Content uploaded by Stefanie Christmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stefanie Christmann on May 13, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Pollinator protection strategies must be feasible for all nations
Abstract
By focusing on farmers, policymakers and local communities, a new approach to protect pollinators can become scalable in low-income countries, argues Stefanie Christmann.
... In low-and middle-income countries, due to the perception of wildflowers as weeds, the high priority of food security and the absence of external incentives through agroecological schemes, farmers reject seeding them (Christmann et al., 2017). For Morocco and other low-and middle-income countries, AES are not affordable (Christmann, 2020b). Furthermore, farmers in these countries often reject this method due to opportunity costs and the fear of spreading weeds (Christmann et al., 2021a). ...
... Diversification of agricultural systems by increasing diversity of crops has been an implemented solution to increase sustainability of agricultural production (Blaauw and Isaacs, 2015;Bommarco et al., 2013;Sardiñas and Kremen, 2015). Farming with Alternative Pollinators (FAP) (Christmann, 2019;2020b;Christmann et al., 2017;2021a;Christmann and Aw-Hassan, 2012) is a socioeconomic agro-ecological farming approach focusing on better human understanding and economic sustainability and scalability of flower visitor protection in low-and middle-income countries (Christmann et al., 2021a;. By planting so-called marketable habitat enhancement plants (MHEP) along certain parts of the fields, FAP benefits flower visitors (pollinators and natural enemies) and reduces pests instead of using insecticides (Christmann et al., 2021b). ...
The importance of flower visitors for ecosystem resilience and crop production underscores the need to address the current decline of flower visitors worldwide. Farming Alternative Pollinators (FAP), economic and ecological benefits of fields hosting various marketable habitat enhancement plants, developed for flower visitors protection in low- and middle-income countries, showed multiple benefits for farmers of pollinator-dependent crops, but potential benefits of FAP for production of pollinator-independent crops have not yet been assessed. Therefore, we conducted in 2021 FAP trials with wheat (Triticum aestivum) as the main crop in two regions of Morocco where cereals are mainly grown in monocultures in field sizes ranging from 2 to 5 ha. We tested the effects of fields adding marketable habitat enhancement plants (MHEP; coriander and canola) versus control fields on pests, natural enemies, flower visitors, and net income. We found significantly lower abundance and diversity of pests in wheat fields using MHEP, but no effect on natural enemy presence or net income. The strips of MHEP attracted a high number of flower visitors in both regions (Settat and Sidi Slimane), they supported flower visitor communities by providing plant resources and alternative habitat in monocultural landscapes extremely degraded for flower visitors.
... Instead of receiving external compensation for a seeding service, FAP uses farmerfriendly marketable habitat enhancement plants (MHEP), nesting and water support (Christmann and Aw-Hassan, 2012;Christmann et al., 2017Christmann et al., , 2021. MHEP contribute to farmers' incomes and better production in quantity and for some crops, also in quality (e.g., cucumber and eggplant) by attracting higher diversity and abundance of flower visitors and natural enemies (Christmann and Aw-Hassan, 2012;Christmann et al., 2017;Christmann, 2020;Christmann et al., 2021). One main difference between the WFS and the FAP approach is that WFS focuses on plants and plant-pollinator-networks and (usually) AES pay for a simple seeding service, whereas FAP addresses the reality of the Anthropocene and focuses on changing human behavior through a method-inherent and performance-related incentive: higher income induced by beneficial insects attracted through habitat enhancement . ...
... This might explain to some extent why the net income increase in melon trials (61%) was much lower than on average that of seven different main crops (121%; Christmann et al., 2021) though the pollinator dependency is 'essential' (Klein et al., 2007). However, 61% higher income can still be an incentive for farmers to seed MHEP around melon and thus contribute to pollinator protection, notably in countries unable to afford agroecological schemes for WFS (Christmann, 2020). ...
The presence of pollinating insects in crop fields is an essential factor for agricultural production and pollinator conservation. Agricultural intensification has been identified as a driver of pollinator decline over the last decades and challenges the efficiency of pollination. Several approaches are used to support pollinators and their ecosystem services, notably reward-based wildflower strips. ‘Farming with Alternative Pollinators’ (FAP) aims to attract and sustain pollinators using marketable habitat enhancement plants (MHEP) in the field borders instead of wildflowers. These MHEP are selected in conjunction with farmers. We tested here whether the FAP approach increases diversity and abundance of flower visitors in melon fields in a semi-arid landscape in Morocco. Moreover, we examined whether MHEP increase flower-visitor abundance in melon flowers. We recorded a total of 1330 insect specimens including 573 specimens of wild bees. Lasioglossum malachurum was the major flower visitor in melon and several MHEP. As flower-visitor abundance and diversity in FAP fields were higher than in control fields, we conclude that FAP can be a valuable approach for pollinator protection in agro-ecosystems; 16.5% of wild bees and wasps showed spillover from the field borders to the melon fields.
... Yet, despite their positive effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services, the high implementation costs of these schemes (Batáry et al., 2015;Christmann, 2020;Christmann et al., 2017;Kleijn et al., 2019;Uyttenbroeck et al., 2016) and their reliance on continued external funding have been broadly disputed. Adding to this, wildflower strips favour mainly generalist (i.e. ...
... faba bean, cherry and cucumber, Christmann, Bencharki, et al., 2021;Christmann et al., 2017). Since it does not require external funding, FAP approach is considered a durable, scalable and autonomous tool for pollinator conservation in agro-ecosystems and yield increase, applicable also in low-and middle-income countries, which cannot afford AES (Christmann, 2020). ...
Several management practices have been suggested to mitigate the global pollinator decline in agro‐ecosystems, including wildflower strips and Farming with Alternative Pollinators (FAP). FAP proposes to dedicate 25% of the field area to seed Marketable Habitat Enhancement Plants (MHEP) around the main crop, occupying 75% of the field. However, wild pollinators may not rely fully on the resources that fields provide due to differences in flying period and host‐plant preferences, and need additional resources from wild flowering plant communities. Here we aim to compare wild pollinator communities between FAP fields, monoculture of pollinator dependent crops and the nearby wild flowering plants. We developed two experimental trials with two main crops (faba bean and eggplant) in 16 fields in North‐West Morocco and we compared wild pollinator richness and wild pollinator specialization between FAP fields, control fields and the nearby wild flowering plants. We recorded a significantly higher pollinator richness in FAP fields compared to wild flowering plants and monoculture. Pollinator specialization index (i.e. degree of interaction specialization at the species level) did not differ significantly between the three treatments in faba bean trial (i.e. FAP, control and wild plants), whilst in eggplant trial, wild plants harboured significantly more specialist species than FAP fields. Yet, no significant differences in pollinator specialization index were reported between the other treatments in eggplant trial (i.e. FAP vs. control and control vs. wild plants). Moreover, 28% of the pollinator species collected, were only observed on wild plants, particularly thistles. These results highlight the potential of FAP approach as a tool for pollinator conservation in farmlands. However, the FAP approach alone is not sufficient to cater the diverse pollinators present in the agro‐ecosystem, and hence, the maintenance of the surrounding wild flowering plants is necessary to support pollinators in farmlands.
... Over the last two decades, wildflower strips along fields have been introduced in several European countries within the Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) framework, with positive impacts to biodiversity and ecosystem services (Haaland et al., 2011). However, the high and continued implementation costs of these schemes have led to doubts over their broader accessibility (Batáry et al., 2015;Christmann, 2020;Uyttenbroeck et al., 2016), particularly for low and middle-income countries. The FAP approach uses MHEPs to provide similar resources to pollinators as wildflower strips, but with additional focus on benefits to farmer incomes and improving farmer motivation . ...
Pollinators have dramatically declined over the past 50 years, with over 40% of invertebrate pollinator species at risk of extinction largely due to intensive agriculture, pesticide use, habitat loss and climate change. Pollinators provide an essential ecosystem service, with about 75% of global crops relying on pollination by animals. It is therefore essential to reconsider conventional farming practices, which are largely responsible for this decline. By cultivating flowering crops, 'Marketable Habitat Enhancement Plants', (MHEPs), alongside the edges of pesticide-free farmer fields, the Farming with Alternative Pollinators (FAP) approach aims to enhance the presence of wild pollinators. In this study, we compared the performance of smallholder farmer plots using the FAP approach with plots following conventional approaches, for pollinator abundance and diversity, yield and income for 43 plots in Zimbabwe. We found significantly higher pollinator abundance and richness in FAP plots compared to control plots (despite data collection on only 12 pollinator groups). There was also significantly higher income and higher value of yields for all offtake (main crop + MHEP crops) in FAP plots for both crop cycles measured. However, there were no significant differences between main crop yield and income between FAP and control plots. Plots with higher pollinator abundance showed significantly higher income from all crops and significantly higher value of yields from all crops, showing a clear link between pollinator populations, and crop production and income.
... Ecological intensification represents a critical strategy for mitigating the effects of climate change and promoting sustainable development worldwide in order to sustain biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being Kremen, 2020). Farming with Alternative Pollinators (FAP) was developed as a scalable alternative to (paid) wildflower strips (WFS), which are not affordable for low-and middle-income countries (Christmann, 2020;Christmann et al., 2017Christmann et al., , 2021aChristmann et al., , 2021bChristmann and Aw-Hassan, 2012). FAP uses marketable habitat enhancement plants (MHEP, e.g., oil seeds, spices, food crops and medicinal plants) within fields to provide diverse floral traits, such as shape, color and flower type as well as nesting support from local or waste materials. ...
Insect pollinators are declining worldwide due to many challenges and several approaches have been implemented to mitigate their loss. Farming with Alternative Pollinators (FAP) uses marketable habitat enhancement plants (MHEP) that yield substantial benefits for farmers from the first year. Studies with small-scale farmers have shown that FAP sustains high diversity and abundance of flower visitors and natural enemies, resulting in significant increases in smallholders' incomes, on average 121% higher. For the first time, we analyzed this approach in large-scale fields. Trials were conducted in 16 farms in two regions of Morocco, Sidi Slimane and Ksar El-Kebir, in 2021. We used melon (Cucumis melo) as the main crop and coriander, anise and sunflower as MHEP and selected in each farm 1 ha as trial area in larger monocultures. We compared FAP and control fields regarding abundance and richness of flower visitors, natural enemies and pests as well as net income of the whole field (1 ha). Flower visitors and natural enemies were significantly more diverse and abundant in FAP fields and there were also fewer pests. Our economic results show 17% higher net income per ha in FAP fields versus control fields in the Ksar El-Kebir region, and 12% higher net income in FAP fields compared to control fields in Sidi Slimane region. Although the mean yield difference was statistically significant, the income difference was not. We suggest more FAP trials are needed in different large-scale fields systems.
... Despite the high public interest, homeowners, landscaping companies, and civic entities are often deterred from planting native wildflowers because they typically require complete renovation every two to three years [6,7]. Additionally, traditional herbicides cannot be used to manage weeds [8][9][10][11], seed mixes can be costly, and a limited number of species (often a single one) tend to dominate the space over time [7], creating a monoculture lacking in arthropod and plant diversity. ...
Native flowering forbs plantings have been found to support diverse arthropod communities by providing year-round forage and refuge from prey and chemical pollutants. Typically, pollinator habitats are planted from seeds; however, poor establishment and weed pressure often result in limited success of the planting. In this study, we evaluated two bed preparation techniques, a glyphosate treatment with no tillage and tillage with soil fumigant (dazomet) to determine their impact on herbaceous perennial transplants establishment, weed control, and arthropod presence. Our results suggest that forbs grown in beds that are tilled and treated with dazomet exhibit greater growth, produce more blooms, and experience reduced weed pressure compared to plants grown in untilled beds treated with glyphosate. We also found that the bed preparation method had no effect on arthropod activity, despite higher bloom counts in plants grown in beds prepared with tillage and dazomet applications. This research indicates that of the fifteen native flowering forbs examined in this study, a majority attracted abundant and diverse insect populations, despite variations in plant growth and bloom counts due to bed preparation treatments.
Aim
Occurring in five distinct global regions, Mediterranean‐type ecosystems (MTEs) include both centres of agricultural production and hotspots of extratropical biodiversity – particularly for plants and bees. Considerable research has addressed the persistence of highly diverse biological communities within MTEs, despite their typically long histories of anthropogenic and natural disturbance. However, important questions remain, especially regarding the limits of ecological resilience in the face of accelerating environmental change. Here, we explore current knowledge regarding the effects of disturbance on MTE plant–pollinator communities.
Location
Mediterranean Basin, California, Cape Province in South Africa, Central Chile and Southern South‐Western Australia.
Taxa Studied
Flowering plants and pollinators (insects, birds and mammals).
Methods
We reviewed the available literature about MTE plant–pollinator communities via a systematic search that yielded 234 case studies. We analysed this dataset to quantify research efforts across regions and taxonomic groups, the proportion of surveys addressing ecological interactions (i.e. rather than only taxonomic diversity) and the availability of work addressing community responses to specific stressors (viz. climate change, landscape alteration, fire, farming, grazing, urbanization and species introductions).
Results
Current knowledge on MTE plant–pollinator communities is dominated by work from the northern Mediterranean Basin, while the Southern Hemisphere and California are markedly understudied by comparison. Taxonomic coverage is similarly uneven, with 58% of studies focusing only on a single pollinator group. Furthermore, less than half of the surveys address ecological networks. Finally, despite some pioneering work addressing fire, climate and species introductions, only 13% focus on the impact of stressors on interaction networks.
Outlook
Based on our findings, we identify a need for coordinated international research efforts focusing on (i) community‐level studies, observational and experimental, (ii) ecological networks, (iii) functional traits mediating post‐disturbance recovery and (iv) impacts of combined/synergistic stressors. Progress in these areas will facilitate predictions about the long‐term impacts of global change on MTE plant–pollinator communities.
Pollinators are key agents for ecosystems and humankind concerning biodiversity, agriculture, climate change adaptation and all other ecosystem services. Particularly in industrialized countries pollinator diversity is in decline. The bulk of research is on entomological or plant‐pollinator network related topics, but the broad range of impacts of pollinator loss on coupled human and natural systems is not yet studied. As 87% of all flowering plants depend on pollinators, they are basic for all ecosystem services to some extent. Therefore, pollinator loss might cause simultaneous degradation of ecosystem services inducing counterproductive human responses and interlinked poverty spirals. The interaction of climate change, a main risk factor for pollinators and unadvised human responses to pollinator decline are rarely studied. Tipping points of pollinator loss are not yet identified. Can counterproductive human responses to pollinator deficiency upscale pollinator decline towards a Pollinator‐loss Syndrome in the course of climate change? The article argues for research on the impacts of pollinator loss on other ecosystem services, useful and counterproductive human strategies on pollinator‐loss induced degradation and the integration of pollinator protection into all terrestrial restoration efforts.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The Nagoya Protocol (2010) demonstrated that Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEA) are still
achievable. Pollination services are essential for biodiversity, agriculture, ecosystem services and human wellbeing, but in jeopardy as The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
(IPBES) confirmed. In 2016, thirteen mostly European countries established the Coalition of the Willing on
Pollinators. This group of forerunners increased to twentyone members. Recently, the European Union (EU)
decided to join in 2018. What would be necessary to move forward towards a Multilateral Environmental
Agreement for pollinator protection during the next three or four Conferences of the Parties (COP) of the
Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD)? Current approaches for pollinator protection mostly require subsidies
or donations, they are not scalable and might limit the number of countries promoting a multilateral agreement.
This paper suggests a mix of four strategies and low-cost policy measures across sectors. They would be affordable even for Low Income Countries (LIC), but require addressing certain research gaps to set the stage for
policymakers.
Pollinator decline is acknowledged worldwide and constitutes a major subject of environmental research. Nevertheless, farmers’ efforts to protect pollinators in agricultural lands remain very limited, in particular if no compensation scheme is applicable. Current research focuses on measuring pollinator diversity in different landscapes, but research on income gains, due to habitat enhancement and high pollinator diversity, may have greater potential to induce farmers’ field management changes. In 2012 it was suggested for the first time that farmers’ motivation would be triggered if the demonstration was made that enhancing pollinator habitats, with a novel approach of farming with alternative pollinators, can increase yield and income. In 2013-14, therefore, a 18-months-pilot project was set on a participatory basis in Uzbekistan, to test this farming with alternative pollinators approach on field and orchard crops. The practicability and the potential of the approach were tested in collaboration with seven smallholders, two commercial farmers and two schools. We analyzed the yield and insect diversity (pollinators, predators and pests) of seven cucumber fields in the Parkent-district and four orchards of sour cherry in the Boysun-district in Uzbekistan. Here we show that the fields with enhanced habitats faced higher diversity of pollinators and predators, but less pests than control fields. Furthermore, the farming with alternative pollinators approach doubled the yield of sour cherry in 2014 and highly increased the income from cucumber in 2013. In 2014, however, a climatic disaster influenced the results on cucumber in Parkent-district. Ultimately, 94% of the farmers were willing to enhance pollinator habitats after being informed of these higher yield figures. If more projects confirm that farming with alternative pollinators creates an economically self-sustaining incentive for farmers to improve habitats, this approach could contribute considerably to global pollinator protection and food security.
Climate change has been identified as an additional major risk for pollinators, but pollinators are key species for agriculture, interaction within interdependent ecosystems and climate change adaptation of agro-ecosystems. Though agro-ecologists proved enhancement of crop production by wild pollinators, applied agricultural research and development did not take up such results to increase farm income as an incentive for farmers to engage in protection of wild pollinators. We suggest farming with alternative pollinators (FAP) as an integrated agro-ecological-socio-economic approach and a self-sustaining win-win-strategy for farmers, agro-ecosystems and climate change adaptation. In the course of climate change we regard wild pollinators and FAP as more reliable option than honeybees, particularly in higher elevations.
It is clear that the majority of flowering plants are pollinated by insects and other animals, with a minority utilising abiotic pollen vectors, mainly wind. However there is no accurate published calculation of the proportion of the ca 352 000 species of angiosperms that interact with pollinators. Widely cited figures range from 67% to 96% but these have not been based on firm data. We estimated the number and proportion of flowering plants that are pollinated by animals using published and unpublished community-level surveys of plant pollination systems that recorded whether each species present was pollinated by animals or wind. The proportion of animal-pollinated species rises from a mean of 78% in temperate-zone communities to 94% in tropical communities. By correcting for the latitudinal diversity trend in flowering plants, we estimate the global number and proportion of animal pollinated angiosperms as 308 006, which is 87.5% of the estimated species-level diversity of flowering plants. Given current concerns about the decline in pollinators and the possible resulting impacts on both natural communities and agricultural crops, such estimates are vital to both ecologists and policy makers. Further research is required to assess in detail the absolute dependency of these plants on their pollinators, and how this varies with latitude and community type, but there is no doubt that plant–pollinator interactions play a significant role in maintaining the functional integrity of most terrestrial ecosystems.