-
PloS One 2019Bees and the pollination services they deliver are beneficial to both food crop production, and for reproduction of many wild plant species. Bee decline has stimulated...
Bees and the pollination services they deliver are beneficial to both food crop production, and for reproduction of many wild plant species. Bee decline has stimulated widespread interest in assessing hazards and risks to bees from the environment in which they live. While there is increasing knowledge on how the use of broad-spectrum insecticides in agricultural systems may impact bees, little is known about effects of other pesticides (or plant protection products; PPPs) such as herbicides and fungicides, which are used more widely than insecticides at a global scale. We adopted a systematic approach to review existing research on the potential impacts of fungicides and herbicides on bees, with the aim of identifying research approaches and determining knowledge gaps. While acknowledging that herbicide use can affect forage availability for bees, this review focussed on the potential impacts these compounds could have directly on bees themselves. We found that most studies have been carried out in Europe and the USA, and investigated effects on honeybees. Furthermore, certain effects, such as those on mortality, are well represented in the literature in comparison to others, such as sub-lethal effects. More studies have been carried out in the lab than in the field, and the impacts of oral exposure to herbicides and fungicides have been investigated more frequently than contact exposure. We suggest a number of areas for further research to improve the knowledge base on potential effects. This will allow better assessment of risks to bees from herbicides and fungicides, which is important to inform future management decisions around the sustainable use of PPPs.
Topics: Animals; Bees; Fungicides, Industrial; Herbicides; Life Cycle Stages; Research; Species Specificity
PubMed: 31821341
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225743 -
Global Change Biology Feb 2020Natural hazards are naturally occurring physical events that can impact human welfare both directly and indirectly, via shocks to ecosystems and the services they... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Natural hazards are naturally occurring physical events that can impact human welfare both directly and indirectly, via shocks to ecosystems and the services they provide. Animal-mediated pollination is critical for sustaining agricultural economies and biodiversity, yet stands to lose both from present exposure to natural hazards, and future climate-driven shifts in their distribution, frequency, and intensity. In contrast to the depth of knowledge available for anthropogenic-related threats, our understanding of how naturally occurring extreme events impact pollinators and pollination has not yet been synthesized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the potential impacts of natural hazards on pollinators and pollination in natural and cultivated systems. From a total of 117 studies (74% of which were observational), we found evidence of community and population-level impacts to plants and pollinators from seven hazard types, including climatological (extreme heat, fire, drought), hydrological (flooding), meteorological (hurricanes), and geophysical (volcanic activity, tsunamis). Plant and pollinator response depended on the type of natural hazard and level of biological organization observed; 19% of cases reported no significant impact, whereas the majority of hazards held consistent negative impacts. However, the effects of fire were mixed, but taxa specific; meta-analysis revealed that bee abundance and species richness tended to increase in response to fire, differing significantly from the mainly negative response of Lepidoptera. Building from this synthesis, we highlight important future directions for pollination-focused natural hazard research, including the need to: (a) advance climate change research beyond static "mean-level" changes by better incorporating "shock" events; (b) identify impacts at higher levels of organization, including ecological networks and co-evolutionary history; and (c) address the notable gap in crop pollination services research-particularly in developing regions of the world. We conclude by discussing implications for safeguarding pollination services in the face of global climate change.
Topics: Animals; Bees; Biodiversity; Climate Change; Ecosystem; Fires; Humans; Pollination
PubMed: 31621147
DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14840 -
Biological Reviews of the Cambridge... Aug 2019Approximately 25 years ago, ecologists became increasingly interested in the question of whether ongoing biodiversity loss matters for the functioning of ecosystems. As...
Approximately 25 years ago, ecologists became increasingly interested in the question of whether ongoing biodiversity loss matters for the functioning of ecosystems. As such, a new ecological subfield on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (BEF) was born. This subfield was initially dominated by theoretical studies and by experiments in which biodiversity was manipulated, and responses of ecosystem functions such as biomass production, decomposition rates, carbon sequestration, trophic interactions and pollination were assessed. More recently, an increasing number of studies have investigated BEF relationships in non-manipulated ecosystems, but reviews synthesizing our knowledge on the importance of real-world biodiversity are still largely missing. I performed a systematic review in order to assess how biodiversity drives ecosystem functioning in both terrestrial and aquatic, naturally assembled communities, and on how important biodiversity is compared to other factors, including other aspects of community composition and abiotic conditions. The outcomes of 258 published studies, which reported 726 BEF relationships, revealed that in many cases, biodiversity promotes average biomass production and its temporal stability, and pollination success. For decomposition rates and ecosystem multifunctionality, positive effects of biodiversity outnumbered negative effects, but neutral relationships were even more common. Similarly, negative effects of prey biodiversity on pathogen and herbivore damage outnumbered positive effects, but were less common than neutral relationships. Finally, there was no evidence that biodiversity is related to soil carbon storage. Most BEF studies focused on the effects of taxonomic diversity, however, metrics of functional diversity were generally stronger predictors of ecosystem functioning. Furthermore, in most studies, abiotic factors and functional composition (e.g. the presence of a certain functional group) were stronger drivers of ecosystem functioning than biodiversity per se. While experiments suggest that positive biodiversity effects become stronger at larger spatial scales, in naturally assembled communities this idea is too poorly studied to draw general conclusions. In summary, a high biodiversity in naturally assembled communities positively drives various ecosystem functions. At the same time, the strength and direction of these effects vary highly among studies, and factors other than biodiversity can be even more important in driving ecosystem functioning. Thus, to promote those ecosystem functions that underpin human well-being, conservation should not only promote biodiversity per se, but also the abiotic conditions favouring species with suitable trait combinations.
Topics: Animals; Biodiversity; Biomass; Food Chain; Phylogeny; Soil
PubMed: 30724447
DOI: 10.1111/brv.12499