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

David Kleijn; Rachael Winfree; Ignasi Bartomeus; Luísa G. Carvalheiro; Mickaël Henry; Rufus Isaacs; Alexandra Maria Klein; Claire Kremen; Leithen K. M'Gonigle; Romina Rader; Taylor H. Ricketts; Neal M. Williams; Nancy Lee Adamson; John S. Ascher; András Báldi; Péter Batáry; Faye Benjamin; Jacobus C. Biesmeijer; Eleanor J. Blitzer; Riccardo Bommarco; Mariëtte R. Brand; Vincent Bretagnolle; Lindsey Button; Daniel P. Cariveau; Rémy Chifflet; Jonathan F. Colville; Bryan N. Danforth; Elizabeth Elle; Michael P.D. Garratt; Felix Herzog; Andrea Holzschuh; Brad G. Howlett; Frank Jauker; Shalene Jha; Eva Knop; Kristin M. Krewenka; Violette Le Féon; Yael Mandelik; Emily A. May; Mia G. Park; Gideon Pisanty; Menno Reemer; Verena Riedinger; Orianne Rollin; Maj Rundlöf; Hillary S. Sardiñas; Jeroen Scheper; Amber R. Sciligo; Henrik G. Smith; Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter; Robbin Thorp; Teja Tscharntke; Jort Verhulst; Blandina F. Viana; Bernard E. Vaissière; Ruan Veldtman; Catrin Westphal; Simon G. Potts

doi:10.1038/ncomms8414

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

David Kleijn^*, Rachael Winfree, Ignasi Bartomeus, Luísa G. Carvalheiro, Mickaël Henry, Rufus Isaacs, Alexandra Maria Klein, Claire Kremen, Leithen K. M'Gonigle, Romina Rader, Taylor H. Ricketts, Neal M. Williams, Nancy Lee Adamson, John S. Ascher, András Báldi, Péter Batáry, Faye Benjamin, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Eleanor J. Blitzer, Riccardo BommarcoMariëtte R. Brand, Vincent Bretagnolle, Lindsey Button, Daniel P. Cariveau, Rémy Chifflet, Jonathan F. Colville, Bryan N. Danforth, Elizabeth Elle, Michael P.D. Garratt, Felix Herzog, Andrea Holzschuh, Brad G. Howlett, Frank Jauker, Shalene Jha, Eva Knop, Kristin M. Krewenka, Violette Le Féon, Yael Mandelik, Emily A. May, Mia G. Park, Gideon Pisanty, Menno Reemer, Verena Riedinger, Orianne Rollin, Maj Rundlöf, Hillary S. Sardiñas, Jeroen Scheper, Amber R. Sciligo, Henrik G. Smith, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, Robbin Thorp, Teja Tscharntke, Jort Verhulst, Blandina F. Viana, Bernard E. Vaissière, Ruan Veldtman, Catrin Westphal, Simon G. Potts

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

752 Scopus citations

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.

Original language	English
Article number	7414
Journal	Nature Communications
Volume	6
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8414
State	Published - 16 Jun 2015
Externally published	Yes

Funding

Funders	Funder number
Scottish Government
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Natural Environment Research Council
Foundation for Arable Research
Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station
Virginia Cooperative Extension and Virginia Tech
Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas
Western SARE
Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation
NSF-DBI
European Commission
Wellcome Trust
Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, German Research Foundation
Mount Allison University
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Seventh Framework Programme	244090, 226852, 311781
Army Research Organization
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
Association Nationale de la Recherche et de la Technologie
NSERC-CANPOLIN
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft	BA 4438/1-1
New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station	08204, AFRI 2009-02305
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung	DLR 01LL0917D
MBIE Bee Minus	C11X1309
Israel Science Foundation	919/09
CASDAR	9035
USDA-AFRI	USDA 2010-03689
Agence Nationale de la Recherche Programme OGM	ANR-06-POGM-004 GMBioImpact, GOCE-CT-2003- 506675
National Science Foundation	0956340, 0956388
Ministerie van Economische Zaken	BO-11-011.01-011
Natural Resources Conservation Service	69-3A75-10-163
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council	BB/I000348/1
Niedersächsisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kultur	11-76-251-99-06/08, NIFA-AFRI 2009-65104-05782
Israel Ministry of Agriculture, Research	824-0112-08
Hungarian Scientific Research Fund	OTKA NN 101940
Not added	17552
EC FP5	QLRT 2001 01495

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1038/ncomms8414

Cite this

Kleijn, D., Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I., Carvalheiro, L. G., Henry, M., Isaacs, R., Klein, A. M., Kremen, C., M'Gonigle, L. K., Rader, R., Ricketts, T. H., Williams, N. M., Lee Adamson, N., Ascher, J. S., Báldi, A., Batáry, P., Benjamin, F., Biesmeijer, J. C., Blitzer, E. J., ... Potts, S. G. (2015). Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nature Communications, 6, Article 7414. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8414

@article{c7a3a5b7ac21440195b7880e78686c9e,

title = "Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation",

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.",

author = "David Kleijn and Rachael Winfree and Ignasi Bartomeus and Carvalheiro, {Lu{\'i}sa G.} and Micka{\"e}l Henry and Rufus Isaacs and Klein, {Alexandra Maria} and Claire Kremen and M'Gonigle, {Leithen K.} and Romina Rader and Ricketts, {Taylor H.} and Williams, {Neal M.} and {Lee Adamson}, Nancy and Ascher, {John S.} and Andr{\'a}s B{\'a}ldi and P{\'e}ter Bat{\'a}ry and Faye Benjamin and Biesmeijer, {Jacobus C.} and Blitzer, {Eleanor J.} and Riccardo Bommarco and Brand, {Mari{\"e}tte R.} and Vincent Bretagnolle and Lindsey Button and Cariveau, {Daniel P.} and R{\'e}my Chifflet and Colville, {Jonathan F.} and Danforth, {Bryan N.} and Elizabeth Elle and Garratt, {Michael P.D.} and Felix Herzog and Andrea Holzschuh and Howlett, {Brad G.} and Frank Jauker and Shalene Jha and Eva Knop and Krewenka, {Kristin M.} and {Le F{\'e}on}, Violette and Yael Mandelik and May, {Emily A.} and Park, {Mia G.} and Gideon Pisanty and Menno Reemer and Verena Riedinger and Orianne Rollin and Maj Rundl{\"o}f and Sardi{\~n}as, {Hillary S.} and Jeroen Scheper and Sciligo, {Amber R.} and Smith, {Henrik G.} and Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter and Robbin Thorp and Teja Tscharntke and Jort Verhulst and Viana, {Blandina F.} and Vaissi{\`e}re, {Bernard E.} and Ruan Veldtman and Catrin Westphal and Potts, {Simon G.}",

year = "2015",

month = jun,

day = "16",

doi = "10.1038/ncomms8414",

language = "אנגלית",

volume = "6",

journal = "Nature Communications",

issn = "2041-1723",

publisher = "Nature Research",

}

Kleijn, D, Winfree, R, Bartomeus, I, Carvalheiro, LG, Henry, M, Isaacs, R, Klein, AM, Kremen, C, M'Gonigle, LK, Rader, R, Ricketts, TH, Williams, NM, Lee Adamson, N, Ascher, JS, Báldi, A, Batáry, P, Benjamin, F, Biesmeijer, JC, Blitzer, EJ, Bommarco, R, Brand, MR, Bretagnolle, V, Button, L, Cariveau, DP, Chifflet, R, Colville, JF, Danforth, BN, Elle, E, Garratt, MPD, Herzog, F, Holzschuh, A, Howlett, BG, Jauker, F, Jha, S, Knop, E, Krewenka, KM, Le Féon, V, Mandelik, Y, May, EA, Park, MG, Pisanty, G, Reemer, M, Riedinger, V, Rollin, O, Rundlöf, M, Sardiñas, HS, Scheper, J, Sciligo, AR, Smith, HG, Steffan-Dewenter, I, Thorp, R, Tscharntke, T, Verhulst, J, Viana, BF, Vaissière, BE, Veldtman, R, Westphal, C & Potts, SG 2015, 'Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation', Nature Communications, vol. 6, 7414. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8414

TY - JOUR

T1 - Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

AU - Kleijn, David

AU - Winfree, Rachael

AU - Bartomeus, Ignasi

AU - Carvalheiro, Luísa G.

AU - Henry, Mickaël

AU - Isaacs, Rufus

AU - Klein, Alexandra Maria

AU - Kremen, Claire

AU - M'Gonigle, Leithen K.

AU - Rader, Romina

AU - Ricketts, Taylor H.

AU - Williams, Neal M.

AU - Lee Adamson, Nancy

AU - Ascher, John S.

AU - Báldi, András

AU - Batáry, Péter

AU - Benjamin, Faye

AU - Biesmeijer, Jacobus C.

AU - Blitzer, Eleanor J.

AU - Bommarco, Riccardo

AU - Brand, Mariëtte R.

AU - Bretagnolle, Vincent

AU - Button, Lindsey

AU - Cariveau, Daniel P.

AU - Chifflet, Rémy

AU - Colville, Jonathan F.

AU - Danforth, Bryan N.

AU - Elle, Elizabeth

AU - Garratt, Michael P.D.

AU - Herzog, Felix

AU - Holzschuh, Andrea

AU - Howlett, Brad G.

AU - Jauker, Frank

AU - Jha, Shalene

AU - Knop, Eva

AU - Krewenka, Kristin M.

AU - Le Féon, Violette

AU - Mandelik, Yael

AU - May, Emily A.

AU - Park, Mia G.

AU - Pisanty, Gideon

AU - Reemer, Menno

AU - Riedinger, Verena

AU - Rollin, Orianne

AU - Rundlöf, Maj

AU - Sardiñas, Hillary S.

AU - Scheper, Jeroen

AU - Sciligo, Amber R.

AU - Smith, Henrik G.

AU - Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf

AU - Thorp, Robbin

AU - Tscharntke, Teja

AU - Verhulst, Jort

AU - Viana, Blandina F.

AU - Vaissière, Bernard E.

AU - Veldtman, Ruan

AU - Westphal, Catrin

AU - Potts, Simon G.

PY - 2015/6/16

Y1 - 2015/6/16

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84935828711&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/ncomms8414

DO - 10.1038/ncomms8414

M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???

C2 - 26079893

AN - SCOPUS:84935828711

SN - 2041-1723

VL - 6

JO - Nature Communications

JF - Nature Communications

M1 - 7414

ER -

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

Abstract

Funding

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this