Search

Your search keyword '"Chacoff, Natacha P."' showing total 150 results
Start Over Author "Chacoff, Natacha P." Search Limiters Full Text
150 results on '"Chacoff, Natacha P."'

4. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production.

Author

Dainese, Matteo, Martin, Emily A, Aizen, Marcelo A, Albrecht, Matthias, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Bommarco, Riccardo, Carvalheiro, Luisa G, Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Gagic, Vesna, Garibaldi, Lucas A, Ghazoul, Jaboury, Grab, Heather, Jonsson, Mattias, Karp, Daniel S, Kennedy, Christina M, Kleijn, David, Kremen, Claire, Landis, Douglas A, Letourneau, Deborah K, Marini, Lorenzo, Poveda, Katja, Rader, Romina, Smith, Henrik G, Tscharntke, Teja, Andersson, Georg KS, Badenhausser, Isabelle, Baensch, Svenja, Bezerra, Antonio Diego M, Bianchi, Felix JJA, Boreux, Virginie, Bretagnolle, Vincent, Caballero-Lopez, Berta, Cavigliasso, Pablo, Ćetković, Aleksandar, Chacoff, Natacha P, Classen, Alice, Cusser, Sarah, da Silva E Silva, Felipe D, de Groot, G Arjen, Dudenhöffer, Jan H, Ekroos, Johan, Fijen, Thijs, Franck, Pierre, Freitas, Breno M, Garratt, Michael PD, Gratton, Claudio, Hipólito, Juliana, Holzschuh, Andrea, Hunt, Lauren, Iverson, Aaron L, Jha, Shalene, Keasar, Tamar, Kim, Tania N, Kishinevsky, Miriam, Klatt, Björn K, Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Krewenka, Kristin M, Krishnan, Smitha, Larsen, Ashley E, Lavigne, Claire, Liere, Heidi, Maas, Bea, Mallinger, Rachel E, Martinez Pachon, Eliana, Martínez-Salinas, Alejandra, Meehan, Timothy D, Mitchell, Matthew GE, Molina, Gonzalo AR, Nesper, Maike, Nilsson, Lovisa, O'Rourke, Megan E, Peters, Marcell K, Plećaš, Milan, Potts, Simon G, Ramos, Davi de L, Rosenheim, Jay A, Rundlöf, Maj, Rusch, Adrien, Sáez, Agustín, Scheper, Jeroen, Schleuning, Matthias, Schmack, Julia M, Sciligo, Amber R, Seymour, Colleen, Stanley, Dara A, Stewart, Rebecca, Stout, Jane C, Sutter, Louis, Takada, Mayura B, Taki, Hisatomo, Tamburini, Giovanni, Tschumi, Matthias, Viana, Blandina F, Westphal, Catrin, Willcox, Bryony K, Wratten, Stephen D, Yoshioka, Akira, Zaragoza-Trello, Carlos, Zhang, Wei, and Zou, Yi

Subjects
Humans, Crops, Agricultural, Ecosystem, Biodiversity, Pest Control, Biological, Agriculture, Pollination, Crop Production, Crops, Agricultural, Pest Control, Biological
Abstract

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

Published
2019

6. Landscape structure and farming management interacts to modulate pollination supply and crop production in blueberries

Author

Ramírez‐Mejía, Andrés F., Blendinger, Pedro G., Woodcock, Ben A., Schmucki, Reto, Escobar, Lorena, Morton, Richard Daniel, Vieli, Lorena, Nunes‐Silva, Patrícia, Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Morales, Carolina Laura, Murúa, Maureen, Agostini, Kayna, Chacoff, Natacha P., Ramírez‐Mejía, Andrés F., Blendinger, Pedro G., Woodcock, Ben A., Schmucki, Reto, Escobar, Lorena, Morton, Richard Daniel, Vieli, Lorena, Nunes‐Silva, Patrícia, Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Morales, Carolina Laura, Murúa, Maureen, Agostini, Kayna, and Chacoff, Natacha P.

Abstract

1. Pollination services are affected by landscape context, farming management and pollinator community structure, all of which impact flower visitation rates, pollen deposition and final production. We studied these processes in Argentina for highbush blueberry crops, which depend on pollinators to produce marketable yields. 2. We studied how land cover and honeybee stocking influence the abundance of wild and managed pollinators in blueberry crops, using structural equation modelling to disentangle the cascading effects through which pollinators contribute to blueberry fruit number, size, nutritional content and overall yield. 3. All pollinator functional groups responded to landscape changes at a spatial scale under 1000 m, and the significance or direction of the effects were modulated by the field-level deployment of honeybee hives. 4. Fruit diameter increased with pollen deposited, but decreased with honeybee abundance, which, had indirect effects on fruit acidity. Honeybees had a positive effect on the number of fruit produced by the plants and also benefited the overall yield (kg plant−1) through independent effects on both the quality and quantity components of fruit production. 5. Synthesis and applications. Deployment of beehives in blueberry fields can buffer, but not compensate for the negative effects on honeybee abundance produced by surrounding large scale none-flowering crops. Such compensation would require high-quality beehives by monitoring their health and strength. The contribution of honeybees to crop production is not equal across production metrics. That is, higher abundance of honeybees increases the number of berries produced but at the cost of smaller and more acidic fruits, potentially reducing their market value. Growers must consider this trade-off between fruit quantity and quality when actively managing honeybee abundance.

Published
2024

7. Optimal pollination thresholds to maximize blueberry production

Author

Ramírez-Mejía, Andrés F., Chacoff, Natacha P., Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Woodcock, Ben A., Schmucki, Reto, Blendinger, Pedro G., Ramírez-Mejía, Andrés F., Chacoff, Natacha P., Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Woodcock, Ben A., Schmucki, Reto, and Blendinger, Pedro G.

Abstract

Pollination management for highbush blueberry crops (Vaccinium spp.) generally depends on beehives stocked at variable densities, with little consideration given to optimal pollination levels dictated by the mating system of the crop. This approach limits our capability to accurately forecast the consequences of animal pollination on crop productivity and can result in pollination shortfalls. Using experimental and observational data, we estimated optimal pollination thresholds for blueberry crops that maximize fruit diameter. We manipulated stigmatic pollen loads and used Bayesian models to evaluate the effects on fruit diameter. In this way, we were able to define thresholds for deficient, optimal and supraoptimal pollen deposition in blueberries. These thresholds were then evaluated under field conditions in blueberry farms, and used simulations to estimate the minimum number of honeybee visits required for optimal blueberry pollen deposition. A quadratic relationship described fruit diameter in response to stigmatic pollen load, with optimal pollen deposition peaking at 192 pollen tetrads and ranging between 112 and 274. Our simulations showed that a flower visitation rate guaranteeing, on average, six to seven honeybee visits per flower (i.e. flower visitation rate of 0.6 visits per 100 flowers h−1) would result in 60% of the plant flowers receiving optimum stigmatic pollen deposition. Higher numbers of honeybee visits increased the probability that blueberry stigmatic pollen loads were below the optimum and the probability that smaller berries were produced. We show that adverse pollination scenarios in blueberries can occur through different pathways, either because of a deficit or an excess of pollination that directly impacts the quality of the fruits produced. By identifying thresholds, we provide a pragmatic basis for adaptive management of honeybees based on average visitation rates that are most suitable for growers to manipulate. Our study provides new

Published
2024

9. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems.

Author

Kennedy, Christina M, Lonsdorf, Eric, Neel, Maile C, Williams, Neal M, Ricketts, Taylor H, Winfree, Rachael, Bommarco, Riccardo, Brittain, Claire, Burley, Alana L, Cariveau, Daniel, Carvalheiro, Luísa G, Chacoff, Natacha P, Cunningham, Saul A, Danforth, Bryan N, Dudenhöffer, Jan-Hendrik, Elle, Elizabeth, Gaines, Hannah R, Garibaldi, Lucas A, Gratton, Claudio, Holzschuh, Andrea, Isaacs, Rufus, Javorek, Steven K, Jha, Shalene, Klein, Alexandra M, Krewenka, Kristin, Mandelik, Yael, Mayfield, Margaret M, Morandin, Lora, Neame, Lisa A, Otieno, Mark, Park, Mia, Potts, Simon G, Rundlöf, Maj, Saez, Agustin, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Taki, Hisatomo, Viana, Blandina Felipe, Westphal, Catrin, Wilson, Julianna K, Greenleaf, Sarah S, and Kremen, Claire

Subjects
Animals, Bees, Flowers, Crops, Agricultural, Ecosystem, Climate, Population Density, Models, Theoretical, Agriculture, Pollination, Agri-environment schemes, diversified farming system, ecologically scaled landscape index, ecosystem services, farm management, habitat fragmentation, landscape structure, organic farming, pollinators, Ecology, Ecological Applications, Evolutionary Biology
Abstract

Bees provide essential pollination services that are potentially affected both by local farm management and the surrounding landscape. To better understand these different factors, we modelled the relative effects of landscape composition (nesting and floral resources within foraging distances), landscape configuration (patch shape, interpatch connectivity and habitat aggregation) and farm management (organic vs. conventional and local-scale field diversity), and their interactions, on wild bee abundance and richness for 39 crop systems globally. Bee abundance and richness were higher in diversified and organic fields and in landscapes comprising more high-quality habitats; bee richness on conventional fields with low diversity benefited most from high-quality surrounding land cover. Landscape configuration effects were weak. Bee responses varied slightly by biome. Our synthesis reveals that pollinator persistence will depend on both the maintenance of high-quality habitats around farms and on local management practices that may offset impacts of intensive monoculture agriculture.

Published
2013

10. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance

Author

Garibaldi, Lucas A, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Winfree, Rachael, Aizen, Marcelo A, Bommarco, Riccardo, Cunningham, Saul A, Kremen, Claire, Carvalheiro, Luísa G, Harder, Lawrence D, Afik, Ohad, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Benjamin, Faye, Boreux, Virginie, Cariveau, Daniel, Chacoff, Natacha P, Dudenhöffer, Jan H, Freitas, Breno M, Ghazoul, Jaboury, Greenleaf, Sarah, Hipólito, Juliana, Holzschuh, Andrea, Howlett, Brad, Isaacs, Rufus, Javorek, Steven K, Kennedy, Christina M, Krewenka, Kristin M, Krishnan, Smitha, Mandelik, Yael, Mayfield, Margaret M, Motzke, Iris, Munyuli, Theodore, Nault, Brian A, Otieno, Mark, Petersen, Jessica, Pisanty, Gideon, Potts, Simon G, Rader, Romina, Ricketts, Taylor H, Rundlöf, Seymour, Colleen L, Schüepp, Christof, Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka, Taki, Hisatomo, Tscharntke, Teja, Vergara, Carlos H, Viana, Blandina F, Wanger, Thomas C, Westphal, Catrin, Williams, Neal, and Klein, Alexandra M

Subjects
Agricultural, Veterinary and Food Sciences, Zoology, Crop and Pasture Production, Biological Sciences, Animals, Bees, Crops, Agricultural, Flowers, Fruit, Insecta, Pollination, General Science & Technology
Abstract

The diversity and abundance of wild insect pollinators have declined in many agricultural landscapes. Whether such declines reduce crop yields, or are mitigated by managed pollinators such as honey bees, is unclear. We found universally positive associations of fruit set with flower visitation by wild insects in 41 crop systems worldwide. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with flower visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation. Visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so pollination by managed honey bees supplemented, rather than substituted for, pollination by wild insects. Our results suggest that new practices for integrated management of both honey bees and diverse wild insect assemblages will enhance global crop yields.

Published
2013

16. Arándanos: polinización y producción en Sudamérica

Author

Nunes-Silva, Patrícia, Ramírez-Mejía, Andrés F., Blochtein, Betina, Ramos, Jenifer Dias, Agostini, Kayna, Vieli, Lorena, Santanna, Manoela, Raguse-Quadros, Mateus, Ibarra, Maureen Murúa, Chacoff, Natacha P., Cavigliasso, Pablo, Blendinger, Pedro G., and Domingos, Sara Stefani

Subjects
abejas, agricultura, arándanos, polinización
Abstract

Este libro pretende aportar información sobre la polinización y la importancia de los polinizadores para los arándanos en Sudamérica, principalmente en Argentina, Brasil y Chile.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

17. Mirtilo: polinização e produção na América do Sul

Author

Nunes-Silva, Patrícia, Ramírez-Mejía, Andrés F., Blochtein, Betina, Ramos, Jenifer Dias, Agostini, Kayna, Vieli, Lorena, Santanna, Manoela, Raguse-Quadros, Mateus, Ibarra, Maureen Murúa, Chacoff, Natacha P., Cavigliasso, Pablo, Blendinger, Pedro. G., and Domingos, Sara Stefani

Subjects
abelhas, agricultura, mirtilo, polinização
Abstract

Este livro visa fornecer informações sobre a polinização e a importância dos polinizadores para o mirtileiro na América do Sul, principalmente na Argentina, no Brasil e no Chile.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Blueberry: pollination and production in South America

Author

Nunes-Silva, Patrícia, Ramírez-Mejía, Andrés F., Blochtein, Betina, Ramos, Jenifer Dias, Agostini, Kayna, Vieli, Lorena, Santanna, Manoela, Raguse-Quadros, Mateus, Ibarra, Maureen Murúa, Chacoff, Natacha P., Cavigliasso, Pablo, Blendinger, Pedro G., and Domingos, Sara Stefani

Subjects
pollination, bees, blueberry, agriculture
Abstract

This book aims to provide information on pollination and the importance of pollinators for blueberries in South America, mainly in Argentina, Brazil and Chile.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Author

Rader, Romina, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Garratt, Michael P. D., Howlett, Brad G., Winfree, Rachael, Cunningham, Saul A., Mayfield, Margaret M., Arthur, Anthony D., Andersson, Georg K. S., Bommarco, Riccardo, Brittain, Claire, Carvalheiro, Luísa G., Chacoff, Natacha P., Entling, Martin H., Foully, Benjamin, Freitas, Breno M., Gemmill-Herren, Barbara, Ghazoul, Jaboury, Griffin, Sean R., Gross, Caroline L., Herbertsson, Lina, Herzog, Felix, Hipólito, Juliana, Jaggar, Sue, Jauker, Frank, Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Kleijn, David, Krishnan, Smitha, Lemos, Camila Q., Lindström, Sandra A. M., Mandelik, Yael, Monteiro, Victor M., Nelson, Warrick, Nilsson, Lovisa, Pattemore, David E., de O. Pereira, Natália, Pisanty, Gideon, Potts, Simon G., Reemer, Menno, Rundlöf, Maj, Sheffield, Cory S., Scheper, Jeroen, Schüepp, Christof, Smith, Henrik G., Stanley, Dara A., Stout, Jane C., Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka, Taki, Hisatomo, Vergara, Carlos H., Viana, Blandina F., and Woyciechowski, Michal

Published
2016

21. CropPol: A dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination

Author

Belmont Forum, European Commission, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (España), Agencia Estatal de Investigación (España), Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, National Science Foundation (US), Allen, Alfonso, Magrach, Ainhoa, Dainese, Matteo, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Kleijn, David, Rader, Romina, Reilly, James R., Winfree, Rachael, Lundin, Ola, McGrady, Carley M., Brittain, Claire, Halinski, Rosana, Henry, Steve, Simmons, Benno I., Dalsgaard, Bo, Campbell, Joshua W., Hansen, Katrine, Mason, Keith, Ward, Kimiora L., Michener, Charles D., Gundersen, Knute B., Pisman, Matti, Bobiwash, Kyle, Gut, Larry, Rowe, Logan M., Boyle, Natalie K., Williams, Neal M., Joshi, Neelendra K., Rothwell, Nikki, Gillespie, Robert L., Isaacs, Rufus, Daily, Gretchen C., Lichtenberg, Elinor M., Fleischer, Shelby J., Peterson, Stephen S., Rao, Sujaya, Pitts-Singer, Theresa L., Fijen, Thijs, Boreux, Virginie, Rundlöf, Maj, Felipe Viana, Blandina, Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Smith, Henrik G., Schüepp, Christoff, Ehrlich, Paul R., Bommarco, Riccardo, Carvalheiro, Luísa G., Ricketts, Taylor H., Ghazoul, Jaboury, Krishnan, Smitha, Benjamin, Faye E., Loureiro, João, Castro, Sílvia, Raine, Nigel E., Herzog, Felix, Arjen de Groot, Gerard, Burns, Katherine L. W., Horgan, Finbarr G., Hipólito, Juliana, Smagghe, Guy, Meeus, Ivan, Eeraerts, Maxime, Potts, Simon G., Kremen, Claire, Gómez García, Daniel, Entling, Martin H., Miñarro, Marcos, Crowder, David W., Vilà, Montserrat, Pisanty, Gideon, Mandelik, Yael, Vereecken, Nicolas J., Leclercq, Nicolas, Weekers, Timothy, Lindstrom, Sandra A.M., Stanley, Dara A., Dupont, Yoko L., Zaragoza-Trello, C., Nicholson, Charlie C., Scheper, Jeroen, Robson, Andrew, Rad, Carlos, Marks, Evan A. N., Mota, Lucie, Danforth, Bryan, Park, Mia, Bezerra, Antônio Diego M., Jauker, Frank, Freitas, Breno M., Mallinger, Rachel E., Silva, Fabiana Oliveira da, Willcox, Bryony, Howlett, Brad, Ramos, Davi L., Silva, Felipe D. da Silva e, Lázaro, Amparo, Alomar, David, González-Estévez, Miguel A., Schwarzbach, Franciska, Taki, Hisatomo, Cariveau, Daniel P., Garratt, Michael P. D., Nabaes Jodar, Diego Nicolás, Stewart, Rebecca I. A, Blechschmidt, Leah, Ariza, Daniel, Biddinger, David J., Nesper, Maike, Sritongchuay, Tuanjit, Diekötter, Tim, Wolters, Volkmar, Castro, Helena, Gaspar, Hugo, Nault, Brian A., Badenhausser, Isabelle, Petersen, Jessica D., Tscharntke, Teja, Bretagnolle, Vincent, Artz, Derek R., O'Reilly, Alison D., Willis Chan, D. Susan, Chacoff, Natacha P., Andersson, Georg K. S., Jha, Shalene, Colville, Jonathan F., Veldtman, Ruan, Coutinho, Jeferson, Bianchi, Felix J. J. A., Sutter, Louis, Albrecht, Matthias, Chamorro, Fermín José, Elle, Elizabeth, Jeanneret, Philippe, Zou, Yi, Averill, Anne, Sáez, Agustín, Sciligo, Amber R., Vergara, Carlos H., Bloom, Elias H., Oeller, Elisabeth, Badano, Ernesto I., Nates, Guiomar, Loeb, Gregory M., Hoffman, George, Grab, Heather, Ekroos, Johan, Gagic, Vesna, Cunningham, Saul A., Åström, Jens, Cavigliasso, Pablo, Trillo, Alejandro, Classen, Alice, Pigozo, Camila Magalhães, Mauchline, Alice L., Montero-Castaño, Ana, Ellis, James D., Wilby, Andrew, Woodcock, Ben A., Sidhu, C. Sheena, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Vogiatzakis, Ioannis N., Herrera, José M., Otieno, Mark, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Gikungu, Mary W., Cusser, Sarah J., Nauss, Thomas, Daniels, Jared, Nilsson, Lovisa, Knapp, Jessica, Ortega-Marcos, Jorge J., González, José A., Osborne, Juliet L., Blanche, Rosalind, Brokaw, Julia, Shaw, Rosalind F., Hevia, Violeta, Stout, Jane, Arthur, Anthony D., Gibbs, Jason, Blochtein, Betina, Szentgyorgyi, Hajnalka, Jin, Li, Mayfield, Margaret M., Woyciechowski, Michał, Wilson, Julianna K., Nunes-Silva, Patrícia, Belmont Forum, European Commission, Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (España), Agencia Estatal de Investigación (España), Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, National Science Foundation (US), Allen, Alfonso, Magrach, Ainhoa, Dainese, Matteo, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Kleijn, David, Rader, Romina, Reilly, James R., Winfree, Rachael, Lundin, Ola, McGrady, Carley M., Brittain, Claire, Halinski, Rosana, Henry, Steve, Simmons, Benno I., Dalsgaard, Bo, Campbell, Joshua W., Hansen, Katrine, Mason, Keith, Ward, Kimiora L., Michener, Charles D., Gundersen, Knute B., Pisman, Matti, Bobiwash, Kyle, Gut, Larry, Rowe, Logan M., Boyle, Natalie K., Williams, Neal M., Joshi, Neelendra K., Rothwell, Nikki, Gillespie, Robert L., Isaacs, Rufus, Daily, Gretchen C., Lichtenberg, Elinor M., Fleischer, Shelby J., Peterson, Stephen S., Rao, Sujaya, Pitts-Singer, Theresa L., Fijen, Thijs, Boreux, Virginie, Rundlöf, Maj, Felipe Viana, Blandina, Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Smith, Henrik G., Schüepp, Christoff, Ehrlich, Paul R., Bommarco, Riccardo, Carvalheiro, Luísa G., Ricketts, Taylor H., Ghazoul, Jaboury, Krishnan, Smitha, Benjamin, Faye E., Loureiro, João, Castro, Sílvia, Raine, Nigel E., Herzog, Felix, Arjen de Groot, Gerard, Burns, Katherine L. W., Horgan, Finbarr G., Hipólito, Juliana, Smagghe, Guy, Meeus, Ivan, Eeraerts, Maxime, Potts, Simon G., Kremen, Claire, Gómez García, Daniel, Entling, Martin H., Miñarro, Marcos, Crowder, David W., Vilà, Montserrat, Pisanty, Gideon, Mandelik, Yael, Vereecken, Nicolas J., Leclercq, Nicolas, Weekers, Timothy, Lindstrom, Sandra A.M., Stanley, Dara A., Dupont, Yoko L., Zaragoza-Trello, C., Nicholson, Charlie C., Scheper, Jeroen, Robson, Andrew, Rad, Carlos, Marks, Evan A. N., Mota, Lucie, Danforth, Bryan, Park, Mia, Bezerra, Antônio Diego M., Jauker, Frank, Freitas, Breno M., Mallinger, Rachel E., Silva, Fabiana Oliveira da, Willcox, Bryony, Howlett, Brad, Ramos, Davi L., Silva, Felipe D. da Silva e, Lázaro, Amparo, Alomar, David, González-Estévez, Miguel A., Schwarzbach, Franciska, Taki, Hisatomo, Cariveau, Daniel P., Garratt, Michael P. D., Nabaes Jodar, Diego Nicolás, Stewart, Rebecca I. A, Blechschmidt, Leah, Ariza, Daniel, Biddinger, David J., Nesper, Maike, Sritongchuay, Tuanjit, Diekötter, Tim, Wolters, Volkmar, Castro, Helena, Gaspar, Hugo, Nault, Brian A., Badenhausser, Isabelle, Petersen, Jessica D., Tscharntke, Teja, Bretagnolle, Vincent, Artz, Derek R., O'Reilly, Alison D., Willis Chan, D. Susan, Chacoff, Natacha P., Andersson, Georg K. S., Jha, Shalene, Colville, Jonathan F., Veldtman, Ruan, Coutinho, Jeferson, Bianchi, Felix J. J. A., Sutter, Louis, Albrecht, Matthias, Chamorro, Fermín José, Elle, Elizabeth, Jeanneret, Philippe, Zou, Yi, Averill, Anne, Sáez, Agustín, Sciligo, Amber R., Vergara, Carlos H., Bloom, Elias H., Oeller, Elisabeth, Badano, Ernesto I., Nates, Guiomar, Loeb, Gregory M., Hoffman, George, Grab, Heather, Ekroos, Johan, Gagic, Vesna, Cunningham, Saul A., Åström, Jens, Cavigliasso, Pablo, Trillo, Alejandro, Classen, Alice, Pigozo, Camila Magalhães, Mauchline, Alice L., Montero-Castaño, Ana, Ellis, James D., Wilby, Andrew, Woodcock, Ben A., Sidhu, C. Sheena, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Vogiatzakis, Ioannis N., Herrera, José M., Otieno, Mark, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Gikungu, Mary W., Cusser, Sarah J., Nauss, Thomas, Daniels, Jared, Nilsson, Lovisa, Knapp, Jessica, Ortega-Marcos, Jorge J., González, José A., Osborne, Juliet L., Blanche, Rosalind, Brokaw, Julia, Shaw, Rosalind F., Hevia, Violeta, Stout, Jane, Arthur, Anthony D., Gibbs, Jason, Blochtein, Betina, Szentgyorgyi, Hajnalka, Jin, Li, Mayfield, Margaret M., Woyciechowski, Michał, Wilson, Julianna K., and Nunes-Silva, Patrícia

Abstract

Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open, and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e., berry mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001¿2005 (21 studies), 2006¿2010 (40), 2011¿2015 (88), and 2016¿2020 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future.

Published
2022

30. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production

Author

School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Dainese, Matteo, Martin, Emily A., Aizen, Marcelo A., Albrecht, Matthias, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Bommarco, Riccardo, Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Gagic, Vesna, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Ghazoul, Jaboury, Grab, Heather, Jonsson, Mattias, Karp, Daniel S., Kennedy, Christina M., Kleijn, David, Kremen, Claire, Landis, Douglas A., Letourneau, Deborah K., Marini, Lorenzo, Poveda, Katja, Rader, Romina, Smith, Henrik G., Tscharntke, Teja, Andersson, Georg K. S., Badenhausser, Isabelle, Baensch, Svenja, Bezerra, Antonio Diego M., Bianchi, Felix J. J. A., Boreux, Virginie, Bretagnolle, Vincent, Caballero-Lopez, Berta, Cavigliasso, Pablo, Cetkovic, Aleksandar, Chacoff, Natacha P., Classen, Alice, Cusser, Sarah, da Silva e Silva, Felipe D., de Groot, G. Arjen, Dudenhoeffer, Jan H., Ekroos, Johan, Fijen, Thijs, Franck, Pierre, Freitas, Breno M., Garratt, Michael P. D., Gratton, Claudio, Hipolito, Juliana, Holzschuh, Andrea, Hunt, Lauren, Iverson, Aaron L., Jha, Shalene, Keasar, Tamar, Kim, Tania N., Kishinevsky, Miriam, Klatt, Bjorn K., Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Krewenka, Kristin M., Krishnan, Smitha, Larsen, Ashley E., Lavigne, Claire, Liere, Heidi, Maas, Bea, Mallinger, Rachel E., Martinez Pachon, Eliana, Martinez-Salinas, Alejandra, Meehan, Timothy D., Mitchell, Matthew G. E., Molina, Gonzalo A. R., Nesper, Maike, Nilsson, Lovisa, O'Rourke, Megan E., Peters, Marcell K., Plecas, Milan, Potts, Simon G., Ramos, Davi de L., Rosenheim, Jay A., Rundlof, Maj, Rusch, Adrien, Saez, Agustin, Scheper, Jeroen, Schleuning, Matthias, Schmack, Julia M., Sciligo, Amber R., Seymour, Colleen, Stanley, Dara A., Stewart, Rebecca M., Stout, Jane C., Sutter, Louis, Takada, Mayura B., Taki, Hisatomo, Tamburini, Giovanni, Tschumi, Matthias, Viana, Blandina F., Westphal, Catrin, Willcox, Bryony K., Wratten, Stephen D., Yoshioka, Akira, Zaragoza-Trello, Carlos, Zhang, Wei, Zou, Yi, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, School of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Dainese, Matteo, Martin, Emily A., Aizen, Marcelo A., Albrecht, Matthias, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Bommarco, Riccardo, Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Gagic, Vesna, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Ghazoul, Jaboury, Grab, Heather, Jonsson, Mattias, Karp, Daniel S., Kennedy, Christina M., Kleijn, David, Kremen, Claire, Landis, Douglas A., Letourneau, Deborah K., Marini, Lorenzo, Poveda, Katja, Rader, Romina, Smith, Henrik G., Tscharntke, Teja, Andersson, Georg K. S., Badenhausser, Isabelle, Baensch, Svenja, Bezerra, Antonio Diego M., Bianchi, Felix J. J. A., Boreux, Virginie, Bretagnolle, Vincent, Caballero-Lopez, Berta, Cavigliasso, Pablo, Cetkovic, Aleksandar, Chacoff, Natacha P., Classen, Alice, Cusser, Sarah, da Silva e Silva, Felipe D., de Groot, G. Arjen, Dudenhoeffer, Jan H., Ekroos, Johan, Fijen, Thijs, Franck, Pierre, Freitas, Breno M., Garratt, Michael P. D., Gratton, Claudio, Hipolito, Juliana, Holzschuh, Andrea, Hunt, Lauren, Iverson, Aaron L., Jha, Shalene, Keasar, Tamar, Kim, Tania N., Kishinevsky, Miriam, Klatt, Bjorn K., Klein, Alexandra-Maria, Krewenka, Kristin M., Krishnan, Smitha, Larsen, Ashley E., Lavigne, Claire, Liere, Heidi, Maas, Bea, Mallinger, Rachel E., Martinez Pachon, Eliana, Martinez-Salinas, Alejandra, Meehan, Timothy D., Mitchell, Matthew G. E., Molina, Gonzalo A. R., Nesper, Maike, Nilsson, Lovisa, O'Rourke, Megan E., Peters, Marcell K., Plecas, Milan, Potts, Simon G., Ramos, Davi de L., Rosenheim, Jay A., Rundlof, Maj, Rusch, Adrien, Saez, Agustin, Scheper, Jeroen, Schleuning, Matthias, Schmack, Julia M., Sciligo, Amber R., Seymour, Colleen, Stanley, Dara A., Stewart, Rebecca M., Stout, Jane C., Sutter, Louis, Takada, Mayura B., Taki, Hisatomo, Tamburini, Giovanni, Tschumi, Matthias, Viana, Blandina F., Westphal, Catrin, Willcox, Bryony K., Wratten, Stephen D., Yoshioka, Akira, Zaragoza-Trello, Carlos, Zhang, Wei, Zou, Yi, and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf

Abstract

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

Published
2019

31. Inferring coevolution in a plant–pollinator network

Author

Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Giannini, Norberto, Chacoff, Natacha P., Castro-Urgal, Rocío, Vázquez, Diego P., Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Giannini, Norberto, Chacoff, Natacha P., Castro-Urgal, Rocío, and Vázquez, Diego P.

Abstract

Mutualistic interactions are at the core of community dynamics, determining dispersal, colonization and differential survival and reproduction among individuals and species. Mutualistic interactions therefore affect the fitness of interaction partners, hence modifying their respective evolutionary trajectories reciprocally, potentially leading to coevolution. Although mathematical models predict coevolution in mutualistic interaction networks, no empirical data are available. By taking into account the patterns of interactions and reconstructing evolutionary change in plant and pollinator traits, we tested the hypothesis that coevolution occurs between plants and insects that interact more frequently, or more symmetrically. To test this hypothesis, we built an interaction network with data from five flowering seasons, measured plant and insect morphology, mapped morphology on the plant and insect phylogenies, and reconstructed ancestral character changes based on maximum parsimony. We calculated an index, called the coevolutionary ratio, which represents the amount of correlated change in traits that mediate the interaction between plants and pollinators (i.e. proboscis versus corolla length, and body width and corolla aperture). Our results suggest that high frequency of interaction, i.e. the number of times two species interact, does not lead to coevolution. Instead, symmetry of interaction strength, i.e. the reciprocal similarity in the mutual effect of interaction partners, may lead to coevolution, in spite of a pervasive lack of reciprocal specialization and high interaction frequency. Although the statistical signal is quite weak, our results hold for three statistical tests of very different nature. The most specialized species, expected to be under directional selection, do not show more evolutionary change than do generalist species, expected to be under different, perhaps opposing, selective pressures. By dissecting the complexity of an interaction network

Published
2019

32. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production

Author

Dainese, M., Martin, E. A., Aizen, Marcelo A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gagic, V., Garibaldi, Lucas A., Ghazoul, J., Grab, H., Jonsson, M., Karp, D. S., Kennedy, Cristina M., Kleijn, D., Kremen, C., Landis, D. A., Letourneau, D. K., Marini, Lorenzo, Poveda, K., Rader, R., Smith, H. G., Tscharntke, T., Andersson, G. K. S., Badenhausser, I., Baensch, S., Bezerra, A. D. M., Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Boreux, V., Bretagnolle, V., Caballero-López, Berta, Cavigliasso, P., Cetkovic, Aleksandar, Chacoff, Natacha P., Classen, A., Cusser, S., Da Silva E Silva, F. D., Arjen De Groot, G., Dudenhöffer, J. H., Ekroos, J., Fijen, T., Franck, P., Freitas, B. M., Garratt, M. P. D., Gratton, C., Hipólito, J., Holzschuh, A., Hunt, L., Zaragoza-Trello, C., Dainese, M., Martin, E. A., Aizen, Marcelo A., Albrecht, M., Bartomeus, I., Bommarco, R., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Gagic, V., Garibaldi, Lucas A., Ghazoul, J., Grab, H., Jonsson, M., Karp, D. S., Kennedy, Cristina M., Kleijn, D., Kremen, C., Landis, D. A., Letourneau, D. K., Marini, Lorenzo, Poveda, K., Rader, R., Smith, H. G., Tscharntke, T., Andersson, G. K. S., Badenhausser, I., Baensch, S., Bezerra, A. D. M., Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Boreux, V., Bretagnolle, V., Caballero-López, Berta, Cavigliasso, P., Cetkovic, Aleksandar, Chacoff, Natacha P., Classen, A., Cusser, S., Da Silva E Silva, F. D., Arjen De Groot, G., Dudenhöffer, J. H., Ekroos, J., Fijen, T., Franck, P., Freitas, B. M., Garratt, M. P. D., Gratton, C., Hipólito, J., Holzschuh, A., Hunt, L., and Zaragoza-Trello, C.

Abstract

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.

Published
2019

33. Pérdida de semillas en fase de pre-dispersión en dos especies de Prosopis (Fabacea: Mimosoidea) del Desierto del Monte, Argentina

Author

Velez, Silvina, Chacoff, Natacha P, and Campos, Claudia M

Subjects
Insects, Aborción, Depredación, Abortion, Predation, Insectos
Abstract

Pre-dispersal filters imposed on the seed stage can alter the likelihood of seed dispersal. We evaluate pre-dispersal seed loss due to predation by insects and abortion in Prosopis flexuosa and P. chilensis. This study was conducted in two protected areas in the Monte Desert. We collected P. flexuosa and P. chilensis fruits from different trees, from two plots and two years. Samples were maintained for 50 days in translucent PVC bottles stored in a laboratory under stable temperature (25 °C) and natural photoperiod, awaiting the emergence of insects. Then we opened the fruits and individually examined all seeds to determine their condition. We found that total pre-dispersal seed loss was 32% in P. flexuosa and 21% in P. chilensis. Seed predation by insects was the major source of pre-dispersal seed loss (19% in P. flexuosa and 14% in P. chilensis). The main seed predator was the apionid weevil (Brentidae: Apioninae) in P. flexuosa, and bruchid beetles (Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) in P. chilensis. Some bruchid beetles prey upon seeds, completing their life cycle, whereas others remain inside seeds (41% in P. flexuosa and 49% in P. chilensis, of total seed damaged by bruchid beetles). Seed abortion was another important source of seed loss, especially for P. flexuosa, but its cause still remains unknown. We show and discuss the extent of a proposed methodology to account for pre-dispersal seed predation that includes the immature stages of non-emergent bruchid. Pre-dispersal seed loss by insects and abortion represent an ecological filter that limits the amount of seeds available for dispersal and establishment of these species. Understanding seed loss process may contribute to know and predict Prosopis population dynamics, revealing the natural regeneration mechanisms to forest recovery. Los filtros impuestos sobre las semillas en la fase pre-dispersiva pueden alterar su probabilidad de ser dispersadas. Evaluamos la pérdida de semillas debido a la depredación por insectos y aborción durante la etapa predispersiva en dos especies: Prosopis flexuosa y P. chilensis. El estudio se realizó en dos áreas protegidas del Desierto del Monte. Colectamos frutos de ambas especies de Prosopis a partir de individuos adultos de dos parcelas y en dos años. Las muestras se colocaron en frascos de PVC transparentes almacenados en laboratorio a una temperatura estable (25 °C) y fotoperíodo natural durante 50 días, para determinar la emergencia de los insectos. Luego se abrieron los frutos y se examinó cada semilla para registrar su condición. La pérdida total de semillas fue del 32% en P. flexuosa y del 21% en P. chilensis. La depredación de semillas por insectos fue la fuente principal de pérdida de semillas (19% en P. flexuosa y del 14% en P. chilensis). Los depredadores más importantes fueron Apion sp. (Brentidae: Apioninae) en P. flexuosa, y brúquidos de distintas especies (Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) en P. chilensis. Algunos brúquidos depredan la semilla y emergen por un pequeño orificio al completar su ciclo, mientras que otros permanecen en el interior de la semilla (41% en P. flexuosa y del 49% en P. chilensis del total de semillas depredadas por brúquidos). La aborción fue la segunda fuente de pérdida predispersiva de semillas, en especial para P. flexuosa, aunque aún se desconocen sus causas. Mostramos y discutimos el alcance de una metodología para la estimación de depredación pre-dispersión, que considera la inclusión de los estadios inmaduros de brúquidos que no emergen de la semilla. La pérdida de semillas pre-dispersión por insectos y aborción, representan un filtro ecológico que podría limitar la cantidad de semillas disponibles para la dispersión y posterior establecimiento de estas especies. Comprender el proceso de pérdida de semillas puede contribuir a conocer y predecir la dinámica poblacional de Prosopis, revelando los mecanismos naturales de regeneración para la recuperación de los bosques.

Published
2018

37. EDITOR'S CHOICE: REVIEW: Trait matching of flower visitors and crops predicts fruit set better than trait diversity

Author

Garibaldi, Lucas A., Bartomeus, Ignasi, Bommarco, Riccardo, Klein, Alexandra M., Cunningham, Saul A., Aizen, Marcelo A., Boreux, Virginie, Garratt, Michael P. D., Carvalheiro, Luísa G., Kremen, Claire, Morales, Carolina L., Schüepp, Christof, Chacoff, Natacha P., Freitas, Breno M., Gagic, Vesna, Holzschuh, Andrea, Klatt, Björn K., Krewenka, Kristin M., Krishnan, Smitha, Mayfield, Margaret M., Motzke, Iris, Otieno, Mark, Petersen, Jessica, Potts, Simon G., Ricketts, Taylor H., Rundlöf, Maj, Sciligo, Amber, Sinu, Palatty Allesh, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Taki, Hisatomo, Tscharntke, Teja, Vergara, Carlos H., Viana, Blandina F., Woyciechowski, Michal, and Devictor, Vincent

Subjects
fungi, food and beverages
Abstract

Understanding the relationships between trait diversity, species diversity and ecosystem functioning is essential for sustainable management. For functions comprising two trophic levels, trait matching between interacting partners should also drive functioning. However, the predictive ability of trait diversity and matching is unclear for most functions, particularly for crop pollination, where interacting partners did not necessarily co-evolve.\ud World-wide, we collected data on traits of flower visitors and crops, visitation rates to crop flowers per insect species and fruit set in 469 fields of 33 crop systems. Through hierarchical mixed-effects models, we tested whether flower visitor trait diversity and/or trait matching between flower visitors and crops improve the prediction of crop fruit set (functioning) beyond flower visitor species diversity and abundance.\ud Flower visitor trait diversity was positively related to fruit set, but surprisingly did not explain more variation than flower visitor species diversity.\ud The best prediction of fruit set was obtained by matching traits of flower visitors (body size and mouthpart length) and crops (nectar accessibility of flowers) in addition to flower visitor abundance, species richness and species evenness. Fruit set increased with species richness, and more so in assemblages with high evenness, indicating that additional species of flower visitors contribute more to crop pollination when species abundances are similar.\ud Synthesis and applications. Despite contrasting floral traits for crops world-wide, only the abundance of a few pollinator species is commonly managed for greater yield. Our results suggest that the identification and enhancement of pollinator species with traits matching those of the focal crop, as well as the enhancement of pollinator richness and evenness, will increase crop yield beyond current practices. Furthermore, we show that field practitioners can predict and manage agroecosystems for pollination services based on knowledge of just a few traits that are known for a wide range of flower visitor species.

Published
2015

38. Trait matching of flower visitors and crops predicts fruit set better than trait diversity

Author

Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Bommarco, Riccardo, Klein, Alexandra M., Cunningham, Saul A., Aizen, Marcelo A., Boreux, Virginie, Garratt, Michael P., Carvalheiro, Luísa G., Kremen, Claire, Morales, Carolina L., Schuepp, Christof, Chacoff, Natacha P., Freitas, Breno M., Gagic, Vesna, Holzschuh, Andrea, Klatt, Bjorn K., Krewenka, Kristin M., Krishnan, Smitha, Mayfield, Margaret M., Motzke, Iris, Otieno, Mark, Petersen, Jessica, Potts, Simon G., Ricketts, Taylor H., Rundlof, Maj, Sciligo, Amber, Allesh Sinu, Palatty, Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Taki, Hisatomo, Tscharntke, Teja, Vergara, Carlos H., Felipe Viana, Blandina, Woyciechowski, Michal, and Devictor, Vincent

Subjects
Ecology, Environmental Science and Management, Otras Ciencias Biológicas, fungi, food and beverages, Body size, 580 Plants (Botany), Mouthpart length, Ciencias Biológicas, Ecosystems Research, Ecological Applications, Nectar accessibility, Ecosystem functioning, Ecosystem services, Trait evenness, 570 Life sciences, biology, 590 Animals (Zoology), Trait richness, Agroecosystems, Pollination, nectar accessibility, CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS
Abstract

Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural; Argentina. Fil: Bartomeus, Ignasi. Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC). Dpto. Ecología Integrativa; España. Fil: Bommarco, Riccardo. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Ecology; Suecia. Fil: Klein, Alexandra M. University of Freiburg. Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources. Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology; Alemania. Fil: Cunningham, Saul. CSIRO Land and Water; Australia. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Boreux, Virginie. University of Freiburg. Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources. Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology; Alemania. Fil: Garratt, Michael P. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research; Reino Unido. Fil: Carvalheiro, Luisa G. University of Leeds. School of Biology; Reino Unido. Fil: Carvalheiro, Luisa G. Naturalis Biodiversity Center; Países Bajos. Fil: Carvalheiro, Luisa G. Universidade de Brasilia. Departamento de Ecologia; Brasil. Fil: Kremen, Claire. University of California. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management; Estados Unidos. Fil: Morales, Carolina L. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Morales, Carolina L. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Schuepp, Christof. University of Bern. Institute of Ecology and Evolution; Suiza. Fil: Schuepp, Christof. University of Koblenz-Landau. Institute for Environmental Sciences; Alemania. Fil: Chacoff, Natacha P. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e IML. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Fil: Freitas, Breno M. Universidade Federal do Ceara. Campus Universitario do Pici. Departamento de Zootecnia–CCA; Brasil. Fil: Gagic, Vesna. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Ecology; Suecia. Fil: Holzschuh, Andrea. University of Würzburg. Biocenter. Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology; Alemania. Fil: Holzschuh, Andrea. Georg-August-University. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology; Alemania. Fil: Klatt, Bjorn K. Georg-August-University. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology; Alemania. Fil: Klatt, Bjorn K. Lund University. Centre for Environmental and Climate Research; Suecia. Fil: Krewenka, Kristin M. Georg-August-University. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology; Alemania. Fil: Krewenka, Kristin M. University of Hamburg. Biocentre Klein-Flottbek and Botanical Garden Biodiversity. Ecology and Evolution of Plants; Alemania. Fil: Krishnan, Smitha. ETH Zürich. Department of Environmental Systems Science; Suiza. Fil: Mayfield, Margaret M. The University of Queensland. School of Biological Sciences and the Ecology Centre; Australia. Fil: Motzke, Iris. University of Freiburg. Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources. Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology; Alemania. Fil: Motzke, Iris. Georg-August-University. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology; Alemania. Fil: Otieno, Mark. Embu University College. Department of Agricultural Resource Management; Kenya. Fil: Petersen, Jessica. Cornell University. New York State Agricultural Experiment Station. Department of Entomology; Estados Unidos. Fil: Potts, Simon G. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research; Reino Unido. Fil: Ricketts, Taylor. University of Vermont. Gund Institute for Ecological Economics; Estados Unidos. Fil: Rundlof, Maj. Lund University. Department of Biology; Suecia. Fil: Sciligo, Amber. University of California. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management; Estados Unidos. Fil: Allesh Sinu, Palatty. Central University of Kerala. Department of Animal Science; India. Fil: Steffan Dewenter, Ingolf. University of Würzburg. Biocenter. Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology; Alemania. Fil: Taki, Hisatomo. Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute. Department of Forest Entomology; Japón. Fil: Tscharntke, Teja. Georg-August-University. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology; Alemania. Fil: Vergara, Carlos H. Universidad de las Américas Puebla. Departamento de Ciencias Químico-Biológicas; México. Fil: Viana, Blandina F. Universidade Federal da Bahia. Instituto de Biologia; Departamento de Zoologia; Brasil. Fil: Woyciechowski, Michal. Jagiellonian University. Institute of Environmental Sciences; Polonia. Understanding the relationships between trait diversity, species diversity and ecosystem functioning is essential for sustainable management. For functions comprising two trophic levels, trait matching between interacting partners should also drive functioning. However, the predictive ability of trait diversity and matching is unclear for most functions, particularly for crop pollination, where interacting partners did not necessarily co‐evolve. World‐wide, we collected data on traits of flower visitors and crops, visitation rates to crop flowers per insect species and fruit set in 469 fields of 33 crop systems. Through hierarchical mixed‐effects models, we tested whether flower visitor trait diversity and/or trait matching between flower visitors and crops improve the prediction of crop fruit set (functioning) beyond flower visitor species diversity and abundance. Flower visitor trait diversity was positively related to fruit set, but surprisingly did not explain more variation than flower visitor species diversity. The best prediction of fruit set was obtained by matching traits of flower visitors (body size and mouthpart length) and crops (nectar accessibility of flowers) in addition to flower visitor abundance, species richness and species evenness. Fruit set increased with species richness, and more so in assemblages with high evenness, indicating that additional species of flower visitors contribute more to crop pollination when species abundances are similar. Synthesis and applications. Despite contrasting floral traits for crops world‐wide, only the abundance of a few pollinator species is commonly managed for greater yield. Our results suggest that the identification and enhancement of pollinator species with traits matching those of the focal crop, as well as the enhancement of pollinator richness and evenness, will increase crop yield beyond current practices. Furthermore, we show that field practitioners can predict and manage agroecosystems for pollination services based on knowledge of just a few traits that are known for a wide range of flower visitor species.

Published
2015

40. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Author

Rader, Romina, primary, Bartomeus, Ignasi, additional, Garibaldi, Lucas A., additional, Garratt, Michael P. D., additional, Howlett, Brad G., additional, Winfree, Rachael, additional, Cunningham, Saul A., additional, Mayfield, Margaret M., additional, Arthur, Anthony D., additional, Andersson, Georg K. S., additional, Bommarco, Riccardo, additional, Brittain, Claire, additional, Carvalheiro, Luísa G., additional, Chacoff, Natacha P., additional, Entling, Martin H., additional, Foully, Benjamin, additional, Freitas, Breno M., additional, Gemmill-Herren, Barbara, additional, Ghazoul, Jaboury, additional, Griffin, Sean R., additional, Gross, Caroline L., additional, Herbertsson, Lina, additional, Herzog, Felix, additional, Hipólito, Juliana, additional, Jaggar, Sue, additional, Jauker, Frank, additional, Klein, Alexandra-Maria, additional, Kleijn, David, additional, Krishnan, Smitha, additional, Lemos, Camila Q., additional, Lindström, Sandra A. M., additional, Mandelik, Yael, additional, Monteiro, Victor M., additional, Nelson, Warrick, additional, Nilsson, Lovisa, additional, Pattemore, David E., additional, de O. Pereira, Natália, additional, Pisanty, Gideon, additional, Potts, Simon G., additional, Reemer, Menno, additional, Rundlöf, Maj, additional, Sheffield, Cory S., additional, Scheper, Jeroen, additional, Schüepp, Christof, additional, Smith, Henrik G., additional, Stanley, Dara A., additional, Stout, Jane C., additional, Szentgyörgyi, Hajnalka, additional, Taki, Hisatomo, additional, Vergara, Carlos H., additional, Viana, Blandina F., additional, and Woyciechowski, Michal, additional

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Pre-dispersal seed loss in two Prosopis species (Fabacea: Mimosoidea) from the Monte Desert, Argentina.

Author

VELEZ, SILVINA, CHACOFF, NATACHA P., and CAMPOS, CLAUDIA M.

Subjects
*SEED dispersal, *PLANT dispersal, *INSECT-plant relationships, *PREDATION, *HONEY mesquite, *DISPERSAL (Ecology), *MESQUITE
Abstract

Pre-dispersal filters imposed on the seed stage can alter the likelihood of seed dispersal. We evaluate pre-dispersal seed loss due to predation by insects and abortion in Prosopis flexuosa and P. chilensis. This study was conducted in two protected areas in the Monte Desert. We collected P. flexuosa and P. chilensis fruits from different trees, from two plots and two years. Samples were maintained for 50 days in translucent PVC bottles stored in a laboratory under stable temperature (25 °C) and natural photoperiod, awaiting the emergence of insects. Then we opened the fruits and individually examined all seeds to determine their condition. We found that total pre-dispersal seed loss was 32% in P. flexuosa and 21% in P. chilensis. Seed predation by insects was the major source of pre-dispersal seed loss (19% in P. flexuosa and 14% in P. chilensis). The main seed predator was the apionid weevil (Brentidae: Apioninae) in P. flexuosa, and bruchid beetles (Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) in P. chilensis. Some bruchid beetles prey upon seeds, completing their life cycle, whereas others remain inside seeds (41% in P. flexuosa and 49% in P. chilensis, of total seed damaged by bruchid beetles). Seed abortion was another important source of seed loss, especially for P. flexuosa, but its cause still remains unknown. We show and discuss the extent of a proposed methodology to account for pre-dispersal seed predation that includes the immature stages of non-emergent bruchid. Pre-dispersal seed loss by insects and abortion represent an ecological filter that limits the amount of seeds available for dispersal and establishment of these species. Understanding seed loss process may contribute to know and predict Prosopis population dynamics, revealing the natural regeneration mechanisms to forest recovery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Los polinizadores en la agricultura

Author

Chacoff, Natacha P., Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro, Morales, Carolina L., Ashworth, Lorena, and Aizen, Marcelo A.

Subjects
Agricultura, Polinizadores, Abejorros, Agricultura, Ciencias Forestales y Pesca, Cultivos
Abstract

Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Conicet-Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Laboratorio Ecotono; Bariloche, Argentina. Fil: Morales, Carolina L. Conicet-Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Laboratorio Ecotono; Bariloche, Argentina. Fil: Ashworth, Lorena. Conicet-Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Córdoba, Argentina. Fil: Chacoff, Natacha P.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas; Mendoza, Argentina. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A.. Laboratorio Ecotono; Bariloche, Argentina. La cantidad y la calidad de una cosecha se encuentran limitadas por múltiples factores. La falta de agua o nutrientes y la incidencia de plagas o malezas pueden reducir el número y tamaño de las frutillas cosechadas en una parcela de Lules, en Tucumán, o la producción de una hectárea de trigo en el sur de Buenos Aires. Otro factor que condiciona el rendimiento de las cosechas es la polinización, que es la transferencia de polen de los órganos masculinos de la flor a los femeninos, lo que hace posible la formación de frutos y semillas. En muchos casos la polinización es el resultado de la actividad de animales polinizadores como abejas, abejorros y colibríes, cuya ausencia o escasez también puede limitar el rendimiento de ciertos cultivos.

Published
2012

43. Evaluating sampling completeness in a desert plant-pollinator network

Author

Chacoff, Natacha P., Vázquez, Diego P., Lomáscolo, Silvia B., Stevani, E. L., Dorado, Jimena, and Padrón, Benigno

Abstract

1. The study of plant-pollinator interactions in a network context is receiving increasing attention. This approach has helped to identify several emerging network patterns such as nestedness and modularity. However, most studies are based only on qualitative information, and some ecosystems, such as deserts and tropical forests, are underrepresented in these data sets. 2. We present an exhaustive analysis of the structure of a 4-year plant-pollinator network from the Monte desert in Argentina using qualitative and quantitative tools. We describe the structure of this network and evaluate sampling completeness using asymptotic species richness estimators. Our goal is to assess the extent to which the realized sampling effort allows for an accurate description of species interactions and to estimate the minimum number of additional censuses required to detect 90% of the interactions. We evaluated completeness of detection of the community-wide pollinator fauna, of the pollinator fauna associated with each plant species and of the plant-pollinator interactions. We also evaluated whether sampling completeness was influenced by plant characteristics, such as flower abundance, flower life span, number of interspecific links (degree) and selectiveness in the identity of their flower visitors, as well as sampling effort. 3. We found that this desert plant-pollinator network has a nested structure and that it exhibits modularity and high network-level generalization. 4. In spite of our high sampling effort, and although we sampled 80% of the pollinator fauna, we recorded only 55% of the interactions. Furthermore, although a 64% increase in sampling effort would suffice to detect 90% of the pollinator species, a fivefold increase in sampling effort would be necessary to detect 90% of the interactions. 5. Detection of interactions was incomplete for most plant species, particularly specialists with a long flowering season and high flower abundance, or generalists with short flowering span and scant flowers. Our results suggest that sampling of a network with the same effort for all plant species is inadequate to sample interactions. 6. Sampling the diversity of interactions is labour intensive, and most plant-pollinator networks published to date are likely to be undersampled. Our analysis allowed estimating the completeness of our sampling, the additional effort needed to detect most interactions and the plant traits that influence the detection of their interactions. © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Animal Ecology © 2011 British Ecological Society., Research was funded by grants from CONICET (PIP 6564), FONCYT (PICT 20805, PICT 1471) and BBVA Foundation (BIOCON03-162)

Published
2012

44. Pollinator dependence of Argentinean agriculture: current status and temporal analysis

Author

Chacoff, Natacha P., Morales, Carolina L., Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro, Ashworth, Lorena, and Aizen, Marcelo A.

Subjects
Yield, Crop Pollination, Pollination Service, Soybean, Productivity
Abstract

Fil: Chacoff, Natacha P. Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones de las Zonas Áridas (IADIZA)-CONICET; Argentina. Fil: Morales, Carolina L. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. INIBIOMA-CONICET. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. INIBIOMA-CONICET. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Ashworth, Lorena. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal (IMBIV)-CONICET; Argentina. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. INIBIOMA-CONICET. Laboratorio Ecotono; Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas Alejandro. Universidad de Buenos Aires (UBA). Facultad de Agronomía; Argentina. A sizable proportion of agricultural production depends directly or indirectly on animal pollination but estimation of the size of this dependence is missing for most countries, even for some of the most important food producers. Here, we evaluate the current status and temporal trends (1961-2007) in pollinator dependency of Argentinean agriculture. We classified crops in categories according to their pollinator dependence, and estimated their harvested area, production, economic and nutritional values. We also estimated the expected production deficit in the absence of pollinators, the extra area needed to cope with this deficit, and trends in honeybee stocks. From a total of 68 crops, animal pollination increased directly production in 37 and indirectly in 13. More than half of the harvested area and total agricultural production corresponded to pollinator dependent crops, a trend highly influenced by the inclusion of soybean as a modestly dependent crop. Highly pollinator-dependent crops produced 2-4 times more income per hectare than any other crop, and modestly dependent crops bear on average the highest protein and fat content. During the study period the production deficit increased three-fold, reaching 12% in 2007, whereas the area needed to compensate for these deficiencies attained 24%. Regarding pollination services, indicators are mixed; whereas Argentinean honey-bee stock triplicates from 1961 to 2007, native forest area, a source of pollinator diversity, shrank to more than half since 1940’s. Experiments testing the degree of pollinator dependency on the quality and quantity of crop production for soybean varieties cultivated in Argentina are urgently needed. Our estimations depict an agriculture that is becoming more dependent on pollinators, but native forests and other native terrestrial habitats, which host most of the country’s pollinator diversity, are decreasing at an alarming rate.

Published
2010

46. The potential for indirect effects between co-flowering plants via shared pollinators depends on resource abundance, accessibility and relatedness

Author

Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Biesmeijer, Jacobus C., Gita, Benadi, Fründ, Jochen, Stand, Martina, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Kaiser-Bunbury, Christopher N., Baude, Mathilde, Gomes, Sofia I.F., Merckx, Vincent, Baldock, Catherine C.R., Bennett, Andrew T.D., Boada, Ruth, Bommarco, Riccardo, Cartar, Ralph, Chacoff, Natacha P., Dänhardt, Juliana, Dicks, Lynn V., Dormann, Carsten F., Ekroos, Johan, Henson, Kate S.E., Holzschuh, Andrea, Junker, Robert R., Lopezaraiza-Mikel, Martha, Memmott, Jane, Montero-Castaño, Ana, Nelson, Isabel L., Petanidou, Theodora, Power, Eileen F., Smith, Henrick G., Stout, Jane C., Temitope, Keinde, Tscharntke, Teja, Tscheulin, Thomas, Vilà, Montserrat, Kunin, William E., Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Biesmeijer, Jacobus C., Gita, Benadi, Fründ, Jochen, Stand, Martina, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Kaiser-Bunbury, Christopher N., Baude, Mathilde, Gomes, Sofia I.F., Merckx, Vincent, Baldock, Catherine C.R., Bennett, Andrew T.D., Boada, Ruth, Bommarco, Riccardo, Cartar, Ralph, Chacoff, Natacha P., Dänhardt, Juliana, Dicks, Lynn V., Dormann, Carsten F., Ekroos, Johan, Henson, Kate S.E., Holzschuh, Andrea, Junker, Robert R., Lopezaraiza-Mikel, Martha, Memmott, Jane, Montero-Castaño, Ana, Nelson, Isabel L., Petanidou, Theodora, Power, Eileen F., Smith, Henrick G., Stout, Jane C., Temitope, Keinde, Tscharntke, Teja, Tscheulin, Thomas, Vilà, Montserrat, and Kunin, William E.

Abstract

Co-flowering plant species commonly share flower visitors, and thus have the potential to influence each other's pollination. In this study we analysed 750 quantitative plant–pollinator networks from 28 studies representing diverse biomes worldwide. We show that the potential for one plant species to influence another indirectly via shared pollinators was greater for plants whose resources were more abundant (higher floral unit number and nectar sugar content) and more accessible. The potential indirect influence was also stronger between phylogenetically closer plant species and was independent of plant geographic origin (native vs. non-native). The positive effect of nectar sugar content and phylogenetic proximity was much more accentuated for bees than for other groups. Consequently, the impact of these factors depends on the pollination mode of plants, e.g. bee or fly pollinated. Our findings may help predict which plant species have the greatest importance in the functioning of plant–pollination networks

Published
2014

48. Vegetation recovery on a gas-pipeline track along an altitudinal gradient in the Argentinean Yungas forests

Author

Malizia, Agustina, Chacoff, Natacha P., Grau, Héctor R., and Brown, Alejandro D.

Subjects
disturbance, impacto ambiental, disturbios, life forms, subtropical montane forest, formas de vida, revegetation, environmental impact, selvas subtropicales de montaña, revegetación
Abstract

La cobertura, altura de la vegetación y riqueza de especies total y para diferentes formas de vida después de una estación de crecimiento fueron censados en 15 sitios ubicados sobre la traza de un gasoducto en un gradiente altitudinal entre 400-2000 m en las montañas del noroeste argentino (23°S). La cobertura de la vegetación disminuyó con la altitud, aunque fue alta en todos los sitios (> 60%). La riqueza total de especies y la altura máxima de la vegetación no variaron significativamente con la altitud. La cobertura de pastos y la cobertura y riqueza de especies de árboles, pequeños arbustos y lianas disminuyeron con la altitud, mientras que la riqueza de hierbas aumentó. Tanto la riqueza y cobertura de arbustos, como la cobertura de hierbas y la riqueza de pastos no mostraron variaciones. Si bien la cobertura o riqueza de la mayoría de las formas de vida disminuyeron con la altitud, los resultados de este estudio sugieren que en el gradiente altitudinal estudiado la recuperación de la vegetación es relativamente rápida en todo el gradiente luego de perturbaciones humanas de este tipo, probablemente por la baja limitación a la dispersión y por la disponibilidad de especies adaptadas a perturbaciones intensas. La recuperación de la vegetación luego de la construcción de gasoductos o perturbaciones similares puede permitir restauraciones ecológicas relativamente rápidas en bosques subtropicales de montaña. After one growing season of recovery, vegetation cover and height, species richness, and life forms composition were surveyed in 15 sites located along a gas-pipeline track running through an altitudinal range from 400-2000 m in the subtropical mountains of north-western Argentina (23°S). Vegetation cover was negatively correlated with altitude but was generally high at all sites (> 60%) after one year. Total species richness and maximum vegetation height did not vary significantly with altitude. Cover of grasses, and cover and species richness of trees, small shrubs and climbers were negatively correlated with altitude. Herb species richness correlated positively with altitude. Large shrub richness and cover showed no statistical relationship with altitude. The relative cover of herbs and grass species richness did not vary along the altitudinal gradient. Overall, these results indicate that in the altitudinal range studied, vegetation recovery is relatively high after this type of disturbance, probably due to low dispersal limitations and to the availability of species well adapted to intense disturbances. Vegetation recovery after gas-pipeline construction or similar perturbations may lead to relatively fast ecological restoration in subtropical montane forest ecosystems.

Published
2004

49. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance

Author

Garibaldi, Lucas A., Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Winfree, Rachael, Aizen, Marcelo A., Bommarco, Riccardo, Cunningham, Saul A., Kremen, Claire, Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Harder, Lawrence D., Afik, Ohad, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Benjamin, Faye, Boreux, Virginie, Cariveau, Daniel, Chacoff, Natacha P., Dudenhoeffer, Jan H., Freitas, Breno M., Ghazoul, Jaboury, Greenleaf, Sarah, Hipolito, Juliana, Holzschuh, Andrea, Howlett, Brad, Isaacs, Rufus, Javorek, Steven K., Kennedy, Christina M., Krewenka, Kristin M., Krishnan, Smitha, Mandelik, Yael, Mayfield, Margaret M., Motzke, Iris, Munyuli, Theodore, Nault, Brian A., Otieno, Mark, Petersen, Jessica, Pisanty, Gideon, Potts, Simon G., Rader, Romina, Ricketts, Taylor H., Rundlof, Maj, Seymour, Colleen L., Schueepp, Christof, Szentgyoergyi, Hajnalka, Taki, Hisatomo, Tscharntke, Teja, Vergara, Carlos H., Viana, Blandina F., Wanger, Thomas C., Westphal, Catrin, Williams, Neal, Klein, Alexandra M., Garibaldi, Lucas A., Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf, Winfree, Rachael, Aizen, Marcelo A., Bommarco, Riccardo, Cunningham, Saul A., Kremen, Claire, Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Harder, Lawrence D., Afik, Ohad, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Benjamin, Faye, Boreux, Virginie, Cariveau, Daniel, Chacoff, Natacha P., Dudenhoeffer, Jan H., Freitas, Breno M., Ghazoul, Jaboury, Greenleaf, Sarah, Hipolito, Juliana, Holzschuh, Andrea, Howlett, Brad, Isaacs, Rufus, Javorek, Steven K., Kennedy, Christina M., Krewenka, Kristin M., Krishnan, Smitha, Mandelik, Yael, Mayfield, Margaret M., Motzke, Iris, Munyuli, Theodore, Nault, Brian A., Otieno, Mark, Petersen, Jessica, Pisanty, Gideon, Potts, Simon G., Rader, Romina, Ricketts, Taylor H., Rundlof, Maj, Seymour, Colleen L., Schueepp, Christof, Szentgyoergyi, Hajnalka, Taki, Hisatomo, Tscharntke, Teja, Vergara, Carlos H., Viana, Blandina F., Wanger, Thomas C., Westphal, Catrin, Williams, Neal, and Klein, Alexandra M.

Abstract

The diversity and abundance of wild insect pollinators have declined in many agricultural landscapes. Whether such declines reduce crop yields, or are mitigated by managed pollinators such as honey bees, is unclear. We found universally positive associations of fruit set with flower visitation by wild insects in 41 crop systems worldwide. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with flower visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation. Visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so pollination by managed honey bees supplemented, rather than substituted for, pollination by wild insects. Our results suggest that new practices for integrated management of both honey bees and diverse wild insect assemblages will enhance global crop yields., AuthorCount:50

Published
2013
Full Text
View/download PDF

50. The dimensionality of ecological networks

Author

Eklöf, Anna, Jacob, Ute, Kopp, Jason, Bosch, Jordi, Castro-Urgal, Rocío, Chacoff, Natacha P., Dalsgaard, Bo, de Sassi, Claudio, Galetti, Mauro, Guimarães, Paulo R., Beatriz Lomáscolo, Silvia, González, Ana M. Martín, Pizo, Marco Aurelio, Rader, Romina, Rodrigo, Anselm, Tylianakis, Jason M., Vázquez, Diego P., Allesina, Stefano, Eklöf, Anna, Jacob, Ute, Kopp, Jason, Bosch, Jordi, Castro-Urgal, Rocío, Chacoff, Natacha P., Dalsgaard, Bo, de Sassi, Claudio, Galetti, Mauro, Guimarães, Paulo R., Beatriz Lomáscolo, Silvia, González, Ana M. Martín, Pizo, Marco Aurelio, Rader, Romina, Rodrigo, Anselm, Tylianakis, Jason M., Vázquez, Diego P., and Allesina, Stefano

Abstract

How many dimensions (trait-axes) are required to predict whether two species interact? This unanswered question originated with the idea of ecological niches, and yet bears relevance today for understanding what determines network structure. Here, we analyse a set of 200 ecological networks, including food webs, antagonistic and mutualistic networks, and find that the number of dimensions needed to completely explain all interactions is small (<10), with model selection favouring less than five. Using 18 high-quality webs including several species traits, we identify which traits contribute the most to explaining network structure. We show that accounting for a few traits dramatically improves our understanding of the structure of ecological networks. Matching traits for resources and consumers, for example, fruit size and bill gape, are the most successful combinations. These results link ecologically important species attributes to large-scale community structure.

Published
2013
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results