From research to action: enhancing crop yield through wild pollinators

Abstract

Enhancing pollination services LA Garibaldi et al. 440www.frontiersinecology.org

Flower preferences and pollen transport networks for cavity‐nesting solitary bees: Implications for the design of agri‐environment schemes

“…For example, the plant species included in some mixes have been selected predominantly on the basis of honeybee and bumblebee foraging data (Haaland, Naisbit, & Bersier, 2011), but may be of limited utility to other wild insect pollinators (Wood et al., 2015) such as the 225 species of British solitary bees (Dicks, Showler, & Sutherland, 2010; Dicks et al., 2015; Garibaldi et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2015). …”

Climate change influences on pollinator, forest, and farm interactions across a climate gradient

“…Native bee pollinators are less relevant in large monocultures, because the spatial extent of the monoculture may be larger than the foraging distance of native pollinators (Ricketts et al 2008;Ricketts 2004;Koh et al 2016). Native bee pollinators benefit monocultures only at the periphery near forests, while the heterogeneous landscapes typical of smallholder production may allow crops to be near forest or shade cropping areas that provide habitat for native forest pollinators (Kennedy et al 2013;Garibaldi et al 2014).…”

Protecting an Ecosystem Service

“…Crop pollination services can be enhanced when having 292 a diverse community of insect pollinators (Brittain et al, 2013a(Brittain et al, , 2013bGreenleaf and 293 Kremen, 2006;Hoehn et al, 2008). Moreover, native and/or wild pollinators are more 294 efficient at pollinating certain plant species than honeybees (Figure 3; Garibaldi et al, 2014;295 Jauker et al, 2012;Rader et al, 2013;Stanley et al, 2013;Thomson and Goodell, 2001; 296 Vicens and Bosch, 2000;Woodcock et al, 2013), and that long tongued wild pollinators can 297 effectively pollinate plants that may not be accessible for short-tongued pollinators such as 298 honeybees (Willmer, 2011). Yet despite the clear importance of wild pollinators, we have as 299 yet: i) a limited understanding of their population status; ii) major gaps in our knowledge of 300 the factors that threaten them and the subsequent impairment to the services they provide; and 301 iii) still much to learn about how we can change our actions and refine our approaches to help 302 maintain healthy pollinator populations and sustain valuable pollinator services.…”

“…farmers) 501 for direct losses to income when altering the intensity of farming practices to better support 502 biodiversity and public goods. Through agri-environment schemes (AES) financial 503 compensation is provided to help offset loss of income from setting-aside land that could 504 otherwise be cultivated ('opportunity cost'), and estimated implementation costs such as the 505 purchase of flowering plant-seed or costs of additional management (see sections 4.5 & 4.6; 506 Batary et al, 2011;Garibaldi et al, 2014;Rundlöf et al, 2013). AES can be used to target 507 ecosystem services that generate yield benefits in agriculture, such as insect pollination, 508 although this objective should be clearly separated from their use to conserve biodiversity, 509 because the necessary actions are likely to be different (Ekroos et al, 2014, Kleijn et al, 510 2015.…”

“…In England, there is also now 1105 a Wild Pollinator and Farm Wildlife Package in the Countryside Stewardship that aims to 1106 support pollinators through provision of flower-rich and nesting habitats. A few studies show 1107 that such actions also enhance pollination services to nearby crops (see section 4.5; Garibaldi 1108Garibaldi et al, 2014, but whether this reflects genuine increases in numbers or pollinators moving 1109 around with consequent dilution of densities elsewhere is largely unknown (Carvell et al, 1110(Carvell et al, 2014. So far, there is very little evidence that these actions make pollinator communities 1111 more resilient, which the underlying policy aim.…”