The diversity and abundance of wild insect pollinators have declined in many agricultural landscapes. Whether such declines reduce crop yields, or are mitigated by managed pollinators such as honey bees, is unclear. We found universally positive associations of fruit set with flower visitation by wild insects in 41 crop systems worldwide. In contrast, fruit set increased significantly with flower visitation by honey bees in only 14% of the systems surveyed. Overall, wild insects pollinated crops more effectively; an increase in wild insect visitation enhanced fruit set by twice as much as an equivalent increase in honey bee visitation. Visitation by wild insects and honey bees promoted fruit set independently, so pollination by managed honey bees supplemented, rather than substituted for, pollination by wild insects. Our results suggest that new practices for integrated management of both honey bees and diverse wild insect assemblages will enhance global crop yields.

"Landscape approaches" seek to provide tools and concepts for allocating and managing land to achieve social, economic, and environmental objectives in areas where agriculture, mining, and other productive land uses compete with environmental and biodiversity goals. Here we synthesize the current consensus on landscape approaches. This is based on published literature and a consensus-building process to define good practice and is validated by a survey of practitioners. We find the landscape approach has been refined in response to increasing societal concerns about environment and development tradeoffs. Notably, there has been a shift from conservation-orientated perspectives toward increasing integration of poverty alleviation goals. We provide 10 summary principles to support implementation of a landscape approach as it is currently interpreted. These principles emphasize adaptive management, stakeholder involvement, and multiple objectives. Various constraints are recognized, with institutional and governance concerns identified as the most severe obstacles to implementation. We discuss how these principles differ from more traditional sectoral and project-based approaches. Although no panacea, we see few alternatives that are likely to address landscape challenges more effectively than an approach circumscribed by the principles outlined here.food security | integrated development approaches | social ecological systems | agriculture environment trade offs | Convention on Biological Diversity

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.unmanaged pollinator | insect pollinator | fly | bee | beetle

The ecological significance of spacing among plants in contributing to the maintenance of species richness, particularly in tropical forests, has received considerable attention that has largely focussed on distance- and density-dependent seed and seedling mortality. More recently it has become apparent that plant spacing is also relevant to pollination, which often constrains seed production. While seed and seedling survival is reduced at high conspecific densities, pollination success, by contrast, is positively correlated to local conspecific density. Distance-dependent mechanisms acting on pollination and seed production have now been described for a variety of plants, with relatively isolated plants or fragmented populations generally suffering reduced fecundity due to pollen limitation. Yet there is considerable variability in the vulnerability of plant species to pollination failure, which may be a function of breeding system, life history, the pollination vector, the degree of specialisation among plants and their pollinators, and other indirect effects of habitat change acting on plants or pollinators. As reduced tree densities and population fragmentation are common outcomes of anthropogenically altered landscapes, understanding how pollination processes are affected in such degraded landscapes can inform effective conservation and management of remaining natural areas.

Summary1 Multiple-species floral displays have been hypothesized to facilitate pollination by attracting a greater number and/or diversity of pollinators. Here I present experimental confirmation of pollination facilitation among coflowering plants that have morphologically distinct flowers. 2 Pollinator visits to Raphanus raphanistrum , a self-incompatible herbaceous plant, increased when it occurred with one or a combination of Cirsium arvense , Hypericum perforatum and Solidago canadensis than when it occurred alone. 3 Enhanced visitation to R. raphanistrum in mixed species plots was reflected by increased seed production. 4 Facilitative effects in pollination were conditional on the density and evenness of the floral mixture and graded into competition as the relative abundance of R. raphanistrum declined in a two-species mixture. 5 Previously proposed mechanisms for facilitative interactions cannot explain facilitation among florally distinct plant displays. An alternative mechanism of differential but complementary floral rewards is proposed to explain facilitative attraction of pollinators. 6 Facilitation of, and competition for, pollination has implications for regeneration by seed of rare or isolated plants, and of mitigating Allee effects that afflict such populations.