Author
Gideon Pisanty
Other affiliations: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, American Museum of Natural History
Bio: Gideon Pisanty is an academic researcher from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. The author has contributed to research in topics: Pollinator & Pollination. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 16 publications receiving 2705 citations. Previous affiliations of Gideon Pisanty include Hebrew University of Jerusalem & American Museum of Natural History.
Topics: Pollinator, Pollination, Subgenus, Pollinator decline, Andrena
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
Wageningen University and Research Centre1, Rutgers University2, Spanish National Research Council3, Naturalis4, University of Leeds5, Institut national de la recherche agronomique6, Michigan State University7, University of Freiburg8, University of California, Berkeley9, University of New England (United States)10, University of Vermont11, University of California, Davis12, National University of Singapore13, Hungarian Academy of Sciences14, University of Göttingen15, Cornell University16, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences17, Stellenbosch University18, Centre national de la recherche scientifique19, Simon Fraser University20, University of Reading21, University of Würzburg22, Plant & Food Research23, University of Giessen24, University of Texas at Austin25, University of Bern26, Hebrew University of Jerusalem27, Lund University28, Federal University of Bahia29
TL;DR: It is shown 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, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management Strategies to promote threatened bees.
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.
698 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 Lisbon14, University of Brasília15, 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, American Museum of Natural History25, Hebrew University of Jerusalem26, 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
TL;DR: It is found that crop and non-crop pollinators are distinguished by behavioral and morphological traits and analysis of life-history traits of bee communities can help assess the pollination services they are likely to provide (when taking into account single-visit pollination efficiency).
Abstract: Wild pollinators, bees in particular, may greatly contribute to crop pollination and provide a safety net against declines in commercial pollinators. However, the identity, life history traits, and environmental sensitivities of main crop pollinator species have received limited attention. These are crucial for predicting pollination services of different communities and for developing management practices that enhance crop pollinators. We sampled wild bees in three crop systems (almond, confection sunflower, and seed watermelon) in a mosaic Israeli Mediterranean landscape. Bees were sampled in field/orchard edges and interiors, and in seminatural scrub surrounding the fields/orchards. We also analyzed land cover at 50–2500 m radii around fields/orchards. We used this data to distinguish crop from non-crop pollinators based on a set of life history traits (nesting, lecty, sociality, body size) linked to habitat preference and crop visitation. Bee abundance and species richness decreased from the surrounding seminatural habitat to the field/orchard interior, especially across the seminatural habitat−field edge ecotone. Thus, although rich bee communities were found near fields, only small fractions crossed the ecotone and visited crop flowers in substantial numbers. The bee assemblage in agricultural fields/orchards and on crop flowers was dominated by ground-nesting bees of the tribe Halictini, which tend to nest within fields. Bees' habitat preferences were determined mainly by nesting guild, whereas crop visitation was determined mainly by sociality. Lecty and body size also affected both measures. The percentage of surrounding seminatural habitat at 250–2500 m radii had a positive effect on wild bee diversity in field edges, for all bee guilds, while at 50–100 m radii, only aboveground nesters were positively affected. In sum, we found that crop and non-crop pollinators are distinguished by behavioral and morphological traits. Hence, analysis of life-history traits of bee communities can help assess the pollination services they are likely to provide (when taking into account single-visit pollination efficiency). The ecotone between agricultural fields and surrounding habitats is a major barrier that filters many bee species, particularly with regard to their nesting requirements. Thus, greater attention should be given to management practices that encourage pollinators to live and nest, and not only forage, within fields.
45 citations
TL;DR: Investigating the existence of pollinator complementarity in both visitation rates and pollination efficiencies suggests further diversity effects on crop yield, and calls for taking into account the variability in pollination efficiency along spatiotemporal scales rather than considering it a constant, species-specific trait.
Abstract: Summary 1. The concept of pollinator niche complementarity maintains that species-rich pollinator communities can provide higher and more stable pollination services than species-poor communities, due to contrasting spatial and/or temporal pollination activity among groups of pollinators. Complementarity has usually been examined in pollinators’ patterns of flower visitation or abundance, while largely neglecting the possibility of complementarity in patterns of single-visit contribution to fruit/seed set (pollination efficiency). However, variability in pollination efficiency can greatly affect pollinators’ overall pollination services and may therefore contribute an additional, important aspect of complementarity. 2. In this study, we investigated the existence of pollinator complementarity in both visitation rates and pollination efficiencies. The study was conducted in 43 watermelon fields cultivated for seed consumption in a Mediterranean agro-natural landscape in central Israel. We studied spatiotemporal variation in pollinators’ visitation activity, measured by repeated observations and netting, and single-visit pollination efficiency, measured by the fruit and seed set rates of hermaphrodite flowers exposed to a single bee visit. Visitation and pollination efficiency were measured throughout the day and season, within and between fields with contrasting availability of nearby wild plants, and among flowers of different sizes. 3. Pollinator species’ visitation rates as well as single-visit fruit set efficiencies, but not seed set efficiencies, exhibited significant spatiotemporal variation that contributed to their complementarity. Pollinators’ visit frequencies were affected by surrounding land use, location within field, time throughout the season, and time of day. Pollinators’ fruit set efficiencies were affected by ovary size and time of day. 4. Synthesis and applications. Crop pollinators may exhibit complementarity in both their visitation rates and pollination efficiencies, which can promote the overall level and stability of their pollination services. Complementarity in pollination efficiencies suggests further diversity effects on crop yield, and calls for taking into account the variability in pollination efficiency along spatiotemporal scales rather than considering it a constant, species-specific trait. However, some modes of niche complementarity may not necessarily translate into increased pollination services and crop yield; the relevance and limitations of such mechanisms should be considered in the light of the specific crop and management system studied.
43 citations
Cited by
More filters
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: 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
TL;DR: It is shown that a commonly used insecticide seed coating in a flowering crop can have serious consequences for wild bees, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated.
Abstract: Understanding the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees is vital because of reported declines in bee diversity and distribution and the crucial role bees have as pollinators in ecosystems and agriculture. Neonicotinoids are suspected to pose an unacceptable risk to bees, partly because of their systemic uptake in plants, and the European Union has therefore introduced a moratorium on three neonicotinoids as seed coatings in flowering crops that attract bees. The moratorium has been criticized for being based on weak evidence, particularly because effects have mostly been measured on bees that have been artificially fed neonicotinoids. Thus, the key question is how neonicotinoids influence bees, and wild bees in particular, in real-world agricultural landscapes. Here we show that a commonly used insecticide seed coating in a flowering crop can have serious consequences for wild bees. In a study with replicated and matched landscapes, we found that seed coating with Elado, an insecticide containing a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, applied to oilseed rape seeds, reduced wild bee density, solitary bee nesting, and bumblebee colony growth and reproduction under field conditions. Hence, such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated. The lack of a significant response in honeybee colonies suggests that reported pesticide effects on honeybees cannot always be extrapolated to wild bees.
812 citations
Wageningen University and Research Centre1, Rutgers University2, Spanish National Research Council3, University of Leeds4, Naturalis5, Institut national de la recherche agronomique6, Michigan State University7, University of Freiburg8, University of California, Berkeley9, University of New England (United States)10, University of Vermont11, University of California, Davis12, National University of Singapore13, Hungarian Academy of Sciences14, University of Göttingen15, Cornell University16, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences17, Stellenbosch University18, Centre national de la recherche scientifique19, Simon Fraser University20, University of Reading21, University of Würzburg22, Plant & Food Research23, University of Giessen24, University of Texas at Austin25, University of Bern26, Hebrew University of Jerusalem27, Lund University28, Federal University of Bahia29
TL;DR: It is shown 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, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management Strategies to promote threatened bees.
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.
698 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 Lisbon14, University of Brasília15, 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, Trinity College, Dublin28, Royal Holloway, University of London29, 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