Measures of Central Tendency: Mean, Median and Mode
Pollination Declines- SLU talk
1. Historical changes in bee community
composition and phenology.
Is there a pollination crisis?
Ignasi Bartomeus
nacho.bartomeus@gmail.com
@ibartomeus
2.
3. 4% of land
was
agricultur
e in ~1800
>Z0%of
land is
agriculture
, now
7 billion
people
1 billion people
1880
1950
1980
2010we are +0.6ºc
above the
1950-1980
mean
temperature
levels
1800
4. 4% of land
was
agricultur
e in ~1800
>Z0%of
land is
agriculture
, now
7 billion
people
1 billion people
1880
1950
1980
2010we are +0.6ºc
above the
1950-1980
mean
temperature
levels
1800
5. 4% of land
was
agricultur
e in ~1800
>Z0%of
land is
agriculture
, now
7 billion
people
1 billion people
1880
1950
1980
2010we are +0.6ºc
above the
1950-1980
mean
temperature
levels
1800
6. but… how are all these changes
affecting plants and animals?
12. Thisisnot
theromantic
triphe
promised
This is not the
romantic trip he
promised
*American Museum of
Natural History
*University of Connecticut
*Cornell University
*Rutgers University
*Connecticut Agricultural Station
*University of New Hampshire
*University of Massachusetts
*Vermont State Bee Database
*NewYork State Museum
*Bohart Museum of Entomology.
14. What do we know about the “pollinator crisis”?
15. What do we know about the “pollinator crisis”?
* Honeybees (managed)
* Bumblebees
Cameron et al. 2011Grixti et al. 2009,Colla et al. 2008,
16. What do we know about the “pollinator crisis”?
* Honeybees (managed)
* Bumblebees
Cameron et al. 2011Grixti et al. 2009,Colla et al. 2008,
useum collections throughout the United States (Fig. S1B and
able S2). Comparisons of the historical and current data
vealed extensive range reductions (Fig. 1 A, D, G, and H) and
gnificant decreases in RA in all four species suspected of pop-
ation decline (all P < 0.001) (Fig. 2); each was absent from
gnificantly more sites predicted to have high occurrence prob-
bilities than were stable species (Fisher’s exact tests; all P <
001) (Table S4). Declines in RA appear only within the last 20–
0 y, with RA values from current surveys lower than in any de-
cade of the last century (Fig. S1C). The four allegedly stable
species showed no clear patterns of range reduction (Fig. 1 B, C,
E, and F and Tables S2, S4, and S5) or consistent declines in RA.
Historically, B. occidentalis and B. pensylvanicus had among the
broadest geographic ranges of any bumble bee species in North
America (Fig. 1 and Table S5). However, the current surveys
detected B. occidentalis only throughout the intermountain west
and Rocky Mountains; it was largely absent from the western
portion of its range (Figs. 1A and 2) (detected range-area re-
17. What do we know about the “pollinator crisis”?
* Honeybees (managed)
* Bumblebees
Cameron et al. 2011Grixti et al. 2009,Colla et al. 2008,
useum collections throughout the United States (Fig. S1B and
able S2). Comparisons of the historical and current data
vealed extensive range reductions (Fig. 1 A, D, G, and H) and
gnificant decreases in RA in all four species suspected of pop-
ation decline (all P < 0.001) (Fig. 2); each was absent from
gnificantly more sites predicted to have high occurrence prob-
bilities than were stable species (Fisher’s exact tests; all P <
001) (Table S4). Declines in RA appear only within the last 20–
0 y, with RA values from current surveys lower than in any de-
cade of the last century (Fig. S1C). The four allegedly stable
species showed no clear patterns of range reduction (Fig. 1 B, C,
E, and F and Tables S2, S4, and S5) or consistent declines in RA.
Historically, B. occidentalis and B. pensylvanicus had among the
broadest geographic ranges of any bumble bee species in North
America (Fig. 1 and Table S5). However, the current surveys
detected B. occidentalis only throughout the intermountain west
and Rocky Mountains; it was largely absent from the western
portion of its range (Figs. 1A and 2) (detected range-area re-
(Pathogens)
18. What we know about all other >400 bee genera?
Biesmeijer et al. 2006
19. “for most pollinator
species, the paucity of
long-term data and the
incomplete knowledge
of even basic taxonomy
and ecology make
definitive assessment of
status exceedingly
difficult”
NAS 2008
49. a Extreme habitat loss
Abundance (31)
Richness (17)
b Moderate habitat loss
–1.4 –1.2 –1.0 –0.8 –0.6 –0.4
Hedge’s d
–0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Abundance (20)
Richness (13)
–1.2 –1.0 –0.8 –0.6 –0.4
Hedge’s d
–0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
igure 4
eptember 2011 12:49
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
300 to 3,000 m radius
a
b
Figure 3
Schematic showing the two study designs contrasted in this review. (a) Design focused on surrounding
landscape cover. Sampling is generally done within a fixed habitat type. In the most common design, sites
vary in the proportion of surrounding land cover composed of specific habitat types such as forest (dark green)
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
300 to 3,000 m radius
gns contrasted in this review. (a) Design focused on surrounding
done within a fixed habitat type. In the most common design, sites
and cover composed of specific habitat types such as forest (dark green)
hich landscape cover is assessed varies across studies but is typically
ns, which we include in this category, vary either the linear distance to
the habitat patch. (b) Design focused on local land-use type. These
es among different habitat types. The surrounding landscape cover
pe where pollinators are sampled are generally not reported.
h show strong negative responses to land-use change in extreme
in moderate systems (Supplemental Tables 2 and 3). Extreme
in abundance and/or richness (e.g., Aizen & Feinsinger 1994,
2002, Ockinger & Smith 2006), whereas studies in moderately
re varied responses (e.g., Bartomeus et al. 2010, Bergman et al.
arisons across habitat types, rather than across landscape gra-
ffects, and responses are predominantly positive for most taxa
es, the ratio of negative-to-positive responses decreases from
to 2.0 for moderate landscape studies, to 0.5 for across-habitat
ratios decrease from 6.0 to 3.0 to 1.1, respectively (Supple-
nses of syrphid flies and vertebrates are difficult to interpret
dscape-scale studies that have been conducted (Supplemental
ndance and/or richness often decrease with increasing human
cape, but increase with conversion of natural to anthropogenic
50. a Extreme habitat loss
Abundance (31)
Richness (17)
b Moderate habitat loss
–1.4 –1.2 –1.0 –0.8 –0.6 –0.4
Hedge’s d
–0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
Abundance (20)
Richness (13)
–1.2 –1.0 –0.8 –0.6 –0.4
Hedge’s d
–0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
igure 4
72. Why Bee phenology is important?
85% of world plants are to
some degree pollinated by
animals (Ollerton et al 2011)
Bees are the most effective pollinators (Neff & Simpson 1993)
74. 1885-2003 1936-1999 1936-2002 1971-1999
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
Slope
We used 4 Published plant datasets in our study area
All plants are commonly visited by the studied bees
Advancingrate(days/year)
75. 1885-2003 1936-1999 1936-2002 1971-1999
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
SlopeAdvancingrate(days/year)
Primack et al. 2004 (Massachusetts)
No significant difference.
27 Plant species
76. 1885-2003 1936-1999 1936-2002 1971-1999
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
SlopeAdvancingrate(days/year)
Bradley et al. 1999 (Wisconsin)
24 Plant species
No significant difference.
77. 1885-2003 1936-1999 1936-2002 1971-1999
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
SlopeAdvancingrate(days/year)
Cook et al. 2008 (NewYork State)
11 Plant species
No significant difference.
78. 1885-2003 1936-1999 1936-2002 1971-1999
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
SlopeAdvancingrate(days/year)
Abu-Asab et al. 2001 (Washington DC )
44 Plant species
No significant difference.
90. 76% of crops are animal dependent (Klein et al 2007)
91. Repor
compleme
species (1
or “samp
other mec
evenness
compleme
dominant
the most e
date, the
portance
crop polli
results (2
on pollina
unknown,
insect los
evaluated
pollinated
We te
from the a
effectively
crops, and
placed by
of honey
(1) for m
Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of
Crops Regardless of Honey Bee
Abundance
Lucas A. Garibaldi,1
* Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter,2
Rachael Winfree,3
Marcelo A.
Aizen,4
Riccardo Bommarco,5
Saul A. Cunningham,6
Claire Kremen,7
Luísa G.
Carvalheiro,8,9
Lawrence D. Harder,10
Ohad Afik,11
Ignasi Bartomeus,12
Faye
Benjamin,3
Virginie Boreux,13,14
Daniel Cariveau,3
Natacha P. Chacoff,15
Jan H.
Dudenhöffer,16
Breno M. Freitas,17
Jaboury Ghazoul,14
Sarah Greenleaf,7
Juliana Hipólito,18
Andrea Holzschuh,2
Brad Howlett,19
Rufus Isaacs,20
Steven
K. Javorek,21
Christina M. Kennedy,22
Kristin Krewenka,23
Smitha Krishnan,14
Yael Mandelik,11
Margaret M. Mayfield,24
Iris Motzke,13,23
Theodore Munyuli,25
Brian A. Nault,26
Mark Otieno,27
Jessica Petersen,26
Gideon Pisanty,11
Simon G.
Potts,27
Romina Rader,28
Taylor H. Ricketts,29
Maj Rundlöf,5,30
Colleen L.
Seymour,31
Christof Schüepp,32,33
Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi,34
Hisatomo Taki,35
Teja Tscharntke,23
Carlos H. Vergara,36
Blandina F. Viana,18
Thomas C.
Wanger,23
Catrin Westphal,23
Neal Williams,37
Alexandra M. Klein13
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: lgaribaldi@unrn.edu.ar
Affiliations are listed at the end of the text
93. *Richness weakly
declining, except for
Bombus
*Specific responses are
heterogenous. Only 4
species with steep
declines.
*Bees with short niche
breadth and large body
size are more likely to
be affected.
*ESP are less affected
94. Bees and plants have similar responses
Climate change is altering bee phenology
95. Thank you
- nacho.bartomeus@gmail.com
This project is been possible thanks to...
All collectors that collected the bees
Co-authors: Rachael Winfree, John Ascher, Jason Gibbs, Bryan
Danforth, David Wagner, Shannon Hedtke, Sheila Colla, Mia Park adn
Dan Cariveau.
