Author
Breno Magalhães Freitas
Other affiliations: University of Wales
Bio: Breno Magalhães Freitas is an academic researcher from Federal University of Ceará. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pollination & Pollinator. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 142 publications receiving 5535 citations. Previous affiliations of Breno Magalhães Freitas include University of Wales.
Topics: Pollination, Pollinator, Stingless bee, Apidae, Honey bee
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
National University of Río Negro1, University of Würzburg2, Rutgers University3, National University of Comahue4, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences5, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation6, University of California, Berkeley7, University of Leeds8, Naturalis9, University of Calgary10, Hebrew University of Jerusalem11, Lüneburg University12, ETH Zurich13, National University of Tucumán14, Federal University of Ceará15, Federal University of Bahia16, Plant & Food Research17, Michigan State University18, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada19, The Nature Conservancy20, University of Göttingen21, University of Queensland22, Cornell University23, University of Reading24, Stockholm University25, University of Vermont26, Lund University27, University of Koblenz and Landau28, University of Bern29, Jagiellonian University30, Universidad de las Américas Puebla31, University of California, Davis32
TL;DR: Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation.
Abstract: The diversity and abundance of wild insect pollinators have declined in many agricultural landscapes. Whether such declines reduce crop yields, or are mitigated by managed pollinators such as honey bees, is unclear. We found universally positive associations of fruit set with flower visitation by wild insects in 41 crop systems worldwide. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with flower visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation. Visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so pollination by managed honey bees supplemented, rather than substituted for, pollination by wild insects. Our results suggest that new practices for integrated management of both honey bees and diverse wild insect assemblages will enhance global crop yields.
1,881 citations
University of New England (Australia)1, Spanish National Research Council2, National University of Río Negro3, University of Reading4, Plant & Food Research5, Rutgers University6, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation7, University of Queensland8, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics9, Lund University10, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences11, University of California, Davis12, Naturalis13, University of Brasília14, University of Lisbon15, National University of Tucumán16, University of Koblenz and Landau17, Federal University of Ceará18, United Nations19, ETH Zurich20, Federal University of Bahia21, University of Giessen22, University of Freiburg23, Wageningen University and Research Centre24, Hebrew University of Jerusalem25, American Museum of Natural History26, University of Bern27, Royal Holloway, University of London28, Trinity College, Dublin29, Jagiellonian University30, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad31, Universidad de las Américas Puebla32
TL;DR: It is shown 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.
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.
620 citations
University of Würzburg1, National University of Comahue2, Spanish National Research Council3, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences4, University of Lisbon5, Universidade Federal de Goiás6, Stanford University7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, National University of Río Negro9, ETH Zurich10, Cornell University11, University of California, Davis12, The Nature Conservancy13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, University of British Columbia15, Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center16, University of California, Santa Cruz17, University of Padua18, University of New England (Australia)19, Lund University20, University of Göttingen21, University of La Rochelle22, Institut national de la recherche agronomique23, Federal University of Ceará24, University of Freiburg25, Concordia University Wisconsin26, University of Belgrade27, National University of Tucumán28, Michigan State University29, University of Brasília30, University of Greenwich31, University of Reading32, University of Wisconsin-Madison33, National Institute of Amazonian Research34, Boise State University35, University of Texas at Austin36, University of Haifa37, Kansas State University38, University of Hamburg39, Bioversity International40, University of California, Santa Barbara41, Seattle University42, University of Vienna43, University of Florida44, Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza45, National Audubon Society46, University of Buenos Aires47, Virginia Tech48, University of Bordeaux49, University of Auckland50, University of California, Berkeley51, University College Dublin52, Trinity College, Dublin53, University of Tokyo54, Federal University of Bahia55, Lincoln University (New Zealand)56, National Institute for Environmental Studies57, International Food Policy Research Institute58, Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University59
TL;DR: Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change is partitioned.
Abstract: Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.
434 citations
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The authors in this paper provided a critical assessment of the full range of issues facing decision-makers, including the value of pollination and pollinators, status, trends and threats to pollinators and pollination, and policy and management options.
Abstract: The objective of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services is to provide Governments, private sector, and civil society with scientifically credible and independent up-to-date assessments of available knowledge to make informed decisions at the local, national and international level.
This assessment on pollinators, pollination and food
production has been carried out by experts from all
regions of the world, who have analysed a large body of
knowledge, including about 3,000 scientific publications.
It represents the state of our knowledge on this issue. Its
chapters and their executive summaries were accepted,
and its summary for policymakers was approved, by the
Plenary of IPBES at its fourth session (22-28 February
2016, Kuala Lumpur).
This report provides a critical assessment of the full range
of issues facing decision-makers, including the value of
pollination and pollinators, status, trends and threats to
pollinators and pollination, and policy and management
response options. It concludes that pollinators, which are
economically and socially important, are increasingly under
threat from human activities, including climate change, with
observed decreases in the abundance and diversity of wild
pollinators. However, the report also outlines a wide range
of management and response options that are available
to halt the further decline of pollinators. The assessment
concludes that 75% of our food crops and nearly 90% of
wild flowering plants depend at least to some extent on
animal pollination and that a high diversity of wild pollinators is critical to pollination even when managed bees are present in high numbers.
404 citations
National University of Río Negro1, Naturalis2, Institut national de la recherche agronomique3, Food and Agriculture Organization4, Federal University of Bahia5, Federal University of Ceará6, National University of Comahue7, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul8, Bogor Agricultural University9, National University of Colombia10, Universidade Federal de Sergipe11, Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária12, State University of Norte Fluminense13, University of Zimbabwe14, National Agricultural Research Centre15, University of Cape Coast16, University of Brawijaya17, University of São Paulo18, Stellenbosch University19
TL;DR: This study quantifies 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.
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.
332 citations
Cited by
More filters
Journal Article•
TL;DR: It is suggested that the natural selection against large insertion/deletion is so weak that a large amount of variation is maintained in a population.
11,521 citations
TL;DR: The stresses bees are experiencing from climate change, infectious diseases, and insecticides are reviewed, with concern that the authors may be nearing a “pollination crisis” in which crop yields begin to fall.
Abstract: Bees are subject to numerous pressures in the modern world. The abundance and diversity of flowers has declined, bees are chronically exposed to cocktails of agrochemicals, and they are simultaneously exposed to novel parasites accidentally spread by humans. Climate change is likely to exacerbate these problems in the future. Stressors do not act in isolation; for example pesticide exposure can impair both detoxification mechanisms and immune responses, rendering bees more susceptible to parasites. It seems certain that chronic exposure to multiple, interacting stressors is driving honey bee colony losses and declines of wild pollinators, but such interactions are not addressed by current regulatory procedures and studying these interactions experimentally poses a major challenge. In the meantime, taking steps to reduce stress on bees would seem prudent; incorporating flower-rich habitat into farmland, reducing pesticide use through adopting more sustainable farming methods, and enforcing effective quarantine measures on bee movements are all practical measures that should be adopted. Effective monitoring of wild pollinator populations is urgently needed to inform management strategies into the future.
2,526 citations
TL;DR: It was found that diversity was essential for sustaining the service, because of year-to-year variation in community composition, and conservation and restoration of bee habitat are potentially viable economic alternatives for reducing dependence on managed honey bees.
Abstract: Ecosystem services are critical to human survival; in selected cases, maintaining these services provides a powerful argument for conserving biodiversity. Yet, the ecological and economic underpinnings of most services are poorly understood, impeding their conservation and management. For centuries, farmers have imported colonies of European honey bees (Apis mellifera) to fields and orchards for pollination services. These colonies are becoming increasingly scarce, however, because of diseases, pesticides, and other impacts. Native bee communities also provide pollination services, but the amount they provide and how this varies with land management practices are unknown. Here, we document the individual species and aggregate community contributions of native bees to crop pollination, on farms that varied both in their proximity to natural habitat and management type (organic versus conventional). On organic farms near natural habitat, we found that native bee communities could provide full pollination services even for a crop with heavy pollination requirements (e.g., watermelon, Citrullus lanatus), without the intervention of managed honey bees. All other farms, however, experienced greatly reduced diversity and abundance of native bees, resulting in insufficient pollination services from native bees alone. We found that diversity was essential for sustaining the service, because of year-to-year variation in community composition. Continued degradation of the agro-natural landscape will destroy this “free” service, but conservation and restoration of bee habitat are potentially viable economic alternatives for reducing dependence on managed honey bees.
1,620 citations
TL;DR: There are well-documented declines in some wild and managed pollinators in several regions of the world, however, many effective policy and management responses can be implemented to safeguard pollinators and sustain pollination services.
Abstract: Wild and managed pollinators provide a wide range of benefits to society in terms of contributions to food security, farmer and beekeeper livelihoods, social and cultural values, as well as the maintenance of wider biodiversity and ecosystem stability. Pollinators face numerous threats, including changes in land-use and management intensity, climate change, pesticides and genetically modified crops, pollinator management and pathogens, and invasive alien species. There are well-documented declines in some wild and managed pollinators in several regions of the world. However, many effective policy and management responses can be implemented to safeguard pollinators and sustain pollination services.
1,121 citations
University of Bayreuth1, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation2, University of California, Berkeley3, University of Canterbury4, California State University, Sacramento5, University of Göttingen6, University of Queensland7, Simon Fraser University8, International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology9, Federal University of Bahia10
TL;DR: Tropical crops pollinated primarily by social bees may be most susceptible to pollination failure from habitat loss, and the general relationship between pollination services and distance from natural or semi-natural habitats is estimated.
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.
1,106 citations