Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest‐site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground‐nesting bees

A major challenge in habitat restoration is targeting the key aspects of a species' niche for enhancement, particularly for species that use a diverse set of habitat features. However, restoration that focuses on limited aspects of a species' niche may neglect other resources that are critical to population persistence. We evaluated the ability of native plant hedgerows, planted to increase pollen and nectar resources for wild bees in agricultural landscapes, to provide suitable nesting habitat and enhance nesting rates of ground‐nesting bees. We found that, when compared to unmanaged field edges (controls), hedgerows did not augment most indicators of nest habitat quality (bare ground, soil surface irregularity, and soil hardness), although coarser soils were associated with higher incidence and richness of nesting bees. Hedgerows did not augment nesting rates when compared to control edges. Although all the bee species we detected nesting were also found foraging on floral resources, the foraging versus nesting assemblages found within a site were highly dissimilar. These results may reflect sampling error; or, species found foraging but not nesting in hedgerows could be utilizing hedgerows as “partial habitats,” nesting outside hedgerow plantings but foraging on the floral resources they provide. We conclude that although hedgerows are known to provide critical floral resources to wild bees especially in resource‐poor intensive agricultural landscapes, simply increasing vegetative diversity and structure may not be simultaneously enhancing nesting habitat for ground‐nesting bees.     

Mobility and resource use influence the occurrence of pollinating insects in restored seminatural grassland fragments

After habitat restoration, species need to recolonize from existing populations. The ability of species to recolonize restored habitats likely depends on their traits. This study aimed to test if species traits and isolation from source habitat can explain the presence of insects in restored grasslands. We surveyed the occurrence of hoverflies and bees in 14 restored seminatural pastures as well as in intact seminatural grasslands in the surrounding landscape. We tested how connectivity, time since restoration, and species traits influence if species that are present in the surrounding landscape also occur in restored pastures. Solitary bee species present in the landscape were less likely to occur in restored pastures compared to bumblebees and hoverflies. The occurrence of bumblebees, but not solitary bees or hoverflies, decreased with time since restoration. The occurrence of solitary bees increased but the occurrence of hoverflies decreased with high connectivity. Migratory hoverflies were more likely to occur in restored pastures than nonmigratory hoverflies, especially in pastures with low connectivity. Among both bumblebees and solitary bees, the occurrence was influenced by nesting traits, with the lowest occurrence of parasitic species and of species digging nests in the ground. The subset of the landscape's species pool that occurs in restored pastures has a contrasting set of traits compared with species in intact source habitats. Both mobility and resource use act as filters that influence the assembly of pollinator communities after restoration. A full recovery of pollinator communities is more likely if source populations are available nearby.     

Spatial and temporal variations in floral resource availability affect bumblebee communities in heathlands

Modifications of landscape structure and composition can decrease the availability of floral resources, resulting in the decline of many pollinator species, including bumblebees. These declines may have significant ecological consequences, because bumblebees pollinate a large range of plant species. Our study was carried out in heathlands, open semi-natural habitats that have decreased considerably due to human activities. We analysed how floral resources affect bumblebee communities throughout the colony lifetime at three scales: plot scale, heathland patch scale, and landscape scale. Floral density at the plot scale and spruce plantations at the landscape scale influenced bumblebee communities. The abundance of bumblebees on ericaceous species was higher when the landscape included a substantial proportion of unsuitable foraging habitat (i.e., spruce plantations). Both life history traits and colony life cycle stage influenced bumblebee responses to the availability of floral resources. Bumblebees were more affected by floral resources during the colony development phase than during the nest-foundation or mating phases. Moreover, bumblebees of species that form large colonies needed larger quantities of favourable foraging habitat, compared with small-colony bees, and their proportion decreased in habitats dominated by spruce plantations. In conclusion, the conservation of plant–bumblebee interactions will require management at a larger spatial scale than the restricted protected habitats. Moreover, at the landscape scale, both quantity of favourable foraging patches and their ecological continuity are important to conserve both small- and large- colony species.     

Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp. (Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape

Abstract: In selected foraging habitats of an agricultural landscape flower visits of bumblebees and community structure of foraging bumblebees were studied, with special regard to the role of crops as super-abundant resources. Most crops represent temporal foraging habitats with high abundance of bumblebees but mainly with low diversity in the bumblebee forage community, in contrast to permanent foraging habitats such as, for example, a hedgerow. The high numbers of bumblebees in the monoculture of crop plantations consisted mainly of short-tongued bumblebee species. The role of foraging distances for the visitation rate of foraging habitats was studied by performing capture–recapture experiments with natural nests of Bombus terrestris , Bombus lapidarius and Bombus muscorum . Differences were found on the species as well as the individual level. The foraging distances of B. muscorum were more restricted to the neighbourhood of the nesting habitat than the foraging activity of B. terrestris and B. lapidarius . High percentages of B. terrestris workers were recaptured while foraging on super-abundant resources in distances up to 1750 m from the nest. Isolated patches of highly rewarding forage crops, in agricultural landscapes, are probably only accessed by bumblebee species with large mean foraging distances, such as the short-tongued B. terrestris . Species like the rare, long-tongued B. muscorum depend on a close connection between nesting and foraging habitat. A restricted foraging radius might be one important factor of bumblebee species loss and potential pollinator limitation in modern agricultural landscapes. Furthermore, long-distance flights of bumblebee pollinators have to be considered in the present discussion on gene flow from transgenic plant species on a landscape scale.     

Disentangling multiple drivers of pollination in a landscape-scale experiment

Animal pollination is essential for the reproductive success of many wild and crop plants. Loss and isolation of (semi-)natural habitats in agricultural landscapes can cause declines of plants and pollinators and endanger pollination services. We investigated the independent effects of these drivers on pollination of young cherry trees in a landscape-scale experiment. We included (i) isolation of study trees from other cherry trees (up to 350 m), (ii) the amount of cherry trees in the landscape, (iii) the isolation from other woody habitats (up to 200 m) and (iv) the amount of woody habitats providing nesting and floral resources for pollinators. At the local scale, we considered effects of (v) cherry flower density and (vi) heterospecific flower density. Pollinators visited flowers more often in landscapes with high amount of woody habitat and at sites with lower isolation from the next cherry tree. Fruit set was reduced by isolation from the next cherry tree and by a high local density of heterospecific flowers but did not directly depend on pollinator visitation. These results reveal the importance of considering the plant''s need for conspecific pollen and its pollen competition with co-flowering species rather than focusing only on pollinators’ habitat requirements and flower visitation. It proved to be important to disentangle habitat isolation from habitat loss, local from landscape-scale effects, and direct effects of pollen availability on fruit set from indirect effects via pollinator visitation to understand the delivery of an agriculturally important ecosystem service.     

Landscape structure influences pollinator movements and directly affects plant reproductive success

Pollinators play a key role within most terrestrial communities in maintaining plant populations, as well as pollinating many agricultural crops for seed and fruit production. The mobility of pollinating animals is significant to their importance but we know little about how landscape structure influences pollinator movements. Linear landscape features such as hedgerows and embankments are conspicuous features of agricultural landscape structure and are important artificial habitats in their own right. However, there has been some debate as to the function of these landscape elements as corridors between larger expanses of semi‐natural habitat separated by urban and agricultural habitats. Few studies have specifically studied insect flight responses to linear landscape elements. By observing bumblebee flight behaviour along hedgerows and, by creating a medium‐scale experimental array of flower patches using an artificial linear feature, we examined whether such structures can elicit an oriented flight response along them and therefore facilitate insect movement through the landscape. We found that both hedgerows and artificial linear landscape features can influence the flight directions of bumblebees (Bombus spp. Hymenoptera, Apidae), one of Europe's most important groups of pollinators. A bioassay experiment in which Salvia pratensis (Lamiaceae) was planted into landscape patches with differing numbers of connecting hedgerows showed that this directional response can have a profound effect on plant reproductive success – plants had increased pollinator activity, pollen receipt and subsequent seed set in patches with more connections. The overall hedgerow connectedness of a landscape is therefore important both to bumblebee movement and to those plants which depend on bumblebees for pollination services.     

Variation in pollinator assemblages in a fragmented landscape and its effects on reproductive stages of a self-incompatible treelet, <Emphasis Type="Italic">Psychotria suterella</Emphasis> (Rubiaceae)

Few studies of plant–pollinator interactions in fragmented landscapes evaluate the consequences of floral visitor variation on multiple stages of plant reproduction. Given that fragmentation potentially has positive or negative effects on different organisms, and that self-incompatible plant species depend on pollinators for sexual reproduction, differences in floral visitor assemblages may affect certain plant reproductive stages. We evaluated how pollinator assemblage, availability of floral resources, pollination, reproductive output, and seed and seedling performance of Psychotria suterella Muell. Arg. varied among three fragmentation categories: non-fragmented habitats, fragments connected by corridors, and isolated fragments. Richness and frequency of floral visitors were greater in fragments than in non-fragmented sites, resulting mainly from the addition of species typically found in disturbed areas. Although 24 species visited Psychotria suterella flowers, bumblebees were considered the most important pollinators, because they showed the highest frequency of visits and were present in eight out of ten sites. Additionally, the number of pollen tubes per flower per visit was lower in areas without bumblebees. The increased visitation in fragments seemed to enhance pollination slightly. However, fruit and seed output, germination, and seed and seedling mass were similar in non-fragmented sites, connected sites, and isolated fragments. Our results suggested that, even for a self-incompatible species, responses to habitat fragmentation at different stages of plant reproduction might be decoupled from the responses observed in floral visitors, if fruit set is not pollen limited. If all reproductive stages were considered, variation on the small scale was more important than the variation explained by fragmentation category. In spite of its self-incompatible breeding system, this plant–pollinator system showed resilience to habitat fragmentation, mainly as a result of high availability of potential mates to P. suterella individuals, absence of pollen limitation, and the presence of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) throughout this highly connected landscape.     

Forests are critically important to global pollinator diversity and enhance pollination in adjacent crops

Although the importance of natural habitats to pollinator diversity is widely recognized, the value of forests to pollinating insects has been largely overlooked in many parts of the world. In this review, we (i) establish the importance of forests to global pollinator diversity, (ii) explore the relationship between forest cover and pollinator diversity in mixed-use landscapes, and (iii) highlight the contributions of forest-associated pollinators to pollination in adjacent crops. The literature shows unambiguously that native forests support a large number of forest-dependent species and are thus critically important to global pollinator diversity. Many pollinator taxa require or benefit greatly from resources that are restricted to forests, such as floral resources provided by forest plants (including wind-pollinated trees), dead wood for nesting, tree resins, and various non-floral sugar sources (e.g. honeydew). Although landscape-scale studies generally support the conclusion that forests enhance pollinator diversity, findings are often complicated by spatial scale, focal taxa, landscape context, temporal context, forest type, disturbance history, and external stressors. While some forest loss can be beneficial to pollinators by enhancing habitat complementarity, too much can result in the near-elimination of forest-associated species. There is strong evidence from studies of multiple crop types that forest cover can substantially increase yields in adjacent habitats, at least within the foraging ranges of the pollinators involved. The literature also suggests that forests may have enhanced importance to pollinators in the future given their role in mitigating the negative effects of pesticides and climate change. Many questions remain about the amount and configuration of forest cover required to promote the diversity of forest-associated pollinators and their services within forests and in neighbouring habitats. However, it is clear from the current body of knowledge that any effort to preserve native woody habitats, including the protection of individual trees, will benefit pollinating insects and help maintain the critical services they provide.     

Proximity of restored hedgerows interacts with local floral diversity and species' traits to shape long‐term pollinator metacommunity dynamics

Disconnected habitat fragments are poor at supporting population and community persistence; restoration ecologists, therefore, advocate for the establishment of habitat networks across landscapes. Few empirical studies, however, have considered how networks of restored habitat patches affect metacommunity dynamics. Here, using a 10‐year study on restored hedgerows and unrestored field margins within an intensive agricultural landscape, we integrate occupancy modelling with network theory to examine the interaction between local and landscape characteristics, habitat selection and dispersal in shaping pollinator metacommunity dynamics. We show that surrounding hedgerows and remnant habitat patches interact with the local floral diversity, bee diet breadth and bee body size to influence site occupancy, via colonisation and persistence dynamics. Florally diverse sites and generalist, small‐bodied species are most important for maintaining metacommunity connectivity. By providing the first in‐depth assessment of how a network of restored habitat influences long‐term population dynamics, we confirm the conservation benefit of hedgerows for pollinator populations and demonstrate the importance of restoring and maintaining habitat networks within an inhospitable matrix.     

Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes

Background and Aims

Crop pollination by bees and other animals is an essential ecosystem service. Ensuring the maintenance of the service requires a full understanding of the contributions of landscape elements to pollinator populations and crop pollination. Here, the first quantitative model that predicts pollinator abundance on a landscape is described and tested.

Methods

Using information on pollinator nesting resources, floral resources and foraging distances, the model predicts the relative abundance of pollinators within nesting habitats. From these nesting areas, it then predicts relative abundances of pollinators on the farms requiring pollination services. Model outputs are compared with data from coffee in Costa Rica, watermelon and sunflower in California and watermelon in New Jersey–Pennsylvania (NJPA).

Key Results

Results from Costa Rica and California, comparing field estimates of pollinator abundance, richness or services with model estimates, are encouraging, explaining up to 80 % of variance among farms. However, the model did not predict observed pollinator abundances on NJPA, so continued model improvement and testing are necessary. The inability of the model to predict pollinator abundances in the NJPA landscape may be due to not accounting for fine-scale floral and nesting resources within the landscapes surrounding farms, rather than the logic of our model.

Conclusions

The importance of fine-scale resources for pollinator service delivery was supported by sensitivity analyses indicating that the model''s predictions depend largely on estimates of nesting and floral resources within crops. Despite the need for more research at the finer-scale, the approach fills an important gap by providing quantitative and mechanistic model from which to evaluate policy decisions and develop land-use plans that promote pollination conservation and service delivery.Key words: Agriculture, bees, ecosystem services, landscape ecology, model, land use, pollinators     

A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems

Bees provide essential pollination services that are potentially affected both by local farm management and the surrounding landscape. To better understand these different factors, we modelled the relative effects of landscape composition (nesting and floral resources within foraging distances), landscape configuration (patch shape, interpatch connectivity and habitat aggregation) and farm management (organic vs. conventional and local‐scale field diversity), and their interactions, on wild bee abundance and richness for 39 crop systems globally. Bee abundance and richness were higher in diversified and organic fields and in landscapes comprising more high‐quality habitats; bee richness on conventional fields with low diversity benefited most from high‐quality surrounding land cover. Landscape configuration effects were weak. Bee responses varied slightly by biome. Our synthesis reveals that pollinator persistence will depend on both the maintenance of high‐quality habitats around farms and on local management practices that may offset impacts of intensive monoculture agriculture.     

Mass‐flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe

Mass‐flowering crops (MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi‐natural habitats (SNHs). Across six European regions and 2 years, we assessed how landscape‐scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were generally unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator‐dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator‐supporting practices in agricultural landscapes.     

Trait-Specific Responses of Wild Bee Communities to Landscape Composition,Configuration and Local Factors

Land-use intensification and loss of semi-natural habitats have induced a severe decline of bee diversity in agricultural landscapes. Semi-natural habitats like calcareous grasslands are among the most important bee habitats in central Europe, but they are threatened by decreasing habitat area and quality, and by homogenization of the surrounding landscape affecting both landscape composition and configuration. In this study we tested the importance of habitat area, quality and connectivity as well as landscape composition and configuration on wild bees in calcareous grasslands. We made detailed trait-specific analyses as bees with different traits might differ in their response to the tested factors. Species richness and abundance of wild bees were surveyed on 23 calcareous grassland patches in Southern Germany with independent gradients in local and landscape factors. Total wild bee richness was positively affected by complex landscape configuration, large habitat area and high habitat quality (i.e. steep slopes). Cuckoo bee richness was positively affected by complex landscape configuration and large habitat area whereas habitat specialists were only affected by the local factors habitat area and habitat quality. Small social generalists were positively influenced by habitat area whereas large social generalists (bumblebees) were positively affected by landscape composition (high percentage of semi-natural habitats). Our results emphasize a strong dependence of habitat specialists on local habitat characteristics, whereas cuckoo bees and bumblebees are more likely affected by the surrounding landscape. We conclude that a combination of large high-quality patches and heterogeneous landscapes maintains high bee species richness and communities with diverse trait composition. Such diverse communities might stabilize pollination services provided to crops and wild plants on local and landscape scales.     

Are all urban green spaces a favourable habitat for pollinator communities? Bees,butterflies and hoverflies in different urban green areas

1. Urban ecosystems create suitable habitats for many plant and animal species, including pollinators. However, heterogenic habitats in city centres and suburban areas have various effects on pollinators due to variations in the composition of vegetation and in landscape management by humans. 2. This study compared the abundance and species richness of three main groups of pollinators – wild bees, butterflies, and hoverflies – in Poznań, western Poland, and in three different types of urban green areas – urban grasslands, urban parks, and green infrastructure in housing estates. 3. The total abundance of pollinators was higher in urban grasslands than in housing estates and urban parks. Species composition of pollinator communities differed between the three habitat types. 4. The study results showed that species richness and abundance of butterflies varied between habitat types, whereas no such differences were found in the case of wild bees and hoverflies. Cover of green area, vegetation structure, and plant height were important for the pollinator community; however, these variables had different effects depending on habitat type. 5. These findings revealed that not all urban green areas are equally valuable in terms of local biodiversity. High‐quality urban habitats such as urban grasslands are capable of supporting rich and abundant populations of pollinators. Therefore, it is important to protect high‐value urban green areas and simultaneously strive to improve intensively managed urban habitats through effective planning and new management practices.     

Bee Preference for Native versus Exotic Plants in Restored Agricultural Hedgerows

Habitat restoration to promote wild pollinator populations is becoming increasingly common in agricultural lands. Yet, little is known about how wild bees, globally the most important wild pollinators, use resources in restored habitats. We compared bee use of native and exotic plants in two types of restored native plant hedgerows: mature hedgerows (>10 years from establishment) designed for natural enemy enhancement and new hedgerows (≤2 years from establishment) designed to enhance bee populations. Bees were collected from flowers using timed aerial netting and flowering plant cover was estimated by species using cover classes. At mature hedgerow sites, wild bee abundance, richness, and diversity were greater on native plants than exotic plants. At new sites, where native plants were small and had limited floral display, abundance of bees was greater on native plants than exotic plants; but, controlling for floral cover, there was no difference in bee diversity and richness between the two plant types. At both mature and new hedgerows, wild bees preferred to forage from native plants than exotic plants. Honey bees, which were from managed colonies, also preferred native plants at mature hedgerow sites but exhibited no preference at new sites. Our study shows that wild bees, and managed bees in some cases, prefer to forage on native plants in hedgerows over co‐occurring weedy, exotic plants. Semi‐quantitative ranking identified which native plants were most preferred. Hedgerow restoration with native plants may help enhance wild bee abundance and diversity, and maintain honey bee health, in agricultural areas.     

Management affects the pollinator abundance but not the reproductive success of butterfly orchids

Management of semi-natural grasslands should be based on the requirements of plants as well as their pollinators since conditions beneficial for plants are not necessarily beneficial for their pollinators and vice versa. The factors affecting the reproductive success (fruit set) of Platanthera bifolia and Platanthera chlorantha and their pollinators in agricultural landscape and woodlands were studied. In the years 2014–2016, we observed and caught moths during the flowering period of Platanthera species (late June–mid July) in four pure P. bifolia, five pure P. chlorantha and nine mixed populations under management or no management in Estonia. We determined pollinator species richness, pollinator abundance, fruit set and visibility of Platanthera plants in each population. We found that pollinator assemblages of P. bifolia and P. chlorantha did not differ between managed and unmanaged sites. Pollinator abundance had an effect on the fruit set of P. bifolia but not on that of P. chlorantha. Presence or absence of management, visibility of plants and rarefied pollinator species richness did not affect the fruit set of either plant species. Pollinator abundance was significantly higher in unmanaged populations of both plant species but rarefied pollinator species richness was higher only in unmanaged populations of P. chlorantha. Based on our findings the recommendations for management of semi-natural grasslands are to promote larger landscape diversity for the benefit of moth abundance by leaving unmanaged patches in different parts of a grassland in different years and rotational and post-fruiting management for higher reproductive success of orchids.     

Bees in the six: Determinants of bumblebee habitat quality in urban landscapes

With growing urbanization, it is becoming increasingly important to design cities in a manner that sustains and enhances biodiversity and ecosystem services. Native bees are critical pollinators that have experienced substantive declines over the past several decades. These declines have captured the attention of the public, particularly urbanites, prompting a large interest in protecting pollinators and their habitats in cities across North America and Europe. Unfortunately, we currently lack research about specific features of urban environments that can enhance the fitness of pollinators. We carried out an intensive study of Bombus impatiens, the Common Eastern Bumblebee, in the city of Toronto (Canada''s largest city), to better understand landscape parameters that provide high‐quality habitat for this species and likely other generalist bees. We divided the city into 270 grid cells and sampled a large number of worker bees, which were then genotyped at twelve hypervariable microsatellite loci. The genetic data allowed us to quantify the effective number of colonies and foraging distance for bumblebees in our study area. We then asked how the city''s landscape and human population demography and income are associated with the availability of high‐quality habitat for B. impatiens. Several aspects of Toronto''s landscape influenced colony density and foraging range. Urbanization had a clear effect on both colony density and foraging distance of workers. On the other hand, functional (i.e., not cosmetic) green space was often associated with higher quality habitats for bumblebees. Our study suggests several planning strategies to enhance habitat quality for bumblebees and other pollinators in cities.     

Managed and unmanaged floral margins for the conservation of bee communities in intensive agricultural areas

Floral resources on crop field margins are a well-accepted measure to increase bee abundance in agricultural landscapes. However, studies have mainly focused on managed margins, while studies on the effect of unmanaged floral margins for the conservation of bees are still scarce. This work aims to test and compare the effects of three types of floral margins (managed herbaceous, managed shrubby, and unmanaged herbaceous) on the abundance and diversity of bees in order to propose a management strategy for the conservation of pollinating insects. Bee abundance was recorded by visual samplings in plots of 2 × 2 square meters over two years in the three margin types in four localities in southern Spain. The diversity of plant species and the flowers they supported were measured to explain the associated bee communities. Differences in the relative abundances of bee families and the number and abundance of bee genera were observed between margin types. Andrenidae was generally more abundant in the herbaceous margins regardless of whether these were managed or not. With the exception of the Halictidae, the majority of bees families (wild Apidae, Apis mellifera, Colletidae and Megachilidae) were more abundant in the managed than unmanaged margins. Moreover, the number of bee genera was higher in managed than in unmanaged margins. In addition, here we show that managed margins supported at least 30% more rare bee genera than unmanaged margins, highlighting the importance of floral margins management for the enhancement and conservation of bee communities, restoring habitat and food resources for pollinators across the Mediterranean agricultural landscape.     

Diversity and Distribution of Floral Resources Influence the Restoration of Plant–Pollinator Networks on a Reclaimed Strip Mine

Plant–pollinator mutualisms are one of the several functional relationships that must be reinstated to ensure the long‐term success of habitat restoration projects. These mutualisms are unlikely to reinstate themselves until all of the resource requirements of pollinators have been met. By meeting these requirements, projects can improve their long‐term success. We hypothesized that pollinator assemblage and structure and stability of plant–pollinator networks depend both on aspects of the surrounding landscape and of the restoration effort itself. We predicted that pollinator species diversity and network stability would be negatively associated with distance from remnant habitat, but that local floral diversity might rescue pollinator diversity and network stability in locations distant from the remnant. We created plots of native prairie on a reclaimed strip mine in central Ohio, U.S.A. that ranged in floral diversity and isolation from the remnant habitat. We found that the pollinator diversity declined with distance from the remnant habitat. Furthermore, reduced pollinator diversity in low floral diversity plots far from the remnant habitat was associated with loss of network stability. High floral diversity, however, compensated for losses in pollinator diversity in plots far from the remnant habitat through the attraction of generalist pollinators. Generalist pollinators increased network connectance and plant‐niche overlap. As a result, network robustness of high floral diversity plots was independent of isolation. We conclude that the aspects of the restoration effort itself, such as floral community composition, can be successfully tailored to incorporate the restoration of pollinators and improve success given a particular landscape context.     

Buzziness as usual? Questioning the global pollination crisis

Concerns have been raised that invertebrate pollinators of crops and wild plants are in decline as a result of modern agricultural practices, habitat degradation, and introduced pests and diseases. This has led to demands for a response by land managers, conservationists and political decision makers to the impending 'global pollinator crisis'. In questioning this crisis, it becomes apparent that perceptions of a pollinator crisis are driven mainly by reported declines of crop-pollinating honeybees in North America, and bumblebees and butterflies in Europe, whereas native pollinator communities elsewhere show mixed responses to environmental change. Additionally, few staple food crops depend on pollinator services, and most crops that do are grown at small scales in diversified agro-ecosystems that are likely to support healthy pollinator communities, or in highly managed systems that are largely independent of wild pollinators. Consequently, justifying conservation action on the basis of deteriorating pollinator services might be misplaced. Nevertheless, existing initiatives to monitor pollinators are well founded, given the uncertainty about the dynamics of pollinator populations.