Advanced

Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.

Kleijn, David; Winfree, Rachael; Bartomeus, Ignasi; Carvalheiro, Luísa G; Henry, Mickaël; Isaacs, Rufus; Klein, Alexandra-Maria; Kremen, Claire; M'Gonigle, Leithen K and Rader, Romina, et al. (2015) In Nature Communications 6.
Abstract
There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple... (More)
There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
, et al. (More)
(Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Nature Communications
volume
6
publisher
Nature Publishing Group
external identifiers
  • pmid:26079893
  • wos:000357176100001
  • scopus:84935828711
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/ncomms8414
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
24d26d06-a348-442e-84ce-8e9721b6c8ea (old id 7485631)
date added to LUP
2015-08-13 09:13:49
date last changed
2017-11-19 03:47:34
@article{24d26d06-a348-442e-84ce-8e9721b6c8ea,
  abstract     = {There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.},
  articleno    = {7414},
  author       = {Kleijn, David and Winfree, Rachael and Bartomeus, Ignasi and Carvalheiro, Luísa G and Henry, Mickaël and Isaacs, Rufus and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kremen, Claire and M'Gonigle, Leithen K and Rader, Romina and Ricketts, Taylor H and Williams, Neal M and Lee Adamson, Nancy and Ascher, John S and Báldi, András and Batáry, Péter and Benjamin, Faye and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C and Blitzer, Eleanor J and Bommarco, Riccardo and Brand, Mariëtte R and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Button, Lindsey and Cariveau, Daniel P and Chifflet, Rémy and Colville, Jonathan F and Danforth, Bryan N and Elle, Elizabeth and Garratt, Michael P D and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Howlett, Brad G and Jauker, Frank and Jha, Shalene and Knop, Eva and Krewenka, Kristin M and Le Féon, Violette and Mandelik, Yael and May, Emily A and Park, Mia G and Pisanty, Gideon and Reemer, Menno and Riedinger, Verena and Rollin, Orianne and Rundlöf, Maj and Sardiñas, Hillary S and Scheper, Jeroen and Sciligo, Amber R and Smith, Henrik and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Thorp, Robbin and Tscharntke, Teja and Verhulst, Jort and Viana, Blandina F and Vaissière, Bernard E and Veldtman, Ruan and Westphal, Catrin and Potts, Simon G},
  issn         = {2041-1723},
  language     = {eng},
  publisher    = {Nature Publishing Group},
  series       = {Nature Communications},
  title        = {Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8414},
  volume       = {6},
  year         = {2015},
}