Smitha Krishnan

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Significance 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 assessments of crop pollinator biodiversity 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 are currently overlooked. 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.

Livelihood gains and ecological costs of non-timber forest product dependence: assessing the roles of dependence, ecological knowledge and market structure in three contrasting human and ecological settings in south India

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) constitute the single largest determinant of livelihoods for scores of forest fringe communities and poor people in the tropics. In India over 50 million people are believed to be directly dependent upon NTFPs for their subsistence. However, such human dependence on NTFPs for livelihood gains (win) has most frequently been at a certain ecological cost (lose). If livelihoods are to be maintained, the existing ‘win-lose’ settings have to be steered to a ‘win-win’ mode, otherwise, there could be severe erosion of the biological resources and loss of livelihoods (‘lose-lose’). Examining the dependence of forest fringe communities on NTFPs at three sites in south India with contrasting human and ecological settings, three key factors (extent of dependence on NTFPs, indigenous ecological knowledge and market organization) are likely to constrain reaching the win-win situation. How these factors shape the ecological cost of harvesting NTFPs at the three sites is examined. Within the parameter space of these factors, it is possible to predict outcomes and associations that will conform to win-win or win-lose situations. Empirical data derived from the three study sites demonstrate the causality of the observed associations. The key for long-term livelihood gains lies in reducing the ecological cost. Certain interventions and recommendations that could optimize the balance between livelihood gains and ecological cost are proposed.

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

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. 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. Editors Choice

Pollinator Services in Coffee Agroforests of the Western Ghats

Pollination services have often been associated with distance to adjoining forest fragments, but few studies have evaluated this in the context of other factors such as fragment size, agroforest characteristics and management regime. We investigated the effects of size of the forest fragment, distance from the forest and the effect of management of the agroforest (shade, shade tree density, coffee plant characteristics and extent of coffee flowering following rain- mass flowering or irrigation-localized flowering) on bee visits, pollen tube abundance and seed-set within coffee agroforests in Kodagu, south India. Three social bees accounted for almost all pollination events. Pollen tube abundance and seed set were enhanced by pollinator visitation, but distance to forest fragments did not affect bee visitation or seed set. Size of the adjoining forest fragment positively affected bee visitation (only irrigated agroforests with localized flowering) and pollen tube abundance but had no effect on seed set. Irrigation, which stimulated flowering of individual agroforests asynchronously of others, resulted in a dramatic increase in pollinator visits, reflected by higher seed set. In rain-fed agroforests, high densities of bee-pollinated co-flowering shade trees reduced bee visits and pollen tube abundance, but high-density shade trees positively affected final seed set. The lack of distance and size effects of forest fragments on coffee seed set does not necessarily mean that forest fragments do not provide pollinator services but rather that such benefits are not explicit at the scale of the study. Wild bees depend upon forest remnants for nesting, and hence to benefit from their pollination services, the conservation of such forests becomes imperative. Further, other agroforest characteristics, notably irrigation, provide alternative means of enhancing pollination and seed production. Nevertheless, agroforest shade trees benefit coffee production, despite competing for pollinators, by ameliorating harsh climatic conditions during the long fruit maturation period and support pollinators within the landscape by providing forge to the bees during coffee non-flowering season. Farmers could enhance pollination services and improve crop production most effectively by managing the time of coffee flowering through irrigation such that agroforests flower nonsynchronously across the landscape.