scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Romina Rader

Bio: Romina Rader is an academic researcher from University of New England (Australia). The author has contributed to research in topics: Pollinator & Pollination. The author has an hindex of 24, co-authored 77 publications receiving 5108 citations. Previous affiliations of Romina Rader include Plant & Food Research & Stockholm University.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
29 Mar 2013-Science
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
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

Journal ArticleDOI
Matteo Dainese1, Emily A. Martin1, Marcelo A. Aizen2, Matthias Albrecht, Ignasi Bartomeus3, Riccardo Bommarco4, Luísa G. Carvalheiro5, Luísa G. Carvalheiro6, Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer7, Vesna Gagic8, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi9, Jaboury Ghazoul10, Heather Grab11, Mattias Jonsson4, Daniel S. Karp12, Christina M. Kennedy13, David Kleijn14, Claire Kremen15, Douglas A. Landis16, Deborah K. Letourneau17, Lorenzo Marini18, Katja Poveda11, Romina Rader19, Henrik G. Smith20, Teja Tscharntke21, Georg K.S. Andersson20, Isabelle Badenhausser22, Isabelle Badenhausser23, Svenja Baensch21, Antonio Diego M. Bezerra24, Felix J.J.A. Bianchi14, Virginie Boreux10, Virginie Boreux25, Vincent Bretagnolle23, Berta Caballero-López, Pablo Cavigliasso26, Aleksandar Ćetković27, Natacha P. Chacoff28, Alice Classen1, Sarah Cusser29, Felipe D. da Silva e Silva30, G. Arjen de Groot14, Jan H. Dudenhöffer31, Johan Ekroos20, Thijs P.M. Fijen14, Pierre Franck22, Breno Magalhães Freitas24, Michael P.D. Garratt32, Claudio Gratton33, Juliana Hipólito34, Juliana Hipólito9, Andrea Holzschuh1, Lauren Hunt35, Aaron L. Iverson11, Shalene Jha36, Tamar Keasar37, Tania N. Kim38, Miriam Kishinevsky37, Björn K. Klatt21, Björn K. Klatt20, Alexandra-Maria Klein25, Kristin M. Krewenka39, Smitha Krishnan10, Smitha Krishnan40, Ashley E. Larsen41, Claire Lavigne22, Heidi Liere42, Bea Maas43, Rachel E. Mallinger44, Eliana Martinez Pachon, Alejandra Martínez-Salinas45, Timothy D. Meehan46, Matthew G. E. Mitchell15, Gonzalo Alberto Roman Molina47, Maike Nesper10, Lovisa Nilsson20, Megan E. O'Rourke48, Marcell K. Peters1, Milan Plećaš27, Simon G. Potts33, Davi de L. Ramos, Jay A. Rosenheim12, Maj Rundlöf20, Adrien Rusch49, Agustín Sáez2, Jeroen Scheper14, Matthias Schleuning, Julia Schmack50, Amber R. Sciligo51, Colleen L. Seymour, Dara A. Stanley52, Rebecca Stewart20, Jane C. Stout53, Louis Sutter, Mayura B. Takada54, Hisatomo Taki, Giovanni Tamburini25, Matthias Tschumi, Blandina Felipe Viana55, Catrin Westphal21, Bryony K. Willcox19, Stephen D. Wratten56, Akira Yoshioka57, Carlos Zaragoza-Trello3, Wei Zhang58, Yi Zou59, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter1 
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, Institut national de la recherche agronomique22, University of La Rochelle23, 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


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols used xiii 1.
Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201

14,171 citations

01 Jan 2016
TL;DR: The modern applied statistics with s is universally compatible with any devices to read, and is available in the digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly.
Abstract: Thank you very much for downloading modern applied statistics with s. As you may know, people have search hundreds times for their favorite readings like this modern applied statistics with s, but end up in harmful downloads. Rather than reading a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful virus inside their laptop. modern applied statistics with s is available in our digital library an online access to it is set as public so you can download it instantly. Our digital library saves in multiple countries, allowing you to get the most less latency time to download any of our books like this one. Kindly say, the modern applied statistics with s is universally compatible with any devices to read.

5,249 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A forum to review, analyze and stimulate the development, testing and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies at regional, national and global scales as mentioned in this paper, which contributes to real-time policy analysis and development as national and international policies and agreements are discussed.
Abstract: ▶ Addresses a wide range of timely environment, economic and energy topics ▶ A forum to review, analyze and stimulate the development, testing and implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies at regional, national and global scales ▶ Contributes to real-time policy analysis and development as national and international policies and agreements are discussed and promulgated ▶ 94% of authors who answered a survey reported that they would definitely publish or probably publish in the journal again

2,587 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
27 Mar 2015-Science
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

Journal ArticleDOI
29 Mar 2013-Science
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