• Like

Esa2013

  • 191 views
Uploaded on

ESA talk on pollination declines, ecosystem functions, response effect traits and

ESA talk on pollination declines, ecosystem functions, response effect traits and

More in: Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
191
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Ignasi Bartomeus nacho.bartomeus@gmail.com @ibartomeus #ESA2013 Pollinator ecological traits mediate the loss of pollination services with agricultural intensification
  • 2. 76% of crops are animal dependent (Klein et al 2007) Pollination is a key function
  • 3. complement species (14, or “samplin other mecha evenness m complement dominant sp the most eff date, the f portance of crop pollina results (22), on pollinatio unknown, a insect loss o evaluated pollinated cr We teste from the ass effectively p crops, and t placed by i of honey be (1) for mos honey bee v deposition o consequently insect and h proves fruit insects prom honey bees negatively in wild-insect Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance Lucas A. Garibaldi,1 * Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter,2 Rachael Winfree,3 Marcelo A. Aizen,4 Riccardo Bommarco,5 Saul A. Cunningham,6 Claire Kremen,7 Luísa G. Carvalheiro,8,9 Lawrence D. Harder,10 Ohad Afik,11 Ignasi Bartomeus,12 Faye Benjamin,3 Virginie Boreux,13,14 Daniel Cariveau,3 Natacha P. Chacoff,15 Jan H. Dudenhöffer,16 Breno M. Freitas,17 Jaboury Ghazoul,14 Sarah Greenleaf,7 Juliana Hipólito,18 Andrea Holzschuh,2 Brad Howlett,19 Rufus Isaacs,20 Steven K. Javorek,21 Christina M. Kennedy,22 Kristin Krewenka,23 Smitha Krishnan,14 Yael Mandelik,11 Margaret M. Mayfield,24 Iris Motzke,13,23 Theodore Munyuli,25 Brian A. Nault,26 Mark Otieno,27 Jessica Petersen,26 Gideon Pisanty,11 Simon G. Potts,27 Romina Rader,28 Taylor H. Ricketts,29 Maj Rundlöf,5,30 Colleen L. Seymour,31 Christof Schüepp,32,33 Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi,34 Hisatomo Taki,35 Teja Tscharntke,23 Carlos H. Vergara,36 Blandina F. Viana,18 Thomas C. Wanger,23 Catrin Westphal,23 Neal Williams,37 Alexandra M. Klein13 *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lgaribaldi@unrn.edu.ar Affiliations are listed at the end of the text 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. Here we show universally positive associations of fruit set with wild-insect visits to flowers in 41 crop systems worldwide, and thus clearly demonstrate their agricultural value. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively, because increaseFig. 1. Locations of the 41 crop systems studied. Symbols indicate the percentage of total visitation rate to crop flowersGaribaldi et al. 2013 Science
  • 4. How bee declines will affect pollination function?
  • 5. 40% 47% 13% Winfree, Bartomeus, Cariveau 2011,AREES Positive Neutral Negative
  • 6. Not all species are equally vulnerable Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits Ignasi Bartomeusa,b,1 , John S. Ascherc,d , Jason Gibbse , Bryan N. Danforthe , David L. Wagnerf , Shannon M. Hedtkee , and Rachael Winfreea,g a Department of Entomology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901; b Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala SE-75007, Sweden; c Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024-5192; d Department of Biological Sciences, Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117546; e Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853; f Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-3043; and g Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
  • 7. Bee species declining are a non random subset of all species Bartomeus et al 2013 PNAS
  • 8. Bee species declining are a non random subset of all species Do they have common traits? Response traits
  • 9. Bee species declining are a non random subset of all species Not all bees are as efficient crop pollinators Do they have common traits? Response traits
  • 10. Bee species declining are a non random subset of all species Not all bees are as efficient crop pollinators Do they have common traits? Do they have common traits? Effect traits Response traits
  • 11. The Data
  • 12. Systems: Rachael Winfree Faye Benjamin Dan Cariveau
  • 13. Species Abundance 14 15 sites per crop
  • 14. 15 Species Abundance
  • 15. Pollen depositionAbundance X Pollination Function 16
  • 16. Sites Agricultural intensification: Tina Harrison ember 2011 12:49 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 300 to 3,000 m radius a b % Agriculture in1000 radius
  • 17. Species Response traits: which bee traits make them more sensitive to land use change?
  • 18. Traits: -Body size -Specialization (corrected for plant phylogeny) -Phenology -Nest site -Tongue length Species Response traits: which bee traits make them more sensitive to land use change? Are those traits also important for pollination efficiency?
  • 19. Questions: Can we identify response traits typical of the species that decline most with increasing agricultural intensification? (Can we identify effect traits typical of the species that provide the most pollination?) How would trait-mediated species loss order affect function?
  • 20. - traits x agricultural intensification What we need identify response traits?
  • 21. - species x site - species x traits - sites x agricultural intensification - traits x agricultural intensification ES42CH01-Winfree ARI 26 September 2011 12:49 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 300 to 3,000 m radius a b Figure 3 Schematic showing the two study designs contrasted in this review. (a) Design focused on surrounding landscape cover. Sampling is generally done within a fixed habitat type. In the most common design, sites vary in the proportion of surrounding land cover composed of specific habitat types such as forest (dark gree or agriculture ( yellow). The radius at which landscape cover is assessed varies across studies but is typically between 300 and 3,000 m. Other designs, which we include in this category, vary either the linear distance the nearest habitat patch or the area of the habitat patch. (b) Design focused on local land-use type. These studies compare pollinator communities among different habitat types. The surrounding landscape cover and the spatial extent of the habitat type where pollinators are sampled are generally not reported. Figure 4)]. Bees and butterflies both show strong negative responses to land-use change in extrem systems, but more mixed responses in moderate systems (Supplemental Tables 2 and 3). Extrem land use causes a strong decrease in abundance and/or richness (e.g., Aizen & Feinsinger 199 Koh & Sodhi 2004, Kremen et al. 2002, Ockinger & Smith 2006), whereas studies in moderate anthropogenic landscapes find more varied responses (e.g., Bartomeus et al. 2010, Bergman et 2008). Study designs that make comparisons across habitat types, rather than across landscape gr dients, find even fewer negative effects, and responses are predominantly positive for most ta (Supplemental Table 4). For bees, the ratio of negative-to-positive responses decreases fro 8.2 for extreme landscape studies to 2.0 for moderate landscape studies, to 0.5 for across-habit comparisons. For butterflies, the ratios decrease from 6.0 to 3.0 to 1.1, respectively (Suppl mental Tables 2–4). The responses of syrphid flies and vertebrates are difficult to interpr due to the limited number of landscape-scale studies that have been conducted (Supplement Annu.Rev.Ecol.Evol.Syst.2011.42:1-22.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org by67.139.62.82on11/18/11.Forpersonaluseonly. What we need identify response traits?
  • 22. - species x site - species x traits - sites x agricultural intensification - traits x agricultural intensification ES42CH01-Winfree ARI 26 September 2011 12:49 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 300 to 3,000 m radius a b Figure 3 Schematic showing the two study designs contrasted in this review. (a) Design focused on surrounding landscape cover. Sampling is generally done within a fixed habitat type. In the most common design, sites vary in the proportion of surrounding land cover composed of specific habitat types such as forest (dark gree or agriculture ( yellow). The radius at which landscape cover is assessed varies across studies but is typically between 300 and 3,000 m. Other designs, which we include in this category, vary either the linear distance the nearest habitat patch or the area of the habitat patch. (b) Design focused on local land-use type. These studies compare pollinator communities among different habitat types. The surrounding landscape cover and the spatial extent of the habitat type where pollinators are sampled are generally not reported. Figure 4)]. Bees and butterflies both show strong negative responses to land-use change in extrem systems, but more mixed responses in moderate systems (Supplemental Tables 2 and 3). Extrem land use causes a strong decrease in abundance and/or richness (e.g., Aizen & Feinsinger 199 Koh & Sodhi 2004, Kremen et al. 2002, Ockinger & Smith 2006), whereas studies in moderate anthropogenic landscapes find more varied responses (e.g., Bartomeus et al. 2010, Bergman et 2008). Study designs that make comparisons across habitat types, rather than across landscape gr dients, find even fewer negative effects, and responses are predominantly positive for most ta (Supplemental Table 4). For bees, the ratio of negative-to-positive responses decreases fro 8.2 for extreme landscape studies to 2.0 for moderate landscape studies, to 0.5 for across-habit comparisons. For butterflies, the ratios decrease from 6.0 to 3.0 to 1.1, respectively (Suppl mental Tables 2–4). The responses of syrphid flies and vertebrates are difficult to interpr due to the limited number of landscape-scale studies that have been conducted (Supplement Annu.Rev.Ecol.Evol.Syst.2011.42:1-22.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.org by67.139.62.82on11/18/11.Forpersonaluseonly. What we need: The four corner problem: Permutation test Legendre et al 2010 Ecology
  • 23. Body size Body size Specialization Results: Can we identify response traits typical of the species that decline most with increasing agricultural intensification? r = “correlation with intensification”
  • 24. Body size Body size Specialization r = -0.34 p= 0.02 r = -0.22 p= 0.04 r = 0.17 p=0.04 Specialists are doing worst Big are doing worst Big are doing better Results: Can we identify response traits typical of the species that decline most with increasing agricultural intensification?
  • 25. Simulation of order loss How would trait-mediated species loss order affect function? Function % trait removed
  • 26. Specialists first Big species first %Function % trait removed %Function % trait removed
  • 27. Specialists first Big species first %Function % trait removed %Function % trait removed **ns
  • 28. Specialists first Small species first %Function % trait removed %Function % trait removed ***ns
  • 29. Specialists first Big species first %Function % trait removed %Function % trait removed ns*
  • 30. Pollen depositionAbundance X Pollination Function 31
  • 31. all p < 0.05 PollenDeposition % trait removed PollenDeposition PollenDeposition
  • 32. Response traits vary in identity and strength among crops. The response-effect trait framework does not allow us to generalize about how pollinator loss will affect pollination function
  • 33. Thank you - nacho.bartomeus@gmail.com The response-effect trait framework does not allow us to generalize about how pollinator loss will affect pollination function Response traits vary in identity and strength among crops. @ibartomeus funding;
  • 34. Trait mediated loss order vs empirical species order loss Traits mediated Empirical loss order