POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Recommendations

Info

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION monitor common wild pollinators for ongoing trends, given the option value (possible future value) provided by diversity in the stock of wild pollinators. Bateman et al. (2013) outline a different approach to taking account of ecosystem service values in national decisionmaking, based on welfare changes as a consequence of specific scenarios. These authors did not illustrate their approach with pollination as an example. 6.5.1.9 Mapping pollination Most maps of pollination supply or demand have not been validated against empirical (primary) data. Only two of the seventeen pollination maps in Table 6.5.1 have been validated. Some of the proxy measures used are very indirect, such as land cover variables. The ‘supply’ of pollination services map in Figure 6.2, for example, does not really show the pollination, but the distribution of habitat types such as grassland and forest edge assumed to support wild bees (Schulp et al., 2014). This map implicitly assumes that habitat is the only driver of wild bee abundance (see Chapter 2 for discussion of other possible drivers), and that wild bees are the only pollinators. 422 6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION Most maps of ecosystem services so far produced do not consider pollination as a service, focusing instead on services with clearer links to spatial data such as land use on a regional or larger scale, such as recreation, or primary production. For example, in a 2012 review, Martinez-Harms and Balvanera (2012) identified just five studies that had mapped pollination at that time, from a total of 41 studies mapping ecosystem services. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services published by the thematic working group on mapping ecosystem services of the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) in 2013 (Crossman et al., 2013) suggests pollination is not often mapped because it is delivered at small scale. Table 6.5.1 summarises all the published maps of pollination that we identified based on our searches (see Methods section). It serves to illustrate the range of methods that have been used. Where pollinators themselves (estimates or probability of abundance, for example) have been used to derive maps, only bees have been considered. We know of no pollination maps that take account of other (non-bee) pollinators. As demonstrated by Table 6.5.1, all the currently available maps of pollination are based on relative measures or proxies of the pollination and most lack empirical validation. Whilst these studies represent good steps along the way to developing a validated tool for mapping pollination services, most overplay their utility, in the way they are presented in the primary literature. Using these maps as tools for decision-making poses serious problems if they are not accurate. Eigenbrod et al. (2010) warned against the use of secondary proxy data, demonstrating that such maps provided a poor fit to primary data for three services – biodiversity, recreation and carbon storage. The estimates of bee abundance in the InVEST pollination module have been validated against empirical field data for some sites (see section on Modelling below), but the relationship between bee abundance and pollination is not straightforward (see Aizen et al. (2014), for an example where over-abundant bees reduced fruit set in raspberries). 6.5.1.9.1 Indicators of pollination, as a basis for mapping One approach to mapping ecosystem services is to define indicators of service status that can be estimated spatially. Layke et al. (2012) evaluated ecosystem service indicators from over 20 ecosystem assessments at multiple scales and many countries. They did not find any indicators for pollination, and considered that “regulating or cultural services such as pollination [and others]….were not assessed by enough… assessments to draw or permit an analysis of indicators” (Layke et al., 2012). A 2011 report on ecosystem service indicators published by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat proposes three possible indicators of pollination that could be mapped (UNEP-WCMC, 2011) – percentage of planted crop area dependent on (wild) pollinators, status of pollinating species and landscape configuration, and suitability for pollinators. It does not include evidence that these have been used, either for mapping or any purpose, for actual policy decision or in sub-global ecosystem assessments. As pointed out above, all three indicators suggested by the CBD rely on secondary proxies that have never (crop areas; status of pollinating species), or seldom (landscape configuration) been validated against empirical data to check whether they reliably represent pollination delivery. Maskell et al. (2013) used the number of species of nectarrich plants preferred by bees and butterflies from a UK Countryside Survey dataset as indicators of pollination. A decision-support tool developed by a partnership of agricultural co-operatives in France (see section on Decision support tools below: 6.5.1.12) has also used pollinator forage plants as a proxy for pollination.
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION TABLE 6.5.1 Maps of pollination services according to the methods used. The validation column shows whether the maps were validated with empirical data from mapped landscapes. Scale categories are as defined in chapter 4, with maps encompassing the whole of Europe classed as ‘Global’. References marked* mapped other ecosystem services as well as pollination. The Lonsdorf index and InVEST model are described in section 6.5.10. Method to map ecosystem services Index of bee abundance based on the availability of nest sites and floral resources (from land cover data) and bee flight ranges (Lonsdorf index). Pollination service value, estimated using an index of pollination service based on proportion of pollinator habitat, and quantity and pollination dependence of crops grown in each pixel. Functional diversity of wild bees. Probability of presence for ten pollinating bee species (from species distribution models) for field bean Vicia faba. Changes to expected crop yield based on index of bee abundance (InVEST model) per hectare of deforested land. Economic value of crops weighted by the value of animal pollinated crops and total agricultural area. Area of pollinator dependent crops, potential wild bee habitat and the visitation probability based on distance from nesting habitats. Modeling onset of flowering plants with explanatory variables (soil, climate and land use data). Percentage fruit set based on the distance of crops to forest. Model exponential decline in pollination (pollinator species richness) as a function of distance from nearest natural habitat. Model spatial relationship between the diversity of nectar providing plants and explanatory variables (soil, climate and land use data). Crop yield per area considering crops depending on pollination. Number of honeybee colonies divided by the total number of colonies demanded. Landscape suitability for bees based on the quantification of desired land cover types (grasslands) within forage distance from potential nesting sites. Proxy data used to represent or derive pollination service estimates Validation Scale Study area Reference Land cover No Regional The Baiyangdian watershed. China Land cover No Global. 25x25m pixel size. Land cover Yes Regional. 30x30m pixel size. Land cover Crop areas Bee distribution data (presence/absence) Bee distribution data (presence/absence) Land cover Crop areas Land cover Crop areas Land cover Crop areas Land cover Crop areas No No No Yes Regional. 30x30m pixel size. National 10x10km pixel size National. 1x1km pixel size. Regional. 30x30m pixel size. No Regional. 500 ha pixel size. No No Regional. 10x10m pixel size. Global. 1x1km pixel size. Soil, climate, land cover No Regional. 20x20 m pixel size. Forest cover No Regional. 250m pixel size Bai et al. (2011)* Europe Maes et al. (2012)* California, Costa Rica and New Jersey California Great Britain Lonsdorf et al. (2009) Chaplin-Kramer et al. (2011) Woodcock et al. (2014)* Great Britain Polce et al. (2013) Costa Rica Central Coast ecoregion of California. USA Leipzig, Germany. Ricketts and Lonsdorf (2013) Chan et al. (2006)* Lautenbach et al. (2011)* Europe Schulp et al. (2014) Central French Alps, France. Central Sulawesi, Indonesia Lavorel et al. (2011)* Priess et al. (2007)* Land cover No Global Global Ricketts et al. (2008) Soil, climate, land cover No National. 1x1km pixel size. Crop yield No Global. 10x10km pixel size. Honey bee colony numbers Crop areas Land cover No National. 100x100m pixel size. Temperate ecosystems of Great Britain. Global Maskell et al. (2013)* Lautenbach et al. (2011) No Global Europe Breeze et al. (2014b) North Dakota, USA Gallant et al. (2014) 423 6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION
Page 1 and 2:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 3:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 6 and 7:
FOREWORD The objective of the Inter
Page 8 and 9:
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
L THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINAT
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
150 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLIN
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 396 and 397:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425: THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
478 ANNEXES
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
Page 544 and 545:
Page 546 and 547:
Page 548 and 549:
Page 550 and 551:
Page 552 and 553:
Page 554:
show all

POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?