24 results on '"Potts, Simon G."'
Search Results
2. Transformation of agricultural landscapes in the Anthropocene: Nature's contributions to people, agriculture and food security
- Author
-
Vanbergen, Adam J., primary, Aizen, Marcelo A., additional, Cordeau, Stephane, additional, Garibaldi, Lucas A., additional, Garratt, Michael P.D., additional, Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó, additional, Lecuyer, Lou, additional, Ngo, Hien T., additional, Potts, Simon G., additional, Settele, Josef, additional, Skrimizea, Eirini, additional, and Young, Juliette C., additional
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Establishment and management of wildflower areas for insect pollinators in commercial orchards
- Author
-
Carvell, Claire, Mitschunas, Nadine, McDonald, Rachel, Hulmes, Sarah, Hulmes, Lucy, O'Connor, Rory S., Garratt, Michael P.D., Potts, Simon G., Fountain, Michelle T., Sadykova, Dinara, Edwards, Mike, Nowakowski, Marek, Pywell, Richard F., Redhead, John W., Carvell, Claire, Mitschunas, Nadine, McDonald, Rachel, Hulmes, Sarah, Hulmes, Lucy, O'Connor, Rory S., Garratt, Michael P.D., Potts, Simon G., Fountain, Michelle T., Sadykova, Dinara, Edwards, Mike, Nowakowski, Marek, Pywell, Richard F., and Redhead, John W.
- Abstract
Sown wildflower areas are increasingly recommended as an agri-environmental intervention measure, but evidence for their success is limited to particular insect groups or hampered by the challenges of establishing seed mixes and maintaining flower abundance over time. We conducted a replicated experiment to establish wildflower areas to support insect pollinators in apple orchards. Over three years, and across 23 commercial UK orchards with and without sown wildflowers, we conducted 828 transect surveys across various non-crop habitats. We found that the abundance of flower-visiting solitary bees, bumblebees, honeybees, and beetles was increased in sown wildflower areas, compared with existing non-crop habitats in control orchards, from the second year following floral establishment. Abundance of hoverflies and other non-syrphid flies was increased in wildflower areas from the first year. Beyond the effect of wildflower areas, solitary bee abundance was also positively related to levels of floral cover in other local habitats within orchards, but neither local nor wider landscape-scale context affected abundance of other studied insect taxa within study orchards. There was a change in plant community composition on the sown wildflower areas between years, and in patterns of flowering within and between years, showing a succession from unsown weedy species towards a dominance of sown species over time. We discuss how the successful establishment of sown wildflower areas and delivery of benefits for different insect taxa relies on appropriate and reactive management practices as a key component of any such agri-environment scheme.
- Published
- 2022
4. Does agri-environment scheme participation in England increase pollinator populations and crop pollination services?
- Author
-
Image, Mike, Gardner, Emma, Clough, Yann, Smith, Henrik G., Baldock, Katherine C.R., Campbell, Alistair, Garratt, Mike, Gillespie, Mark A.K., Kunin, William E., McKerchar, Megan, Memmott, Jane, Potts, Simon G., Senapathi, Deepa, Stone, Graham N., Wackers, Felix, Westbury, Duncan B., Wilby, Andrew, Oliver, Tom H., Breeze, Tom D., Image, Mike, Gardner, Emma, Clough, Yann, Smith, Henrik G., Baldock, Katherine C.R., Campbell, Alistair, Garratt, Mike, Gillespie, Mark A.K., Kunin, William E., McKerchar, Megan, Memmott, Jane, Potts, Simon G., Senapathi, Deepa, Stone, Graham N., Wackers, Felix, Westbury, Duncan B., Wilby, Andrew, Oliver, Tom H., and Breeze, Tom D.
- Abstract
Agri-environment schemes are programmes where landholders enter into voluntary agreements (typically with governments) to manage agricultural land for environmental protection and nature conservation objectives. Previous work at local scale has shown that these features can provide additional floral and nesting resources to support wild pollinators, which may indirectly increase floral visitation to nearby crops. However, the effect of entire schemes on this important ecosystem service has never previously been studied at national scale. Focusing on four wild pollinator guilds (ground-nesting bumblebees, tree-nesting bumblebees, ground-nesting solitary bees, and cavity-nesting solitary bees), we used a state-of-the-art, process-based spatial model to examine the relationship between participation in agri-environment schemes across England during 2016 and the predicted abundances of these guilds and their visitation rates to four pollinator dependent crops (oilseed rape, field beans, orchard fruit and strawberries). Our modelling predicts that significant increases in national populations of ground-nesting bumblebees and ground-nesting solitary bees have occurred in response to the schemes. Lack of significant population increases for other guilds likely reflects specialist nesting resource requirements not well-catered for in schemes. We do not predict statistically significant increases in visitation to pollinator-dependent crops at national level as a result of scheme interventions but do predict some localised areas of significant increase in bumblebee visitation to crops flowering in late spring. Lack of any significant change in visitation to crops which flower outside this season is likely due to a combination of low provision of nesting resource relative to floral resource by scheme interventions and low overall participation in more intensively farmed landscapes. We recommend future schemes place greater importance on nesting resource provision alongside flo
- Published
- 2022
5. Protecting an Ecosystem Service
- Author
-
Gill, Richard J., primary, Baldock, Katherine C.R., additional, Brown, Mark J.F., additional, Cresswell, James E., additional, Dicks, Lynn V., additional, Fountain, Michelle T., additional, Garratt, Michael P.D., additional, Gough, Leonie A., additional, Heard, Matt S., additional, Holland, John M., additional, Ollerton, Jeff, additional, Stone, Graham N., additional, Tang, Cuong Q., additional, Vanbergen, Adam J., additional, Vogler, Alfried P., additional, Woodward, Guy, additional, Arce, Andres N., additional, Boatman, Nigel D., additional, Brand-Hardy, Richard, additional, Breeze, Tom D., additional, Green, Mike, additional, Hartfield, Chris M., additional, O’Connor, Rory S., additional, Osborne, Juliet L., additional, Phillips, James, additional, Sutton, Peter B., additional, and Potts, Simon G., additional
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Using ecological and field survey data to establish a national list of the wild bee pollinators of crops
- Author
-
Hutchinson, Louise A., Oliver, Tom H., Breeze, Tom D., Bailes, Emily J., Brünjes, Lisa, Campbell, Alistair J., Erhardt, Andreas, de Groot, G. Arjen, Földesi, Rita, García, Daniel, Goulson, Dave, Hainaut, Hélène, Hambäck, Peter A., Holzschuh, Andrea, Jauker, Frank, Klatt, Björn K., Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Kleijn, David, Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó, Krimmer, Elena, McKerchar, Megan, Miñarro, Marcos, Phillips, Benjamin B., Potts, Simon G., Pufal, Gesine, Radzevičiūtė, Rita, Roberts, Stuart P.M., Samnegård, Ulrika, Schulze, Jürg, Shaw, Rosalind F., Tscharntke, Teja, Vereecken, Nicolas J., Westbury, Duncan B., Westphal, Catrin, Wietzke, Alexander, Woodcock, Ben A., Garratt, Michael P.D., Hutchinson, Louise A., Oliver, Tom H., Breeze, Tom D., Bailes, Emily J., Brünjes, Lisa, Campbell, Alistair J., Erhardt, Andreas, de Groot, G. Arjen, Földesi, Rita, García, Daniel, Goulson, Dave, Hainaut, Hélène, Hambäck, Peter A., Holzschuh, Andrea, Jauker, Frank, Klatt, Björn K., Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Kleijn, David, Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó, Krimmer, Elena, McKerchar, Megan, Miñarro, Marcos, Phillips, Benjamin B., Potts, Simon G., Pufal, Gesine, Radzevičiūtė, Rita, Roberts, Stuart P.M., Samnegård, Ulrika, Schulze, Jürg, Shaw, Rosalind F., Tscharntke, Teja, Vereecken, Nicolas J., Westbury, Duncan B., Westphal, Catrin, Wietzke, Alexander, Woodcock, Ben A., and Garratt, Michael P.D.
- Abstract
The importance of wild bees for crop pollination is well established, but less is known about which species contribute to service delivery to inform agricultural management, monitoring and conservation. Using sites in Great Britain as a case study, we use a novel qualitative approach combining ecological information and field survey data to establish a national list of crop pollinating bees for four economically important crops (apple, field bean, oilseed rape and strawberry). A traits data base was used to establish potential pollinators, and combined with field data to identify both dominant crop flower visiting bee species and other species that could be important crop pollinators, but which are not presently sampled in large numbers on crops flowers. Whilst we found evidence that a small number of common, generalist species make a disproportionate contribution to flower visits, many more species were identified as potential pollinators, including rare and specialist species. Furthermore, we found evidence of substantial variation in the bee communities of different crops. Establishing a national list of crop pollinators is important for practitioners and policy makers, allowing targeted management approaches for improved ecosystem services, conservation and species monitoring. Data can be used to make recommendations about how pollinator diversity could be promoted in agricultural landscapes. Our results suggest agri-environment schemes need to support a higher diversity of species than at present, notably of solitary bees. Management would also benefit from targeting specific species to enhance crop pollination services to particular crops. Whilst our study is focused upon Great Britain, our methodology can easily be applied to other countries, crops and groups of pollinating insects.
- Published
- 2021
7. Using ecological and field survey data to establish a national list of the wild bee pollinators of crops
- Author
-
German Federal Environmental Foundation, Swiss National Science Foundation, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (The Netherlands), Hungarian Scientific Research Fund, German Research Foundation, Hutchinson, Louise A., Oliver, Tom H., Breeze, T., Bailes, Emily J., Brünjes, Lisa, Campbell, Alistair J., Erhardt, Andreas, Groot, Arjen G. de, Földesi, Rita, García, Daniel, Goulson, Dave, Hainaut, Hélène, Hambäck, P. A., Holzschuh, Andrea, Jauker, F., Klatt, Björn K., Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Kleijn, David, Kovács-Hostyánszki, Aniko, Krimmer, Elena, McKerchar, Megan, Miñarro, Marcos, Phillips, Benjamin B., Potts, Simon G., Pufal, Gesine, Radzeviciute, Rita, Roberts, Stuart P. M., Samnegård, U., Schulze, Jürg, Shaw, R.F., Tscharntke, Teja, Vereecken, N.J., Westbury, D. B., Westphal, C., Wietzke, Alexander, Woodcock, Ben A., Garratt, M.P.D., German Federal Environmental Foundation, Swiss National Science Foundation, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (The Netherlands), Hungarian Scientific Research Fund, German Research Foundation, Hutchinson, Louise A., Oliver, Tom H., Breeze, T., Bailes, Emily J., Brünjes, Lisa, Campbell, Alistair J., Erhardt, Andreas, Groot, Arjen G. de, Földesi, Rita, García, Daniel, Goulson, Dave, Hainaut, Hélène, Hambäck, P. A., Holzschuh, Andrea, Jauker, F., Klatt, Björn K., Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Kleijn, David, Kovács-Hostyánszki, Aniko, Krimmer, Elena, McKerchar, Megan, Miñarro, Marcos, Phillips, Benjamin B., Potts, Simon G., Pufal, Gesine, Radzeviciute, Rita, Roberts, Stuart P. M., Samnegård, U., Schulze, Jürg, Shaw, R.F., Tscharntke, Teja, Vereecken, N.J., Westbury, D. B., Westphal, C., Wietzke, Alexander, Woodcock, Ben A., and Garratt, M.P.D.
- Abstract
The importance of wild bees for crop pollination is well established, but less is known about which species contribute to service delivery to inform agricultural management, monitoring and conservation. Using sites in Great Britain as a case study, we use a novel qualitative approach combining ecological information and field survey data to establish a national list of crop pollinating bees for four economically important crops (apple, field bean, oilseed rape and strawberry). A traits data base was used to establish potential pollinators, and combined with field data to identify both dominant crop flower visiting bee species and other species that could be important crop pollinators, but which are not presently sampled in large numbers on crops flowers. Whilst we found evidence that a small number of common, generalist species make a disproportionate contribution to flower visits, many more species were identified as potential pollinators, including rare and specialist species. Furthermore, we found evidence of substantial variation in the bee communities of different crops. Establishing a national list of crop pollinators is important for practitioners and policy makers, allowing targeted management approaches for improved ecosystem services, conservation and species monitoring. Data can be used to make recommendations about how pollinator diversity could be promoted in agricultural landscapes. Our results suggest agri-environment schemes need to support a higher diversity of species than at present, notably of solitary bees. Management would also benefit from targeting specific species to enhance crop pollination services to particular crops. Whilst our study is focused upon Great Britain, our methodology can easily be applied to other countries, crops and groups of pollinating insects.
- Published
- 2021
8. Enhancing legume crop pollination and natural pest regulation for improved food security in changing African landscapes
- Author
-
Otieno, Mark, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Potts, Simon G, Kinuthia, Wanja, Kasina, Muo John, and Garratt, Michael P D
- Subjects
fungi ,food and beverages - Abstract
Legumes are important crops for food security, consumed by millions of people especially in Africa where they are an essential protein source and provide key vitamins and minerals. Most legumes depend on insect pollination and natural pest regulation for sufficient yields, however, there is emerging evidence that yield gaps caused by lack of pollination and/or pest pressure may be common. Here we review the literature reporting on pollinators and natural enemies contributing to legume crop yields, and the impact of land-use change on the services provided by these beneficial organisms. We identify strategies for enhancing the benefits of pollination and natural pest control in legumes and propose policy and practice interventions for better utilization of pollinators and natural enemies in legume cropping systems in Africa.
- Published
- 2020
9. Chapter six - transformation of agricultural landscapes in the Anthropocene: nature's contributions to people, agriculture and food security
- Author
-
Vanbergen, Adam J., Aizen, Marcelo A., Cordeau, Stephane, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Garratt, Michael P. D., Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó, Lecuyer, Lou, Ngo, Hien T., Potts, Simon G., Settele, Josef, Skrimizea, Eirini, Young, Juliette C., Bohan, David A., and Vanbergen, Adam J.
- Abstract
Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.
- Published
- 2020
10. Transformation of agricultural landscapes in the Anthropocene: nature's contributions to people, agriculture and food security
- Author
-
Vanbergen, Adam J., Aizen, Marcelo A., Cordeau, Stephane, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Garratt, Michael P.D., Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó, Lecuyer, Lou, Ngo, Hien T., Potts, Simon G., Settele, Josef, Skrimizea, Eirini, Young, Juliette C., Vanbergen, Adam J., Aizen, Marcelo A., Cordeau, Stephane, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Garratt, Michael P.D., Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó, Lecuyer, Lou, Ngo, Hien T., Potts, Simon G., Settele, Josef, Skrimizea, Eirini, and Young, Juliette C.
- Abstract
Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.
- Published
- 2020
11. Ecological intensification: bridging the gap between science and practice
- Author
-
Kleijn, David, Bommarco, Riccardo, Fijen, Thijs P. M., Garibaldi, Lucas A., Potts, Simon G., van der Putten, Wim H., and n/a
- Abstract
There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming.
- Published
- 2019
12. Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): evidence and knowledge gaps
- Author
-
Vanbergen, Adam J., Potts, Simon G., Vian, Alain, Malkemper, E. Pascal, Young, Juliette, Tscheulin, Thomas, Vanbergen, Adam J., Potts, Simon G., Vian, Alain, Malkemper, E. Pascal, Young, Juliette, and Tscheulin, Thomas
- Abstract
Worldwide urbanisation and use of mobile and wireless technologies (5G, Internet of Things) is leading to the proliferation of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and campaigning voices continue to call for the risk to human health and wildlife to be recognised. Pollinators provide many benefits to nature and humankind, but face multiple anthropogenic threats. Here, we assess whether artificial light at night (ALAN) and anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (AREMR), such as used in wireless technologies (4G, 5G) or emitted from power lines, represent an additional and growing threat to pollinators. A lack of high quality scientific studies means that knowledge of the risk to pollinators from anthropogenic EMR is either inconclusive, unresolved, or only partly established. A handful of studies provide evidence that ALAN can alter pollinator communities, pollination and fruit set. Laboratory experiments provide some, albeit variable, evidence that the honey bee Apis mellifera and other invertebrates can detect EMR, potentially using it for orientation or navigation, but they do not provide evidence that AREMR affects insect behaviour in ecosystems. Scientifically robust evidence of AREMR impacts on abundance or diversity of pollinators (or other invertebrates) are limited to a single study reporting positive and negative effects depending on the pollinator group and geographical location. Therefore, whether anthropogenic EMR (ALAN or AREMR) poses a significant threat to insect pollinators and the benefits they provide to ecosystems and humanity remains to be established.
- Published
- 2019
13. European farmers’ incentives to promote natural pest control service in arable fields
- Author
-
Zhang, Han, Potts, Simon G., Breeze, Tom, and Bailey, Alison
- Abstract
Integrated pest management (IPM) is widely encouraged among the European Union (EU) member states. The successful adoption of IPM techniques requires strong farmer motivation and participation. However, few studies have explored EU farmers’ incentives to promote natural enemies of crop pests in the fields, and none have addressed how this could be influenced by farmers’ recognition of natural pest control service. Based on interviews among arable farmers involved in an EU funded agri-environmental project across seven member states, natural pest control was perceived to be a less important contributor to crop production than soil fertility and pollination. Preferences toward managing semi-natural habitats for natural enemies were also relatively low, while insecticides were commonly used among participants. Ordinal logistic regression indicates that farmers’ decision to promote natural pest control was positively associated with the perceived importance of this ecosystem service for crop production. However, they expressed a relatively low confidence in the pest control efficacies of natural enemies compared with insecticides, especially under high pest damage levels. Farmers with greater income have more financial flexibility to adopt either pest control method. The environment surrounding a farm may also influence its owner’s willingness to promote natural pest control.
- Published
- 2018
14. Research trends in ecosystem services provided by insects
- Author
-
Noriega, Jorge Ari, Hortal, Joaquín, Azcárate, Francisco M., Berg, Matty P., Bonada, Núria, Briones, Maria J.I., Del Toro, Israel, Goulson, Dave, Ibanez, Sébastien, Landis, Douglas A., Moretti, Marco, Potts, Simon G., Slade, Eleanor M., Stout, Jane C., Ulyshen, Michael D., Wackers, Felix L., Woodcock, Ben A., Santos, Ana M.C., Noriega, Jorge Ari, Hortal, Joaquín, Azcárate, Francisco M., Berg, Matty P., Bonada, Núria, Briones, Maria J.I., Del Toro, Israel, Goulson, Dave, Ibanez, Sébastien, Landis, Douglas A., Moretti, Marco, Potts, Simon G., Slade, Eleanor M., Stout, Jane C., Ulyshen, Michael D., Wackers, Felix L., Woodcock, Ben A., and Santos, Ana M.C.
- Abstract
Insects play a key role in the regulation and dynamics of many ecosystem services (ES). However, this role is often assumed, with limited or no experimental quantification of its real value. We examined publication trends in the research on ES provided by insects, ascertaining which ES and taxa have been more intensively investigated, and which methodologies have been used, with particular emphasis on experimental approaches. We first performed a systematic literature search to identify which ES have been attributed to insects. Then we classified the references retrieved according to the ES, taxonomic group and ecosystem studied, as well as to the method applied to quantify each ES (in four categories: no quantification, proxies, direct quantification and experiments). Pollination, biological control, food provisioning, and recycling organic matter are the most studied ES. However, the majority of papers do not specify the ES under consideration, and from those that do, most do not quantify the ES provided. From the rest, a large number of publications use proxies as indicators for ES, assuming or inferring their provision through indirect measurements such as species abundances, species density, species richness, diversity indices, or the number of functional groups. Pollinators, predators, parasitoids, herbivores, and decomposers are the most commonly studied functional groups, while Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera are the most studied taxa. Experimental studies are relatively scarce and they mainly focus on biological control, pollination, and decomposition performed in agroecosystems. These results suggest that our current knowledge on the ES provided by insects is relatively scarce and biased, and show gaps in the least-studied functional and taxonomic groups. An ambitious research agenda to improve the empirical and experimental evidence of the role played by insects in ES provision is essential to fully assess synergies between functional ecology, commun
- Published
- 2018
15. Research trends in ecosystem services provided by insects
- Author
-
Colciencias (Colombia), National Science Foundation (US), Michigan State University, European Commission, Natural Environment Research Council (UK), Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (España), Noriega, Jorge Ari, Hortal, Joaquín, Azcárate, Francisco M., Berg, Matty P., Bonada, Núria, Briones, María J. I., Toro, Israel del, Goulson, Dave, Ibanez, Sébastien, Landis, Douglas A., Moretti, M., Potts, Simon G., Slade, Eleanor M., Stout, Jane C., Ulyshen, Michael D., Wackers, Felix L., Woodcock, Ben A., Santos, Ana Margarida C., Colciencias (Colombia), National Science Foundation (US), Michigan State University, European Commission, Natural Environment Research Council (UK), Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (España), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (España), Noriega, Jorge Ari, Hortal, Joaquín, Azcárate, Francisco M., Berg, Matty P., Bonada, Núria, Briones, María J. I., Toro, Israel del, Goulson, Dave, Ibanez, Sébastien, Landis, Douglas A., Moretti, M., Potts, Simon G., Slade, Eleanor M., Stout, Jane C., Ulyshen, Michael D., Wackers, Felix L., Woodcock, Ben A., and Santos, Ana Margarida C.
- Abstract
Insects play a key role in the regulation and dynamics of many ecosystem services (ES). However, this role is often assumed, with limited or no experimental quantification of its real value. We examined publication trends in the research on ES provided by insects, ascertaining which ES and taxa have been more intensively investigated, and which methodologies have been used, with particular emphasis on experimental approaches. We first performed a systematic literature search to identify which ES have been attributed to insects. Then we classified the references retrieved according to the ES, taxonomic group and ecosystem studied, as well as to the method applied to quantify each ES (in four categories: no quantification, proxies, direct quantification and experiments). Pollination, biological control, food provisioning, and recycling organic matter are the most studied ES. However, the majority of papers do not specify the ES under consideration, and from those that do, most do not quantify the ES provided. From the rest, a large number of publications use proxies as indicators for ES, assuming or inferring their provision through indirect measurements such as species abundances, species density, species richness, diversity indices, or the number of functional groups. Pollinators, predators, parasitoids, herbivores, and decomposers are the most commonly studied functional groups, while Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera are the most studied taxa. Experimental studies are relatively scarce and they mainly focus on biological control, pollination, and decomposition performed in agroecosystems. These results suggest that our current knowledge on the ES provided by insects is relatively scarce and biased, and show gaps in the least-studied functional and taxonomic groups. An ambitious research agenda to improve the empirical and experimental evidence of the role played by insects in ES provision is essential to fully assess synergies between functional ecology, commun
- Published
- 2018
16. Protecting an ecosystem service: approaches to understanding and mitigating threats to wild insect pollinators
- Author
-
Gill, Richard J., Baldock, Katherine C.R., Brown, Mark J.F., Cresswell, James E., Dicks, Lynn V., Fountain, Michelle T., Garratt, Michael P.D., Gough, Leonie A., Heard, Matt S., Holland, John M., Ollerton, Jeff, Stone, Graham N., Tang, Cuong Q., Vanbergen, Adam J., Vogler, Alfried P., Woodward, Guy, Arce, Andres N., Boatman, Nigel D., Brand-Hardy, Richard, Breeze, Tom D., Green, Mike, Hartfield, Chris M., O’Connor, Rory S., Osborne, Juliet L., Phillips, James, Sutton, Peter B., Potts, Simon G., Gill, Richard J., Baldock, Katherine C.R., Brown, Mark J.F., Cresswell, James E., Dicks, Lynn V., Fountain, Michelle T., Garratt, Michael P.D., Gough, Leonie A., Heard, Matt S., Holland, John M., Ollerton, Jeff, Stone, Graham N., Tang, Cuong Q., Vanbergen, Adam J., Vogler, Alfried P., Woodward, Guy, Arce, Andres N., Boatman, Nigel D., Brand-Hardy, Richard, Breeze, Tom D., Green, Mike, Hartfield, Chris M., O’Connor, Rory S., Osborne, Juliet L., Phillips, James, Sutton, Peter B., and Potts, Simon G.
- Abstract
Insect pollination constitutes an ecosystem service of global importance, providing significant economic and aesthetic benefits as well as cultural value to human society, alongside vital ecological processes in terrestrial ecosystems. It is therefore important to understand how insect pollinator populations and communities respond to rapidly changing environments if we are to maintain healthy and effective pollinator services. This chapter considers the importance of conserving pollinator diversity to maintain a suite of functional traits and provide a diverse set of pollinator services. We explore how we can better understand and mitigate the factors that threaten insect pollinator richness, placing our discussion within the context of populations in predominantly agricultural landscapes in addition to urban environments. We highlight a selection of important evidence gaps, with a number of complementary research steps that can be taken to better understand: (i) the stability of pollinator communities in different landscapes in order to provide diverse pollinator services; (ii) how we can study the drivers of population change to mitigate the effects and support stable sources of pollinator services and (iii) how we can manage habitats in complex landscapes to support insect pollinators and provide sustainable pollinator services for the future. We advocate a collaborative effort to gain higher quality abundance data to understand the stability of pollinator populations and predict future trends. In addition, for effective mitigation strategies to be adopted, researchers need to conduct rigorous field testing of outcomes under different landscape settings, acknowledge the needs of end-users when developing research proposals and consider effective methods of knowledge transfer to ensure effective uptake of actions.
- Published
- 2016
17. Ecological and social drivers of coffee pollination in Santander, Colombia
- Author
-
Bravo-Monroy, Liliana, Tzanopoulos, Joseph, Potts, Simon G., Bravo-Monroy, Liliana, Tzanopoulos, Joseph, and Potts, Simon G.
- Abstract
Bees and other insects provide pollination services that are key to determining the fruit set on coffee plantations. These pollination services are influenced by local ecology as well as human factors, both social and economic. To better understand these different factors, we assessed their effect on pollinators and coffee pollination services in Santander, Colombia. We quantified the effect of key ecological drivers on pollinator community composition, such as the method of farm management (either conventional or organic) and the surrounding landscape composition, specifically the proximity to forest. We found that ambient levels of pollination services provided by the local pollinator fauna (open pollination) accounted for a 10.5 ± 2.0% increase in final coffee fruit set, and that the various pollinators are affected differently by the differing factors. For example, our findings indicate that conventional farm management, using synthetic inputs, can promote pollinators, especially if they are in close proximity to natural forest fragments. This is particularly true for stingless bees. Honeybee visitation to coffee is also positively influenced by the conventional management of farms. Factors associated with greater numbers of stingless bees on farms include greater shade cover, lower tree densities, smaller numbers and types of trees in bloom, and younger coffee plantations. A forested landscape close to farms appears to enhance these factors, giving increased stability and resilience to the pollinating bees and insects. However we found that organic farms also support diverse pollinator communities, even if distant from forest fragments. The contribution of honeybees to pollination value (US$129.6/ha of coffee) is greater than that of stingless bees (US$16.5/ha of coffee). Since the method of farm management has a major impact on the numbers and types of pollinators attracted to farms, we have analysed the statistically significant social factors that influence
- Published
- 2015
18. Drivers influencing farmer decisions for adopting organic or conventional coffee management practices
- Author
-
Bravo-Monroy, Liliana, Tzanopoulos, Joseph, Potts, Simon G., Bravo-Monroy, Liliana, Tzanopoulos, Joseph, and Potts, Simon G.
- Abstract
Colombia is one of the world’s most important producers of Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica), whose coffee-growing zone coincides with a biogeographic hotspot of biodiversity. Given that coffee agroecosystems are grown by both organic and conventional schemes of management in Santander, a region which produces coffees with specialist distinctive flavours, this study aims to better understand the factors that influence the adoption of these different schemes of management. A combination of ethnographic techniques and quantitative methods were used to examine the predominant drivers of adoption and revealed farmer perceptions associated with coffee farming, and the complexity of interacting factors, that surround their decision making. The results of qualitative analysis suggests that social identity of coffee growers, the existence of farming spaces (lived, perceived, rationalised), the influence of coffee institutions, attitudes about management practices, and social relations of production, all play an important role in the process of decision making. In quantitative terms, we identified 18 socioeconomic drivers, some with interacting effects that had significant influence on the decision to adopt either organic or conventional practices. In particular, at local scale, important factors were technology availability, the type of landowner, formal education of farmers, the role of institutions, membership of community organisations, farm size, coffee productivity and the number of coffee plots per farm. Likewise, economic drivers, such as crop profitability, determined how farmers are involved in trade and market networks at broad regional, national, and international spatial scales. By adopting a more integrated approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies, we characterised the complexity of factors that influencing adoption of coffee management schemes and show that not only financial factors but also a variety of other social factors drive farmer d
- Published
- 2015
19. Pollination services in the UK: how important are honeybees?
- Author
-
Breeze, Tom D, Bailey, Alison P., Balcombe, Kelvin G., and Potts, Simon G.
- Abstract
Pollination services are known to provide substantial benefits to human populations and agriculture in particular. Although many species are known to provide pollination services, honeybees (Apis mellifera) are often assumed to provide the majority of these services to agriculture. Using data from a range of secondary sources, this study assesses the importance of insect pollinated crops at regional and national scales and investigates the capacity of honeybees to provide optimal pollination services to UK agriculture. The findings indicate that insect pollinated crops have become increasingly important in UK crop agriculture and, as of 2007, accounted for 20% of UK cropland and 19% of total farmgate crop value. Analysis of honeybee hive numbers indicates that current UK populations are only capable of supplying 34% of pollination service demands even under favourable assumptions, falling from 70% in 1984. In spite of this decline, insect pollinated crop yields have risen by an average of 54% since 1984, casting doubt on long held beliefs that honeybees provide the majority of pollination services. Future land use and crop production patterns may further increase the role of pollination services to UK agriculture, highlighting the importance of measures aimed at maintaining both wild and managed species.
- Published
- 2011
20. Combined effects of global change pressures on animal-mediated pollination
- Author
-
González-Varo, Juan P., Biesmeijer, Jacobus C., Bommarco, Riccardo, Potts, Simon G., Schweiger, Oliver, Smith, Henrik C., Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka, Woyciechowski, Michal, González-Varo, Juan P., Biesmeijer, Jacobus C., Bommarco, Riccardo, Potts, Simon G., Schweiger, Oliver, Smith, Henrik C., Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka, and Woyciechowski, Michal
- Abstract
Pollination is an essential process in the sexual repro- duction of seed plants and a key ecosystem service to human welfare. Animal pollinators decline as a conse- quence of five major global change pressures: climate change, landscape alteration, agricultural intensifica- tion, non-native species, and spread of pathogens. These pressures, which differ in their biotic or abiotic nature and their spatiotemporal scales, can interact in nonad- ditive ways (synergistically or antagonistically), but are rarely considered together in studies of pollinator and/or pollination decline. Management actions aimed at buff- ering the impacts of a particular pressure could thereby prove ineffective if another pressure is present. Here, we focus on empirical evidence of the combined effects of global change pressures on pollination, highlighting gaps in current knowledge and future research needs.
- Published
- 2013
21. A blood test to monitor bee health across a European network of agricultural sites of different land-use by MALDI BeeTyping mass spectrometry.
- Author
-
Askri D, Pottier M, Arafah K, Voisin SN, Hodge S, Stout JC, Dominik C, Schweiger O, Tamburini G, Pereira-Peixoto MH, Klein AM, López VM, De la Rúa P, Cini E, Potts SG, Schwarz JM, Knauer AC, Albrecht M, Raimets R, Karise R, di Prisco G, Ivarsson K, Svensson GP, Ronsevych O, Knapp JL, Rundlöf M, Onorati P, de Miranda JR, Bocquet M, and Bulet P
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees, Europe, Hematologic Tests, Hemolymph, Environmental Monitoring methods, Spectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-Ionization methods, Agriculture
- Abstract
There are substantial concerns about impaired honey bee health and colony losses due to several poorly understood factors. We used MALDI profiling (MALDI BeeTyping®) analysis to investigate how some environmental and management factors under field conditions across Europe affected the honey bee haemolymph peptidome (all peptides in the circulatory fluid), as a profile of molecular markers representing the immune status of Apis mellifera. Honey bees were exposed to a range of environmental stressors in 128 agricultural sites across eight European countries in four biogeographic zones, with each country contributing eight sites each for two different cropping systems: oilseed rape (OSR) and apple (APP). The full haemolymph peptide profiles, including the presence and levels of three key immunity markers, namely the antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) Apidaecin, Abaecin and Defensin-1, allowed the honey bee responses to environmental variables to be discriminated by country, crop type and site. When considering just the AMPs, it was not possible to distinguish between countries by the prevalence of each AMP in the samples. However, it was possible to discriminate between countries on the amounts of the AMPs, with the Swedish samples in particular expressing high amounts of all AMPs. A machine learning model was developed to discriminate the haemolymphs of bees from APP and OSR sites. The model was 90.6 % accurate in identifying the crop type from the samples used to build the model. Overall, MALDI BeeTyping® of bee haemolymph represents a promising and cost-effective "blood test" for simultaneously monitoring dozens of peptide markers affected by environmental stressors at the landscape scale, thus providing policymakers with new diagnostic and regulatory tools for monitoring bee health., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
22. Novel indices reveal that pollinator exposure to pesticides varies across biological compartments and crop surroundings.
- Author
-
Laurent M, Bougeard S, Caradec L, Ghestem F, Albrecht M, Brown MJF, DE Miranda J, Karise R, Knapp J, Serrano J, Potts SG, Rundlöf M, Schwarz J, Attridge E, Babin A, Bottero I, Cini E, DE LA Rúa P, DI Prisco G, Dominik C, Dzul D, García Reina A, Hodge S, Klein AM, Knauer A, Mand M, Martínez López V, Serra G, Pereira-Peixoto H, Raimets R, Schweiger O, Senapathi D, Stout JC, Tamburini G, Costa C, Kiljanek T, Martel AC, LE S, and Chauzat MP
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees physiology, Pollen, Malus, Environmental Exposure statistics & numerical data, Pollination, Pesticides analysis, Crops, Agricultural, Environmental Monitoring
- Abstract
Declines in insect pollinators have been linked to a range of causative factors such as disease, loss of habitats, the quality and availability of food, and exposure to pesticides. Here, we analysed an extensive dataset generated from pesticide screening of foraging insects, pollen-nectar stores/beebread, pollen and ingested nectar across three species of bees collected at 128 European sites set in two types of crop. In this paper, we aimed to (i) derive a new index to summarise key aspects of complex pesticide exposure data and (ii) understand the links between pesticide exposures depicted by the different matrices, bee species and apple orchards versus oilseed rape crops. We found that summary indices were highly correlated with the number of pesticides detected in the related matrix but not with which pesticides were present. Matrices collected from apple orchards generally contained a higher number of pesticides (7.6 pesticides per site) than matrices from sites collected from oilseed rape crops (3.5 pesticides), with fungicides being highly represented in apple crops. A greater number of pesticides were found in pollen-nectar stores/beebread and pollen matrices compared with nectar and bee body matrices. Our results show that for a complete assessment of pollinator pesticide exposure, it is necessary to consider several different exposure routes and multiple species of bees across different agricultural systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Marie-Pierre CHAUZAT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Marion LAURENT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Matthias ALBRECHT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Mark JF BROWN reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Joachim DE MIRANDA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Reet KARISE reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Jessica KNAPP reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Jose SERRANO MARINO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Simon G. POTTS reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Maj RUNDLOF reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Janine SCHWARZ reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Eleanor ATTRIDGE reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Irene BOTTERO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Elena CINI reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Maria Pilar DE LA RUA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Gennaro DI PRISCO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Christophe DOMINIK reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Daniel DZUL reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Andres GARCIA REINA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Simon HODGE reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Alexandra M KLEIN reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Anina KNAUER reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Marika MAND reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Vicente MARTINEZ LOPEZ reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Giorgia SERRA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Helena PEREIRA-PEIXOTO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Risto RAIMETS reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Oliver SCHWEIGER reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Deepa SENAPATHI reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Jane C. STOUT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Giovanni TAMBURINI reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Cecilia COSTA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Tomasz KILJANEK reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Anne-Claire MARTEL reports financial support was provided by European Commission. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
23. Risk to pollinators from anthropogenic electro-magnetic radiation (EMR): Evidence and knowledge gaps.
- Author
-
Vanbergen AJ, Potts SG, Vian A, Malkemper EP, Young J, and Tscheulin T
- Abstract
Worldwide urbanisation and use of mobile and wireless technologies (5G, Internet of Things) is leading to the proliferation of anthropogenic electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and campaigning voices continue to call for the risk to human health and wildlife to be recognised. Pollinators provide many benefits to nature and humankind, but face multiple anthropogenic threats. Here, we assess whether artificial light at night (ALAN) and anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (AREMR), such as used in wireless technologies (4G, 5G) or emitted from power lines, represent an additional and growing threat to pollinators. A lack of high quality scientific studies means that knowledge of the risk to pollinators from anthropogenic EMR is either inconclusive, unresolved, or only partly established. A handful of studies provide evidence that ALAN can alter pollinator communities, pollination and fruit set. Laboratory experiments provide some, albeit variable, evidence that the honey bee Apis mellifera and other invertebrates can detect EMR, potentially using it for orientation or navigation, but they do not provide evidence that AREMR affects insect behaviour in ecosystems. Scientifically robust evidence of AREMR impacts on abundance or diversity of pollinators (or other invertebrates) are limited to a single study reporting positive and negative effects depending on the pollinator group and geographical location. Therefore, whether anthropogenic EMR (ALAN or AREMR) poses a significant threat to insect pollinators and the benefits they provide to ecosystems and humanity remains to be established., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
24. Robotic bees for crop pollination: Why drones cannot replace biodiversity.
- Author
-
Potts SG, Neumann P, Vaissière B, and Vereecken NJ
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees, Crops, Agricultural, Ecosystem, Aircraft, Biodiversity, Pollination, Robotics
- Abstract
The notion that robotic crop pollination will solve the decline in pollinators has gained wide popularity recently (Fig. 1), and in March 2018 Walmart filed a patent for autonomous robot bees. However, w present six arguments showing that this is a technically and economically inviable 'solution' at present and poses substantial ecological and moral risks: (1) despite recent advances, robotic pollination is far from being able to replace bees to pollinate crops efficiently; (2) using robots is very unlikely to be economically viable; (3) there would be unacceptably high environmental costs; (4) wider ecosystems would be damaged; (5) it would erode the values of biodiversity; and, (6) relying on robotic pollination could actually lead to major food insecurity., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.