Institution
National University of Río Negro
Education•Viedma, Argentina•
About: National University of Río Negro is a education organization based out in Viedma, Argentina. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Pollinator. The organization has 606 authors who have published 1181 publications receiving 15230 citations. The organization is also known as: UNRN.
Topics: Population, Pollinator, Cretaceous, Pollination, Ecosystem services
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
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
National University of Cordoba1, Leipzig University2, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ3, Indiana University4, United Nations5, University of the West Indies6, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology7, National Autonomous University of Mexico8, University of Minnesota9, University of Cambridge10, BirdLife International11, University of British Columbia12, National University of Río Negro13, National Institute for Environmental Studies14, Chiba University15, Michigan State University16, International Institute of Minnesota17, United Nations University18, Stellenbosch University19, Simón Bolívar University20, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation21, Hungarian Academy of Sciences22, University of Queensland23, Duke University24, Imperial College London25, Natural History Museum26, University of the West of England27, Stockholm University28, Clark University29, University of Cape Town30, IFREMER31, Radboud University Nijmegen32, George Mason University33, University of Oxford34, Royal Botanic Gardens35, University of the Philippines Diliman36
TL;DR: The first integrated global-scale intergovernmental assessment of the status, trends, and future of the links between people and nature provides an unprecedented picture of the extent of the authors' mutual dependence, the breadth and depth of the ongoing and impending crisis, and the interconnectedness among sectors and regions.
Abstract: The human impact on life on Earth has increased sharply since the 1970s, driven by the demands of a growing population with rising average per capita income. Nature is currently supplying more materials than ever before, but this has come at the high cost of unprecedented global declines in the extent and integrity of ecosystems, distinctness of local ecological communities, abundance and number of wild species, and the number of local domesticated varieties. Such changes reduce vital benefits that people receive from nature and threaten the quality of life of future generations. Both the benefits of an expanding economy and the costs of reducing nature's benefits are unequally distributed. The fabric of life on which we all depend-nature and its contributions to people-is unravelling rapidly. Despite the severity of the threats and lack of enough progress in tackling them to date, opportunities exist to change future trajectories through transformative action. Such action must begin immediately, however, and address the root economic, social, and technological causes of nature's deterioration.
913 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, University of Lisbon13, Naturalis14, 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, 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
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
Authors
Showing all 620 results
| Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hernán Asorey | 51 | 171 | 11047 |
| Diego Pol | 47 | 135 | 5882 |
| Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi | 40 | 164 | 10816 |
| Daniel Barthélémy | 36 | 126 | 3905 |
| Leonardo Salgado | 31 | 68 | 3020 |
| Josefina Pons | 30 | 197 | 4467 |
| Rodolfo A. Coria | 26 | 60 | 2701 |
| Ricardo Martín Gómez | 23 | 67 | 1618 |
| Marcelo N. Kuperman | 23 | 88 | 2682 |
| Claudio J. Bidau | 22 | 91 | 1616 |
| Silvio Casadío | 22 | 69 | 1201 |
| Ignacio Alejandro Cerda | 21 | 74 | 1340 |
| Edmundo Larrieu | 20 | 72 | 1130 |
| Daniel Alejandro Barrio | 20 | 40 | 1275 |
| Betina Blochtein | 19 | 76 | 1176 |