Search

Supporting ecosystem services and conserving biodiversity may be compatible goals, but there is concern that service‐focused interventions mostly benefit a few common species. We use a spatially replicated, multiyear experiment in four agricultural settings to test if enhancing habitat adjacent to crops increases wild bee diversity and abundance on and off crops. We found that enhanced field edges harbored more taxonomically and functionally abundant, diverse, and compositionally different bee communities compared to control edges. Enhancements did not increase the abundance or diversity of bees visiting crops, indicating that the supply of pollination services was unchanged following enhancement. We find that actions to promote crop pollination improve multiple dimensions of biodiversity, underscoring their conservation value, but these benefits may not be spilling over to crops. More work is needed to identify the conditions that promote effective co‐management of biodiversity and ecosystem services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Providing noncrop flowering resources in agricultural landscapes is widely promoted as a strategy to support arthropods that deliver pollination and pest control services. However, management options have largely been developed separately for pollinators and natural enemies, whereas possible effects on insect herbivores, such as crop pests, have often been overlooked. A first critical step for design and implementation of multifunctional plantings that promote beneficial arthropods while controlling insect pests is to identify suitable plant species to use.We aimed to identify California native plants and, more generally, plant traits suitable for the coordinated management of pollinators (wild bees and honeybees), insect herbivores and arthropod natural enemies (predators and parasitic wasps). We established 43 plant species in a common garden experiment and sampled arthropods by weekly netting (wild bees), observations (honeybees), or vacuum sampling (insect herbivores, arthropod predators, and parasitic wasps) during peak bloom of each plant species over 2 years.Plant species differed in attractiveness for each arthropod functional group. Floral area of the focal plant species positively affected honeybee, predator, and parasitic wasp attractiveness. Later bloom period was associated with lower numbers of parasitic wasps. Flower type (actinomorphic, composite, or zygomorphic) predicted attractiveness for honeybees, which preferred actinomorphic over composite flowers and for parasitic wasps, which preferred composite flowers over actinomorphic flowers.Across plant species, herbivore, predator, and parasitic wasp abundances were positively correlated, and honeybee abundance correlated negatively to herbivore abundance.Synthesis and applications. We use data from our common garden experiment to inform evidence‐based selection of plants that support pollinators and natural enemies without enhancing potential pests. We recommend selecting plant species with a high floral area per ground area unit, as this metric predicts the abundances of several groups of beneficial arthropods. Multiple correlations between functionally important arthropod groups across plant species stress the importance of a multifunctional approach to arthropod habitat management. We use data from our common garden experiment to inform evidence‐based selection of plants that support pollinators and natural enemies without enhancing potential pests. We recommend selecting plant species with a high floral area per ground area unit, as this metric predicts the abundances of several groups of beneficial arthropods. Multiple correlations between functionally important arthropod groups across plant species stress the importance of a multifunctional approach to arthropod habitat management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The engineering of flowering agricultural field borders has emerged as a research and policy priority to mitigate threats to pollinators. Studies have, however, rarely addressed the potential that flowering field borders might compete with neighboring crops for pollinator visits if they both are in bloom at the same time, despite this being a concern expressed by growers. We evaluated how wildflower plantings added to orchard borders in a large (512 ha) commercial almond orchard affected honey bee and wild bee visitation to orchard borders and the crop. The study was conducted over two consecutive seasons using three large (0.48 ha) wildflower plantings paired with control orchard borders in a highly simplified agricultural landscape in California. Honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) and wild bee visitation to wildflower plots were at least an order of magnitude higher than to control plots, but increased honey bee visitation to wildflower plots did not lead to any detectable shifts in honey bee visitation to almond flowers in the neighboring orchard. Wild bees were rarely observed visiting almond flowers irrespective of border treatment, indicating a limited short-term potential for augmenting crop pollination using wild bees in highly simplified agricultural landscapes. Although further studies are warranted on bee visitation and crop yield from spatially independent orchards, this study indicates that growers can support bees with alternative forage in almond orchards without risking competition between the wildflower plantings and the crop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Native forbs have become a more central component of restoration programs, especially because of their role in supporting crop pollinators. This study evaluates the success of different native forb mixes and seeding rates using shared goals of restoration practitioners and agroecologists, namely percent native species cover, floral resources, native diversity, and cost-effectiveness. At 6 sites with hedgerows adjacent to agricultural lands in California's Central Valley, we planted 3 native forb seed mixes at 3 seeding rates and monitored germination, percent cover, and floral resources for 2 to 3 years. We also evaluated the cost of the mixes based on seeding rates and original seed prices. More than mix type, relative seeding rate strongly affected germination, cover, and floral resource success. The relative benefits of seeding with more species diminished at higher seeding rates, especially when cost was considered. Cover increased significantly over the years but diversity declined sharply after the first year. Increased cover of target species was mainly due to the effect of 1 dominant species Grindelia camporum, common gumplant. We summarize data from a similar forb restoration study showing that the species that dominated in our mix-and-rate experimental sites also attracted the greatest diversity and abundance of pollinators. These findings highlight trade-offs and balance-points within restoration and pollination services goals. We offer suggestions on how to weigh those trade-offs, given particular priorities and how native forb plantings can support combined goals of pollination services and restoration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.