1
|
Key tropical crops at risk from pollinator loss due to climate change and land use. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2023; 9:eadh0756. [PMID: 37824611 PMCID: PMC10569713 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adh0756] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/08/2023] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023]
Abstract
Insect pollinator biodiversity is changing rapidly, with potential consequences for the provision of crop pollination. However, the role of land use-climate interactions in pollinator biodiversity changes, as well as consequent economic effects via changes in crop pollination, remains poorly understood. We present a global assessment of the interactive effects of climate change and land use on pollinator abundance and richness and predictions of the risk to crop pollination from the inferred changes. Using a dataset containing 2673 sites and 3080 insect pollinator species, we show that the interactive combination of agriculture and climate change is associated with large reductions in insect pollinators. As a result, it is expected that the tropics will experience the greatest risk to crop production from pollinator losses. Localized risk is highest and predicted to increase most rapidly, in regions of sub-Saharan Africa, northern South America, and Southeast Asia. Via pollinator loss alone, climate change and agricultural land use could be a risk to human well-being.
Collapse
|
2
|
Quantify wild areas that optimize agricultural yields. Nature 2023; 622:697. [PMID: 37875620 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-023-03312-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2023]
|
3
|
The importance of multi-year studies and commercial yield metrics in measuring pollinator dependence ratios: A case study in UK raspberries Rubus idaeus L. Ecol Evol 2023; 13:e10044. [PMID: 37168988 PMCID: PMC10164645 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.10044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/31/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 04/13/2023] [Indexed: 05/13/2023] Open
Abstract
The benefit of pollinators to crop production is normally calculated using "pollinator dependence ratios," which reflect the proportion of yield lost (here reported as a value between 0 and 1) in the absence of pollinators; these ratios are quantified experimentally using pollinator exclusion experiments. Pollinator dependence ratio estimates can vary considerably for a single crop, creating large, frequently overlooked, uncertainty in economic valuations of pollinators. The source of this variation is usually unclear. We experimentally measured the pollinator dependence ratio of two UK commercial cultivars of raspberry Rubus idaeus L., using a range of yield metrics-fruit set, marketable fruit set, fruit weight, and marketable fruit weight-over 3 years (2019-2021), to quantify the effects of yield metric, interannual variation, and cultivar on pollinator dependence ratio estimates. We found a difference in the pollinator dependence ratio for fruit set of 0.71 between 2019 and 2020, showing the importance of carrying out exclusion studies over multiple years. Averaged over multiple years and two cultivars, the dependence ratio was 0.68 measured using marketable fruit set and 0.64 using marketable fruit weight. Imposing a quality threshold (size and shape) below which fruits would not be of commercial value (marketable fruit set/weight) dramatically increased both the pollinator dependence ratio and subsequent economic valuations of pollination service derived from it. Our study shows that, for raspberry, estimates of the pollinator dependence ratio, and therefore, the economic value of insect pollinators, are highly sensitive to the choice of yield metric and can change between years and cultivars. Many economic decisions about pollinator management, at farm, regional and national scales rely on estimates of pollinator dependence. We, therefore, recommend that for estimating pollinator dependence ratios, pollinator exclusion studies are conducted over three or more years and use yield metrics that incorporate quality criteria linked to actual market values and commercial thresholds.
Collapse
|
4
|
Grand challenges in entomology: Priorities for action in the coming decades. INSECT CONSERVATION AND DIVERSITY 2023; 16:173-189. [PMID: 38505358 PMCID: PMC10947029 DOI: 10.1111/icad.12637] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 02/21/2023] [Indexed: 03/21/2024]
Abstract
Entomology is key to understanding terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems at a time of unprecedented anthropogenic environmental change and offers substantial untapped potential to benefit humanity in a variety of ways, from improving agricultural practices to managing vector-borne diseases and inspiring technological advances.We identified high priority challenges for entomology using an inclusive, open, and democratic four-stage prioritisation approach, conducted among the membership and affiliates (hereafter 'members') of the UK-based Royal Entomological Society (RES).A list of 710 challenges was gathered from 189 RES members. Thematic analysis was used to group suggestions, followed by an online vote to determine initial priorities, which were subsequently ranked during an online workshop involving 37 participants.The outcome was a set of 61 priority challenges within four groupings of related themes: (i) 'Fundamental Research' (themes: Taxonomy, 'Blue Skies' [defined as research ideas without immediate practical application], Methods and Techniques); (ii) 'Anthropogenic Impacts and Conservation' (themes: Anthropogenic Impacts, Conservation Options); (iii) 'Uses, Ecosystem Services and Disservices' (themes: Ecosystem Benefits, Technology and Resources [use of insects as a resource, or as inspiration], Pests); (iv) 'Collaboration, Engagement and Training' (themes: Knowledge Access, Training and Collaboration, Societal Engagement).Priority challenges encompass research questions, funding objectives, new technologies, and priorities for outreach and engagement. Examples include training taxonomists, establishing a global network of insect monitoring sites, understanding the extent of insect declines, exploring roles of cultivated insects in food supply chains, and connecting professional with amateur entomologists. Responses to different challenges could be led by amateur and professional entomologists, at all career stages.Overall, the challenges provide a diverse array of options to inspire and initiate entomological activities and reveal the potential of entomology to contribute to addressing global challenges related to human health and well-being, and environmental change.
Collapse
|
5
|
Characterization Factors to Assess Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance in Life Cycle Assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 2023; 57:3445-3454. [PMID: 36780611 PMCID: PMC9979645 DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.2c05311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/22/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 01/31/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023]
Abstract
While wild pollinators play a key role in global food production, their assessment is currently missing from the most commonly used environmental impact assessment method, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is mainly due to constraints in data availability and compatibility with LCA inventories. To target this gap, relative pollinator abundance estimates were obtained with the use of a Delphi assessment, during which 25 experts, covering 16 nationalities and 45 countries of expertise, provided scores for low, typical, and high expected abundance associated with 24 land use categories. Based on these estimates, this study presents a set of globally generic characterization factors (CFs) that allows translating land use into relative impacts to wild pollinator abundance. The associated uncertainty of the CFs is presented along with an illustrative case to demonstrate the applicability in LCA studies. The CFs based on estimates that reached consensus during the Delphi assessment are recommended as readily applicable and allow key differences among land use types to be distinguished. The resulting CFs are proposed as the first step for incorporating pollinator impacts in LCA studies, exemplifying the use of expert elicitation methods as a useful tool to fill data gaps that constrain the characterization of key environmental impacts.
Collapse
|
6
|
Navigating a shifting agri‐environment policy landscape to conserve butterflies. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12795] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
|
7
|
Rapid assessment of insect pollination services to inform decision-making. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13886. [PMID: 35075685 PMCID: PMC9542742 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2021] [Revised: 11/16/2021] [Accepted: 12/01/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Pollinator declines have prompted efforts to assess how land-use change affects insect pollinators and pollination services in agricultural landscapes. Yet many tools to measure insect pollination services require substantial landscape-scale data and technical expertise. In expert workshops, 3 straightforward methods (desk-based method, field survey, and empirical manipulation with exclusion experiments) for rapid insect pollination assessment at site scale were developed to provide an adaptable framework that is accessible to nonspecialist with limited resources. These methods were designed for TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment) and allow comparative assessment of pollination services at a site of conservation interest and in its most plausible alternative state (e.g., converted to agricultural land). We applied the methods at a nature reserve in the United Kingdom to estimate the value of insect pollination services provided by the reserve. The economic value of pollination services provided by the reserve ranged from US$6163 to US$11,546/year. The conversion of the reserve to arable land would provide no insect pollination services and a net annual benefit from insect-pollinated crop production of approximately $1542/year (US$24∙ha-1 ∙year-1 ). The methods had wide applicability and were readily adapted to different insect-pollinated crops: rape (Brassica napus) and beans (Vicia faba) crops. All methods were rapidly employed under a low budget. The relatively less robust methods that required fewer resources yielded higher estimates of annual insect pollination benefit.
Collapse
|
8
|
Mapping nectar-rich pollinator floral resources using airborne multispectral imagery. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2022; 313:114942. [PMID: 35421693 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2021] [Revised: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 03/18/2022] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
Wild pollinator numbers are known to be positively associated with amounts of flower-rich habitat at landscape level. Increasing floral resources can be particularly beneficial in relatively nectar-poor agricultural systems and having a baseline understanding of the temporal and spatial availability of resources can allow targeted habitat management. Very high-resolution remote sensing has potential to facilitate accurate mapping of fine-scale, within-habitat pollinator foraging resources, thereby allowing spatial and temporal gaps to be identified and addressed, improving predictions of pollinator numbers, and enabling remote monitoring of pollinator conservation measures. Concentrating on hedgerow and flower-rich field margins in a UK agricultural landscape, we showed that multispectral airborne imagery with 3 cm and 7 cm spatial resolutions can be used to classify five nectar-rich flowering plant species (Prunus spinosa, Crataegus monogyna, Rubus fruticosus, Silene dioica and Centaurea nigra) using a maximum likelihood classification algorithm. In 2019, we separately acquired 3 cm and 7 cm imagery for the months of March, May and July, respectively. Overall accuracies were above 90% for each month at both 3 cm and 7 cm resolutions (range 92.32%-98.72%), supporting previous research that suggests higher spatial resolutions do not necessarily lead to higher accuracies, as pixel variability is increased. Remaining challenges include determining which co-flowering species of similar colours in the visible range can be distinguished from one another within classifications and quantifying floral unit density from classifications so that the nectar sugar supply can be calculated. Nonetheless, we provided a prototype approach for mapping pollinator foraging resources in an agricultural context, which can be extended to other nectar-rich species. The foundation is set for developing a remote sensing pipeline that can provide valuable data on the availability of nectar-rich flowering plant species at different time-points throughout the year.
Collapse
|
9
|
From science to society: implementing effective strategies to improve wild pollinator health. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2022; 377:20210165. [PMID: 35491595 PMCID: PMC9058532 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2021.0165] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Despite a substantial increase in scientific, public and political interest in pollinator health and many practical conservation efforts, incorporating initiatives across a range of scales and sectors, pollinator health continues to decline. We review existing pollinator conservation initiatives and define their common structural elements. We argue that implementing effective action for pollinators requires further scientific understanding in six key areas: (i) status and trends of pollinator populations; (ii) direct and indirect drivers of decline, including their interactions; (iii) risks and co-benefits of pollinator conservation actions for ecosystems; (iv) benefits of pollinator conservation for society; (v) the effectiveness of context-specific, tailored, actionable solutions; and (vi) integrated frameworks that explicitly link benefits and values with actions to reverse declines. We propose use of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework to link issues and identify critical gaps in both understanding and action for pollinators. This approach reveals the centrality of addressing the recognized indirect drivers of decline, such as patterns of global trade and demography, which are frequently overlooked in current pollinator conservation efforts. Finally, we discuss how existing and new approaches in research can support efforts to move beyond these shortcomings in pollinator conservation initiatives. This article is part of the theme issue 'Natural processes influencing pollinator health: from chemistry to landscapes'.
Collapse
|
10
|
Facilitating the wise use of experts and evidence to inform local environmental decisions. PEOPLE AND NATURE 2022. [DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10328] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
|
11
|
A framework and case study to systematically identify long‐term insect abundance and diversity datasets. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2022. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.12687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
|
12
|
Giving stakeholders a voice in governance: Biodiversity priorities for New Zealand's agriculture. PEOPLE AND NATURE 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
|
13
|
A horizon scan of global biological conservation issues for 2022. Trends Ecol Evol 2021; 37:95-104. [PMID: 34809998 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.10.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2021] [Revised: 10/25/2021] [Accepted: 10/26/2021] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
Abstract
We present the results of our 13th annual horizon scan of issues likely to impact on biodiversity conservation. Issues are either novel within the biological conservation sector or could cause a substantial step-change in impact, either globally or regionally. Our global panel of 26 scientists and practitioners identified 15 issues that we believe to represent the highest priorities for tracking and action. Many of the issues we identified, including the impact of satellite megaconstellations and the use of long-distance wireless energy transfer, have both elements of threats and emerging opportunities. A recent state-sponsored application to commence deep-sea mining represents a significant step-change in impact. We hope that this horizon scan will increase research and policy attention on the highlighted issues.
Collapse
|
14
|
Healthy soil, healthy food, healthy people: An outline of the H3 project. NUTR BULL 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/nbu.12531] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
15
|
A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline. Nat Ecol Evol 2021; 5:1453-1461. [PMID: 34400826 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01534-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 67] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/23/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2021] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.
Collapse
|
16
|
Author Correction: A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline. Nat Ecol Evol 2021; 5:1462. [PMID: 34453136 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01554-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
17
|
|
18
|
|
19
|
Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nat Ecol Evol 2020; 4:1582-1589. [PMID: 33046871 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01295-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2020] [Accepted: 07/31/2020] [Indexed: 01/06/2023]
Abstract
Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.
Collapse
|
20
|
A 2021 Horizon Scan of Emerging Global Biological Conservation Issues. Trends Ecol Evol 2020; 36:87-97. [PMID: 33213887 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2020.10.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2020] [Revised: 10/20/2020] [Accepted: 10/21/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
We present the results from our 12th annual horizon scan of issues likely to impact biological conservation in the future. From a list of 97 topics, our global panel of 25 scientists and practitioners identified the top 15 issues that we believe society may urgently need to address. These issues are either novel in the biological conservation sector or represent a substantial positive or negative step-change in impact at global or regional level. Six issues, such as coral reef deoxygenation and changes in polar coastal productivity, affect marine or coastal ecosystems and seven relate to human and ecosystem-level responses to climate change. Identification of potential forthcoming issues for biological conservation may enable increased preparedness by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers.
Collapse
|
21
|
|
22
|
Estimating the risk of species interaction loss in mutualistic communities. PLoS Biol 2020; 18:e3000843. [PMID: 32866143 PMCID: PMC7485972 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000843] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2020] [Revised: 09/11/2020] [Accepted: 07/31/2020] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Interactions between species generate the functions on which ecosystems and humans depend. However, we lack an understanding of the risk that interaction loss poses to ecological communities. Here, we quantify the risk of interaction loss for 4,330 species interactions from 41 empirical pollination and seed dispersal networks across 6 continents. We estimate risk as a function of interaction vulnerability to extinction (likelihood of loss) and contribution to network feasibility, a measure of how much an interaction helps a community tolerate environmental perturbations. Remarkably, we find that more vulnerable interactions have higher contributions to network feasibility. Furthermore, interactions tend to have more similar vulnerability and contribution to feasibility across networks than expected by chance, suggesting that vulnerability and feasibility contribution may be intrinsic properties of interactions, rather than only a function of ecological context. These results may provide a starting point for prioritising interactions for conservation in species interaction networks in the future. A study of 4,330 species interactions from 41 empirical pollination and seed dispersal networks across six continents reveals that species interactions which are most vulnerable to extinction are also the most important for ecological community stability; moreover, vulnerable interactions that are important for stability tend to be important and vulnerable wherever they occur.
Collapse
|
23
|
Delivering Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM). TRENDS IN PLANT SCIENCE 2020; 25:577-589. [PMID: 32407697 DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2020.01.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 38] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2019] [Revised: 12/05/2019] [Accepted: 01/21/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
The need to reduce pollinator exposure to harmful pesticides has led to calls to expedite the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM). We make the case that IPM is not explicitly 'pollinator friendly', but rather must be adapted to reduce impacts on pollinators and to facilitate synergies between crop pollination and pest control practices and ecosystem services. To reconcile these diverse needs, we introduce a systematic framework for 'integrated pest and pollinator management' (IPPM). We also highlight novel tools to unify monitoring and economic decision-making processes for IPPM and outline key policy actions and knowledge gaps. We propose that IPPM is needed to promote more coordinated, ecosystem-based strategies for sustainable food production, against the backdrop of increasing pesticide regulation and pollinator dependency in agriculture. VIDEO ABSTRACT.
Collapse
|
24
|
A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland. J Appl Ecol 2020; 57:681-694. [PMID: 32362684 PMCID: PMC7188321 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.13572] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Accepted: 11/22/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.
Collapse
|
25
|
A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 2019; 250:109481. [PMID: 31518795 DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.109481] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2019] [Revised: 08/22/2019] [Accepted: 08/25/2019] [Indexed: 05/12/2023]
Abstract
Over the last decade, there has been an increased focus (and pressure) in conservation practice globally towards evidence-based or evidence-informed decision making. Despite calls for increased use of scientific evidence, it often remains aspirational for many conservation organizations. Contributing to this is the lack of guidance on how to identify and classify the array of complex reasons limiting research use. In this study, we collated a comprehensive inventory of 230 factors that facilitate or limit the use of scientific evidence in conservation management decisions, through interviews with conservation practitioners in South Africa and UK and a review of the healthcare literature. We used the inventory, combined with concepts from knowledge exchange and research use theories, to construct a taxonomy that categorizes the barriers and enablers. We compared the similarities and differences between the taxonomies from the conservation and the healthcare fields, and highlighted the common barriers and enablers found within conservation organizations in the United Kingdom and South Africa. The most commonly mentioned barriers limiting the use of scientific evidence in our case studies were associated with the day-to-day decision-making processes of practitioners, and the organizational structures, management processes and resource constraints of conservation organizations. The key characteristics that facilitated the use of science in conservation decisions were associated with an organization's structure, decision-making processes and culture, along with practitioners' attitudes and the relationships between scientists and practitioners. This taxonomy and inventory of barriers and enablers can help researchers, practitioners and other conservation actors to identify aspects within their organizations and cross-institutional networks that limit research use - acting as a guide on how to strengthen the science-practice interface.
Collapse
|
26
|
Evidence Synthesis as the Basis for Decision Analysis: A Method of Selecting the Best Agricultural Practices for Multiple Ecosystem Services. FRONTIERS IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS 2019. [DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2019.00083] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
|
27
|
Semi‐quantitative characterisation of mixed pollen samples using MinION sequencing and Reverse Metagenomics (RevMet). Methods Ecol Evol 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/2041-210x.13265] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
|
28
|
Abundance drives broad patterns of generalisation in plant–hummingbird pollination networks. OIKOS 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/oik.06104] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|
29
|
Worldwide insect declines: An important message, but interpret with caution. Ecol Evol 2019; 9:3678-3680. [PMID: 31015957 PMCID: PMC6467851 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.5153] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2019] [Revised: 03/19/2019] [Accepted: 03/21/2019] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
A recent paper claiming evidence of global insect declines achieved huge media attention, including claims of "insectaggedon" and a "collapse of nature." Here, we argue that while many insects are declining in many places around the world, the study has important limitations that should be highlighted. We emphasise the robust evidence of large and rapid insect declines present in the literature, while also highlighting the limitations of the original study.
Collapse
|
30
|
|
31
|
Developing pathways to improve smallholder agricultural productivity through ecological intensification technologies in semi-arid Limpopo, South Africa. AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION & DEVELOPMENT 2019. [DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2018.1550936] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
32
|
A Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation in 2019. Trends Ecol Evol 2019; 34:83-94. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/12/2018] [Revised: 11/01/2018] [Accepted: 11/01/2018] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
|
33
|
What agricultural practices are most likely to deliver “sustainable intensification” in the UK? Food Energy Secur 2018. [DOI: 10.1002/fes3.148] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
|
34
|
|
35
|
Standardized reporting of the costs of management interventions for biodiversity conservation. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2018; 32:979-988. [PMID: 30039609 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2017] [Revised: 04/29/2018] [Accepted: 05/21/2018] [Indexed: 06/08/2023]
Abstract
Effective conservation management interventions must combat threats and deliver benefits at costs that can be achieved within limited budgets. Considerable effort has focused on measuring the potential benefits of conservation interventions, but explicit quantification of the financial costs of implementation is rare. Even when costs have been quantified, haphazard and inconsistent reporting means published values are difficult to interpret. This reporting deficiency hinders progress toward a collective understanding of the financial costs of management interventions across projects and thus limits the ability to identify efficient solutions to conservation problems or attract adequate funding. We devised a standardized approach to describing financial costs reported for conservation interventions. The standards call for researchers and practitioners to describe the objective and outcome, context and methods, and scale of costed interventions, and to state which categories of costs are included and the currency and date for reported costs. These standards aim to provide enough contextual information that readers and future users can interpret the cost data appropriately. We suggest these standards be adopted by major conservation organizations, conservation science institutions, and journals so that cost reporting is comparable among studies. This would support shared learning and enhance the ability to identify and perform cost-effective conservation.
Collapse
|
36
|
Moving from frugivory to seed dispersal: Incorporating the functional outcomes of interactions in plant-frugivore networks. J Anim Ecol 2018; 87:995-1007. [PMID: 29603211 PMCID: PMC6849527 DOI: 10.1111/1365-2656.12831] [Citation(s) in RCA: 44] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2017] [Accepted: 03/21/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
There is growing interest in understanding the functional outcomes of species interactions in ecological networks. For many mutualistic networks, including pollination and seed dispersal networks, interactions are generally sampled by recording animal foraging visits to plants. However, these visits may not reflect actual pollination or seed dispersal events, despite these typically being the ecological processes of interest. Frugivorous animals can act as seed dispersers, by swallowing entire fruits and dispersing their seeds, or as pulp peckers or seed predators, by pecking fruits to consume pieces of pulp or seeds. These processes have opposing consequences for plant reproductive success. Therefore, equating visitation with seed dispersal could lead to biased inferences about the ecology, evolution and conservation of seed dispersal mutualisms. Here, we use natural history information on the functional outcomes of pairwise bird–plant interactions to examine changes in the structure of seven European plant–frugivore visitation networks after non‐mutualistic interactions (pulp pecking and seed predation) have been removed. Following existing knowledge of the contrasting structures of mutualistic and antagonistic networks, we hypothesized a number of changes following interaction removal, such as increased nestedness and lower specialization. Non‐mutualistic interactions with pulp peckers and seed predators occurred in all seven networks, accounting for 21%–48% of all interactions and 6%–24% of total interaction frequency. When non‐mutualistic interactions were removed, there were significant increases in network‐level metrics such as connectance and nestedness, while robustness decreased. These changes were generally small, homogenous and driven by decreases in network size. Conversely, changes in species‐level metrics were more variable and sometimes large, with significant decreases in plant degree, interaction frequency, specialization and resilience to animal extinctions and significant increases in frugivore species strength. Visitation data can overestimate the actual frequency of seed dispersal services in plant–frugivore networks. We show here that incorporating natural history information on the functions of species interactions can bring us closer to understanding the processes and functions operating in ecological communities. Our categorical approach lays the foundation for future work quantifying functional interaction outcomes along a mutualism–antagonism continuum, as documented in other frugivore faunas.
Collapse
|
37
|
|
38
|
A 2018 Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation and Biological Diversity. Trends Ecol Evol 2018; 33:47-58. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2017.11.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 72] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2017] [Accepted: 11/15/2017] [Indexed: 01/03/2023]
|
39
|
|
40
|
Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol Lett 2017; 20:673-689. [PMID: 28346980 PMCID: PMC6849539 DOI: 10.1111/ele.12762] [Citation(s) in RCA: 113] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/11/2016] [Revised: 12/29/2016] [Accepted: 02/16/2017] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Worldwide, human appropriation of ecosystems is disrupting plant–pollinator communities and pollination function through habitat conversion and landscape homogenisation. Conversion to agriculture is destroying and degrading semi‐natural ecosystems while conventional land‐use intensification (e.g. industrial management of large‐scale monocultures with high chemical inputs) homogenises landscape structure and quality. Together, these anthropogenic processes reduce the connectivity of populations and erode floral and nesting resources to undermine pollinator abundance and diversity, and ultimately pollination services. Ecological intensification of agriculture represents a strategic alternative to ameliorate these drivers of pollinator decline while supporting sustainable food production, by promoting biodiversity beneficial to agricultural production through management practices such as intercropping, crop rotations, farm‐level diversification and reduced agrochemical use. We critically evaluate its potential to address and reverse the land use and management trends currently degrading pollinator communities and potentially causing widespread pollination deficits. We find that many of the practices that constitute ecological intensification can contribute to mitigating the drivers of pollinator decline. Our findings support ecological intensification as a solution to pollinator declines, and we discuss ways to promote it in agricultural policy and practice.
Collapse
|
41
|
Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 2016; 540:220-229. [DOI: 10.1038/nature20588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 811] [Impact Index Per Article: 101.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/15/2016] [Accepted: 11/01/2016] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
|
42
|
A horizon scan of future threats and opportunities for pollinators and pollination. PeerJ 2016; 4:e2249. [PMID: 27602260 PMCID: PMC4991895 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.2249] [Citation(s) in RCA: 89] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2016] [Accepted: 06/22/2016] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Background. Pollinators, which provide the agriculturally and ecologically essential service of pollination, are under threat at a global scale. Habitat loss and homogenisation, pesticides, parasites and pathogens, invasive species, and climate change have been identified as past and current threats to pollinators. Actions to mitigate these threats, e.g., agri-environment schemes and pesticide-use moratoriums, exist, but have largely been applied post-hoc. However, future sustainability of pollinators and the service they provide requires anticipation of potential threats and opportunities before they occur, enabling timely implementation of policy and practice to prevent, rather than mitigate, further pollinator declines. Methods.Using a horizon scanning approach we identified issues that are likely to impact pollinators, either positively or negatively, over the coming three decades. Results.Our analysis highlights six high priority, and nine secondary issues. High priorities are: (1) corporate control of global agriculture, (2) novel systemic pesticides, (3) novel RNA viruses, (4) the development of new managed pollinators, (5) more frequent heatwaves and drought under climate change, and (6) the potential positive impact of reduced chemical use on pollinators in non-agricultural settings. Discussion. While current pollinator management approaches are largely driven by mitigating past impacts, we present opportunities for pre-emptive practice, legislation, and policy to sustainably manage pollinators for future generations.
Collapse
|
43
|
What works in conservation? Using expert assessment of summarised evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION 2016; 25:1383-1399. [PMID: 32355426 PMCID: PMC7175675 DOI: 10.1007/s10531-016-1133-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2016] [Revised: 04/29/2016] [Accepted: 05/07/2016] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
This paper documents an exercise to synthesize and assess the best available scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of different farm practices at enhancing natural pest regulation in agriculture. It demonstrates a novel combination of three approaches to evidence synthesis-systematic literature search, collated synopsis and evidence assessment using an expert panel. These approaches follow a logical sequence moving from a large volume of disparate evidence to a simple, easily understandable answer for use in policy or practice. The example of natural pest regulation in agriculture was selected as a case study within two independent science-policy interface projects, one European and one British. A third funder, a private business, supported the final stage to translate the synthesized findings into a useful, simplified output for agronomists. As a whole, the case study showcases how a network of scientific knowledge holders and knowledge users can work together to improve the use of science in policy and practice. The process identified five practices with good evidence of a benefit to natural pest regulation, with the most beneficial being 'Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull system'. It highlights knowledge gaps, or potential research priorities, by showing practices considered important by stakeholders for which there is not enough evidence to make an assessment of effects on natural pest regulation, including 'Alter the timing of pesticide application.' Finally, the process identifies several important practices where the volume of evidence of effects on natural pest regulation was too large (>300 experimental studies) to be summarised with the resources available, and for which focused systematic reviews may be the best approach. These very well studied practices include 'Reduce tillage' and 'Plant more than one crop per field'.
Collapse
|
44
|
|
45
|
How much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators? Answering a key policy question with incomplete knowledge. ECOLOGICAL ENTOMOLOGY 2015; 40:22-35. [PMID: 26877581 PMCID: PMC4737402 DOI: 10.1111/een.12226] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2015] [Revised: 05/01/2015] [Accepted: 05/05/2015] [Indexed: 05/07/2023]
Abstract
In 2013, an opportunity arose in England to develop an agri-environment package for wild pollinators, as part of the new Countryside Stewardship scheme launched in 2015. It can be understood as a 'policy window', a rare and time-limited opportunity to change policy, supported by a narrative about pollinator decline and widely supported mitigating actions. An agri-environment package is a bundle of management options that together supply sufficient resources to support a target group of species. This paper documents information that was available at the time to develop such a package for wild pollinators. Four questions needed answering: (1) Which pollinator species should be targeted? (2) Which resources limit these species in farmland? (3) Which management options provide these resources? (4) What area of each option is needed to support populations of the target species? Focussing on wild bees, we provide tentative answers that were used to inform development of the package. There is strong evidence that floral resources can limit wild bee populations, and several sources of evidence identify a set of agri-environment options that provide flowers and other resources for pollinators. The final question could only be answered for floral resources, with a wide range of uncertainty. We show that the areas of some floral resource options in the basic Wild Pollinator and Farmland Wildlife Package (2% flower-rich habitat and 1 km flowering hedgerow), are sufficient to supply a set of six common pollinator species with enough pollen to feed their larvae at lowest estimates, using minimum values for estimated parameters where a range was available. We identify key sources of uncertainty, and stress the importance of keeping the Package flexible, so it can be revised as new evidence emerges about how to achieve the policy aim of supporting pollinators on farmland.
Collapse
|
46
|
The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2015; 29:1006-1016. [PMID: 25997591 PMCID: PMC4529739 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12536] [Citation(s) in RCA: 256] [Impact Index Per Article: 28.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/15/2014] [Revised: 02/20/2015] [Accepted: 02/25/2015] [Indexed: 05/19/2023]
Abstract
Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.
Collapse
|
47
|
The effect of scientific evidence on conservation practitioners' management decisions. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2015; 29:88-98. [PMID: 25103469 PMCID: PMC4515094 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 74] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2013] [Accepted: 05/13/2014] [Indexed: 05/20/2023]
Abstract
A major justification of environmental management research is that it helps practitioners, yet previous studies show it is rarely used to inform their decisions. We tested whether conservation practitioners focusing on bird management were willing to use a synopsis of relevant scientific literature to inform their management decisions. This allowed us to examine whether the limited use of scientific information in management is due to a lack of access to the scientific literature or whether it is because practitioners are either not interested or unable to incorporate the research into their decisions. In on-line surveys, we asked 92 conservation managers, predominantly from Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, to provide opinions on 28 management techniques that could be applied to reduce predation on birds. We asked their opinions before and after giving them a summary of the literature about the interventions' effectiveness. We scored the overall effectiveness and certainty of evidence for each intervention through an expert elicitation process-the Delphi method. We used the effectiveness scores to assess the practitioners' level of understanding and awareness of the literature. On average, each survey participant changed their likelihood of using 45.7% of the interventions after reading the synopsis of the evidence. They were more likely to implement effective interventions and avoid ineffective actions, suggesting that their intended future management strategies may be more successful than current practice. More experienced practitioners were less likely to change their management practices than those with less experience, even though they were not more aware of the existing scientific information than less experienced practitioners. The practitioners' willingness to change their management choices when provided with summarized scientific evidence suggests that improved accessibility to scientific information would benefit conservation management outcomes.
Collapse
|
48
|
|
49
|
Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a '4S' hierarchy. Trends Ecol Evol 2014; 29:607-13. [PMID: 25280588 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.09.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 83] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2014] [Revised: 08/01/2014] [Accepted: 09/10/2014] [Indexed: 10/24/2022]
Abstract
Making decisions informed by the best-available science is an objective for many organisations managing the environment or natural resources. Yet, available science is still not widely used in environmental policy and practice. We describe a '4S' hierarchy for organising relevant science to inform decisions. This hierarchy has already revolutionised clinical practice. It is beginning to emerge for environmental management, although all four levels need substantial development before environmental decision-makers can reliably and efficiently find the evidence they need. We expose common bypass routes that currently lead to poor or biased representation of scientific knowledge. We argue that the least developed level of the hierarchy is that closest to decision-makers, placing synthesised scientific knowledge into environmental decision support systems.
Collapse
|
50
|
The potential for indirect effects between co-flowering plants via shared pollinators depends on resource abundance, accessibility and relatedness. Ecol Lett 2014; 17:1389-99. [DOI: 10.1111/ele.12342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 135] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2014] [Revised: 05/26/2014] [Accepted: 07/20/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|