| 1. |
- Hammen, V. C., et al.
(författare)
-
Establishment of a cross-European field site network in the ALARM project for assessing large-scale changes in biodiversity
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Environmental Monitoring & Assessment. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1573-2959 .- 0167-6369. ; 164:1-4, s. 337-348
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The field site network (FSN) plays a central role in conducting joint research within all Assessing Large-scale Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods (ALARM) modules and provides a mechanism for integrating research on different topics in ALARM on the same site for measuring multiple impacts on biodiversity. The network covers most European climates and biogeographic regions, from Mediterranean through central European and boreal to subarctic. The project links databases with the European-wide field site network FSN, including geographic information system (GIS)-based information to characterise the test location for ALARM researchers for joint on-site research. Maps are provided in a standardised way and merged with other site-specific information. The application of GIS for these field sites and the information management promotes the use of the FSN for research and to disseminate the results. We conclude that ALARM FSN sites together with other research sites in Europe jointly could be used as a future backbone for research proposals.
|
|
| 2. |
- Cole, Lorna J., et al.
(författare)
-
A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Journal of Applied Ecology. - : Wiley. - 0021-8901 .- 1365-2664. ; 57:4, s. 681-694
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.
|
|
| 3. |
- Senapathi, Deepa, et al.
(författare)
-
Wild insect diversity increases inter-annual stability in global crop pollinator communities
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Royal Society of London. Proceedings B. Biological Sciences. - : The Royal Society. - 1471-2954 .- 0962-8452. ; 288:1947
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While an increasing number of studies indicate that the range, diversity and abundance of many wild pollinators has declined, the global area of pollinator-dependent crops has significantly increased over the last few decades. Crop pollination studies to date have mainly focused on either identifying different guilds pollinating various crops, or on factors driving spatial changes and turnover observed in these communities. The mechanisms driving temporal stability for ecosystem functioning and services, however, remain poorly understood. Our study quantifies temporal variability observed in crop pollinators in 21 different crops across multiple years at a global scale. Using data from 43 studies from six continents, we show that (i) higher pollinator diversity confers greater inter-annual stability in pollinator communities, (ii) temporal variation observed in pollinator abundance is primarily driven by the three-most dominant species, and (iii) crops in tropical regions demonstrate higher inter-annual variability in pollinator species richness than crops in temperate regions. We highlight the importance of recognizing wild pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes to stabilize pollinator persistence across years to protect both biodiversity and crop pollination services. Short-term agricultural management practices aimed at dominant species for stabilizing pollination services need to be considered alongside longer term conservation goals focussed on maintaining and facilitating biodiversity to confer ecological stability.
|
|
| 4. |
- Kleijn, David, et al.
(författare)
-
Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Tanis, M. F. (Marco), et al.
(författare)
-
Grassland management for meadow birds in the Netherlands is unfavourable to pollinators
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Basic and Applied Ecology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1439-1791 .- 1618-0089. ; 43, s. 52-63
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Agricultural intensification and loss of semi-natural grassland have contributed to biodiversity decline, including pollinator species, in pastures around the world. To reverse the decline, agri-environmental schemes have been implemented, varying widely in effectiveness. In addition, many countries, including the Netherlands, have established nature reserves in which semi-natural grasslands are restored and are often managed for specific groups of species, e.g. meadow birds or plants. The effects of such measures on insect biodiversity are not well known but recent reports on the dramatic decline of insect biomass in nature reserves have put even more attention to the impact of land use and management on biodiversity. This study compares pollinator abundance and species richness in three common semi-natural grassland management types in the Netherlands: (1) hay meadows, (2) herb-rich grasslands and (3) meadow bird grasslands. Pollinator abundance and species richness were assessed in eleven study areas, each with all three management types present. Standardized transects, insect sampling within a standard 20 min time frame and plot-based flower surveys were used in spring and summer to assess the relationships between management regime, floral abundance and diversity and pollinator communities. The results show that meadow bird grasslands have lower pollinator abundance and diversity and a less unique pollinator assemblage than both other types. Moreover, flower abundance has a positive effect on pollinator abundance and flower diversity has a positive effect on pollinator species richness. These results indicate that meadow-bird grasslands are a comparatively unfavourable habitat for bees, hoverflies and butterflies, which may be explained by a lack of flowers as well as unsuitable mowing practices. Measures benefitting both insectivorous birds and flower-visiting insects, such as rotational mowing, could remediate this imbalance.
|
|
