Honeybees Can't Do It Alone: The majority of food crops require pollination to set fruit with the honeybee providing a pollination workhorse, with both feral and managed populations an integral component of crop management (see the Perspective by Tylianakis , published online 28 February). Garibaldi et al. (p. 1608 , published online 28 February) now show that wild pollinators are also a vital part of our crop systems. In more than 40 important crops grown worldwide, wild pollinators improved pollination efficiency, increasing fruit set by twice that facilitated by honeybees. Burkle et al. (p. 1611 , published online 28 February) took advantage of one of the most thorough and oldest data sets available on plant-pollinator interaction networks and recollected data on plant-pollinator interactions after more than 120 years of climate change and landscape alteration. The historical data set consists of observations collected by Charles Robertson near Carlinville, Illinois (USA), in the late 1800s on the phenology of plants and their pollinating insects, as well as information about which plants and pollinators interacted with one another. Many sites were revisited in the early 1970s and in 2009 and 2010 to collect similar plant-pollinator data. Pollinator function has declined through time, with bees showing lower visitation rates and lower fidelity to individual plant species.

Significance: Many of the world’s crops are pollinated by insects, and bees are often assumed to be the most important pollinators. To our knowledge, our study is the first quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution of non-bee pollinators to global pollinator-dependent crops. Across 39 studies we show that insects other than bees are efficient pollinators providing 39% of visits to crop flowers. A shift in perspective from a bee-only focus is needed for assessments of crop pollinator biodiversity and the economic value of pollination. These studies should also consider the services provided by other types of insects, such as flies, wasps, beetles, and butterflies—important pollinators that are currently overlooked.

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.

Background: Functional traits are the primary biotic component driving organism influence on ecosystem functions; in consequence, traits are widely used in ecological research. However, most animal trait-based studies use easy-to-measure characteristics of species that are at best only weakly associated with functions. Animal-mediated pollination is a key ecosystem function and is likely to be influenced by pollinator traits, but to date no one has identified functional traits that are simple to measure and have good predictive power.Methods: Here, we show that a simple, easy to measure trait (hairiness) can predict pollinator effectiveness with high accuracy. We used a novel image analysis method to calculate entropy values for insect body surfaces as a measure of hairiness. We evaluated the power of our method for predicting pollinator effectiveness by regressing pollinator hairiness (entropy) against single visit pollen deposition (SVD) and pollen loads on insects. We used linear models and AIC_Cmodel selection to determine which body regions were the best predictors of SVD and pollen load.Results: We found that hairiness can be used as a robust proxy of SVD. The best models for predicting SVD for the flower speciesBrassica rapaandActinidia deliciosawere hairiness on the face and thorax as predictors (R² = 0.98 and 0.91 respectively). The best model for predicting pollen load forB.rapawas hairiness on the face (R² = 0.81).Discussion: We suggest that the match between pollinator body region hairiness and plant reproductive structure morphology is a powerful predictor of pollinator effectiveness. We show that pollinator hairiness is strongly linked to pollination—an important ecosystem function, and provide a rigorous and time-efficient method for measuring hairiness. Identifying and accurately measuring key traits that drive ecosystem processes is critical as global change increasingly alters ecological communities, and subsequently, ecosystem functions worldwide.

While an increasing number of studies indicate that the range, diversity and abundance of many wild pollinators has declined, the global area of pollinator-dependent crops has significantly increased over the last few decades. Crop pollination studies to date have mainly focused on either identifying different guilds pollinating various crops, or on factors driving spatial changes and turnover observed in these communities. The mechanisms driving temporal stability for ecosystem functioning and services, however, remain poorly understood. Our study quantifies temporal variability observed in crop pollinators in 21 different crops across multiple years at a global scale. Using data from 43 studies from six continents, we show that (i) higher pollinator diversity confers greater inter-annual stability in pollinator communities, (ii) temporal variation observed in pollinator abundance is primarily driven by the three-most dominant species, and (iii) crops in tropical regions demonstrate higher inter-annual variability in pollinator species richness than crops in temperate regions. We highlight the importance of recognizing wild pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes to stabilize pollinator persistence across years to protect both biodiversity and crop pollination services. Short-term agricultural management practices aimed at dominant species for stabilizing pollination services need to be considered alongside longer term conservation goals focussed on maintaining and facilitating biodiversity to confer ecological stability.

Many insect species provide essential pollination services. However, the amount of pollen deposited onto a stigma when visiting a flower (‘single visit pollen deposition’, SVD) can vary greatly among taxa depending on morphological traits of pollinators. Further, SVD is commonly measured using one of two methods (‘static’: waiting for an insect to visit a flower present on plant, and ‘active’: removing the flower and presenting it to a flower visitor) that may also differ in their effectiveness. To gain a more comprehensive understanding of how SVD compares among pollinators, we conducted a hierarchical meta‐analysis using data from 28 studies identified by a systematic review. These contained SVD data for 94 bee and 33 fly taxa (hereafter ‘wild pollinators’), across 30 plant species from which we included 127 observations. In the analysis of each study, we used the western honey bee Apis mellifera as a comparator species. Wild pollinators deposited more pollen onto stigmas per single visit than honeybees, and those with larger body deposited significantly more pollen than smaller ones. Of the two methodological approaches to assess SVD, ‘static’ versus ‘active’, we found no significant difference regarding the amount of deposited pollen. Synthesis and applications. Our meta‐analysis highlights the breadth of wild pollinators that contribute to pollination effectiveness via their delivery of pollen to many crop and non‐crop plant species. However, just 25% of the observations assessed the amount of pollen deposited by fly species. Our findings point to the need to further quantify the pollination effectiveness of non‐bee pollinators as studies have largely focused on managed and wild bee species.