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.

Biodiversity benefits pollination, pest control, and crop productivity but suffers from land-use intensification.

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.

At the start of the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030), the restoration of degraded ecosystems is more than ever a global priority. Tree planting will make up a large share of the ambitious restoration commitments made by countries around the world, but careful planning is needed to select species and seed sources that are suitably adapted to present and future restoration site conditions and that meet the restoration objectives. Here we present a scalable and freely available online tool, Diversity for Restoration (D4R), to identify suitable tree species and seed sources for climate‐resilient tropical forest landscape restoration. The D4R tool integrates (a) species habitat suitability maps under current and future climatic conditions; (b) analysis of functional trait data, local ecological knowledge and other species characteristics to score how well species match the restoration site conditions and restoration objectives; (c) optimization of species combinations and abundances considering functional trait diversity or phylogenetic diversity, to foster complementarity between species and to ensure ecosystem multifunctionality and stability; and (d) development of seed zone maps to guide sourcing of planting material adapted to present and predicted future environmental conditions. We outline the various elements behind the tool and discuss how it fits within the broader restoration planning process, including a review of other existing tools. Synthesis and applications. The Diversity for Restoration tool enables non‐expert users to combine species traits, environmental data and climate change models to select tree species and seed sources that best match restoration site conditions and restoration objectives. Originally developed for the tropical dry forests of Colombia, the tool has now been expanded to the tropical dry forests of northwestern Peru–southern Ecuador and the countries of Burkina Faso and Cameroon, and further expansion is underway. Acknowledging that restoration has a wide range of meanings and goals, our tool is intended to support decision making of anyone interested in tree planting and seed sourcing in tropical forest landscapes, regardless of the purpose or restoration approach.

Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) constitute the single largest determinant of livelihoods for scores of forest fringe communities and poor people in the tropics. In India over 50 million people are believed to be directly dependent upon NTFPs for their subsistence. However, such human dependence on NTFPs for livelihood gains (win) has most frequently been at a certain ecological cost (lose). If livelihoods are to be maintained, the existing ‘win-lose’ settings have to be steered to a ‘win-win’ mode, otherwise, there could be severe erosion of the biological resources and loss of livelihoods (‘lose-lose’). Examining the dependence of forest fringe communities on NTFPs at three sites in south India with contrasting human and ecological settings, three key factors (extent of dependence on NTFPs, indigenous ecological knowledge and market organization) are likely to constrain reaching the win-win situation. How these factors shape the ecological cost of harvesting NTFPs at the three sites is examined. Within the parameter space of these factors, it is possible to predict outcomes and associations that will conform to win-win or win-lose situations. Empirical data derived from the three study sites demonstrate the causality of the observed associations. The key for long-term livelihood gains lies in reducing the ecological cost. Certain interventions and recommendations that could optimize the balance between livelihood gains and ecological cost are proposed.