25 results on '"Gemmill-Herren B"'
Search Results
2. Crop Pollination
- Author
-
Potts, S.G., primary, Breeze, T., additional, and Gemmill-Herren, B., additional
- Published
- 2014
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
3. Negative impacts of dominance on bee communities: Does the influence of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?
- Author
-
Garibaldi, Lucas A. [0000-0003-0725-4049], Pérez-Méndez, Néstor [0000-0001-6264-2920], Cordeiro, G.D. [0000-0002-5434-7937], Freitas, B.M. [0000-0002-9932-2207], Favízia Freitas de Oliveira [0000-0003-4366-5005], Aizen, Marcelo A. [0000-0001-9079-9749], Blotchein, Betina [0000-0001-8452-1716], Boscolo, D. [0000-0002-0741-501X], Gaglianone, Maria Cristina [0000-0002-9206-2895], Halinski, Rosana [0000-0003-2956-4240], Motta, M. [0000-0003-2270-5944], Pinheiro, Mardiore [0000-0001-8698-5856], Pires, Carmen S.S. [0000-0002-4019-022X], Felipe Viana, Blandina [0000-0002-4924-1257], Garibaldi, Lucas A., Pérez-Méndez, Néstor, Cordeiro, G.D., Hughes, Alice, Orr, Michael, Alves‐dos‐Santos, Isabel, Freitas, B.M., Favízia Freitas de Oliveira, LeBuhn, Gretchen, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Aizen, Marcelo A., Andrade, Patricia B., Blotchein, Betina, Boscolo, D., Drumond, Patricia M., Gemmill-Herren, B., Halinski, Rosana, Krug, Cristiane, Motta, M., Piedade Kiill, Lucia H., Pinheiro, Mardiore, Pires, Carmen S.S., Felipe Viana, Blandina, Gaglianone, Maria Cristina, Garibaldi, Lucas A. [0000-0003-0725-4049], Pérez-Méndez, Néstor [0000-0001-6264-2920], Cordeiro, G.D. [0000-0002-5434-7937], Freitas, B.M. [0000-0002-9932-2207], Favízia Freitas de Oliveira [0000-0003-4366-5005], Aizen, Marcelo A. [0000-0001-9079-9749], Blotchein, Betina [0000-0001-8452-1716], Boscolo, D. [0000-0002-0741-501X], Gaglianone, Maria Cristina [0000-0002-9206-2895], Halinski, Rosana [0000-0003-2956-4240], Motta, M. [0000-0003-2270-5944], Pinheiro, Mardiore [0000-0001-8698-5856], Pires, Carmen S.S. [0000-0002-4019-022X], Felipe Viana, Blandina [0000-0002-4924-1257], Garibaldi, Lucas A., Pérez-Méndez, Néstor, Cordeiro, G.D., Hughes, Alice, Orr, Michael, Alves‐dos‐Santos, Isabel, Freitas, B.M., Favízia Freitas de Oliveira, LeBuhn, Gretchen, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Aizen, Marcelo A., Andrade, Patricia B., Blotchein, Betina, Boscolo, D., Drumond, Patricia M., Gemmill-Herren, B., Halinski, Rosana, Krug, Cristiane, Motta, M., Piedade Kiill, Lucia H., Pinheiro, Mardiore, Pires, Carmen S.S., Felipe Viana, Blandina, and Gaglianone, Maria Cristina
- Abstract
Invasive species can reach high abundances and dominate native environments. One of the most impressive examples of ecological invasions is the spread of the African subspecies of the honey bee throughout the Americas, starting from its introduction in a single locality in Brazil. The invasive honey bee is expected to more negatively impact bee community abundance and diversity than native dominant species, but this has not been tested previously. We developed a comprehensive and systematic bee sampling scheme, using a protocol deploying 11,520 pan traps across regions and crops for three years in Brazil. We found that invasive honey bees are now the single most dominant bee species. Such dominance has not only negative consequences for abundance and species richness of native bees but also for overall bee abundance (i.e., strong “numerical” effects of honey bees). Contrary to expectations, honey bees did not have stronger negative impacts than other native bees achieving similar levels of dominance (i.e., lack of negative “identity” effects of honey bees). These effects were markedly consistent across crop species, seasons and years, and were independent from land-use effects. Dominance could be a proxy of bee community degradation and more generally of the severity of ecological invasions.
- Published
- 2021
4. The effects of agroecological farming systems on smallholder livelihoods: a case study on push–pull system from Western Kenya
- Author
-
D’Annolfo, R., Gemmill-Herren, B., Amudavi, D., Shiraku, H. W., Piva, Mariacristina, Garibaldi, L. A., Piva M. (ORCID:0000-0002-3347-8946), D’Annolfo, R., Gemmill-Herren, B., Amudavi, D., Shiraku, H. W., Piva, Mariacristina, Garibaldi, L. A., and Piva M. (ORCID:0000-0002-3347-8946)
- Abstract
There is a need for scaling-up agroecology to promote sustainable agriculture at global level. Although, recent studies show that agroecological approaches can achieve both high yields and profits compared with conventional systems, the performance of other socioeconomic indicators remains unknown. This study has two objectives (i) identify the main characteristics of small-scale producers who represent the target-groups of the SDG 2; (ii) provide a comparison between push–pull and conventional farming systems of maize production to explore and possibly implement sustainable systems. In collaboration with Biovision Africa Trust, a participatory assessment framework was implemented in Western Kenya. Twenty-three farmers were selected and data were analysed showing that the push–pull contributes to social/cultural and natural/ecological capitals. In particular, push–pull farmers are more focused on socially oriented groups (75%); moreover, they cultivate smaller plots (1.9 ha) compared to conventional farmers (3.1 ha) without showing a reduction in profitability. The benefits of adopting push–pull system indicated by farmers (e.g. diminished Striga weed) are consistent with the advantages reported in relevant scientific literature. Considering the explorative nature of this study, the article makes a key contribution by pointing towards important questions for future research on agroecology in Sub-Saharan African countries.
- Published
- 2021
5. Dynamics of cocoa pollination: tools and applications for surveying and monitoring cocoa pollinators
- Author
-
Frimpong, E. A., Gordon, I., Kwapong, P. K., and Gemmill-Herren, B.
- Published
- 2009
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
6. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
- Author
-
De O Pereira, N, Lindström, SAM, Winfree, R, Garrat, MPD, Gross, SL, Bartomeus, I, Monteiro, VM, Howlett, BG, Herzog, F, Szentgyörgyi, H, Stanley, DA, Pattemore, DE, Cunningham, SA, Gemmill-Herren, B, Scheper, J, Freitas, BM, Foully, B, Vergara, CH, Krishnan, S, Klein, A-M, Ghazoul, J, Brittain, C, Potts, SG, Mandelik, Y, Smith, HG, Stout, JC, Jauker, F, Kleijn, D, Andersson, GKS, Viana, BF, Woyciechowski, M, Hipólito, J, Schüepp, Christof, Chacoff, NP, Reemer, M, Taki, H, Bommarco, R, Nilsson, L, Garibaldi, LA, Rader, R, Griffin, Carvalheiro, LG, Arthur, AD, Herbertsson, L, Lemos, CQ, Jaggar, S, Entling, MH, Sheffield, CS, Mayfield, MM, Pisanty, G, and Rundlöf, M
- Subjects
590 Animals (Zoology) ,570 Life sciences ,biology ,580 Plants (Botany) - Abstract
Many of the world’s crops are pollinated by insects, and bees are often assumed to be the most important pollinators. To our knowledge, our study is the first quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution of non-bee pollinators to global pollinator-dependent crops. Across 39 studies we show that insects other than bees are efficient pollinators providing 39% of visits to crop flowers. A shift in perspective from a bee-only focus is needed for assessmentsofcroppollinatorb iodiversity and the economic value of pollination. These studies should also consider the services provided by other types of insects, such as flies, wasps, beetles, and butterflies—important pollinators that a re currently overlooked.
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
- Author
-
Rader, Romina, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Garratt, M.P.D., Howlett, Brad G., Winfree, Rachael, Cunningham, S. A., Mayfield, Margaret M., Arthur, A.S., Andersson, G.K.S., Bommarco, Riccardo, Brittain, Claire, Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Chacoff, Natacha P., Entling, Martin H., Foully, Benjamin, Freitas, B.M., Gemmill-Herren, B., Ghazoul, J., Griffin, S.R., Gross, C.L., Herbertsson, L., Herzog, F., Hipólito, J., Jaggar, S., Jauker, F., Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Kleijn, D., Krishnan, S., Lemos, C.Q., Lindström, S.A.M., Mandelik, Y., Monteiro, V.M., Nelson, W., Nilsson, L., Pattemore, David E., Pereira, N.D.O., Pisanty, G., Potts, S.G., Reemer, M., Rundlöf, M., Sheffield, C.S., Scheper, Jeroen, Schüepp, C., Smith, H.G., Stanley, D.A., Stout, J.C., Szentgyörgyi, H., Taki, H., Rader, Romina, Bartomeus, Ignasi, Garibaldi, Lucas A., Garratt, M.P.D., Howlett, Brad G., Winfree, Rachael, Cunningham, S. A., Mayfield, Margaret M., Arthur, A.S., Andersson, G.K.S., Bommarco, Riccardo, Brittain, Claire, Carvalheiro, Luisa G., Chacoff, Natacha P., Entling, Martin H., Foully, Benjamin, Freitas, B.M., Gemmill-Herren, B., Ghazoul, J., Griffin, S.R., Gross, C.L., Herbertsson, L., Herzog, F., Hipólito, J., Jaggar, S., Jauker, F., Klein, Alexandra‐Maria, Kleijn, D., Krishnan, S., Lemos, C.Q., Lindström, S.A.M., Mandelik, Y., Monteiro, V.M., Nelson, W., Nilsson, L., Pattemore, David E., Pereira, N.D.O., Pisanty, G., Potts, S.G., Reemer, M., Rundlöf, M., Sheffield, C.S., Scheper, Jeroen, Schüepp, C., Smith, H.G., Stanley, D.A., Stout, J.C., Szentgyörgyi, H., and Taki, H.
- Abstract
Wild andmanaged bees arewell documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
- Published
- 2016
8. European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity
- Author
-
Artz R., Anastasiou D., Arrouays D., Bastos A. C., Bendetti A., Bispo A., Brandmayr P., Broll G., Bunning S., Castracani C., Campbell C., Cluzeau D., Coates D., Creamer R., Diafas I., Durrant T., Foissner W., Fritz G. B., Gardi C., Gemmill Herren B., Graefe U., Grasso D., Hol G., Hoogmoed M., Jabiol B., Jeffery S., Jimenez J. J., Hedlund K., Henning Krogh P., Lemanceau P., Licona Manzur C., Luster J., Maistrello L., Marmo L., Menta C., Miko L., Jo Mulongoy K., Neilson R., Nienstedt K., Nileson U., Olazabal C., Pagliai M., Pawlik Skowrońska B., Peres G., Ponge J. F., Van der Putten W., Ritz K., Ranjard L., Römbke J., Rutgers M., Sartori G., Schill R. O., Sousa J. P., Stephenson S, Taiti S., Taylor A., Verheijen F., Wall D., Wolowski K., Zanella A., ROBERTI, ROBERTA, Artz R., Anastasiou D., Arrouays D., Bastos A.C., Bendetti A., Bispo A., Brandmayr P., Broll G., Bunning S., Castracani C., Campbell C., Cluzeau D., Coates D., Creamer R., Diafas I., Durrant T., Foissner W., Fritz G.B., Gardi C., Gemmill-Herren B., Graefe U., Grasso D., Hol G., Hoogmoed M., Jabiol B., Jeffery S., Jimenez J.J., Hedlund K., Henning Krogh P., Lemanceau P., Licona-Manzur C., Luster J., Maistrello L., Marmo L., Menta C., Miko L., Jo Mulongoy K., Neilson R., Nienstedt K., Nileson U., Olazabal C., Pagliai M., Pawlik-Skowrońska B., Peres G., Ponge J.F., Van der Putten W., Ritz K., Ranjard L., Roberti R., Römbke J., Rutgers M., Sartori G., Schill R.O., Sousa J.P., Stephenson S, Taiti S., Taylor A., Verheijen F., Wall D., Wolowski K., and Zanella A.
- Subjects
SUOLO ,MICRORGANISMI ,ORGANISMI ,BIODIVERSITA' - Abstract
The SOIL Action (22004) of the Joint Research Centre’s Land Management and Natural Hazards Unit (H07) has just completed a comprehensive collaborative project focusing exclusively on life in the soil. One of the resulting outputs is the first ever European Atlas of Soil Biodiversity. This atlas is the result of a collaboration between the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre in Ispra, Italy and world leading experts in soil biodiversity from Europe and beyond. The atlas is a visually stunning publication of 128 pages, using striking photographs, informative texts and maps to explain and illustrate the great diversity of life in the across Europe. The atlas functions as a comprehensive guide to soil biology, allowing non-specialists to access information about this unseen world. The first part of the book provides an overview of the below ground environment, soil biota in general, the ecosystem functions that soil organism perform, the important value it has for human activities and relevance for global biogeochemical cycles. The second part is more of an 'Encyclopedia of Soil Biodiversity'. Starting with the smallest organisms such as the bacteria, this segment works through a range of taxonomic groups such as fungi, nematodes, insects and macro-fauna to illustrate the astonishing levels of heterogeneity of life in soil.
- Published
- 2010
9. An agroecosystem approach to protecting pollinators from pesticides
- Author
-
Gemmill-Herren, B., Allara, M., Koomen, I., van der Valk, H., and Roubik, D.W.
- Subjects
Wageningen Centre for Development Innovation ,Life Science ,Management - Published
- 2014
10. DO FRENCH BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS) GROWN IN PROXIMITY TO MT KENYA FOREST IN KENYA EXPERIENCE POLLINATION DEFICIT?
- Author
-
Masiga, R., Kasina, M., Mbugi, J., Odhiambo, C., Kinuthia, W., Gemmill-Herren, B., and Vaissière, B. E.
- Subjects
BEANS research ,POLLINATION by bees ,CROP development ,INSECT pollinators - Abstract
Yields of commercially important crops in Kenya are often far below their potential. Amongst the possible reasons for such low yields may be the ecosystem degradation that can be expected to have negative impacts on pollinator presence in cropland, and the consequent food security issue for smallholder farmers who depend on these crops for their livelihood. Our study was carried out to assess the potential pollination deficit of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), a major export vegetable crop in Kenya grown by small-scale farmers. Sufficient pollination of French beans likely results in high seed set and uniform heavier green pods. Such pods get the highest grade while malformed pods are unmarketable, reducing family income. We hypothesized that pollination success was linked to the abundance and diversity of large pollinators, itself associated with the proximity to natural habitats. Flower visitors to French beans were sampled in 2011 and 2012 in ten farmer-managed plots, five within 200 m from the edge of Mt. Kenya forest and five farther away, more than 1000 m. Each plot measured 760 m
2 and was planted at the same time, with the "Julia" variety. Flowers were observed for 2 h in each plot once weekly for three weeks at peak flowering from 0900-1100 h in the morning and 1200 – 1400 h in the afternoon on alternate days. Honey bees (Apis mellifera ) were the most abundant visitors of French bean flowers followed by carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.) and leafcutter bees (Megachile spp.). Significantly higher numbers of leafcutter bees were recorded on farms far to the forest. There was no significant difference in honey bee abundance among the study sites, probably because apiaries and wild colonies are located across the landscape. French bean yield was significantly correlated with the mean abundance of carpenter bees in 2011. This suggests the possible occurrence of pollination deficit in French beans where the density of carpenter bees is insufficient, which was reflected by the high variability of yields in the farmland. We advocate that area-wide management and conservation of carpenter bees should be initiated to support French bean farming in the area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2014
11. Negative impacts of dominance on bee communities: Does the influence of invasive honey bees differ from native bees?
- Author
-
Garibaldi LA, Pérez-Méndez N, Cordeiro GD, Hughes A, Orr M, Alves-Dos-Santos I, Freitas BM, Freitas de Oliveira F, LeBuhn G, Bartomeus I, Aizen MA, Andrade PB, Blochtein B, Boscolo D, Drumond PM, Gaglianone MC, Gemmill-Herren B, Halinski R, Krug C, Maués MM, Piedade Kiill LH, Pinheiro M, Pires CSS, and Viana BF
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees, Brazil, Seasons, Crops, Agricultural, Introduced Species
- Abstract
Invasive species can reach high abundances and dominate native environments. One of the most impressive examples of ecological invasions is the spread of the African subspecies of the honey bee throughout the Americas, starting from its introduction in a single locality in Brazil. The invasive honey bee is expected to more negatively impact bee community abundance and diversity than native dominant species, but this has not been tested previously. We developed a comprehensive and systematic bee sampling scheme, using a protocol deploying 11,520 pan traps across regions and crops for three years in Brazil. We found that invasive honey bees are now the single most dominant bee species. Such dominance has not only negative consequences for abundance and species richness of native bees but also for overall bee abundance (i.e., strong "numerical" effects of honey bees). Contrary to expectations, honey bees did not have stronger negative impacts than other native bees achieving similar levels of dominance (i.e., lack of negative "identity" effects of honey bees). These effects were markedly consistent across crop species, seasons and years, and were independent from land-use effects. Dominance could be a proxy of bee community degradation and more generally of the severity of ecological invasions., (© 2021 by the Ecological Society of America.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
12. Author Correction: A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.
- Author
-
Dicks LV, Breeze TD, Ngo HT, Senapathi D, An J, Aizen MA, Basu P, Buchori D, Galetto L, Garibaldi LA, Gemmill-Herren B, Howlett BG, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Johnson SD, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Kwon YJ, Lattorff HMG, Lungharwo T, Seymour CL, Vanbergen AJ, and Potts SG
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
13. A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.
- Author
-
Dicks LV, Breeze TD, Ngo HT, Senapathi D, An J, Aizen MA, Basu P, Buchori D, Galetto L, Garibaldi LA, Gemmill-Herren B, Howlett BG, Imperatriz-Fonseca VL, Johnson SD, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Kwon YJ, Lattorff HMG, Lungharwo T, Seymour CL, Vanbergen AJ, and Potts SG
- Subjects
- Crops, Agricultural, Europe, Humans, North America, Pesticides, Pollination
- Abstract
Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
14. Building effective policies to conserve pollinators: translating knowledge into policy.
- Author
-
Gemmill-Herren B, Garibaldi LA, Kremen C, and Ngo HT
- Subjects
- Animals, Policy, Agriculture, Pollination
- Abstract
Pollination management recommendations are becoming increasingly precise, context-specific and knowledge-intensive. Pollination is a service delivered across landscapes, entailing policy constructs across agricultural landscapes. Diversified farming practices effectively promote pollination services. Yet it remains difficult to secure large-scale uptake by farming communities. A strong foundation upon which to base policy formulation stems from respecting the perspective of farmers and local communities on the need to conserve pollinators, alongside scientific understanding. Ecological intensification resonates with both indigenous knowledge, local communities and scientific understanding. It emphasizes that the regulating functions of nature require both landscape-level agroecosystem design and recognition of the complexity of agricultural systems. Facilitating ecological intensification across landscapes requires collective decision-making, with institutional innovation in local structures and food system governance., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. Editorial: Resetting Power in Global Food Governance: The UN Food Systems Summit.
- Author
-
Montenegro de Wit M, Canfield M, Iles A, Anderson M, McKeon N, Guttal S, Gemmill-Herren B, Duncan J, van der Ploeg JD, and Prato S
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Closing the circle: an agroecological response to covid-19.
- Author
-
Gemmill-Herren B
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
17. Policies for Ecological Intensification of Crop Production.
- Author
-
Garibaldi LA, Pérez-Méndez N, Garratt MPD, Gemmill-Herren B, Miguez FE, and Dicks LV
- Subjects
- Agriculture, Biodiversity, Crop Production, Ecology, Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecosystem
- Abstract
Ecological intensification aims to increase crop productivity by enhancing biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, while minimizing the use of synthetic inputs and cropland expansion. Policies to promote ecological intensification have emerged in different countries, but they are still scarce and vary widely across regions. Here, we propose ten policy targets that governments can follow for ecological intensification., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2019
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
18. Multidimensional Performance of Farming Approaches: A Reply to Mehrabi et al.
- Author
-
Garibaldi LA, Gemmill-Herren B, D'Annolfo R, Graeub BE, Cunningham SA, and Breeze TD
- Subjects
- Agriculture
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
19. Farming Approaches for Greater Biodiversity, Livelihoods, and Food Security.
- Author
-
Garibaldi LA, Gemmill-Herren B, D'Annolfo R, Graeub BE, Cunningham SA, and Breeze TD
- Subjects
- Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecosystem, Agriculture, Biodiversity, Food Supply
- Abstract
Scientists and policy-makers globally are calling for alternative approaches to conventional intensification of agriculture that enhance ecosystem services provided by biodiversity. The evidence reviewed here suggests that alternative approaches can achieve high crop yields and profits, but the performance of other socioeconomic indicators (as well as long-term trends) is surprisingly poorly documented. Consequently, the implementation of conventional intensification and the discussion of alternative approaches are not based on quantitative evidence of their simultaneous ecological and socioeconomic impacts across the globe. To close this knowledge gap, we propose a participatory assessment framework. Given the impacts of conventional intensification on biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, such evidence is urgently needed to direct science-policy initiatives, such as the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
20. Mutually beneficial pollinator diversity and crop yield outcomes in small and large farms.
- Author
-
Garibaldi LA, Carvalheiro LG, Vaissière BE, Gemmill-Herren B, Hipólito J, Freitas BM, Ngo HT, Azzu N, Sáez A, Åström J, An J, Blochtein B, Buchori D, Chamorro García FJ, Oliveira da Silva F, Devkota K, Ribeiro Mde F, Freitas L, Gaglianone MC, Goss M, Irshad M, Kasina M, Pacheco Filho AJ, Kiill LH, Kwapong P, Parra GN, Pires C, Pires V, Rawal RS, Rizali A, Saraiva AM, Veldtman R, Viana BF, Witter S, and Zhang H
- Subjects
- Africa, Animals, Asia, Flowers growth & development, Bees, Biodiversity, Crop Production, Crops, Agricultural growth & development, Pollination
- Abstract
Ecological intensification, or the improvement of crop yield through enhancement of biodiversity, may be a sustainable pathway toward greater food supplies. Such sustainable increases may be especially important for the 2 billion people reliant on small farms, many of which are undernourished, yet we know little about the efficacy of this approach. Using a coordinated protocol across regions and crops, we quantify to what degree enhancing pollinator density and richness can improve yields on 344 fields from 33 pollinator-dependent crop systems in small and large farms from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. For fields less than 2 hectares, we found that yield gaps could be closed by a median of 24% through higher flower-visitor density. For larger fields, such benefits only occurred at high flower-visitor richness. Worldwide, our study demonstrates that ecological intensification can create synchronous biodiversity and yield outcomes., (Copyright © 2016, American Association for the Advancement of Science.)
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
21. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination.
- Author
-
Rader R, Bartomeus I, Garibaldi LA, Garratt MP, Howlett BG, Winfree R, Cunningham SA, Mayfield MM, Arthur AD, Andersson GK, Bommarco R, Brittain C, Carvalheiro LG, Chacoff NP, Entling MH, Foully B, Freitas BM, Gemmill-Herren B, Ghazoul J, Griffin SR, Gross CL, Herbertsson L, Herzog F, Hipólito J, Jaggar S, Jauker F, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Krishnan S, Lemos CQ, Lindström SA, Mandelik Y, Monteiro VM, Nelson W, Nilsson L, Pattemore DE, Pereira Nde O, Pisanty G, Potts SG, Reemer M, Rundlöf M, Sheffield CS, Scheper J, Schüepp C, Smith HG, Stanley DA, Stout JC, Szentgyörgyi H, Taki H, Vergara CH, Viana BF, and Woyciechowski M
- Subjects
- Animals, Ants physiology, Bees physiology, Ecosystem, Flowers growth & development, Fruit growth & development, Wasps physiology, Crops, Agricultural growth & development, Insecta physiology, Pollination
- Abstract
Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.
- Published
- 2016
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
22. Evidence-based conservation: reply to Tepedino et al.
- Author
-
Lebuhn G, Droege S, Connor EF, Gemmill-Herren B, Potts SG, Minckley RL, Jean RP, Kula E, Roubik DW, Wright KW, Frankie G, and Parker F
- Subjects
- Animals, Bees physiology, Conservation of Natural Resources, Pollination
- Published
- 2015
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
23. Detecting insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales.
- Author
-
Lebuhn G, Droege S, Connor EF, Gemmill-Herren B, Potts SG, Minckley RL, Griswold T, Jean R, Kula E, Roubik DW, Cane J, Wright KW, Frankie G, and Parker F
- Subjects
- Animals, Environmental Monitoring, Insecta physiology, Population Density, Population Dynamics, Bees physiology, Conservation of Natural Resources, Pollination
- Abstract
Recently there has been considerable concern about declines in bee communities in agricultural and natural habitats. The value of pollination to agriculture, provided primarily by bees, is >$200 billion/year worldwide, and in natural ecosystems it is thought to be even greater. However, no monitoring program exists to accurately detect declines in abundance of insect pollinators; thus, it is difficult to quantify the status of bee communities or estimate the extent of declines. We used data from 11 multiyear studies of bee communities to devise a program to monitor pollinators at regional, national, or international scales. In these studies, 7 different methods for sampling bees were used and bees were sampled on 3 different continents. We estimated that a monitoring program with 200-250 sampling locations each sampled twice over 5 years would provide sufficient power to detect small (2-5%) annual declines in the number of species and in total abundance and would cost U.S.$2,000,000. To detect declines as small as 1% annually over the same period would require >300 sampling locations. Given the role of pollinators in food security and ecosystem function, we recommend establishment of integrated regional and international monitoring programs to detect changes in pollinator communities., (© 2012 Society for Conservation Biology.)
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
24. Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?
- Author
-
Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein AM, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng' A, Potts SG, and Viana BF
- Subjects
- Animals, Bayes Theorem, Crops, Agricultural growth & development, Fruit growth & development, Models, Biological, Seeds growth & development, Tropical Climate, Bees, Crops, Agricultural physiology, Ecosystem, Feeding Behavior, Pollination physiology
- Abstract
Pollination by bees and other animals increases the size, quality, or stability of harvests for 70% of leading global crops. Because native species pollinate many of these crops effectively, conserving habitats for wild pollinators within agricultural landscapes can help maintain pollination services. Using hierarchical Bayesian techniques, we synthesize the results of 23 studies - representing 16 crops on five continents - to estimate the general relationship between pollination services and distance from natural or semi-natural habitats. We find strong exponential declines in both pollinator richness and native visitation rate. Visitation rate declines more steeply, dropping to half of its maximum at 0.6 km from natural habitat, compared to 1.5 km for richness. Evidence of general decline in fruit and seed set - variables that directly affect yields - is less clear. Visitation rate drops more steeply in tropical compared with temperate regions, and slightly more steeply for social compared with solitary bees. Tropical crops pollinated primarily by social bees may therefore be most susceptible to pollination failure from habitat loss. Quantifying these general relationships can help predict consequences of land use change on pollinator communities and crop productivity, and can inform landscape conservation efforts that balance the needs of native species and people.
- Published
- 2008
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
25. Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change.
- Author
-
Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vázquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein AM, Regetz J, and Ricketts TH
- Subjects
- Animals, Conservation of Natural Resources, Crops, Agricultural economics, Public Policy, Reproduction physiology, Bees physiology, Ecosystem, Models, Biological, Plant Physiological Phenomena, Pollen
- Abstract
Many ecosystem services are delivered by organisms that depend on habitats that are segregated spatially or temporally from the location where services are provided. Management of mobile organisms contributing to ecosystem services requires consideration not only of the local scale where services are delivered, but also the distribution of resources at the landscape scale, and the foraging ranges and dispersal movements of the mobile agents. We develop a conceptual model for exploring how one such mobile-agent-based ecosystem service (MABES), pollination, is affected by land-use change, and then generalize the model to other MABES. The model includes interactions and feedbacks among policies affecting land use, market forces and the biology of the organisms involved. Animal-mediated pollination contributes to the production of goods of value to humans such as crops; it also bolsters reproduction of wild plants on which other services or service-providing organisms depend. About one-third of crop production depends on animal pollinators, while 60-90% of plant species require an animal pollinator. The sensitivity of mobile organisms to ecological factors that operate across spatial scales makes the services provided by a given community of mobile agents highly contextual. Services vary, depending on the spatial and temporal distribution of resources surrounding the site, and on biotic interactions occurring locally, such as competition among pollinators for resources, and among plants for pollinators. The value of the resulting goods or services may feed back via market-based forces to influence land-use policies, which in turn influence land management practices that alter local habitat conditions and landscape structure. Developing conceptual models for MABES aids in identifying knowledge gaps, determining research priorities, and targeting interventions that can be applied in an adaptive management context.
- Published
- 2007
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.