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 toward 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.

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 toward 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.

International audience | By analysing phenological shifts among > 2,000 insect pollinator species in Europe, the authors show that flight dates have become earlier and flight lengths shorter over the past 60 years, potentially altering continental-scale pollinator function.Pollinators play an important role in terrestrial ecosystems by providing key ecosystem functions and services to wild plants and crops, respectively. The sustainable provision of such ecosystem functions and services requires diverse pollinator communities over the seasons. Despite evidence that climate warming shifts pollinator phenology, a general assessment of these shifts and their consequences on pollinator assemblages is still lacking. By analysing phenological shifts of over 2,000 species, we show that, on average, the mean flight date of European pollinators shifted to be 6 d earlier over the last 60 yr, while their flight period length decreased by 2 d. Our analysis further reveals that these shifts have probably altered the seasonal distribution of pollination function and services by decreasing the overlap among pollinators' phenologies within European assemblages, except in the most northeastern part of Europe. Such changes are expected to decrease the functional redundancy and complementarity of pollinator assemblages and, therefore, might alter the performance of pollination function and services and their robustness to ongoing pollinator extinctions.

The Pollinator-Loss Sydrome. Pollinator loss affects all ecosystem services (green boxes on the left) and can cause interlinked poverty spirals (graph based on Christmann 2019, Restoration Ecology, https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12950) | Stefanie Christmann. (30/5/2019). Pollinator loss consequences.

Pollinators are responsible for the reproduction of many plant and crop species and provide important diversity for food webs and cultural value. Despite the critical ecosystem services provided by pollinators, rapid pollinator declines are occurring in response to anthropogenic activities that cause the loss of suitable habitat. There is an opportunity for urban green space to support pollination ecosystem services locally and across the landscape. However, there is a lack of practical but evidence-based guidance on how urban green space can be designed effectively to provide floral resources and other habitat needs to a diverse assemblage of pollinators. We examine the existing pollinator research in this paper to address the following questions specific to insect pollinators in temperate urban settings: (1) Which pollinators can be the focus of efforts to increase pollinator ecosystem services in cities? (2) Which plants and what arrangements of plants are most attractive and supportive to urban pollinators? (3) What do urban pollinators need beyond floral resources? (4) How can the surrounding landscape inform where to prioritize new habitat creation within cities? Using these questions as a framework, we provide specific and informed management and planning recommendations that optimize pollinator ecosystem value in urban settings.

Our review looks at pollinator conservation and highlights the differences in approach between managing for pollination services and preserving pollinator diversity. We argue that ecosystem service management does not equal biodiversity conservation, and that maintaining species diversity is crucial in providing ecosystem resilience in the face of future environmental change. Management and policy measures therefore need to focus on species not just in human dominated landscapes but need to benefit wider diversity of species including those in specialised habitats. We argue that only by adopting a holistic ecosystem approach we can ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the long-term.

Our review looks at pollinator conservation and highlights the differences in approach between managing for pollination services and preserving pollinator diversity. We argue that ecosystem service management does not equal biodiversity conservation, and that maintaining species diversity is crucial in providing ecosystem resilience in the face of future environmental change. Management and policy measures therefore need to focus on species not just in human dominated landscapes but need to benefit wider diversity of species including those in specialised habitats. We argue that only by adopting a holistic ecosystem approach we can ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the long-term.

Our review looks at pollinator conservation and highlights the differences in approach between managing for pollination services and preserving pollinator diversity. We argue that ecosystem service management does not equal biodiversity conservation, and that maintaining species diversity is crucial in providing ecosystem resilience in the face of future environmental change. Management and policy measures therefore need to focus on species not just in human dominated landscapes but need to benefit wider diversity of species including those in specialised habitats. We argue that only by adopting a holistic ecosystem approach we can ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the long-term.

Insects are a functionally diverse group, with economically relevant roles on key ecosystem services, such as pollination. The current trend of biodiversity loss and consequent degradation of ecosystem services delivered by insects is leading to additional pressure on modern agriculture, particularly in crops that depend on insects for pollination. Understanding how insect pollinator diversity varies at local and landscape scales is very important to recognize trends in pollinator populations. The present work quantified the effect of in-field management practices and different landscape types on insect pollinator communities in kiwifruit, a pollinator-dependent crop. Twenty-two orchards were selected and characterized for in-field practices, landscape structure, plant-pollinator interactions, and productivity. We observed that orchards with practices that are less harmful to insect pollinators are related to a higher pollinator diversity and higher abundances of certain wild pollinator groups, although this was not related with increased productivity. Additionally, in the studied production region, agricultural dominated landscapes harbor lower pollinator diversity, lower wild pollinators abundance and higher managed honeybee abundance than forest and herbaceous dominated landscapes, but no differences were detected in productivity among landscape types. In turn, abundance of Bombus spp. and the use of pollination support practices were significantly and positively correlated with orchard productivity. Despite the differences in pollinator communities, comparable yields were observed across different landscape types. Additionally, simple changes towards less harmful agricultural practices and the presence of forest and herbaceous habitats can promote wild pollinators and respective pollination services.

Context Ecosystem service bundles can be defined as the spatial co-occurrence of ecosystem services in a landscape. The understanding of the delivery of multiple ecosystem services as bundles in urban areas is limited. This study modelled ecosystem services in an urban area comprising the towns of Milton Keynes, Bedford and Luton. Objectives The objectives of this study were to assess (1) how ecosystem service bundles scale at a 2 m spatial resolution and (2) identify and analyse the composition of ecosystem service bundles. Methods Six ecosystem services were modelled with the InVEST framework at a 2 m resolution. The correlations between ecosystem services were calculated using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient method. Principal Component Analysis and K-means cluster analysis were used to analyse the distributions, spatial trade-offs and synergies of multiple ecosystem services. Results The results showed that regulating services had the tendency to form trade-offs and synergies. There was a significant tendency for trade-offs between supporting service Habitat quality and Pollinator abundance. Four bundle types were identified which showed specialised areas with prevalent soil erosion with high levels in water supply, areas with high values in nutrient retention, areas with high levels in carbon storage and urban areas with pollinator abundance. Conclusions This study demonstrates the existence of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services and the formation of ecosystem service bundles in urban areas. This study provides a better understanding of the interactions between services and improve the management choices in ecosystem service provision in urban and landscape planning.