Moderate pollination limitation in some entomophilous crops of Europe

Holland, John M.; Sutter, Louis; Albrecht, Matthias; Jeanneret, Philippe; Pfister, Sonja C.; Schirmel, Jens; Entling, Martin H.; Kaasik, Riina; Kovács, Gabriella; Veromann, Eve; Bartual, Agustín M.; Marini, Simone; Moonen, Anna Camilla; Szalai, Márk; Helsen, H.H.M.; Winkler, Karin; Lof, Marjolein E.; Werf, Wopke Van der; McHugh, Niamh M.; Smith, Barbara; Wallis, David W.; Cresswell, James

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2020.107002

Cited by 21 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Pollination deficits also depend on floral traits, such as phenology, morphology and nectar and pollen quantities and quality (Ramírez & Davenport, 2013; Sheffield et al, 2005), genetic compatibility of varieties, availability of compatible pollen in the surrounding landscape and climatic conditions (Sheffield et al, 2016). Moreover, the abundance and diversity of pollinator assemblages vary across continents and regions (Lautenbach et al, 2012), thus leading to varying levels of supply and demand for pollination services between and within crop varieties (Garratt et al, 2016; Holland et al, 2020). Therefore, it is important to understand the variation in crop pollination services, particularly for crops of economic importance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollination deficits and contributions of pollinators in apple production: A global meta‐analysis

Olhnuud

Liu

Makowski

et al. 2022

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apple is one of the most widely cultivated fruit crops world‐wide, and apple yield benefits from pollination by insects. The global decline in wild pollinator populations raises concern about the adequacy of pollination services in apple production. Here, we present a global meta‐analysis of pollination in apple. We assembled from the literature a dataset comprising results of 48 studies across five continents on fruit set and seed set in apple with insect pollination, artificial pollination and pollinator exclusion, and analysed the effects of explanatory factors such as variety and continent. Fruit set was on average 41% lower with open pollination than with artificial pollination, while seed set was 20% lower. These pollination deficits varied across continents and cultivars. Pollination deficits for fruit set were greatest in Asia (63%) followed by Europe (30%), whereas pollination deficits for seed set were greatest in Asia (47%) and South America (40%). Important differences in pollination deficit were also identified between cultivars but these differences were confounded with continent effects. Fruit set and seed set were 71% and 62% higher, respectively, when insects had open access to flowers than when they were artificially excluded, while results varied among cultivars. Synthesis and applications. Globally, there are substantial contributions of pollinators to fruit set and seed set in apple, as well as considerable limitations in apple pollination services, particularly in Asia, Europe and South America. Several management strategies could be applied to reduce the pollination deficits in apple production: (1) conserving wild bees and enhancing their abundance and diversity, (2) using managed bees for pollination, (3) using varieties with low pollinator dependency and/or (4) artificial pollination. These strategies should be tailored to the regional situation, considering the potential of landscapes for restoring wild pollinators, the acceptability of cultivated varieties for available pollinators, the acceptance in the market of self‐compatible varieties and the costs of management, such as artificial pollination, pollinator conservation, beekeeping and planting self‐compatible varieties. Conservation of wild pollinators is preferred in regions with sufficient potential for wild pollinators as it contributes to biodiversity conservation and improves pollination in both crops and wild plants.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollination deficits and contributions of pollinators in apple production: A global meta‐analysis

Olhnuud

Liu

Makowski

et al. 2022

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While we found a clear pollination deficit in Korla fragrant pear in Xinjiang, reports on pollination deficits in European pear (Pyrus communis) are mixed. Pollination deficits have been reported for the varieties "Conference" (21% in open pollination vs. 30.7% in hand pollination) and "Doyenne du Comice" (7.2% in open pollination vs. 16.8% in hand pollination) in Belgium [28], while Holland et al [11] found no consistent pollination deficit in "Conference" pear in the Netherlands. The absence or relatively low pollination deficit in "Conference" pear may be due to its capacity to produce fruit by spontaneous parthenocarpy, which buffers against a low pollinator visitation rate [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, such deficits are species-and region-specific [8][9][10]. For instance, Holland et al [11] reported pollination deficits in sunflowers and oilseed rape but not in pears or pumpkins in Europe. In the USA, a pollination deficit was found in blueberry in Michigan, Oregon and British Columbia but not in Florida [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High Pollination Deficit and Strong Dependence on Honeybees in Pollination of Korla Fragrant Pear, Pyrus sinkiangensis

Sun

Liu

et al. 2022

Plants

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollination deficits can compromise fruit yield and quality and have been reported in several fruit crops. It is unknown whether there is a pollination deficit in the production of Korla fragrant pear, Pyrus sinkiangensis, in China, and if so, whether this deficit can be mitigated by the use of managed honeybees (Apis mellifera). We assessed insect communities, flower visitation, pollination deficit and honeybee contribution to pear pollination in Korla fragrant pear orchards in Xinjiang, China. Insect communities were monitored using colored pan traps, and pollination deficit was assessed by comparing fruit set with open pollination to that with hand pollination in orchards without beehives from 2018 to 2021. The contribution of honeybees to pollination was assessed by comparing flower visitation, fruit set and fruit quality in pear orchards with and without beehives in 2020 and 2021. In orchards without beehives, wild bees (72%) were the dominant pollinator group in pan traps, followed by honeybees (15%), moths, hoverflies, butterflies and wasps (Vespidae). Fruit set in these orchards was much lower with open pollination (8 ± 2%) than with hand pollination (74 ± 4%). When comparing pollination in orchards with and without beehives in 2020 and 2021, we found that honeybees were responsible for most of the flower visits in orchards with (96%) and without beehives (66%). Wild bees were responsible for 1% and 6% of flower visits in orchards with and without beehives, respectively. Fruit set was significantly higher in orchards with beehives (38 ± 9%) than in orchards without beehives (12 ± 3%), while fruit set and sugar content were positively associated with pollinator visitation rate. The findings reveal a large pollination deficit in Korla fragrant pear orchards, and show that this deficit can be mitigated using managed honeybees.

show abstract

“…However, it should also be noted that yield benefits of insect pollination differ considerably between oilseed rape variants and sometimes is rather low (Lindström et al 2016, Adamidis et al 2019). In addition, at least towards the end of the mesocosm exposure period in our experiment, there was a high number of bumble bee workers available and hence, this could have diminished potential differences in pollination due to reduced pollinator limitation (Holland et al 2020). Under field conditions, the numerical response in terms of increased worker production may nevertheless be important for crops that are limited by visitation by wild bees (Garibaldi et al 2013).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A trophic cascade causes unexpected ecological interactions across the aquatic–terrestrial interface under extreme weather

Klatt

Pudifoot

Urrutia‐Cordero

et al. 2022

Oikos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trophic cascades in the aquatic environment constitute important mechanisms for improving water quality. However, how the presence or non-presence of these trophic cascades may affect interactions across the aquatic-terrestrial interface remains poorly investigated. Pollinators such as bees may be especially vulnerable to changes in water resource quality induced by trophic cascades. Understanding how aquatic trophic cascades affect bees and pollination becomes even more pressing under ongoing climate change due to increased physiological demands for water under extreme weather events. In a novel field experiment combining terrestrial and aquatic mesocosms, we aimed to test how changes in water quality induced by an aquatic trophic cascade affected foraging and growth of bumblebee colonies as well as foraging of solitary bees. While we expected fish predation to reduce top-down control of zooplankton on phytoplankton and thereby, indirectly, induce increased growth of toxic cyanobacteria, we instead found the trophic cascade to induce the formation of algal surface mats that bumblebees used to access water under a severe heat wave and drought. This access to water was associated with higher bumblebee colony reproductive success, growth and weight compared to control colonies with no trophic cascade induced (and hence no algal surface mats). We also found marginal but non-significant effects on oilseed rape yield, but surprisingly with higher yields in the control treatment where bumblebees could not access water. Our results provide new insights on how aquatic trophic cascades can lead to unpredicted ecological interactions across the aquatic-terrestrial interface facilitated by climate change. Our study highlights the importance of water for the fitness of terrestrial ecosystem service providers under altered environmental conditions.

show abstract

Moderate pollination limitation in some entomophilous crops of Europe

Cited by 21 publications

References 23 publications

Pollination deficits and contributions of pollinators in apple production: A global meta‐analysis

Pollination deficits and contributions of pollinators in apple production: A global meta‐analysis

High Pollination Deficit and Strong Dependence on Honeybees in Pollination of Korla Fragrant Pear, Pyrus sinkiangensis

A trophic cascade causes unexpected ecological interactions across the aquatic–terrestrial interface under extreme weather

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About