12 results on '"Eeraerts, M"'
Search Results
2. Pollination supply models from a local to global scale
- Author
-
Giménez-García, A., Allen-Perkins, A., Bartomeus, I., Balbi, S., Knapp, J.L., Hevia, V., Woodcock, B.A., Smagghe, G., Miñarro, M., Eeraerts, M., Colville, J.F., Hipólito, J., Cavigliasso, P., Nates-Parra, G., Herrera, J.M., Cusser, S., Simmons, B.I., Wolters, V., Jha, S., Freitas, B.M., Horgan, F.G., Artz, A.R., Sidhu, C.S., Otieno, M., Boreux, V., Biddinger, D.J., Klein, A.M., Joshi, N.K., Stewart, R.I.A., Albrecht, M., Nicholson, C.C., O'Reilly, A.D., Crowder, D.W., Burns, K.L.W., Nabaes Jodar, D.N., Garibaldi, L.A., Sutter, L., Dupont, Y.L., Dalsgaard, B., Da Encarnação Coutinho, J.G., Lázaro, A., Andersson, G.K.S., Raine, N.E., Krishnan, S., Dainese, M., Van Der Werf, W., Smith, H.G., Magrach, A., Giménez-García, A., Allen-Perkins, A., Bartomeus, I., Balbi, S., Knapp, J.L., Hevia, V., Woodcock, B.A., Smagghe, G., Miñarro, M., Eeraerts, M., Colville, J.F., Hipólito, J., Cavigliasso, P., Nates-Parra, G., Herrera, J.M., Cusser, S., Simmons, B.I., Wolters, V., Jha, S., Freitas, B.M., Horgan, F.G., Artz, A.R., Sidhu, C.S., Otieno, M., Boreux, V., Biddinger, D.J., Klein, A.M., Joshi, N.K., Stewart, R.I.A., Albrecht, M., Nicholson, C.C., O'Reilly, A.D., Crowder, D.W., Burns, K.L.W., Nabaes Jodar, D.N., Garibaldi, L.A., Sutter, L., Dupont, Y.L., Dalsgaard, B., Da Encarnação Coutinho, J.G., Lázaro, A., Andersson, G.K.S., Raine, N.E., Krishnan, S., Dainese, M., Van Der Werf, W., Smith, H.G., and Magrach, A.
- Abstract
Ecological intensification has been embraced with great interest by the academic sector but is still rarely taken up by farmers because monitoring the state of different ecological functions is not straightforward. Modelling tools can represent a more accessible alternative of measuring ecological functions, which could help promote their use amongst farmers and other decision-makers. In the case of crop pollination, modelling has traditionally followed either a mechanistic or a data-driven approach. Mechanistic models simulate the habitat preferences and foraging behaviour of pollinators, while data-driven models associate georeferenced variables with real observations. Here, we test these two approaches to predict pollination supply and validate these predictions using data from a newly released global dataset on pollinator visitation rates to different crops. We use one of the most extensively used models for the mechanistic approach, while for the data-driven approach, we select from among a comprehensive set of state-of-The-Art machine-learning models. Moreover, we explore a mixed approach, where data-derived inputs, rather than expert assessment, inform the mechanistic model. We find that, at a global scale, machine-learning models work best, offering a rank correlation coefficient between predictions and observations of pollinator visitation rates of 0.56. In turn, the mechanistic model works moderately well at a global scale for wild bees other than bumblebees. Biomes characterized by temperate or Mediterranean forests show a better agreement between mechanistic model predictions and observations, probably due to more comprehensive ecological knowledge and therefore better parameterization of input variables for these biomes. This study highlights the challenges of transferring input variables across multiple biomes, as expected given the different composition of species in different biomes. Our results provide clear guidance on which pollination supply mode
- Published
- 2023
3. Pollinator-flower interactions in gardens during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown of 2020
- Author
-
Ollerton, J, Trunschke, J, Havens, K, Landaverde-González, P, Keller, A, Gilpin, AM, Rech, AR, Baronio, GJ, Phillips, BJ, Mackin, C, Stanley, DA, Treanore, E, Baker, E, Rotheray, EL, Erickson, E, Fornoff, F, Brearley, FQ, Ballantyne, G, Iossa, G, Stone, GN, Bartomeus, I, Stockan, JA, Leguizamón, J, Prendergast, K, Rowley, L, Giovanetti, M, de Oliveira Bueno, R, Wesselingh, RA, Mallinger, R, Edmondson, S, Howard, SR, Leonhardt, SD, Rojas-Nossa, SV, Brett, M, Joaqui, T, Antoniazzi, R, Burton, VJ, Feng, HH, Tian, ZX, Xu, Q, Zhang, C, Shi, CL, Huang, SQ, Cole, LJ, Bendifallah, L, Ellis, EE, Hegland, SJ, Díaz, SS, Lander, T, Mayr, AV, Katzer, S, Dawson, R, Eeraerts, M, Armbruster, WS, Walton, B, Adjlane, N, Falk, S, Mata, L, Geiger, AG, Carvell, C, Wallace, C, Ratto, F, Barberis, M, Kahane, F, Connop, S, Stip, A, Sigrist, MR, Vereecken, NJ, Klein, AM, Baldock, KCR, Arnold, SEJ, Ollerton, J, Trunschke, J, Havens, K, Landaverde-González, P, Keller, A, Gilpin, AM, Rech, AR, Baronio, GJ, Phillips, BJ, Mackin, C, Stanley, DA, Treanore, E, Baker, E, Rotheray, EL, Erickson, E, Fornoff, F, Brearley, FQ, Ballantyne, G, Iossa, G, Stone, GN, Bartomeus, I, Stockan, JA, Leguizamón, J, Prendergast, K, Rowley, L, Giovanetti, M, de Oliveira Bueno, R, Wesselingh, RA, Mallinger, R, Edmondson, S, Howard, SR, Leonhardt, SD, Rojas-Nossa, SV, Brett, M, Joaqui, T, Antoniazzi, R, Burton, VJ, Feng, HH, Tian, ZX, Xu, Q, Zhang, C, Shi, CL, Huang, SQ, Cole, LJ, Bendifallah, L, Ellis, EE, Hegland, SJ, Díaz, SS, Lander, T, Mayr, AV, Katzer, S, Dawson, R, Eeraerts, M, Armbruster, WS, Walton, B, Adjlane, N, Falk, S, Mata, L, Geiger, AG, Carvell, C, Wallace, C, Ratto, F, Barberis, M, Kahane, F, Connop, S, Stip, A, Sigrist, MR, Vereecken, NJ, Klein, AM, Baldock, KCR, and Arnold, SEJ
- Abstract
During the main COVID-19 global pandemic lockdown period of 2020 an impromptu set of pollination ecologists came together via social media and personal contacts to carry out standardised surveys of the flower visits and plants in gardens. The surveys involved 67 rural, suburban and urban gardens, of various sizes, ranging from 61.18° North in Norway to 37.96° South in Australia, resulting in a data set of 25,174 rows, with each row being a unique interaction record for that date/site/plant species, and comprising almost 47,000 visits to flowers, as well as records of flowers that were not visited by pollinators, for over 1,000 species and varieties belonging to more than 460 genera and 96 plant families. The more than 650 species of flower visitors belong to 12 orders of invertebrates and four of vertebrates. In this first publication from the project, we present a brief description of the data and make it freely available for any researchers to use in the future, the only restriction being that they cite this paper in the first instance. The data generated from these global surveys will provide scientific evidence to help us understand the role that private gardens (in urban, rural and suburban areas) can play in conserving insect pollinators and identify management actions to enhance their potential.
- Published
- 2022
4. CropPol: A dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination
- Author
-
Allen-Perkins, A, Magrach, A, Dainese, M, Garibaldi, LA, Kleijn, D, Rader, R, Reilly, JR, Winfree, R, Lundin, O, McGrady, CM, Brittain, C, Biddinger, DJ, Artz, DR, Elle, E, Hoffman, G, Ellis, JD, Daniels, J, Gibbs, J, Campbell, JW, Brokaw, J, Wilson, JK, Mason, K, Ward, KL, Gundersen, KB, Bobiwash, K, Gut, L, Rowe, LM, Boyle, NK, Williams, NM, Joshi, NK, Rothwell, N, Gillespie, RL, Isaacs, R, Fleischer, SJ, Peterson, SS, Rao, S, Pitts-Singer, TL, Fijen, T, Boreux, V, Rundlof, M, Viana, BF, Klein, A-M, Smith, HG, Bommarco, R, Carvalheiro, LG, Ricketts, TH, Ghazoul, J, Krishnan, S, Benjamin, FE, Loureiro, J, Castro, S, Raine, NE, de Groot, GA, Horgan, FG, Hipolito, J, Smagghe, G, Meeus, I, Eeraerts, M, Potts, SG, Kremen, C, Garcia, D, Minarro, M, Crowder, DW, Pisanty, G, Mandelik, Y, Vereecken, NJ, Leclercq, N, Weekers, T, Lindstrom, SAM, Stanley, DA, Zaragoza-Trello, C, Nicholson, CC, Scheper, J, Rad, C, Marks, EAN, Mota, L, Danforth, B, Park, M, Bezerra, ADM, Freitas, BM, Mallinger, RE, Oliveira da Silva, F, Willcox, B, Ramos, DL, da Silva e Silva, FD, Lazaro, A, Alomar, D, Gonzalez-Estevez, MA, Taki, H, Cariveau, DP, Garratt, MPD, Nabaes Jodar, DN, Stewart, RIA, Ariza, D, Pisman, M, Lichtenberg, EM, Schueepp, C, Herzog, F, Entling, MH, Dupont, YL, Michener, CD, Daily, GC, Ehrlich, PR, Burns, KLW, Vila, M, Robson, A, Howlett, B, Blechschmidt, L, Jauker, F, Schwarzbach, F, Nesper, M, Diekoetter, T, Wolters, V, Castro, H, Gaspar, H, Nault, BA, Badenhausser, I, Petersen, JD, Tscharntke, T, Bretagnolle, V, Willis Chan, DS, Chacoff, N, Andersson, GKS, Jha, S, Colville, JF, Veldtman, R, Coutinho, J, Bianchi, FJJA, Sutter, L, Albrecht, M, Jeanneret, P, Zou, Y, Averill, AL, Saez, A, Sciligo, AR, Vergara, CH, Bloom, EH, Oeller, E, Badano, EI, Loeb, GM, Grab, H, Ekroos, J, Gagic, V, Cunningham, SA, Astrom, J, Cavigliasso, P, Trillo, A, Classen, A, Mauchline, AL, Montero-Castano, A, Wilby, A, Woodcock, BA, Sidhu, CS, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Vogiatzakis, IN, Herrera, JM, Otieno, M, Gikungu, MW, Cusser, SJ, Nauss, T, Nilsson, L, Knapp, J, Ortega-Marcos, JJ, Gonzalez, JA, Osborne, JL, Blanche, R, Shaw, RF, Hevia, V, Stout, J, Arthur, AD, Blochtein, B, Szentgyorgyi, H, Li, J, Mayfield, MM, Woyciechowski, M, Nunes-Silva, P, Halinski de Oliveira, R, Henry, S, Simmons, BI, Dalsgaard, B, Hansen, K, Sritongchuay, T, O'Reilly, AD, Chamorro Garcia, FJ, Nates Parra, G, Magalhaes Pigozo, C, Bartomeus, I, Allen-Perkins, A, Magrach, A, Dainese, M, Garibaldi, LA, Kleijn, D, Rader, R, Reilly, JR, Winfree, R, Lundin, O, McGrady, CM, Brittain, C, Biddinger, DJ, Artz, DR, Elle, E, Hoffman, G, Ellis, JD, Daniels, J, Gibbs, J, Campbell, JW, Brokaw, J, Wilson, JK, Mason, K, Ward, KL, Gundersen, KB, Bobiwash, K, Gut, L, Rowe, LM, Boyle, NK, Williams, NM, Joshi, NK, Rothwell, N, Gillespie, RL, Isaacs, R, Fleischer, SJ, Peterson, SS, Rao, S, Pitts-Singer, TL, Fijen, T, Boreux, V, Rundlof, M, Viana, BF, Klein, A-M, Smith, HG, Bommarco, R, Carvalheiro, LG, Ricketts, TH, Ghazoul, J, Krishnan, S, Benjamin, FE, Loureiro, J, Castro, S, Raine, NE, de Groot, GA, Horgan, FG, Hipolito, J, Smagghe, G, Meeus, I, Eeraerts, M, Potts, SG, Kremen, C, Garcia, D, Minarro, M, Crowder, DW, Pisanty, G, Mandelik, Y, Vereecken, NJ, Leclercq, N, Weekers, T, Lindstrom, SAM, Stanley, DA, Zaragoza-Trello, C, Nicholson, CC, Scheper, J, Rad, C, Marks, EAN, Mota, L, Danforth, B, Park, M, Bezerra, ADM, Freitas, BM, Mallinger, RE, Oliveira da Silva, F, Willcox, B, Ramos, DL, da Silva e Silva, FD, Lazaro, A, Alomar, D, Gonzalez-Estevez, MA, Taki, H, Cariveau, DP, Garratt, MPD, Nabaes Jodar, DN, Stewart, RIA, Ariza, D, Pisman, M, Lichtenberg, EM, Schueepp, C, Herzog, F, Entling, MH, Dupont, YL, Michener, CD, Daily, GC, Ehrlich, PR, Burns, KLW, Vila, M, Robson, A, Howlett, B, Blechschmidt, L, Jauker, F, Schwarzbach, F, Nesper, M, Diekoetter, T, Wolters, V, Castro, H, Gaspar, H, Nault, BA, Badenhausser, I, Petersen, JD, Tscharntke, T, Bretagnolle, V, Willis Chan, DS, Chacoff, N, Andersson, GKS, Jha, S, Colville, JF, Veldtman, R, Coutinho, J, Bianchi, FJJA, Sutter, L, Albrecht, M, Jeanneret, P, Zou, Y, Averill, AL, Saez, A, Sciligo, AR, Vergara, CH, Bloom, EH, Oeller, E, Badano, EI, Loeb, GM, Grab, H, Ekroos, J, Gagic, V, Cunningham, SA, Astrom, J, Cavigliasso, P, Trillo, A, Classen, A, Mauchline, AL, Montero-Castano, A, Wilby, A, Woodcock, BA, Sidhu, CS, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Vogiatzakis, IN, Herrera, JM, Otieno, M, Gikungu, MW, Cusser, SJ, Nauss, T, Nilsson, L, Knapp, J, Ortega-Marcos, JJ, Gonzalez, JA, Osborne, JL, Blanche, R, Shaw, RF, Hevia, V, Stout, J, Arthur, AD, Blochtein, B, Szentgyorgyi, H, Li, J, Mayfield, MM, Woyciechowski, M, Nunes-Silva, P, Halinski de Oliveira, R, Henry, S, Simmons, BI, Dalsgaard, B, Hansen, K, Sritongchuay, T, O'Reilly, AD, Chamorro Garcia, FJ, Nates Parra, G, Magalhaes Pigozo, C, and Bartomeus, I
- 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. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this da
- Published
- 2022
5. On-farm experiences shape farmer knowledge, perceptions of pollinators, and management practices
- Author
-
Osterman, Julia, Landaverde-González, Patricia, Garratt, M.P.D., Gee, M., Mandelik, Y., Langowska, A., Miñarro, M., Cole, L.J., Eeraerts, M., Bevk, D., Avrech, O., Koltowski, Z., Trujillo-Elisea, F.I., Paxton, R.J., Boreux, V., Seymour, C.L., Howlett, B.G., Osterman, Julia, Landaverde-González, Patricia, Garratt, M.P.D., Gee, M., Mandelik, Y., Langowska, A., Miñarro, M., Cole, L.J., Eeraerts, M., Bevk, D., Avrech, O., Koltowski, Z., Trujillo-Elisea, F.I., Paxton, R.J., Boreux, V., Seymour, C.L., and Howlett, B.G.
- Abstract
Mitigating pollinator declines in agriculturally dominated landscapes to safeguard pollination services requires the involvement of farmers and their willingness to adopt pollinator-friendly management. However, farmer knowledge, perceptions, and actions to support on-farm pollinators and their alignment with science-based knowledge and recommendations are rarely evaluated. To close this knowledge gap, we interviewed 560 farmers from 11 countries around the world, cultivating at least one of four widely grown pollinator-dependent crops (apple, avocado, kiwifruit, oilseed rape). We particularly focused on non-bee crop pollinators which, despite being important pollinators of many crops, received less research attention than bees. We found that farmers perceived bees to be more important pollinators than other flower-visiting insects. However, around 75% of the farmers acknowledged that non-bees contributed to the pollination of their crops, seeing them as additional pollinators rather than substitutes for bees. Despite farmers rating their own observations as being most important in how they perceived the contribution of different crop pollinator taxa, their perception aligned closely with results from available scientific studies across crops and countries. Farmer perceptions were also linked with their pollinator management practices, e.g. farmers who used managed bees for crop pollination services (more than half the farmers) rated these managed bees as particularly important. Interestingly, their willingness to establish wildflower strips or manage hedgerows to enhance pollinator visitation was linked to their ecological knowledge of non-bees or to government subsidies. Farmers adapted practices to enhance pollination services depending on the crop, which indicates an understanding of differences in the pollination ecology of crops. Almost half of the farmers had changed on-farm pollination management in the past 10 years and farm practices differed greatly betwe
- Published
- 2021
6. Strategic honey bee hive placement improves honey bee visitation but not pollination in northern highbush blueberry.
- Author
-
Brouwer K, Eeraerts M, Rogers E, Goldstein L, Perkins JA, Milbrath MO, Melathopoulos A, Meyer J, Kogan C, Isaacs R, and DeVetter LW
- Abstract
Commercial blueberry Vaccinium spp. (Ericales: Ericaceae) production relies on insect-mediated pollination. Pollination is mostly provided by rented honey bees, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae), but blueberry crop yields can be limited due to pollination deficits. Various hive placement strategies have been recommended to mitigate pollination shortfalls, but the effect of hive placement has received limited formal investigation. This study explores the effects of clumped and dispersed hive placement strategies on honey bee visitation and pollination outcomes in "Bluecrop" and "Duke" fields over 2 years (2021 and 2022) within 2 economically important regions of production in the United States-the Midwest (Michigan) and Pacific Northwest (Oregon and Washington). Clumping hives consistently increased honey bee visitation rate but did not result in higher fruit set, fruit weight, or seed count. Increases in honey bee visitation through clumping could perhaps improve pollination outcomes in more pollination-limited blueberry cultivars and other pollination-dependent crops. Clumping hives is substantially more efficient and cost-effective for beekeepers due to fewer drop locations and could lead to cost savings for both beekeepers and blueberry growers without growers sacrificing pollination levels and crop yields., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Entomological Society of America.)
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Linking remote sensing data to the estimation of pollination services in agroecosystems.
- Author
-
Ariza D, Meeus I, Eeraerts M, Pisman M, and Smagghe G
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees, Belgium, Crops, Agricultural, Remote Sensing Technology, Ecosystem, Pollination
- Abstract
Wild bees are key providers of pollination services in agroecosystems. The abundance of these pollinators and the ecosystem services they provide rely on supporting resources in the landscape. Spatially explicit models that quantify wild bee abundance and pollination services in food crops are built on the foundations of foraging and nesting resources. This dependence limits model implementation as land-cover maps and pollination experts capable of evaluating habitat resource quality are scarce. This study presents a novel approach to assessing crop pollination services using remote sensing data (RSD) as an alternative to the more conventional use of land-cover data and local expertise on spatially explicit models. We used landscape characteristics derived from remote sensors to qualify nesting resources in the landscape and to evaluate the delivery of pollination services by mining bees (Andrena spp.) in 30 fruit orchards located in the Flemish region of Belgium. For this study, we selected mining bees for their importance as local pollinators and underground nesting behavior. We compared the estimated pollination services derived from RSD with those derived from the conventional qualification of nesting resources. We did not observe significant differences (p = 0.68) in the variation in mining bee activity predicted by the two spatial models. Estimated pollination services derived from RSD and conventional characterizations explained 69% and 72% of the total variation, respectively. These results confirmed that RSD can deliver nesting suitability characterizations sufficient for estimating pollination services. This research also illustrates the importance of nesting resources and landscape characteristics when estimating pollination services delivered by insects like mining bees. Our results support the development of holistic agroenvironmental policies that rely on modern tools like remote sensors and promote pollinators by considering nesting resources., (© 2022 The Ecological Society of America.)
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. CropPol: A dynamic, open and global database on crop pollination.
- Author
-
Allen-Perkins A, Magrach A, Dainese M, Garibaldi LA, Kleijn D, Rader R, Reilly JR, Winfree R, Lundin O, McGrady CM, Brittain C, Biddinger DJ, Artz DR, Elle E, Hoffman G, Ellis JD, Daniels J, Gibbs J, Campbell JW, Brokaw J, Wilson JK, Mason K, Ward KL, Gundersen KB, Bobiwash K, Gut L, Rowe LM, Boyle NK, Williams NM, Joshi NK, Rothwell N, Gillespie RL, Isaacs R, Fleischer SJ, Peterson SS, Rao S, Pitts-Singer TL, Fijen T, Boreux V, Rundlöf M, Viana BF, Klein AM, Smith HG, Bommarco R, Carvalheiro LG, Ricketts TH, Ghazoul J, Krishnan S, Benjamin FE, Loureiro J, Castro S, Raine NE, de Groot GA, Horgan FG, Hipólito J, Smagghe G, Meeus I, Eeraerts M, Potts SG, Kremen C, García D, Miñarro M, Crowder DW, Pisanty G, Mandelik Y, Vereecken NJ, Leclercq N, Weekers T, Lindstrom SAM, Stanley DA, Zaragoza-Trello C, Nicholson CC, Scheper J, Rad C, Marks EAN, Mota L, Danforth B, Park M, Bezerra ADM, Freitas BM, Mallinger RE, Oliveira da Silva F, Willcox B, Ramos DL, D da Silva E Silva F, Lázaro A, Alomar D, González-Estévez MA, Taki H, Cariveau DP, Garratt MPD, Nabaes Jodar DN, Stewart RIA, Ariza D, Pisman M, Lichtenberg EM, Schüepp C, Herzog F, Entling MH, Dupont YL, Michener CD, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Burns KLW, Vilà M, Robson A, Howlett B, Blechschmidt L, Jauker F, Schwarzbach F, Nesper M, Diekötter T, Wolters V, Castro H, Gaspar H, Nault BA, Badenhausser I, Petersen JD, Tscharntke T, Bretagnolle V, Willis Chan DS, Chacoff N, Andersson GKS, Jha S, Colville JF, Veldtman R, Coutinho J, Bianchi FJJA, Sutter L, Albrecht M, Jeanneret P, Zou Y, Averill AL, Saez A, Sciligo AR, Vergara CH, Bloom EH, Oeller E, Badano EI, Loeb GM, Grab H, Ekroos J, Gagic V, Cunningham SA, Åström J, Cavigliasso P, Trillo A, Classen A, Mauchline AL, Montero-Castaño A, Wilby A, Woodcock BA, Sidhu CS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vogiatzakis IN, Herrera JM, Otieno M, Gikungu MW, Cusser SJ, Nauss T, Nilsson L, Knapp J, Ortega-Marcos JJ, González JA, Osborne JL, Blanche R, Shaw RF, Hevia V, Stout J, Arthur AD, Blochtein B, Szentgyorgyi H, Li J, Mayfield MM, Woyciechowski M, Nunes-Silva P, Halinski de Oliveira R, Henry S, Simmons BI, Dalsgaard B, Hansen K, Sritongchuay T, O'Reilly AD, Chamorro García FJ, Nates Parra G, Magalhães Pigozo C, and Bartomeus I
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees, Crops, Agricultural, Flowers, Insecta, Ecosystem, Pollination
- 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. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA)., (© 2021 The Ecological Society of America.)
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. Towards Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management in Intensive Pear Cultivation: A Case Study from Belgium.
- Author
-
Belien T, Raymaekers S, Eeraerts M, Mommaerts V, Claus G, Bogen C, Piot N, Smagghe G, Spanoghe P, and Bylemans D
- Abstract
Recently, the concept of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was further extended into Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM). Implementation of IPPM strategies entails the combination of actions for pest and pollinator management providing complementary or synergistic benefits for yield and/or quality of the harvest. The aim of this study was to examine IPPM elements (i.e., mixed hedgerow, nesting boxes for mason bees, Osmia spp.) and demonstrate their impact in the practical context of modern commercial fruit cultivation in a 4-year case study in an intensive 'Conference' pear orchard. The outcomes of visual observations during transect walks and molecular analysis of pollen collected by mason bees, showed the importance of additional floral resources for the presence of mason bees and other pollinating insects in the orchard environment. Pear quality assessments indicated that insect-mediated pollination had a significant positive impact, with a tendency for higher quality pears in the close vicinity of Osmia nesting boxes. However, despite the fact that pear pollen was also detected in Osmia spp. nest cells, the amount and frequency of pear pollen collection for their nest built-up turned out to be rather low. In the same intensive pear orchard studied for pollination effects, we simultaneously demonstrate the impact of a mixed hedgerow to enhance integrated pest control.
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. More is less: mass-flowering fruit tree crops dilute parasite transmission between bees.
- Author
-
Piot N, Eeraerts M, Pisman M, Claus G, Meeus I, and Smagghe G
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees, Crops, Agricultural, Fruit, Pollen, Trees, Parasites
- Abstract
Parasites influence wild bee population dynamics and are regarded as one of the main drivers of wild bee decline. Most of these parasites are mainly transmitted between bee species via the use of shared floral resources. Disturbance of the plant-pollinator network at a location can hence disturb the transmission of these parasites. Expansion and intensification of agriculture, another major driver of wild bee decline, often disturbs local plant-pollinator networks by altering the availability and diversity of floral resources. Mass-flowering crops are an extreme example as they provide an abundance of floral resources for a short period of time, substantially altering the present plant-pollinator network. This likely has repercussions on parasite transmission in the pollinator community. Using the bloom of mass-flowering crops we tested the hypothesis that an increase in floral resources can dilute parasite transmission in the pollinator community. To test this, we analysed the presence of parasites in the pollen of the brood cell provisions of Osmia spp., collected from trap nests placed in apple and sweet cherry orchards. We collected pollen at several time intervals during and after mass bloom, and found that pollen collected during mass bloom had significantly lower parasite prevalence compared with pollen collected after mass bloom. Furthermore, using pollen barcoding data we found that the presence of MFCs in pollen was a good predictor for lower parasite prevalence. Taken together, our results indicate that an increase in flower availability can reduce parasite transmission between bees., (Copyright © 2021 Australian Society for Parasitology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
11. Larval oral exposure to thiacloprid: Dose-response toxicity testing in solitary bees, Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae).
- Author
-
Claus G, Pisman M, Spanoghe P, Smagghe G, and Eeraerts M
- Subjects
- Animals, Female, Hymenoptera, Larva drug effects, Life Cycle Stages, Pesticides toxicity, Pollen, Toxicity Tests, Bees physiology, Insecticides toxicity, Neonicotinoids toxicity, Thiazines toxicity
- Abstract
Risk assessment of pesticides involves ecotoxicological testing. In case pesticide exposure to bees is likely, toxicity tests are performed with honey bees (Apis mellifera), with a tiered approach, for which validated and internationally accepted test protocols exist. However, concerns have grown regarding the protection of non-Apis bees [bumble bees (Bombus spp.), solitary and stingless bees], given their different life cycles and therefore distinct exposure routes. Larvae of solitary bees of the genus Osmia feed on unprocessed pollen during development, yet no toxicity test protocol is internationally accepted or validated to assess the impact of pesticide exposure during this stage of their life cycle. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to further validate a test protocol with two solitary bee species (O. cornuta and O. bicornis) to assess lethal and sublethal effects of pesticide exposure on larval development. Larvae were exposed to thiacloprid (neonicotinoid insecticide) mixed in a new, artificial pollen provision. Both lethal (developmental and winter mortality) and sublethal endpoints (larval development time, pollen provision consumption, cocoon weight, emergence time and adult longevity) were recorded. Effects of lower, more environmentally realistic doses were only reflected in sublethal endpoints. In both bee species, thiacloprid treatment was associated with increased developmental mortality and larval development time, and decreased pollen provision consumption and cocoon weight. The test protocol proved valid and robust and showed that for higher doses of thiacloprid the acute endpoint (larval mortality) is sufficient. In addition, new insights needed to develop a standardized test protocol were acquired, such as testing of a positive control for the first time and selection of male and female individuals at egg level., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. A Growers' Perspective on Crop Pollination and Measures to Manage the Pollination Service of Wild Pollinators in Sweet Cherry Cultivation.
- Author
-
Eeraerts M, Borremans L, Smagghe G, and Meeus I
- Abstract
Recent declines in insect pollinators and the increasing dependence on insect pollination in agriculture present major challenges to ensuring future food production. As part of the effort to deal with this challenge, there is a pressing need to understand growers' perceptions with regard to pollinator diversity and crop pollination management. At present, many growers are dependent on domesticated honey bees ( Apis mellifera ), however, targeted management strategies involving naturally occurring pollinator species might be necessary to ensure future crop pollination. In this study we used semi-structured interviews to explore growers' knowledge about crop pollination and current practices to manage insect pollination in sweet cherry cultivation. Our findings suggest that growers have a clear understanding of the importance of pollination and its determining factors. However, with respect to their current pollination management, growers depend mainly on honey bees and only apply measures to enhance wild pollinator communities to a limited extent. Our study highlights the gap between the growers' perception of the contribution of wild pollinators to crop pollination, and their efforts to manage these species. We conclude that this is due to a lack of communication of recent scientific findings on the contribution of pollinating insects to crop pollination through the information channels that are being used by growers today. It is therefore crucial that scientists, government and other stakeholders work together with growers and communicate scientific evidence as well as practical guidelines to growers.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.