Characterization Factors to Assess Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance in Life Cycle AssessmentClick to copy article linkArticle link copied!
- Elizabeth M. Alejandre*Elizabeth M. Alejandre*Email: [email protected]Institute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The NetherlandsDelft University of Technology, Mekelweg 5, 2628 CD Delft, The NetherlandsMore by Elizabeth M. Alejandre
- Laura SchererLaura SchererInstitute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The NetherlandsMore by Laura Scherer
- Jeroen B. GuinéeJeroen B. GuinéeInstitute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The NetherlandsMore by Jeroen B. Guinée
- Marcelo A. AizenMarcelo A. AizenGrupo de Ecología de la Polinización, INIBIOMA, Universidad Nacional del Comahue-CONICET, Quintral 1250, 8400 Bariloche, Río Negro, ArgentinaMore by Marcelo A. Aizen
- Matthias AlbrechtMatthias AlbrechtAgroecology and Environment, Agroscope, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046 Zurich, SwitzerlandMore by Matthias Albrecht
- Mario V. BalzanMario V. BalzanInstitute of Applied Sciences, Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), PLA9032 Paola, MaltaMore by Mario V. Balzan
- Ignasi BartomeusIgnasi BartomeusEstación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC), Avda. Américo Vespucio 26, Isla de la Cartuja, E-41092 Sevilla, SpainMore by Ignasi Bartomeus
- Danilo Bevk
- Laura A. BurkleLaura A. BurkleDepartment of Ecology, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, United StatesMore by Laura A. Burkle
- Yann CloughYann CloughCentre for Environmental and Climate Science, Lund University, Sölvegatan 37, 22362 Lund SwedenMore by Yann Clough
- Lorna J. ColeLorna J. ColeIntegrated Land Management, SRUC, JF Niven Building, Auchincruive Estate, KA6 5HW AYR, U.K.More by Lorna J. Cole
- Casey M. DelphiaCasey M. DelphiaMontana Entomology Collection, Montana State University, Room 50 Marsh Laboratory, Bozeman, Montana 59717, United StatesMore by Casey M. Delphia
- Lynn V. DicksLynn V. DicksDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CB2 3EJ Cambridge U.K.School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, NR4 7TJ Norwich U.K.More by Lynn V. Dicks
- Michael P.D. Garratt
- David KleijnDavid KleijnPlant Ecology and Nature Conservation Group, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB Wageningen, The NetherlandsMore by David Kleijn
- Anikó Kovács-HostyánszkiAnikó Kovács-HostyánszkiCentre for Ecological Research, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Lendület Ecosystem Services Research Group, Alkotmány str. 2-4, H-2163 Vácrátót, HungaryMore by Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki
- Yael MandelikYael MandelikDepartment of Entomology, Faculty of Agriculture Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, P.O.Box 12, 7610001 Rehovot, IsraelMore by Yael Mandelik
- Robert J. PaxtonRobert J. PaxtonInstitute for Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Hoher Weg 8, 06120 Halle (Saale), GermanyGerman Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Puschstrasse 4, 04103 Leipzig, GermanyMore by Robert J. Paxton
- Theodora PetanidouTheodora PetanidouLaboratory of Biogeography and Ecology, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mytilene, GreeceMore by Theodora Petanidou
- Simon Potts
- Miklós SárospatakiMiklós SárospatakiDepartment of Zoology and Ecology, Institute for Wildlife Management and Nature Conservation, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Páter K. u. 1., H2100 Gödöllő, HungaryMore by Miklós Sárospataki
- Catharina J.E. SchulpCatharina J.E. SchulpDepartment of Environmental Geography, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1085, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The NetherlandsMore by Catharina J.E. Schulp
- Menelaos StavrinidesMenelaos StavrinidesDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Cyprus University of Technology, Arch. Kyprianos 30, 3036 Lemesos, CyprusMore by Menelaos Stavrinides
- Katharina SteinKatharina SteinInstitute of Biological Sciences, Department of Botany and Botanical Garden, University of Rostock, Wismarsche Strasse 45, 18051 Rostock, GermanyMore by Katharina Stein
- Jane C. Stout
- Hajnalka SzentgyörgyiHajnalka SzentgyörgyiDepartment of Plant Ecology, Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 3, 30-387 Kraków, PolandMore by Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi
- Androulla I. VarnavaAndroulla I. VarnavaDepartment of Agricultural Sciences, Cyprus University of Technology, Arch. Kyprianos 30, 3036 Lemesos, CyprusMore by Androulla I. Varnava
- Ben A. WoodcockBen A. WoodcockUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, U.K.More by Ben A. Woodcock
- Peter M. van BodegomPeter M. van BodegomInstitute of Environmental Sciences (CML), Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The NetherlandsMore by Peter M. van Bodegom
Abstract
While wild pollinators play a key role in global food production, their assessment is currently missing from the most commonly used environmental impact assessment method, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is mainly due to constraints in data availability and compatibility with LCA inventories. To target this gap, relative pollinator abundance estimates were obtained with the use of a Delphi assessment, during which 25 experts, covering 16 nationalities and 45 countries of expertise, provided scores for low, typical, and high expected abundance associated with 24 land use categories. Based on these estimates, this study presents a set of globally generic characterization factors (CFs) that allows translating land use into relative impacts to wild pollinator abundance. The associated uncertainty of the CFs is presented along with an illustrative case to demonstrate the applicability in LCA studies. The CFs based on estimates that reached consensus during the Delphi assessment are recommended as readily applicable and allow key differences among land use types to be distinguished. The resulting CFs are proposed as the first step for incorporating pollinator impacts in LCA studies, exemplifying the use of expert elicitation methods as a useful tool to fill data gaps that constrain the characterization of key environmental impacts.
This publication is licensed under
License Summary*
You are free to share(copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt(remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below:
Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.
Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.
*Disclaimer
This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
License Summary*
You are free to share(copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt(remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below:
Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.
Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.
*Disclaimer
This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
License Summary*
You are free to share(copy and redistribute) this article in any medium or format and to adapt(remix, transform, and build upon) the material for any purpose, even commercially within the parameters below:
Creative Commons (CC): This is a Creative Commons license.
Attribution (BY): Credit must be given to the creator.
*Disclaimer
This summary highlights only some of the key features and terms of the actual license. It is not a license and has no legal value. Carefully review the actual license before using these materials.
Synopsis
This study applies a Delphi expert elicitation to derive globally representative characterization factors for estimating land use impacts on the relative wild pollinator abundance for Life Cycle Assessment.
1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Characterization Model for Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance
2.2. Deriving Pollinator Abundance Estimates (Sx)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Land use categories assessed for impact characterization.
2.3. Selection of Land Use Types for Characterization
2.4. Delphi Assessment Procedure
2.5. Statistical Processing of Delphi Assessment Results
3. Results
3.1. Pollinator Abundance Estimates
3.2. Generic CFs for Potential Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance
Figure 2
Figure 2. CFs for land occupation impacts on pollinator abundance (m2·year/m2·year reference land).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Considerations by experts for pollinator abundance estimates and their compatibility with land use intensity levels found in the ecoinvent inventory.
4. Discussion
4.1. Considerations of Expert Elicitation Assessment to Characterize Pollinator Abundance
4.2. Dealing with Uncertainty
4.3. Application in LCA and Recommendations
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c05311.
Geographical distribution of expert panel and areas of expertise; boxplots for normalized Sx estimates of block 1; boxplots for normalized Sx estimates of block 2; convergence of Sx expert scores; boxplots for normalized Sx estimates of block 3; confidence of experts on typical scores of abundances; and CFs for land occupation impacts on pollinator abundance (PDF)
Normalized Sx estimates of pollinator abundance (XLSX)
Example of the CFs’ application (XLSX)
Terms & Conditions
Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.
Acknowledgments
E.M.A. was funded by the National Council for Science and Technology of Mexico (CONACyT) in the form of an educational and scientific scholarship for graduate studies abroad. B.A.W.’s contribution was supported by the NERC consortium award “Restoring Resilient Ecosystems” (NE/V006525/1). C.J.E.S. was funded by the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program through the project CONSOLE (grant agreement 817949). C.M.D. acknowledges the support of the Montana Department of Agriculture’s Specialty Crop Block Grant Program under the Wild Bees of Montana. D.B.’s contribution was funded by the Slovenian Research Agency (projects P1-0255 and V1-1938). D.K.’s contribution was made possible through funding by the EU Horizon 2020 Safeguard project (101003476). H.S’s. contribution was funded by the Institute of Botany, Jagiellonian University in Kraków (N18/DBS/000002). L.J.C.’s contribution was funded by the Rural & Environment Science & Analytical Services Division of the Scottish Government (Theme C). L.V.D.’s contribution was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant number NE/N014472/2).
References
This article references 50 other publications.
- 1Stein, K.; Coulibaly, D.; Stenchly, K.; Goetze, D.; Porembski, S.; Lindner, A.; Konaté, S.; Linsenmair, E. K. Bee Pollination Increases Yield Quantity and Quality of Cash Crops in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17691, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17970-2Google Scholar1https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1MzivFarsg%253D%253D&md5=467b6dbc1ea65ad2e5178545661426c6Bee pollination increases yield quantity and quality of cash crops in Burkina Faso, West AfricaStein Katharina; Linsenmair Eduard K; Stein Katharina; Goetze Dethardt; Porembski Stefan; Coulibaly Drissa; Konate Souleymane; Stenchly Kathrin; Lindner AndreScientific reports (2017), 7 (1), 17691 ISSN:.Mutualistic biotic interactions as among flowering plants and their animal pollinators are a key component of biodiversity. Pollination, especially by insects, is a key element in ecosystem functioning, and hence constitutes an ecosystem service of global importance. Not only sexual reproduction of plants is ensured, but also yields are stabilized and genetic variability of crops is maintained, counteracting inbreeding depression and facilitating system resilience. While experiencing rapid environmental change, there is an increased demand for food and income security, especially in sub-Saharan communities, which are highly dependent on small scale agriculture. By combining exclusion experiments, pollinator surveys and field manipulations, this study for the first time quantifies the contribution of bee pollinators to smallholders' production of the major cash crops, cotton and sesame, in Burkina Faso. Pollination by honeybees and wild bees significantly increased yield quantity and quality on average up to 62%, while exclusion of pollinators caused an average yield gap of 37% in cotton and 59% in sesame. Self-pollination revealed inbreeding depression effects on fruit set and low germination rates in the F1-generation. Our results highlight potential negative consequences of any pollinator decline, provoking risks to agriculture and compromising crop yields in sub-Saharan West Africa.
- 2Bartomeus, I.; Potts, S. G.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Vaissière, B. E.; Woyciechowski, M.; Krewenka, K. M.; Tscheulin, T.; Roberts, S. P. M.; Szentgyörgyi, H.; Westphal, C.; Bommarco, R. Contribution of Insect Pollinators to Crop Yield and Quality Varies with Agricultural Intensification. PeerJ 2014, 2, e328 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.328Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 3Motzke, I.; Tscharntke, T.; Wanger, T. C.; Klein, A. M. Pollination Mitigates Cucumber Yield Gaps More than Pesticide and Fertilizer Use in Tropical Smallholder Gardens. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 261– 269, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12357Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 4Ricketts, T. H.; Regetz, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S. A.; Kremen, C.; Bogdanski, A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Greenleaf, S. S.; Klein, A. M.; Mayfield, M. M.; Morandin, L. A.; Ochieng’, A.; Viana, B. F. Landscape Effects on Crop Pollination Services: Are There General Patterns?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 11, 499– 515, DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.xGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 5Klein, A. M.; Vaissière, B. E.; Cane, J. H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S. A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. Importance of Pollinators in Changing Landscapes for World Crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274, 303– 313, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721Google Scholar5https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD28jis1OqtA%253D%253D&md5=79a9a36817084655bae6157667adf79eImportance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world cropsKlein Alexandra-Maria; Vaissiere Bernard E; Cane James H; Steffan-Dewenter Ingolf; Cunningham Saul A; Kremen Claire; Tscharntke TejaProceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society (2007), 274 (1608), 303-13 ISSN:0962-8452.The extent of our reliance on animal pollination for world crop production for human food has not previously been evaluated and the previous estimates for countries or continents have seldom used primary data. In this review, we expand the previous estimates using novel primary data from 200 countries and found that fruit, vegetable or seed production from 87 of the leading global food crops is dependent upon animal pollination, while 28 crops do not rely upon animal pollination. However, global production volumes give a contrasting perspective, since 60% of global production comes from crops that do not depend on animal pollination, 35% from crops that depend on pollinators, and 5% are unevaluated. Using all crops traded on the world market and setting aside crops that are solely passively self-pollinated, wind-pollinated or parthenocarpic, we then evaluated the level of dependence on animal-mediated pollination for crops that are directly consumed by humans. We found that pollinators are essential for 13 crops, production is highly pollinator dependent for 30, moderately for 27, slightly for 21, unimportant for 7, and is of unknown significance for the remaining 9. We further evaluated whether local and landscape-wide management for natural pollination services could help to sustain crop diversity and production. Case studies for nine crops on four continents revealed that agricultural intensification jeopardizes wild bee communities and their stabilizing effect on pollination services at the landscape scale.
- 6Pfiffner, L.; Ostermaier, M.; Stoeckli, S.; Müller, A. Wild Bees Respond Complementarily to ‘High-Quality’ Perennial and Annual Habitats of Organic Farms in a Complex Landscape. J. Insect Conserv. 2018, 22, 551– 562, DOI: 10.1007/s10841-018-0084-6Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 7Graham, J. B.; Nassauer, J. I. Wild Bee Abundance in Temperate Agroforestry Landscapes: Assessing Effects of Alley Crop Composition, Landscape Configuration, and Agroforestry Area. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 93, 837, DOI: 10.1007/s10457-017-0179-1Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 8Bennett, A. B.; Meehan, T. D.; Gratton, C.; Isaacs, R. Modeling Pollinator Community Response to Contrasting Bioenergy Scenarios. PLoS One 2014, 9, e110676 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110676Google Scholar8https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2cXhvFyhur3L&md5=2e02dd32f94b0c9e72574dbc810f653cModeling pollinator community response to contrasting bioenergy scenariosBennett, Ashley B.; Meehan, Timothy D.; Gratton, Claudio; Isaacs, RufusPLoS One (2014), 9 (11), e110676/1-e110676/10, 10 pp.CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)In the United States, policy initiatives aimed at increasing sources of renewable energy are advancing bioenergy prodn., esp. in the Midwest region, where agricultural landscapes dominate. While policy directives are focused on renewable fuel prodn., biodiversity and ecosystem services will be impacted by the land-use changes required to meet prodn. targets. Using data from field observations, we developed empirical models for predicting abundance, diversity, and community compn. of flower-visiting bees based on land cover. We used these models to explore how bees might respond under two contrasting bioenergy scenarios: annual bioenergy crop prodn. and perennial grassland bioenergy prodn. In the two scenarios, 600,000 ha of marginal annual crop land or marginal grassland were converted to perennial grassland or annual row crop bioenergy prodn., resp. Model projections indicate that expansion of annual bioenergy crop prodn. at this scale will reduce bee abundance by 0 to 71 %, and bee diversity by 0 to 28 %, depending on location. In contrast, converting annual crops on marginal soil to perennial grasslands could increase bee abundance from 0 to 600 % and increase bee diversity between 0 and 53 %. Our anal. of bee community compn. suggested a similar pattern, with bee communities becoming less diverse under annual bioenergy crop prodn., whereas bee compn. transitioned towards a more diverse community dominated by wild bees under perennial bioenergy crop prodn. Models, like those employed here, suggest that bioenergy policies have important consequences for pollinator conservation.
- 9Koh, I.; Lonsdorf, E. V.; Williams, N. M.; Brittain, C.; Isaacs, R.; Gibbs, J.; Ricketts, T. H. Modeling the Status, Trends, and Impacts of Wild Bee Abundance in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 140– 145, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1517685113Google Scholar9https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXitVylsr3E&md5=b469ae82bc52c988d0b571f602bb4fa4Modeling the status, trends, and impacts of wild bee abundance in the United StatesKoh, Insu; Lonsdorf, Eric V.; Williams, Neal M.; Brittain, Claire; Isaacs, Rufus; Gibbs, Jason; Ricketts, Taylor H.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016), 113 (1), 140-145CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)Wild bees are highly valuable pollinators. Along with managed honey bees, they provide a crit. ecosystem service by ensuring stable pollination to agriculture and wild plant communities. Increasing concern about the welfare of both wild and managed pollinators, however, has prompted recent calls for national evaluation and action. Here, for the first time to our knowledge, we assess the status and trends of wild bees and their potential impacts on pollination services across the coterminous United States. We use a spatial habitat model, national land-cover data, and carefully quantified expert knowledge to est. wild bee abundance and assocd. uncertainty. Between 2008 and 2013, modeled bee abundance declined across 23% of US land area. This decline was generally assocd. with conversion of natural habitats to row crops. We identify 139 counties where low bee abundances correspond to large areas of pollinator-dependent crops. These areas of mismatch between supply (wild bee abundance) and demand (cultivated area) for pollination comprise 39% of the pollinator-dependent crop area in the United States. Further, we find that the crops most highly dependent on pollinators tend to experience more severe mismatches between declining supply and increasing demand. These trends, should they continue, may increase costs for US farmers and may even destabilize crop prodn. over time. National assessments such as this can help focus both scientific and political efforts to understand and sustain wild bees. As new information becomes available, repeated assessments can update findings, revise priorities, and track progress toward sustainable management of our nation's pollinators.
- 10Potts, S. G.; Biesmeijer, J. C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W. E. Global Pollinator Declines: Trends, Impacts and Drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345– 353, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007Google Scholar10https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3crgvVChsw%253D%253D&md5=35dcc2e5053274f11d5c245cdacc3a0cGlobal pollinator declines: trends, impacts and driversPotts Simon G; Biesmeijer Jacobus C; Kremen Claire; Neumann Peter; Schweiger Oliver; Kunin William ETrends in ecology & evolution (2010), 25 (6), 345-53 ISSN:0169-5347.Pollinators are a key component of global biodiversity, providing vital ecosystem services to crops and wild plants. There is clear evidence of recent declines in both wild and domesticated pollinators, and parallel declines in the plants that rely upon them. Here we describe the nature and extent of reported declines, and review the potential drivers of pollinator loss, including habitat loss and fragmentation, agrochemicals, pathogens, alien species, climate change and the interactions between them. Pollinator declines can result in loss of pollination services which have important negative ecological and economic impacts that could significantly affect the maintenance of wild plant diversity, wider ecosystem stability, crop production, food security and human welfare.
- 11Sabatier, R.; Meyer, K.; Wiegand, K.; Clough, Y. Non-Linear Effects of Pesticide Application on Biodiversity-Driven Ecosystem Services and Disservices in a Cacao Agroecosystem: A Modeling Study. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2013, 14, 115– 125, DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2012.12.006Google Scholar11https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXit1Krt7c%253D&md5=e9a272081975673e47df144a10ef83f4Non-linear effects of pesticide application on biodiversity-driven ecosystem services and disservices in a cacao agroecosystem: A modeling studySabatier, Rodolphe; Meyer, Katrin; Wiegand, Kerstin; Clough, YannBasic and Applied Ecology (2013), 14 (2), 115-125CODEN: BAEACZ; ISSN:1439-1791. (Elsevier GmbH)Growing concerns have been raised regarding the effects of disturbance due to agricultural practices on assoc. biodiversity and on the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides. Surprisingly little is known about the effects of such disturbances on complex agroecosystems with multiple interacting species. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of management by pesticide spraying on the productive outputs and the ecol. functioning of a cacao agroecosystem. The authors built a mechanistic dynamic model including the dynamics of the crop, a pest (Cacao Pod Borer, Conopomorpha cramerella) and two beneficial insects: a hymenopteran egg-parasitoid and a ceratopogonid pollinator. Using this model, the authors tested the effects of a range of pesticide types characterized by their impacts on both the Cacao Pod Borer and the beneficial insects. Our results showed that yield strongly varies according to both pesticide type and timing of pesticide application. The type of pesticide had a strong influence on the flexibility of management. No simple spraying decision rule led to maximal yields for all types of pesticide. Although optimal spraying strategies differed with the type of pesticide used, they all showed a similar pattern, i.e. they limited and postponed the Cacao Pod Borer population peak while limiting the neg. impacts on beneficial organisms. The results highlight the non-trivial effects of pesticide application in complex agroecosystems where assocd. biodiversity provides both ecosystem services and disservices. They illustrate the crit. importance of providing good information to farmers on pesticide management because the use of pesticides can have a neg. effect on prodn. by decreasing ecosystem services such as pollination.
- 12Imbach, P.; Fung, E.; Hannah, L.; Navarro-Racines, C. E.; Roubik, D. W.; Ricketts, T. H.; Harvey, C. A.; Donatti, C. I.; Läderach, P.; Locatelli, B.; Roehrdanz, P. R. Coupling of Pollination Services and Coffee Suitability under Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 10438– 10442, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1617940114Google Scholar12https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXhsVKltb3L&md5=aa33c42f8263330ce609254ccb7144b8Coupling of pollination services and coffee suitability under climate changeImbach, Pablo; Fung, Emily; Hannah, Lee; Navarro-Racines, Carlos E.; Roubik, David W.; Ricketts, Taylor H.; Harvey, Celia A.; Donatti, Camila I.; Laderach, Peter; Locatelli, Bruno; Roehrdanz, Patrick R.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2017), 114 (39), 10438-10442CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)Climate change will cause geog. range shifts for pollinators and major crops, with global implications for food security and rural livelihoods. However, little is known about the potential for coupled impacts of climate change on pollinators and crops. Coffee prodn. exemplifies this issue, because large losses in areas suitable for coffee prodn. have been projected due to climate change and because coffee prodn. is dependent on bee pollination. We modeled the potential distributions of coffee and coffee pollinators under current and future climates in Latin America to understand whether future coffee-suitable areas will also be suitable for pollinators. Our results suggest that coffee-suitable areas will be reduced 73-88% by 2050 across warming scenarios, a decline 46-76% greater than estd. by global assessments. Mean bee richness will decline 8-18% within future coffee-suitable areas, but all are predicted to contain at least 5 bee species, and 46-59% of future coffee-suitable areas will contain 10 or more species. In our models, coffee suitability and bee richness each increase (i.e., pos. coupling) in 10-22% of future coffee-suitable areas. Diminished coffee suitability and bee richness (i.e., neg. coupling), however, occur in 34-51% of other areas. Finally, in 31-33% of the future coffee distribution areas, bee richness decreases and coffee suitability increases. Assessing coupled effects of climate change on crop suitability and pollination can help target appropriate management practices, including forest conservation, shade adjustment, crop rotation, or status quo, in different regions.
- 13Hannah, L.; Steele, M.; Fung, E.; Imbach, P.; Flint, L.; Flint, A. Climate Change Influences on Pollinator, Forest, and Farm Interactions across a Climate Gradient. Clim. Change 2017, 141, 63– 75, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1868-xGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 14Kennedy, C. M.; Lonsdorf, E.; Neel, M. C.; Williams, N. M.; Ricketts, T. H.; Winfree, R.; Bommarco, R.; Brittain, C.; Burley, A. L.; Cariveau, D.; Carvalheiro, L. G.; Chacoff, N. P.; Cunningham, S. A.; Danforth, B. N.; Dudenhöffer, J. H.; Elle, E.; Gaines, H. R.; Garibaldi, L. A.; Gratton, C.; Holzschuh, A.; Isaacs, R.; Javorek, S. K.; Jha, S.; Klein, A. M.; Krewenka, K.; Mandelik, Y.; Mayfield, M. M.; Morandin, L.; Neame, L. A.; Otieno, M.; Park, M.; Potts, S. G.; Rundlöf, M.; Saez, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Taki, H.; Viana, B. F.; Westphal, C.; Wilson, J. K.; Greenleaf, S. S.; Kremen, C. A Global Quantitative Synthesis of Local and Landscape Effects on Wild Bee Pollinators in Agroecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 16, 584– 599, DOI: 10.1111/ele.12082Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 15Fournier, A.; Rollin, O.; Le Féon, V.; Decourtye, A.; Henry, M. Crop-Emptying Rate and the Design of Pesticide Risk Assessment Schemes in the Honey Bee and Wild Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 107, 38– 46, DOI: 10.1603/ec13087Google Scholar15https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC2crnt1WktA%253D%253D&md5=f31eee6ada55984081bd736a003409e6Crop-emptying rate and the design of pesticide risk assessment schemes in the honey bee and wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)Fournier Alice; Rollin Orianne; Le Feon Violette; Decourtye Axel; Henry MickaelJournal of economic entomology (2014), 107 (1), 38-46 ISSN:0022-0493.Recent scientific literature and reports from official sanitary agencies have pointed out the deficiency of current pesticide risk assessment processes regarding sublethal effects on pollinators. Sublethal effects include troubles in learning performance, orientation skills, or mobility, with possible contribution to substantial dysfunction at population scale. However, the study of sublethal effects is currently limited by considerable knowledge gaps, particularly for the numerous pollinators other than the honey bee Apis mellifera L.--the traditional model for pesticide risk assessment in pollinators. Here, we propose to use the crop-emptying time as a rule of thumb to guide the design of oral exposure experiments in the honey bee and wild bees. The administration of contaminated sucrose solutions is typically followed by a fasting time lapse to allow complete assimilation before the behavioral tests. The fasting duration should at least encompass the crop-emptying time, because no absorption takes place in the crop. We assessed crop-emptying rate in fasted bees and how it relates 1) with sucrose solution concentration in the honey bee and 2) with body mass in wild bees. Fasting duration required for complete crop emptying in honey bees fed 20 microl of a 50% sucrose solution was nearly 2 h. Actual fasting durations are usually shorter in toxicological studies, suggesting incomplete crop emptying, and therefore partial assimilation of experimental solutions that could imply underestimation of sublethal effects. We also found faster crop-emptying rates in large wild bees compared with smaller wild bees, and suggest operative rules to adapt sublethal assessment schemes accordingly.
- 16Dicks, L. V.; Breeze, T. D.; Ngo, H. T.; Senapathi, D.; An, J.; Aizen, M. A.; Basu, P.; Buchori, D.; Galetto, L.; Garibaldi, L. A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Howlett, B. G.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L.; Johnson, S. D.; Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Kwon, Y. J.; Lattorff, H. M. G.; Lungharwo, T.; Seymour, C. L.; Vanbergen, A. J.; Potts, S. G. A Global-Scale Expert Assessment of Drivers and Risks Associated with Pollinator Decline. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 1453– 1461, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01534-9Google Scholar16https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BB2cvlsVCntQ%253D%253D&md5=1697b7bbdf8cc9d4f85ac3f3c7dc8d50A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator declineDicks Lynn V; Dicks Lynn V; Breeze Tom D; Senapathi Deepa; Potts Simon G; Ngo Hien T; An Jiandong; Aizen Marcelo A; Basu Parthiba; Buchori Damayanti; Buchori Damayanti; Galetto Leonardo; Galetto Leonardo; Garibaldi Lucas A; Garibaldi Lucas A; Gemmill-Herren Barbara; Gemmill-Herren Barbara; Howlett Brad G; Imperatriz-Fonseca Vera L; Johnson Steven D; Kovacs-Hostyanszki Aniko; Kwon Yong Jung; Lattorff H Michael G; Lungharwo Thingreipi; Seymour Colleen L; Seymour Colleen L; Vanbergen Adam JNature ecology & evolution (2021), 5 (10), 1453-1461 ISSN:.Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.
- 17Brandt, K.; Glemnitz, M.; Schröder, B. The Impact of Crop Parameters and Surrounding Habitats on Different Pollinator Group Abundance on Agricultural Fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 243, 55– 66, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.009Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 18Barons, M. J.; Hanea, A. M.; Wright, S. K.; Baldock, K. C. R.; Wilfert, L.; Chandler, D.; Datta, S.; Fannon, J.; Hartfield, C.; Lucas, A.; Ollerton, J.; Potts, S. G.; Carreck, N. L. Assessment of the Response of Pollinator Abundance to Environmental Pressures Using Structured Expert Elicitation. J. Apic. Res. 2018, 57, 593– 604, DOI: 10.1080/00218839.2018.1494891Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 19Macdonald, K. J.; Kelly, D.; Tylianakis, J. Do Local Landscape Features Affect Wild Pollinator Abundance, Diversity and Community Composition on Canterbury Farms?. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2018, 42, 262– 268, DOI: 10.20417/nzjecol.42.29Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 20Le Féon, V.; Schermann-Legionnet, A.; Delettre, Y.; Aviron, S.; Billeter, R.; Bugter, R.; Hendrickx, F.; Burel, F. Intensification of Agriculture, Landscape Composition and Wild Bee Communities: A Large Scale Study in Four European Countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 137, 143– 150, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.015Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 21Hallmann, C. A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; Goulson, D.; De Kroon, H. More than 75 Percent Decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas. PLoS One 2017, 12, e0185809 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809Google Scholar21https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXhsFOmsbfE&md5=2a5392dff589f86f43fd37ff9cd9a4a1More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areasHallmann, Caspar A.; Sorg, Martin; Jongejans, Eelke; Siepel, Henk; Hofland, Nick; Schwan, Heinz; Stenmans, Werner; Mueller, Andreas; Sumser, Hubert; Hoerren, Thomas; Goulson, Dave; de Kroon, HansPLoS One (2017), 12 (10), e0185809/1-e0185809/21CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)Global declines in insects have sparked wide interest among scientists, politicians, and the general public. Loss of insect diversity and abundance is expected to provoke cascading effects on food webs and to jeopardize ecosystem services. Our understanding of the extent and underlying causes of this decline is based on the abundance of single species or taxonomic groups only, rather than changes in insect biomass which is more relevant for ecol. functioning. Here, we used a standardized protocol to measure total insect biomass using Malaise traps, deployed over 27 years in 63 nature protection areas in Germany (96 unique location-year combinations) to infer on the status and trend of local entomofauna. Our anal. ests. a seasonal decline of 76%, and mid-summer decline of 82% in flying insect biomass over the 27 years of study. We show that this decline is apparent regardless of habitat type, while changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics cannot explain this overall decline. This yet unrecognized loss of insect biomass must be taken into account in evaluating declines in abundance of species depending on insects as a food source, and ecosystem functioning in the European landscape.
- 22Garibaldi, L. A.; Aizen, M. A.; Cunningham, S. A.; Klein, A. M. Pollinator Dependency Effects on Global Crop Yield: Looking at the Whole Spectrum of Pollinator Dependency. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2009, 2, 37– 39, DOI: 10.4161/cib.2.1.7425Google Scholar22https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD1MrnvFentw%253D%253D&md5=9114be48cb29807250d9c38baf2a5b9dPollinator shortage and global crop yield: Looking at the whole spectrum of pollinator dependencyGaribaldi Lucas A; Aizen Marcelo A; Cunningham Saul A; Klein Alexandra MCommunicative & integrative biology (2009), 2 (1), 37-9 ISSN:.A pollinator decline caused by environmental degradation might be compromising the production of pollinator-dependent crops. In a recent article, we compared 45 year series (1961-2006) in yield, production and cultivated area of pollinator-dependent and nondependent crop around the world. If pollinator shortage is occurring globally, we expected a lower annual growth rate in yield for pollinator-dependent than nondependent crops, but a higher growth in cultivated area to compensate the lower yield. We have found little evidence for the first "yield" prediction but strong evidence for the second "area" prediction. Here, we present an additional analysis to show that the first and second predictions are both supported for crops that vary in dependency levels from nondependent to moderate dependence (i.e., up to 65% average yield reduction without pollinators). However, those crops for which animal pollination is essential (i.e., 95% average yield reduction without pollinators) showed higher growth in yield and lower expansion in area than expected in a pollination shortage scenario. We propose that pollination management for highly pollinator-dependent crops, such us renting hives or hand pollination, might have compensated for pollinator limitation of yield.
- 23Lautenbach, S.; Seppelt, R.; Liebscher, J.; Dormann, C. F. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Global Pollination Benefit. PLoS One 2012, 7, e35954 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035954Google Scholar23https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XntFWlu78%253D&md5=66ed08fbdc9e8b30af1aa1a779328598Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefitLautenbach, Sven; Seppelt, Ralf; Liebscher, Juliane; Dormann, Carsten F.PLoS One (2012), 7 (4), e35954CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)Pollination is a well-studied and at the same time a threatened ecosystem service. A significant part of global crop prodn. depends on or profits from pollination by animals. Using detailed information on global crop yields of 60 pollination dependent or profiting crops, we provide a map of global pollination benefits on a 5' by 5' latitude-longitude grid. The current spatial pattern of pollination benefits is only partly correlated with climate variables and the distribution of cropland. The resulting map of pollination benefits identifies hot spots of pollination benefits at sufficient detail to guide political decisions on where to protect pollination services by investing in structural diversity of land use. Addnl., we investigated the vulnerability of the national economies with respect to potential decline of pollination services as the portion of the (agricultural) economy depending on pollination benefits. While the general dependency of the agricultural economy on pollination seems to be stable from 1993 until 2009, we see increases in producer prices for pollination dependent crops, which we interpret as an early warning signal for a conflict between pollination service and other land uses at the global scale. Our spatially explicit anal. of global pollination benefit points to hot spots for the generation of pollination benefits and can serve as a base for further planning of land use, protection sites and agricultural policies for maintaining pollination services.
- 24Alejandre, E. M.; van Bodegom, P. M.; Guinée, J. B. Towards an Optimal Coverage of Ecosystem Services in LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 714– 722, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.284Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 25Rugani, B.; Maia de Souza, D.; Weidema, B. P.; Bare, J.; Bakshi, B.; Grann, B.; Johnston, J. M.; Pavan, A. L. R.; Liu, X.; Laurent, A.; Verones, F. Towards Integrating the Ecosystem Services Cascade Framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Cause-Effect Methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 1284– 1298, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.023Google Scholar25https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1MXhtlOlsrnK&md5=0c2ba341e762266453d5c080c30e2045Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) cause-effect methodologyRugani, Benedetto; Maia de Souza, Danielle; Weidema, Bo P.; Bare, Jane; Bakshi, Bhavik; Grann, Blane; Johnston, John M.; Pavan, Ana Laura Raymundo; Liu, Xinyu; Laurent, Alexis; Verones, FrancescaScience of the Total Environment (2019), 690 (), 1284-1298CODEN: STENDL; ISSN:0048-9697. (Elsevier B.V.)The assessment of ecosystem services (ES) is covered in a fragmented manner by environmental decision support tools that provide information about the potential environmental impacts of supply chains and their products, such as the well-known Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodol. Within the flagship project of the Life Cycle Initiative (hosted by UN Environment), aiming at global guidance for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators, a dedicated subtask force was constituted to consolidate the evaluation of ES in LCA. As one of the outcomes of this subtask force, this paper describes the progress towards consensus building in the LCA domain concerning the assessment of anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and their assocd. services for human well-being. To this end, the traditional LCIA structure, which represents the cause-effect chain from stressor to impacts and damages, is re-casted and expanded using the lens of the ES 'cascade model'. This links changes in ecosystem structure and function to changes in human well-being, while LCIA links the effect of changes on ecosystems due to human impacts (e.g. land use change, eutrophication, freshwater depletion) to the increase or decrease in the quality and/or quantity of supplied ES. The proposed cascade modeling framework complements traditional LCIA with information about the externalities assocd. with the supply and demand of ES, for which the overall cost-benefit result might be either neg. (i.e. detrimental impact on the ES provision) or pos. (i.e. increase of ES provision). In so doing, the framework introduces into traditional LCIA the notion of "benefit" (in the form of ES supply flows and ecosystems' capacity to generate services) which balances the quantified environmental intervention flows and related impacts (in the form of ES demands) that are typically considered in LCA. Recommendations are eventually provided to further address current gaps in the anal. of ES within the LCA methodol.
- 26ISO. Environmental Management─Life Cycle Assessment─Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:2006 (E); International Organization for Standardization, 2006; pp 1– 28.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 27Crenna, E.; Sala, S.; Polce, C.; Collina, E. Pollinators in Life Cycle Assessment: Towards a Framework for Impact Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 525– 536, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.058Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 28Othoniel, B.; Rugani, B.; Heijungs, R.; Benetto, E.; Withagen, C. Assessment of Life Cycle Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Promise, Problems, and Prospects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1077– 1092, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b03706Google Scholar28https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXitFSlsLnO&md5=d101f69d48c106ec1e15da04575fe550Assessment of life cycle impacts on ecosystem services: promise, problems, and prospectsOthoniel, Benoit; Rugani, Benedetto; Heijungs, Reinout; Benetto, Enrico; Withagen, CeesEnvironmental Science & Technology (2016), 50 (3), 1077-1092CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)The anal. of ecosystem services (ES) is becoming a key-factor to implement policies on sustainable technologies. Accordingly, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods are more and more oriented toward the development of harmonized characterization models to address impacts on ES. However, such efforts are relatively recent and have not reached full consensus yet. We investigate here on the transdisciplinary pillars related to the modeling of LCIA on ES by conducting a crit. review and comparison of the state-of-the-art in both LCIA and ES domains. We observe that current LCIA practices to assess impacts on "ES provision" suffer from incompleteness in modeling the cause-effect chains; the multifunctionality of ecosystems is omitted; and the "flow" nature of ES is not considered. Furthermore, ES modeling in LCIA is limited by its static calcn. framework, and the valuation of ES also experiences some limitations. The conceptualization of land use (changes) as the main impact driver on ES, and the corresponding approaches to retrieve characterization factors, eventually embody several methodol. shortcomings, such as the lack of time-dependency and interrelationships between elements in the cause-effect chains. We conclude that future LCIA modeling of ES could benefit from the harmonization with existing integrated multiscale dynamic integrated approaches.
- 29Alejandre, E. M.; Potts, S. G.; Guinée, J. B.; van Bodegom, P. M. Characterisation Model Approach for LCA to Estimate Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance and Illustrative Characterisation Factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 131043, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131043Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 30Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (Part I): Overview and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2016, 21, 1218– 1230, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 31Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Steinmann, Z. J. N.; Elshout, P. M. F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A Harmonised Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2017, 22, 138– 147, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1246-yGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 32Verones, F.; Hellweg, S.; Azevedo, L. B.; Laurent, A.; Mutel, C. L.; Pfister, S. LC-Impact . Version 0.5, 2016; pp 1– 143.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 33Cao, V.; Margni, M.; Favis, B. D.; Deschênes, L. Desch??nes, L. Aggregated Indicator to Assess Land Use Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Based on the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 56– 66, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.041Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 34Hischier, R.; Weidema, B.; Althaus, H.-J.; Bauer, C.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Frischknecht, R.; Hellweg, S.; Humbert, S.; Jungbluth, N.; Köllner, T.; Loerincik, Y.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods . Data v2.2 (2007). ecoinvent Rep. No. 3, 2007; p 176. No. 3.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 35Bulle, C.; Margni, M.; Patouillard, L.; Boulay, A. M.; Bourgault, G.; De Bruille, V.; Cao, V.; Hauschild, M.; Henderson, A.; Humbert, S.; Kashef-Haghighi, S.; Kounina, A.; Laurent, A.; Levasseur, A.; Liard, G.; Rosenbaum, R. K.; Roy, P. O.; Shaked, S.; Fantke, P.; Jolliet, O. IMPACT World+: A Globally Regionalized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2019, 24, 1653– 1674, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 36Milà i Canals, L.; Bauer, C.; Depestele, J.; Dubreuil, A.; Knuchel, R. F.; Gaillard, G.; Michelsen, O.; Müller-Wenk, R.; Rydgren, B. Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA. Int. J. Metalcast. 2007, 12, 5– 15, DOI: 10.1065/lca2006.12.295Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 37Koellner, T.; de Baan, L.; Beck, T.; Brandão, M.; Civit, B.; Margni, M.; i Canals, L. M.; Saad, R.; de Souza, D. M.; Müller-Wenk, R. UNEP-SETAC Guideline on Global Land Use Impact Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2013, 18, 1188– 1202, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0579-zGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 38Scherer, L.; De Laurentiis, V.; Marques, A.; Michelsen, O.; Alejandre, E. M.; Pfister, S.; Rosa, F.; Rugani, B. Linking Land Use Inventories to Biodiversity Impact Assessment Methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2021, 26, 2315– 2320, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-021-02003-yGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 39Thangaratinam, S.; Redman, C. W. The Delphi Technique. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005, 7, 120– 125, DOI: 10.1576/toag.7.2.120.27071Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 40Hsu, C.-C.; Sandford, B. A. The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2007, 12, 10, DOI: 10.7275/pdz9-th90Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 41Scolozzi, R.; Morri, E.; Santolini, R. Delphi-Based Change Assessment in Ecosystem Service Values to Support Strategic Spatial Planning in Italian Landscapes. Ecol. Indicat. 2012, 21, 134– 144, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 42Blasi, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Bommarco, R.; Gagic, V.; Garratt, M.; Holzschuh, A.; Kleijn, D.; Lindström, S. A. M.; Olsson, P.; Polce, C.; Potts, S. G.; Rundlöf, M.; Scheper, J.; Smith, H. G.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Clough, Y. Evaluating Predictive Performance of Statistical Models Explaining Wild Bee Abundance in a Mass-Flowering Crop. Ecography 2021, 44, 525– 536, DOI: 10.1111/ecog.05308Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 43Czembor, C. A.; Morris, W. K.; Wintle, B. A.; Vesk, P. A. Quantifying Variance Components in Ecological Models Based on Expert Opinion. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 736– 745, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01971.xGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 44Cucurachi, S.; Borgonovo, E.; Heijungs, R. A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment. Risk Anal. 2016, 36, 357– 377, DOI: 10.1111/risa.12443Google Scholar44https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC28vktlyrsQ%253D%253D&md5=1215725b8a247d1aaec47a0089a33850A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle AssessmentCucurachi S; Heijungs R; Cucurachi S; Borgonovo E; Heijungs RRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (2016), 36 (2), 357-77 ISSN:.The life cycle assessment (LCA) framework has established itself as the leading tool for the assessment of the environmental impact of products. Several works have established the need of integrating the LCA and risk analysis methodologies, due to the several common aspects. One of the ways to reach such integration is through guaranteeing that uncertainties in LCA modeling are carefully treated. It has been claimed that more attention should be paid to quantifying the uncertainties present in the various phases of LCA. Though the topic has been attracting increasing attention of practitioners and experts in LCA, there is still a lack of understanding and a limited use of the available statistical tools. In this work, we introduce a protocol to conduct global sensitivity analysis in LCA. The article focuses on the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and particularly on the relevance of global techniques for the development of trustable impact assessment models. We use a novel characterization model developed for the quantification of the impacts of noise on humans as a test case. We show that global SA is fundamental to guarantee that the modeler has a complete understanding of: (i) the structure of the model and (ii) the importance of uncertain model inputs and the interaction among them.
- 45IPBES. The Assessment Report on Pollinators; Pollination and Food Production, 2016.Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 46Václavík, T.; Lautenbach, S.; Kuemmerle, T.; Seppelt, R. Mapping Global Land System Archetypes. Global Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1637– 1647, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.004Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 47Alejandre, E. M.; Guinée, J. B.; van Bodegom, P. M. Assessing the Use of Land System Archetypes to Increase Regional Variability Representation in Country-Specific Characterization Factors: A Soil Erosion Case Study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2022, 27, 409– 418, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-022-02037-wGoogle ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 48De Palma, A.; Abrahamczyk, S.; Aizen, M. A.; Albrecht, M.; Basset, Y.; Bates, A.; Blake, R. J.; Boutin, C.; Bugter, R.; Connop, S.; Cruz-López, L.; Cunningham, S. A.; Darvill, B.; Diekötter, T.; Dorn, S.; Downing, N.; Entling, M. H.; Farwig, N.; Felicioli, A.; Fonte, S. J.; Fowler, R.; Franzén, M.; Goulson, D.; Grass, I.; Hanley, M. E.; Hendrix, S. D.; Herrmann, F.; Herzog, F.; Holzschuh, A.; Jauker, B.; Kessler, M.; Knight, M. E.; Kruess, A.; Lavelle, P.; Le Féon, V.; Lentini, P.; Malone, L. A.; Marshall, J.; Pachón, E. M.; McFrederick, Q. S.; Morales, C. L.; Mudri-Stojnic, S.; Nates-Parra, G.; Nilsson, S. G.; Öckinger, E.; Osgathorpe, L.; Parra-H, A.; Peres, C. A.; Persson, A. S.; Petanidou, T.; Poveda, K.; Power, E. F.; Quaranta, M.; Quintero, C.; Rader, R.; Richards, M. H.; Roulston, T.; Rousseau, L.; Sadler, J. P.; Samnegård, U.; Schellhorn, N. A.; Schüepp, C.; Schweiger, O.; Smith-Pardo, A. H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Stout, J. C.; Tonietto, R. K.; Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J. M.; Verboven, H. A. F.; Vergara, C. H.; Verhulst, J.; Westphal, C.; Yoon, H. J.; Purvis, A. Predicting Bee Community Responses to Land-Use Changes: Effects of Geographic and Taxonomic Biases. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 31153, DOI: 10.1038/srep31153Google Scholar48https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XhtlCit7zO&md5=c7f32333513cf3bfe72ddc9fb47c6225Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biasesDe Palma, Adriana; Abrahamczyk, Stefan; Aizen, Marcelo A.; Albrecht, Matthias; Basset, Yves; Bates, Adam; Blake, Robin J.; Boutin, Celine; Bugter, Rob; Connop, Stuart; Cruz-Lopez, Leopoldo; Cunningham, Saul A.; Darvill, Ben; Diekotter, Tim; Dorn, Silvia; Downing, Nicola; Entling, Martin H.; Farwig, Nina; Felicioli, Antonio; Fonte, Steven J.; Fowler, Robert; Franzen, Markus; Goulson, Dave; Grass, Ingo; Hanley, Mick E.; Hendrix, Stephen D.; Herrmann, Farina; Herzog, Felix; Holzschuh, Andrea; Jauker, Birgit; Kessler, Michael; Knight, M. E.; Kruess, Andreas; Lavelle, Patrick; Le Feon, Violette; Lentini, Pia; Malone, Louise A.; Marshall, Jon; Pachon, Eliana Martinez; McFrederick, Quinn S.; Morales, Carolina L.; Mudri-Stojnic, Sonja; Nates-Parra, Guiomar; Nilsson, Sven G.; Ockinger, Erik; Osgathorpe, Lynne; Parra-H, Alejandro; Peres, Carlos A.; Persson, Anna S.; Petanidou, Theodora; Poveda, Katja; Power, Eileen F.; Quaranta, Marino; Quintero, Carolina; Rader, Romina; Richards, Miriam H.; Roulston, T'ai; Rousseau, Laurent; Sadler, Jonathan P.; Samnegard, Ulrika; Schellhorn, Nancy A.; Schuepp, Christof; Schweiger, Oliver; Smith-Pardo, Allan H.; Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf; Stout, Jane C.; Tonietto, Rebecca K.; Tscharntke, Teja; Tylianakis, Jason M.; Verboven, Hans A. F.; Vergara, Carlos H.; Verhulst, Jort; Westphal, Catrin; Yoon, Hyung Joo; Purvis, AndyScientific Reports (2016), 6 (), 31153CODEN: SRCEC3; ISSN:2045-2322. (Nature Publishing Group)Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterize, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geog. and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geog. and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geog. and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecol. surprises.
- 49Orford, K. A.; Murray, P. J.; Vaughan, I. P.; Memmott, J. Modest Enhancements to Conventional Grassland Diversity Improve the Provision of Pollination Services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 906– 915, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12608Google Scholar49https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1c%252FhslOjsw%253D%253D&md5=0342777973d229de544763489d4cb67dModest enhancements to conventional grassland diversity improve the provision of pollination servicesOrford Katherine A; Memmott Jane; Murray Phil J; Vaughan Ian PThe Journal of applied ecology (2016), 53 (3), 906-915 ISSN:0021-8901.Grassland for livestock production is a major form of land use throughout Europe and its intensive management threatens biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in agricultural landscapes. Modest increases to conventional grassland biodiversity could have considerable positive impacts on the provision of ecosystem services, such as pollination, to surrounding habitats.Using a field-scale experiment in which grassland seed mixes and sward management were manipulated, complemented by surveys on working farms and phytometer experiments, the impact of conventional grassland diversity and management on the functional diversity and ecosystem service provision of pollinator communities were investigated.Increasing plant richness, by the addition of both legumes and forbs, was associated with significant enhancements in the functional diversity of grassland pollinator communities. This was associated with increased temporal stability of flower-visitor interactions at the community level. Visitation networks revealed pasture species Taraxacum sp. (Wigg.) (dandelion) and Cirsium arvense (Scop.) (creeping thistle) to have the highest pollinator visitation frequency and richness. Cichorium intybus (L.) (chichory) was highlighted as an important species having both high pollinator visitation and desirable agronomic properties.Increased sward richness was associated with an increase in the pollination of two phytometer species; Fragaria × ananassa (strawberry) and Silene dioica (red campion), but not Vicia faba (broad bean). Enhanced functional diversity, richness and abundance of the pollinator communities associated with more diverse neighbouring pastures were found to be potential mechanisms for improved pollination. Synthesis and applications. A modest increase in conventional grassland plant diversity with legumes and forbs, achievable with the expertise and resources available to most grassland farmers, could enhance pollinator functional diversity, richness and abundance. Moreover, our results suggest that this could improve pollination services and consequently surrounding crop yields (e.g. strawberry) and wildflower reproduction in agro-ecosystems.
- 50Albrecht, M.; Kleijn, D.; Williams, N. M.; Tschumi, M.; Blaauw, B. R.; Bommarco, R.; Campbell, A. J.; Dainese, M.; Drummond, F. A.; Entling, M. H.; Ganser, D.; Arjen de Groot, G.; Goulson, D.; Grab, H.; Hamilton, H.; Herzog, F.; Isaacs, R.; Jacot, K.; Jeanneret, P.; Jonsson, M.; Knop, E.; Kremen, C.; Landis, D. A.; Loeb, G. M.; Marini, L.; McKerchar, M.; Morandin, L.; Pfister, S. C.; Potts, S. G.; Rundlöf, M.; Sardiñas, H.; Sciligo, A.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T.; Venturini, E.; Veromann, E.; Vollhardt, I. M. G.; Wäckers, F.; Ward, K.; Westbury, A.; Wilby, M.; Woltz, S.; Wratten, L.; Sutter, L. The Effectiveness of Flower Strips and Hedgerows on Pest Control, Pollination Services and Crop Yield: A Quantitative Synthesis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 23, 1488– 1498, DOI: 10.1111/ele.13576Google ScholarThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
Cited By
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by ACS Publications if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
This article is cited by 5 publications.
- Kamand Ghasemi, Ali Akbari, Shahriar Jahani, Yousef Kazemzadeh. A critical review of life cycle assessment and environmental impact of the well drilling process. The Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering 2024, 36 https://doi.org/10.1002/cjce.25539
- Reinout Heijungs. Statistical Concepts, Terminology and Notation. 2024, 789-914. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-49317-1_10
- Cristian Soldati, Nathalie Iofrida, Giovanni Gulisano. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Life Cycle Methods: An Analytical Assessment of Frameworks and Challenges. 2024, 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74716-8_28
- Xuechun Yang, Xiaohui Lu, Nan Li, Chengdong Wang, Wei Xie, Qiumeng Zhong, Sai Liang. Local Full-Sector Land Uses Influenced by Multiregional Demand and Supply: The Case of Beijing. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 2023, 9 https://doi.org/10.34133/ehs.0075
- Angel Giménez-García, Alfonso Allen-Perkins, Ignasi Bartomeus, Stefano Balbi, Jessica L. Knapp, Violeta Hevia, Ben Alex Woodcock, Guy Smagghe, Marcos Miñarro, Maxime Eeraerts, Jonathan F. Colville, Juliana Hipólito, Pablo Cavigliasso, Guiomar Nates-Parra, José M. Herrera, Sarah Cusser, Benno I. Simmons, Volkmar Wolters, Shalene Jha, Breno M. Freitas, Finbarr G. Horgan, Derek R. Artz, C. Sheena Sidhu, Mark Otieno, Virginie Boreux, David J. Biddinger, Alexandra-Maria Klein, Neelendra K. Joshi, Rebecca I. A. Stewart, Matthias Albrecht, Charlie C. Nicholson, Alison D. O'Reilly, David William Crowder, Katherine L. W. Burns, Diego Nicolás Nabaes Jodar, Lucas Alejandro Garibaldi, Louis Sutter, Yoko L. Dupont, Bo Dalsgaard, Jeferson Gabriel da Encarnação Coutinho, Amparo Lázaro, Georg K. S. Andersson, Nigel E. Raine, Smitha Krishnan, Matteo Dainese, Wopke van der Werf, Henrik G. Smith, Ainhoa Magrach. Pollination supply models from a local to global scale. Web Ecology 2023, 23
(2)
, 99-129. https://doi.org/10.5194/we-23-99-2023
Article Views are the COUNTER-compliant sum of full text article downloads since November 2008 (both PDF and HTML) across all institutions and individuals. These metrics are regularly updated to reflect usage leading up to the last few days.
Citations are the number of other articles citing this article, calculated by Crossref and updated daily. Find more information about Crossref citation counts.
The Altmetric Attention Score is a quantitative measure of the attention that a research article has received online. Clicking on the donut icon will load a page at altmetric.com with additional details about the score and the social media presence for the given article. Find more information on the Altmetric Attention Score and how the score is calculated.
Recommended Articles
Abstract
Figure 1
Figure 1. Land use categories assessed for impact characterization.
Figure 2
Figure 2. CFs for land occupation impacts on pollinator abundance (m2·year/m2·year reference land).
Figure 3
Figure 3. Considerations by experts for pollinator abundance estimates and their compatibility with land use intensity levels found in the ecoinvent inventory.
References
This article references 50 other publications.
- 1Stein, K.; Coulibaly, D.; Stenchly, K.; Goetze, D.; Porembski, S.; Lindner, A.; Konaté, S.; Linsenmair, E. K. Bee Pollination Increases Yield Quantity and Quality of Cash Crops in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17691, DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-17970-21https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1MzivFarsg%253D%253D&md5=467b6dbc1ea65ad2e5178545661426c6Bee pollination increases yield quantity and quality of cash crops in Burkina Faso, West AfricaStein Katharina; Linsenmair Eduard K; Stein Katharina; Goetze Dethardt; Porembski Stefan; Coulibaly Drissa; Konate Souleymane; Stenchly Kathrin; Lindner AndreScientific reports (2017), 7 (1), 17691 ISSN:.Mutualistic biotic interactions as among flowering plants and their animal pollinators are a key component of biodiversity. Pollination, especially by insects, is a key element in ecosystem functioning, and hence constitutes an ecosystem service of global importance. Not only sexual reproduction of plants is ensured, but also yields are stabilized and genetic variability of crops is maintained, counteracting inbreeding depression and facilitating system resilience. While experiencing rapid environmental change, there is an increased demand for food and income security, especially in sub-Saharan communities, which are highly dependent on small scale agriculture. By combining exclusion experiments, pollinator surveys and field manipulations, this study for the first time quantifies the contribution of bee pollinators to smallholders' production of the major cash crops, cotton and sesame, in Burkina Faso. Pollination by honeybees and wild bees significantly increased yield quantity and quality on average up to 62%, while exclusion of pollinators caused an average yield gap of 37% in cotton and 59% in sesame. Self-pollination revealed inbreeding depression effects on fruit set and low germination rates in the F1-generation. Our results highlight potential negative consequences of any pollinator decline, provoking risks to agriculture and compromising crop yields in sub-Saharan West Africa.
- 2Bartomeus, I.; Potts, S. G.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Vaissière, B. E.; Woyciechowski, M.; Krewenka, K. M.; Tscheulin, T.; Roberts, S. P. M.; Szentgyörgyi, H.; Westphal, C.; Bommarco, R. Contribution of Insect Pollinators to Crop Yield and Quality Varies with Agricultural Intensification. PeerJ 2014, 2, e328 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.328There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 3Motzke, I.; Tscharntke, T.; Wanger, T. C.; Klein, A. M. Pollination Mitigates Cucumber Yield Gaps More than Pesticide and Fertilizer Use in Tropical Smallholder Gardens. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 261– 269, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.12357There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 4Ricketts, T. H.; Regetz, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S. A.; Kremen, C.; Bogdanski, A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Greenleaf, S. S.; Klein, A. M.; Mayfield, M. M.; Morandin, L. A.; Ochieng’, A.; Viana, B. F. Landscape Effects on Crop Pollination Services: Are There General Patterns?. J. Appl. Ecol. 2008, 11, 499– 515, DOI: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.xThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 5Klein, A. M.; Vaissière, B. E.; Cane, J. H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S. A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. Importance of Pollinators in Changing Landscapes for World Crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274, 303– 313, DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2006.37215https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD28jis1OqtA%253D%253D&md5=79a9a36817084655bae6157667adf79eImportance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world cropsKlein Alexandra-Maria; Vaissiere Bernard E; Cane James H; Steffan-Dewenter Ingolf; Cunningham Saul A; Kremen Claire; Tscharntke TejaProceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society (2007), 274 (1608), 303-13 ISSN:0962-8452.The extent of our reliance on animal pollination for world crop production for human food has not previously been evaluated and the previous estimates for countries or continents have seldom used primary data. In this review, we expand the previous estimates using novel primary data from 200 countries and found that fruit, vegetable or seed production from 87 of the leading global food crops is dependent upon animal pollination, while 28 crops do not rely upon animal pollination. However, global production volumes give a contrasting perspective, since 60% of global production comes from crops that do not depend on animal pollination, 35% from crops that depend on pollinators, and 5% are unevaluated. Using all crops traded on the world market and setting aside crops that are solely passively self-pollinated, wind-pollinated or parthenocarpic, we then evaluated the level of dependence on animal-mediated pollination for crops that are directly consumed by humans. We found that pollinators are essential for 13 crops, production is highly pollinator dependent for 30, moderately for 27, slightly for 21, unimportant for 7, and is of unknown significance for the remaining 9. We further evaluated whether local and landscape-wide management for natural pollination services could help to sustain crop diversity and production. Case studies for nine crops on four continents revealed that agricultural intensification jeopardizes wild bee communities and their stabilizing effect on pollination services at the landscape scale.
- 6Pfiffner, L.; Ostermaier, M.; Stoeckli, S.; Müller, A. Wild Bees Respond Complementarily to ‘High-Quality’ Perennial and Annual Habitats of Organic Farms in a Complex Landscape. J. Insect Conserv. 2018, 22, 551– 562, DOI: 10.1007/s10841-018-0084-6There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 7Graham, J. B.; Nassauer, J. I. Wild Bee Abundance in Temperate Agroforestry Landscapes: Assessing Effects of Alley Crop Composition, Landscape Configuration, and Agroforestry Area. Agrofor. Syst. 2017, 93, 837, DOI: 10.1007/s10457-017-0179-1There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 8Bennett, A. B.; Meehan, T. D.; Gratton, C.; Isaacs, R. Modeling Pollinator Community Response to Contrasting Bioenergy Scenarios. PLoS One 2014, 9, e110676 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.01106768https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2cXhvFyhur3L&md5=2e02dd32f94b0c9e72574dbc810f653cModeling pollinator community response to contrasting bioenergy scenariosBennett, Ashley B.; Meehan, Timothy D.; Gratton, Claudio; Isaacs, RufusPLoS One (2014), 9 (11), e110676/1-e110676/10, 10 pp.CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)In the United States, policy initiatives aimed at increasing sources of renewable energy are advancing bioenergy prodn., esp. in the Midwest region, where agricultural landscapes dominate. While policy directives are focused on renewable fuel prodn., biodiversity and ecosystem services will be impacted by the land-use changes required to meet prodn. targets. Using data from field observations, we developed empirical models for predicting abundance, diversity, and community compn. of flower-visiting bees based on land cover. We used these models to explore how bees might respond under two contrasting bioenergy scenarios: annual bioenergy crop prodn. and perennial grassland bioenergy prodn. In the two scenarios, 600,000 ha of marginal annual crop land or marginal grassland were converted to perennial grassland or annual row crop bioenergy prodn., resp. Model projections indicate that expansion of annual bioenergy crop prodn. at this scale will reduce bee abundance by 0 to 71 %, and bee diversity by 0 to 28 %, depending on location. In contrast, converting annual crops on marginal soil to perennial grasslands could increase bee abundance from 0 to 600 % and increase bee diversity between 0 and 53 %. Our anal. of bee community compn. suggested a similar pattern, with bee communities becoming less diverse under annual bioenergy crop prodn., whereas bee compn. transitioned towards a more diverse community dominated by wild bees under perennial bioenergy crop prodn. Models, like those employed here, suggest that bioenergy policies have important consequences for pollinator conservation.
- 9Koh, I.; Lonsdorf, E. V.; Williams, N. M.; Brittain, C.; Isaacs, R.; Gibbs, J.; Ricketts, T. H. Modeling the Status, Trends, and Impacts of Wild Bee Abundance in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2016, 113, 140– 145, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.15176851139https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXitVylsr3E&md5=b469ae82bc52c988d0b571f602bb4fa4Modeling the status, trends, and impacts of wild bee abundance in the United StatesKoh, Insu; Lonsdorf, Eric V.; Williams, Neal M.; Brittain, Claire; Isaacs, Rufus; Gibbs, Jason; Ricketts, Taylor H.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2016), 113 (1), 140-145CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)Wild bees are highly valuable pollinators. Along with managed honey bees, they provide a crit. ecosystem service by ensuring stable pollination to agriculture and wild plant communities. Increasing concern about the welfare of both wild and managed pollinators, however, has prompted recent calls for national evaluation and action. Here, for the first time to our knowledge, we assess the status and trends of wild bees and their potential impacts on pollination services across the coterminous United States. We use a spatial habitat model, national land-cover data, and carefully quantified expert knowledge to est. wild bee abundance and assocd. uncertainty. Between 2008 and 2013, modeled bee abundance declined across 23% of US land area. This decline was generally assocd. with conversion of natural habitats to row crops. We identify 139 counties where low bee abundances correspond to large areas of pollinator-dependent crops. These areas of mismatch between supply (wild bee abundance) and demand (cultivated area) for pollination comprise 39% of the pollinator-dependent crop area in the United States. Further, we find that the crops most highly dependent on pollinators tend to experience more severe mismatches between declining supply and increasing demand. These trends, should they continue, may increase costs for US farmers and may even destabilize crop prodn. over time. National assessments such as this can help focus both scientific and political efforts to understand and sustain wild bees. As new information becomes available, repeated assessments can update findings, revise priorities, and track progress toward sustainable management of our nation's pollinators.
- 10Potts, S. G.; Biesmeijer, J. C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W. E. Global Pollinator Declines: Trends, Impacts and Drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345– 353, DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.00710https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC3crgvVChsw%253D%253D&md5=35dcc2e5053274f11d5c245cdacc3a0cGlobal pollinator declines: trends, impacts and driversPotts Simon G; Biesmeijer Jacobus C; Kremen Claire; Neumann Peter; Schweiger Oliver; Kunin William ETrends in ecology & evolution (2010), 25 (6), 345-53 ISSN:0169-5347.Pollinators are a key component of global biodiversity, providing vital ecosystem services to crops and wild plants. There is clear evidence of recent declines in both wild and domesticated pollinators, and parallel declines in the plants that rely upon them. Here we describe the nature and extent of reported declines, and review the potential drivers of pollinator loss, including habitat loss and fragmentation, agrochemicals, pathogens, alien species, climate change and the interactions between them. Pollinator declines can result in loss of pollination services which have important negative ecological and economic impacts that could significantly affect the maintenance of wild plant diversity, wider ecosystem stability, crop production, food security and human welfare.
- 11Sabatier, R.; Meyer, K.; Wiegand, K.; Clough, Y. Non-Linear Effects of Pesticide Application on Biodiversity-Driven Ecosystem Services and Disservices in a Cacao Agroecosystem: A Modeling Study. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2013, 14, 115– 125, DOI: 10.1016/j.baae.2012.12.00611https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC3sXit1Krt7c%253D&md5=e9a272081975673e47df144a10ef83f4Non-linear effects of pesticide application on biodiversity-driven ecosystem services and disservices in a cacao agroecosystem: A modeling studySabatier, Rodolphe; Meyer, Katrin; Wiegand, Kerstin; Clough, YannBasic and Applied Ecology (2013), 14 (2), 115-125CODEN: BAEACZ; ISSN:1439-1791. (Elsevier GmbH)Growing concerns have been raised regarding the effects of disturbance due to agricultural practices on assoc. biodiversity and on the ecosystem services that biodiversity provides. Surprisingly little is known about the effects of such disturbances on complex agroecosystems with multiple interacting species. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of management by pesticide spraying on the productive outputs and the ecol. functioning of a cacao agroecosystem. The authors built a mechanistic dynamic model including the dynamics of the crop, a pest (Cacao Pod Borer, Conopomorpha cramerella) and two beneficial insects: a hymenopteran egg-parasitoid and a ceratopogonid pollinator. Using this model, the authors tested the effects of a range of pesticide types characterized by their impacts on both the Cacao Pod Borer and the beneficial insects. Our results showed that yield strongly varies according to both pesticide type and timing of pesticide application. The type of pesticide had a strong influence on the flexibility of management. No simple spraying decision rule led to maximal yields for all types of pesticide. Although optimal spraying strategies differed with the type of pesticide used, they all showed a similar pattern, i.e. they limited and postponed the Cacao Pod Borer population peak while limiting the neg. impacts on beneficial organisms. The results highlight the non-trivial effects of pesticide application in complex agroecosystems where assocd. biodiversity provides both ecosystem services and disservices. They illustrate the crit. importance of providing good information to farmers on pesticide management because the use of pesticides can have a neg. effect on prodn. by decreasing ecosystem services such as pollination.
- 12Imbach, P.; Fung, E.; Hannah, L.; Navarro-Racines, C. E.; Roubik, D. W.; Ricketts, T. H.; Harvey, C. A.; Donatti, C. I.; Läderach, P.; Locatelli, B.; Roehrdanz, P. R. Coupling of Pollination Services and Coffee Suitability under Climate Change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 10438– 10442, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.161794011412https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2sXhsVKltb3L&md5=aa33c42f8263330ce609254ccb7144b8Coupling of pollination services and coffee suitability under climate changeImbach, Pablo; Fung, Emily; Hannah, Lee; Navarro-Racines, Carlos E.; Roubik, David W.; Ricketts, Taylor H.; Harvey, Celia A.; Donatti, Camila I.; Laderach, Peter; Locatelli, Bruno; Roehrdanz, Patrick R.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (2017), 114 (39), 10438-10442CODEN: PNASA6; ISSN:0027-8424. (National Academy of Sciences)Climate change will cause geog. range shifts for pollinators and major crops, with global implications for food security and rural livelihoods. However, little is known about the potential for coupled impacts of climate change on pollinators and crops. Coffee prodn. exemplifies this issue, because large losses in areas suitable for coffee prodn. have been projected due to climate change and because coffee prodn. is dependent on bee pollination. We modeled the potential distributions of coffee and coffee pollinators under current and future climates in Latin America to understand whether future coffee-suitable areas will also be suitable for pollinators. Our results suggest that coffee-suitable areas will be reduced 73-88% by 2050 across warming scenarios, a decline 46-76% greater than estd. by global assessments. Mean bee richness will decline 8-18% within future coffee-suitable areas, but all are predicted to contain at least 5 bee species, and 46-59% of future coffee-suitable areas will contain 10 or more species. In our models, coffee suitability and bee richness each increase (i.e., pos. coupling) in 10-22% of future coffee-suitable areas. Diminished coffee suitability and bee richness (i.e., neg. coupling), however, occur in 34-51% of other areas. Finally, in 31-33% of the future coffee distribution areas, bee richness decreases and coffee suitability increases. Assessing coupled effects of climate change on crop suitability and pollination can help target appropriate management practices, including forest conservation, shade adjustment, crop rotation, or status quo, in different regions.
- 13Hannah, L.; Steele, M.; Fung, E.; Imbach, P.; Flint, L.; Flint, A. Climate Change Influences on Pollinator, Forest, and Farm Interactions across a Climate Gradient. Clim. Change 2017, 141, 63– 75, DOI: 10.1007/s10584-016-1868-xThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 14Kennedy, C. M.; Lonsdorf, E.; Neel, M. C.; Williams, N. M.; Ricketts, T. H.; Winfree, R.; Bommarco, R.; Brittain, C.; Burley, A. L.; Cariveau, D.; Carvalheiro, L. G.; Chacoff, N. P.; Cunningham, S. A.; Danforth, B. N.; Dudenhöffer, J. H.; Elle, E.; Gaines, H. R.; Garibaldi, L. A.; Gratton, C.; Holzschuh, A.; Isaacs, R.; Javorek, S. K.; Jha, S.; Klein, A. M.; Krewenka, K.; Mandelik, Y.; Mayfield, M. M.; Morandin, L.; Neame, L. A.; Otieno, M.; Park, M.; Potts, S. G.; Rundlöf, M.; Saez, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Taki, H.; Viana, B. F.; Westphal, C.; Wilson, J. K.; Greenleaf, S. S.; Kremen, C. A Global Quantitative Synthesis of Local and Landscape Effects on Wild Bee Pollinators in Agroecosystems. J. Appl. Ecol. 2013, 16, 584– 599, DOI: 10.1111/ele.12082There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 15Fournier, A.; Rollin, O.; Le Féon, V.; Decourtye, A.; Henry, M. Crop-Emptying Rate and the Design of Pesticide Risk Assessment Schemes in the Honey Bee and Wild Bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2014, 107, 38– 46, DOI: 10.1603/ec1308715https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC2crnt1WktA%253D%253D&md5=f31eee6ada55984081bd736a003409e6Crop-emptying rate and the design of pesticide risk assessment schemes in the honey bee and wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae)Fournier Alice; Rollin Orianne; Le Feon Violette; Decourtye Axel; Henry MickaelJournal of economic entomology (2014), 107 (1), 38-46 ISSN:0022-0493.Recent scientific literature and reports from official sanitary agencies have pointed out the deficiency of current pesticide risk assessment processes regarding sublethal effects on pollinators. Sublethal effects include troubles in learning performance, orientation skills, or mobility, with possible contribution to substantial dysfunction at population scale. However, the study of sublethal effects is currently limited by considerable knowledge gaps, particularly for the numerous pollinators other than the honey bee Apis mellifera L.--the traditional model for pesticide risk assessment in pollinators. Here, we propose to use the crop-emptying time as a rule of thumb to guide the design of oral exposure experiments in the honey bee and wild bees. The administration of contaminated sucrose solutions is typically followed by a fasting time lapse to allow complete assimilation before the behavioral tests. The fasting duration should at least encompass the crop-emptying time, because no absorption takes place in the crop. We assessed crop-emptying rate in fasted bees and how it relates 1) with sucrose solution concentration in the honey bee and 2) with body mass in wild bees. Fasting duration required for complete crop emptying in honey bees fed 20 microl of a 50% sucrose solution was nearly 2 h. Actual fasting durations are usually shorter in toxicological studies, suggesting incomplete crop emptying, and therefore partial assimilation of experimental solutions that could imply underestimation of sublethal effects. We also found faster crop-emptying rates in large wild bees compared with smaller wild bees, and suggest operative rules to adapt sublethal assessment schemes accordingly.
- 16Dicks, L. V.; Breeze, T. D.; Ngo, H. T.; Senapathi, D.; An, J.; Aizen, M. A.; Basu, P.; Buchori, D.; Galetto, L.; Garibaldi, L. A.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Howlett, B. G.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V. L.; Johnson, S. D.; Kovács-Hostyánszki, A.; Kwon, Y. J.; Lattorff, H. M. G.; Lungharwo, T.; Seymour, C. L.; Vanbergen, A. J.; Potts, S. G. A Global-Scale Expert Assessment of Drivers and Risks Associated with Pollinator Decline. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 1453– 1461, DOI: 10.1038/s41559-021-01534-916https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BB2cvlsVCntQ%253D%253D&md5=1697b7bbdf8cc9d4f85ac3f3c7dc8d50A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator declineDicks Lynn V; Dicks Lynn V; Breeze Tom D; Senapathi Deepa; Potts Simon G; Ngo Hien T; An Jiandong; Aizen Marcelo A; Basu Parthiba; Buchori Damayanti; Buchori Damayanti; Galetto Leonardo; Galetto Leonardo; Garibaldi Lucas A; Garibaldi Lucas A; Gemmill-Herren Barbara; Gemmill-Herren Barbara; Howlett Brad G; Imperatriz-Fonseca Vera L; Johnson Steven D; Kovacs-Hostyanszki Aniko; Kwon Yong Jung; Lattorff H Michael G; Lungharwo Thingreipi; Seymour Colleen L; Seymour Colleen L; Vanbergen Adam JNature ecology & evolution (2021), 5 (10), 1453-1461 ISSN:.Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.
- 17Brandt, K.; Glemnitz, M.; Schröder, B. The Impact of Crop Parameters and Surrounding Habitats on Different Pollinator Group Abundance on Agricultural Fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 243, 55– 66, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.009There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 18Barons, M. J.; Hanea, A. M.; Wright, S. K.; Baldock, K. C. R.; Wilfert, L.; Chandler, D.; Datta, S.; Fannon, J.; Hartfield, C.; Lucas, A.; Ollerton, J.; Potts, S. G.; Carreck, N. L. Assessment of the Response of Pollinator Abundance to Environmental Pressures Using Structured Expert Elicitation. J. Apic. Res. 2018, 57, 593– 604, DOI: 10.1080/00218839.2018.1494891There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 19Macdonald, K. J.; Kelly, D.; Tylianakis, J. Do Local Landscape Features Affect Wild Pollinator Abundance, Diversity and Community Composition on Canterbury Farms?. N. Z. J. Ecol. 2018, 42, 262– 268, DOI: 10.20417/nzjecol.42.29There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 20Le Féon, V.; Schermann-Legionnet, A.; Delettre, Y.; Aviron, S.; Billeter, R.; Bugter, R.; Hendrickx, F.; Burel, F. Intensification of Agriculture, Landscape Composition and Wild Bee Communities: A Large Scale Study in Four European Countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 137, 143– 150, DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.015There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 21Hallmann, C. A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; Goulson, D.; De Kroon, H. More than 75 Percent Decline over 27 Years in Total Flying Insect Biomass in Protected Areas. PLoS One 2017, 12, e0185809 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.018580921https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1cXhsFOmsbfE&md5=2a5392dff589f86f43fd37ff9cd9a4a1More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areasHallmann, Caspar A.; Sorg, Martin; Jongejans, Eelke; Siepel, Henk; Hofland, Nick; Schwan, Heinz; Stenmans, Werner; Mueller, Andreas; Sumser, Hubert; Hoerren, Thomas; Goulson, Dave; de Kroon, HansPLoS One (2017), 12 (10), e0185809/1-e0185809/21CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)Global declines in insects have sparked wide interest among scientists, politicians, and the general public. Loss of insect diversity and abundance is expected to provoke cascading effects on food webs and to jeopardize ecosystem services. Our understanding of the extent and underlying causes of this decline is based on the abundance of single species or taxonomic groups only, rather than changes in insect biomass which is more relevant for ecol. functioning. Here, we used a standardized protocol to measure total insect biomass using Malaise traps, deployed over 27 years in 63 nature protection areas in Germany (96 unique location-year combinations) to infer on the status and trend of local entomofauna. Our anal. ests. a seasonal decline of 76%, and mid-summer decline of 82% in flying insect biomass over the 27 years of study. We show that this decline is apparent regardless of habitat type, while changes in weather, land use, and habitat characteristics cannot explain this overall decline. This yet unrecognized loss of insect biomass must be taken into account in evaluating declines in abundance of species depending on insects as a food source, and ecosystem functioning in the European landscape.
- 22Garibaldi, L. A.; Aizen, M. A.; Cunningham, S. A.; Klein, A. M. Pollinator Dependency Effects on Global Crop Yield: Looking at the Whole Spectrum of Pollinator Dependency. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2009, 2, 37– 39, DOI: 10.4161/cib.2.1.742522https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BD1MrnvFentw%253D%253D&md5=9114be48cb29807250d9c38baf2a5b9dPollinator shortage and global crop yield: Looking at the whole spectrum of pollinator dependencyGaribaldi Lucas A; Aizen Marcelo A; Cunningham Saul A; Klein Alexandra MCommunicative & integrative biology (2009), 2 (1), 37-9 ISSN:.A pollinator decline caused by environmental degradation might be compromising the production of pollinator-dependent crops. In a recent article, we compared 45 year series (1961-2006) in yield, production and cultivated area of pollinator-dependent and nondependent crop around the world. If pollinator shortage is occurring globally, we expected a lower annual growth rate in yield for pollinator-dependent than nondependent crops, but a higher growth in cultivated area to compensate the lower yield. We have found little evidence for the first "yield" prediction but strong evidence for the second "area" prediction. Here, we present an additional analysis to show that the first and second predictions are both supported for crops that vary in dependency levels from nondependent to moderate dependence (i.e., up to 65% average yield reduction without pollinators). However, those crops for which animal pollination is essential (i.e., 95% average yield reduction without pollinators) showed higher growth in yield and lower expansion in area than expected in a pollination shortage scenario. We propose that pollination management for highly pollinator-dependent crops, such us renting hives or hand pollination, might have compensated for pollinator limitation of yield.
- 23Lautenbach, S.; Seppelt, R.; Liebscher, J.; Dormann, C. F. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Global Pollination Benefit. PLoS One 2012, 7, e35954 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.003595423https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC38XntFWlu78%253D&md5=66ed08fbdc9e8b30af1aa1a779328598Spatial and temporal trends of global pollination benefitLautenbach, Sven; Seppelt, Ralf; Liebscher, Juliane; Dormann, Carsten F.PLoS One (2012), 7 (4), e35954CODEN: POLNCL; ISSN:1932-6203. (Public Library of Science)Pollination is a well-studied and at the same time a threatened ecosystem service. A significant part of global crop prodn. depends on or profits from pollination by animals. Using detailed information on global crop yields of 60 pollination dependent or profiting crops, we provide a map of global pollination benefits on a 5' by 5' latitude-longitude grid. The current spatial pattern of pollination benefits is only partly correlated with climate variables and the distribution of cropland. The resulting map of pollination benefits identifies hot spots of pollination benefits at sufficient detail to guide political decisions on where to protect pollination services by investing in structural diversity of land use. Addnl., we investigated the vulnerability of the national economies with respect to potential decline of pollination services as the portion of the (agricultural) economy depending on pollination benefits. While the general dependency of the agricultural economy on pollination seems to be stable from 1993 until 2009, we see increases in producer prices for pollination dependent crops, which we interpret as an early warning signal for a conflict between pollination service and other land uses at the global scale. Our spatially explicit anal. of global pollination benefit points to hot spots for the generation of pollination benefits and can serve as a base for further planning of land use, protection sites and agricultural policies for maintaining pollination services.
- 24Alejandre, E. M.; van Bodegom, P. M.; Guinée, J. B. Towards an Optimal Coverage of Ecosystem Services in LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 231, 714– 722, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.284There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 25Rugani, B.; Maia de Souza, D.; Weidema, B. P.; Bare, J.; Bakshi, B.; Grann, B.; Johnston, J. M.; Pavan, A. L. R.; Liu, X.; Laurent, A.; Verones, F. Towards Integrating the Ecosystem Services Cascade Framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Cause-Effect Methodology. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 690, 1284– 1298, DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.02325https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC1MXhtlOlsrnK&md5=0c2ba341e762266453d5c080c30e2045Towards integrating the ecosystem services cascade framework within the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) cause-effect methodologyRugani, Benedetto; Maia de Souza, Danielle; Weidema, Bo P.; Bare, Jane; Bakshi, Bhavik; Grann, Blane; Johnston, John M.; Pavan, Ana Laura Raymundo; Liu, Xinyu; Laurent, Alexis; Verones, FrancescaScience of the Total Environment (2019), 690 (), 1284-1298CODEN: STENDL; ISSN:0048-9697. (Elsevier B.V.)The assessment of ecosystem services (ES) is covered in a fragmented manner by environmental decision support tools that provide information about the potential environmental impacts of supply chains and their products, such as the well-known Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodol. Within the flagship project of the Life Cycle Initiative (hosted by UN Environment), aiming at global guidance for life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) indicators, a dedicated subtask force was constituted to consolidate the evaluation of ES in LCA. As one of the outcomes of this subtask force, this paper describes the progress towards consensus building in the LCA domain concerning the assessment of anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems and their assocd. services for human well-being. To this end, the traditional LCIA structure, which represents the cause-effect chain from stressor to impacts and damages, is re-casted and expanded using the lens of the ES 'cascade model'. This links changes in ecosystem structure and function to changes in human well-being, while LCIA links the effect of changes on ecosystems due to human impacts (e.g. land use change, eutrophication, freshwater depletion) to the increase or decrease in the quality and/or quantity of supplied ES. The proposed cascade modeling framework complements traditional LCIA with information about the externalities assocd. with the supply and demand of ES, for which the overall cost-benefit result might be either neg. (i.e. detrimental impact on the ES provision) or pos. (i.e. increase of ES provision). In so doing, the framework introduces into traditional LCIA the notion of "benefit" (in the form of ES supply flows and ecosystems' capacity to generate services) which balances the quantified environmental intervention flows and related impacts (in the form of ES demands) that are typically considered in LCA. Recommendations are eventually provided to further address current gaps in the anal. of ES within the LCA methodol.
- 26ISO. Environmental Management─Life Cycle Assessment─Principles and Framework. ISO 14040:2006 (E); International Organization for Standardization, 2006; pp 1– 28.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 27Crenna, E.; Sala, S.; Polce, C.; Collina, E. Pollinators in Life Cycle Assessment: Towards a Framework for Impact Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 140, 525– 536, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.058There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 28Othoniel, B.; Rugani, B.; Heijungs, R.; Benetto, E.; Withagen, C. Assessment of Life Cycle Impacts on Ecosystem Services: Promise, Problems, and Prospects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1077– 1092, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b0370628https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC2MXitFSlsLnO&md5=d101f69d48c106ec1e15da04575fe550Assessment of life cycle impacts on ecosystem services: promise, problems, and prospectsOthoniel, Benoit; Rugani, Benedetto; Heijungs, Reinout; Benetto, Enrico; Withagen, CeesEnvironmental Science & Technology (2016), 50 (3), 1077-1092CODEN: ESTHAG; ISSN:0013-936X. (American Chemical Society)The anal. of ecosystem services (ES) is becoming a key-factor to implement policies on sustainable technologies. Accordingly, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods are more and more oriented toward the development of harmonized characterization models to address impacts on ES. However, such efforts are relatively recent and have not reached full consensus yet. We investigate here on the transdisciplinary pillars related to the modeling of LCIA on ES by conducting a crit. review and comparison of the state-of-the-art in both LCIA and ES domains. We observe that current LCIA practices to assess impacts on "ES provision" suffer from incompleteness in modeling the cause-effect chains; the multifunctionality of ecosystems is omitted; and the "flow" nature of ES is not considered. Furthermore, ES modeling in LCIA is limited by its static calcn. framework, and the valuation of ES also experiences some limitations. The conceptualization of land use (changes) as the main impact driver on ES, and the corresponding approaches to retrieve characterization factors, eventually embody several methodol. shortcomings, such as the lack of time-dependency and interrelationships between elements in the cause-effect chains. We conclude that future LCIA modeling of ES could benefit from the harmonization with existing integrated multiscale dynamic integrated approaches.
- 29Alejandre, E. M.; Potts, S. G.; Guinée, J. B.; van Bodegom, P. M. Characterisation Model Approach for LCA to Estimate Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance and Illustrative Characterisation Factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 346, 131043, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131043There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 30Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Version 3 (Part I): Overview and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2016, 21, 1218– 1230, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 31Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Steinmann, Z. J. N.; Elshout, P. M. F.; Stam, G.; Verones, F.; Vieira, M.; Zijp, M.; Hollander, A.; van Zelm, R. ReCiPe2016: A Harmonised Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method at Midpoint and Endpoint Level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2017, 22, 138– 147, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-016-1246-yThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 32Verones, F.; Hellweg, S.; Azevedo, L. B.; Laurent, A.; Mutel, C. L.; Pfister, S. LC-Impact . Version 0.5, 2016; pp 1– 143.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 33Cao, V.; Margni, M.; Favis, B. D.; Deschênes, L. Desch??nes, L. Aggregated Indicator to Assess Land Use Impacts in Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Based on the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 94, 56– 66, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.041There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 34Hischier, R.; Weidema, B.; Althaus, H.-J.; Bauer, C.; Doka, G.; Dones, R.; Frischknecht, R.; Hellweg, S.; Humbert, S.; Jungbluth, N.; Köllner, T.; Loerincik, Y.; Margni, M.; Nemecek, T. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods . Data v2.2 (2007). ecoinvent Rep. No. 3, 2007; p 176. No. 3.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 35Bulle, C.; Margni, M.; Patouillard, L.; Boulay, A. M.; Bourgault, G.; De Bruille, V.; Cao, V.; Hauschild, M.; Henderson, A.; Humbert, S.; Kashef-Haghighi, S.; Kounina, A.; Laurent, A.; Levasseur, A.; Liard, G.; Rosenbaum, R. K.; Roy, P. O.; Shaked, S.; Fantke, P.; Jolliet, O. IMPACT World+: A Globally Regionalized Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2019, 24, 1653– 1674, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-019-01583-0There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 36Milà i Canals, L.; Bauer, C.; Depestele, J.; Dubreuil, A.; Knuchel, R. F.; Gaillard, G.; Michelsen, O.; Müller-Wenk, R.; Rydgren, B. Key Elements in a Framework for Land Use Impact Assessment Within LCA. Int. J. Metalcast. 2007, 12, 5– 15, DOI: 10.1065/lca2006.12.295There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 37Koellner, T.; de Baan, L.; Beck, T.; Brandão, M.; Civit, B.; Margni, M.; i Canals, L. M.; Saad, R.; de Souza, D. M.; Müller-Wenk, R. UNEP-SETAC Guideline on Global Land Use Impact Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2013, 18, 1188– 1202, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-013-0579-zThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 38Scherer, L.; De Laurentiis, V.; Marques, A.; Michelsen, O.; Alejandre, E. M.; Pfister, S.; Rosa, F.; Rugani, B. Linking Land Use Inventories to Biodiversity Impact Assessment Methods. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2021, 26, 2315– 2320, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-021-02003-yThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 39Thangaratinam, S.; Redman, C. W. The Delphi Technique. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2005, 7, 120– 125, DOI: 10.1576/toag.7.2.120.27071There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 40Hsu, C.-C.; Sandford, B. A. The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2007, 12, 10, DOI: 10.7275/pdz9-th90There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 41Scolozzi, R.; Morri, E.; Santolini, R. Delphi-Based Change Assessment in Ecosystem Service Values to Support Strategic Spatial Planning in Italian Landscapes. Ecol. Indicat. 2012, 21, 134– 144, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.07.019There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 42Blasi, M.; Bartomeus, I.; Bommarco, R.; Gagic, V.; Garratt, M.; Holzschuh, A.; Kleijn, D.; Lindström, S. A. M.; Olsson, P.; Polce, C.; Potts, S. G.; Rundlöf, M.; Scheper, J.; Smith, H. G.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Clough, Y. Evaluating Predictive Performance of Statistical Models Explaining Wild Bee Abundance in a Mass-Flowering Crop. Ecography 2021, 44, 525– 536, DOI: 10.1111/ecog.05308There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 43Czembor, C. A.; Morris, W. K.; Wintle, B. A.; Vesk, P. A. Quantifying Variance Components in Ecological Models Based on Expert Opinion. J. Appl. Ecol. 2011, 48, 736– 745, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01971.xThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 44Cucurachi, S.; Borgonovo, E.; Heijungs, R. A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle Assessment. Risk Anal. 2016, 36, 357– 377, DOI: 10.1111/risa.1244344https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC28vktlyrsQ%253D%253D&md5=1215725b8a247d1aaec47a0089a33850A Protocol for the Global Sensitivity Analysis of Impact Assessment Models in Life Cycle AssessmentCucurachi S; Heijungs R; Cucurachi S; Borgonovo E; Heijungs RRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis (2016), 36 (2), 357-77 ISSN:.The life cycle assessment (LCA) framework has established itself as the leading tool for the assessment of the environmental impact of products. Several works have established the need of integrating the LCA and risk analysis methodologies, due to the several common aspects. One of the ways to reach such integration is through guaranteeing that uncertainties in LCA modeling are carefully treated. It has been claimed that more attention should be paid to quantifying the uncertainties present in the various phases of LCA. Though the topic has been attracting increasing attention of practitioners and experts in LCA, there is still a lack of understanding and a limited use of the available statistical tools. In this work, we introduce a protocol to conduct global sensitivity analysis in LCA. The article focuses on the life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and particularly on the relevance of global techniques for the development of trustable impact assessment models. We use a novel characterization model developed for the quantification of the impacts of noise on humans as a test case. We show that global SA is fundamental to guarantee that the modeler has a complete understanding of: (i) the structure of the model and (ii) the importance of uncertain model inputs and the interaction among them.
- 45IPBES. The Assessment Report on Pollinators; Pollination and Food Production, 2016.There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 46Václavík, T.; Lautenbach, S.; Kuemmerle, T.; Seppelt, R. Mapping Global Land System Archetypes. Global Environ. Change 2013, 23, 1637– 1647, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.004There is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 47Alejandre, E. M.; Guinée, J. B.; van Bodegom, P. M. Assessing the Use of Land System Archetypes to Increase Regional Variability Representation in Country-Specific Characterization Factors: A Soil Erosion Case Study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.a 2022, 27, 409– 418, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-022-02037-wThere is no corresponding record for this reference.
- 48De Palma, A.; Abrahamczyk, S.; Aizen, M. A.; Albrecht, M.; Basset, Y.; Bates, A.; Blake, R. J.; Boutin, C.; Bugter, R.; Connop, S.; Cruz-López, L.; Cunningham, S. A.; Darvill, B.; Diekötter, T.; Dorn, S.; Downing, N.; Entling, M. H.; Farwig, N.; Felicioli, A.; Fonte, S. J.; Fowler, R.; Franzén, M.; Goulson, D.; Grass, I.; Hanley, M. E.; Hendrix, S. D.; Herrmann, F.; Herzog, F.; Holzschuh, A.; Jauker, B.; Kessler, M.; Knight, M. E.; Kruess, A.; Lavelle, P.; Le Féon, V.; Lentini, P.; Malone, L. A.; Marshall, J.; Pachón, E. M.; McFrederick, Q. S.; Morales, C. L.; Mudri-Stojnic, S.; Nates-Parra, G.; Nilsson, S. G.; Öckinger, E.; Osgathorpe, L.; Parra-H, A.; Peres, C. A.; Persson, A. S.; Petanidou, T.; Poveda, K.; Power, E. F.; Quaranta, M.; Quintero, C.; Rader, R.; Richards, M. H.; Roulston, T.; Rousseau, L.; Sadler, J. P.; Samnegård, U.; Schellhorn, N. A.; Schüepp, C.; Schweiger, O.; Smith-Pardo, A. H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Stout, J. C.; Tonietto, R. K.; Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J. M.; Verboven, H. A. F.; Vergara, C. H.; Verhulst, J.; Westphal, C.; Yoon, H. J.; Purvis, A. Predicting Bee Community Responses to Land-Use Changes: Effects of Geographic and Taxonomic Biases. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 31153, DOI: 10.1038/srep3115348https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A528%3ADC%252BC28XhtlCit7zO&md5=c7f32333513cf3bfe72ddc9fb47c6225Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biasesDe Palma, Adriana; Abrahamczyk, Stefan; Aizen, Marcelo A.; Albrecht, Matthias; Basset, Yves; Bates, Adam; Blake, Robin J.; Boutin, Celine; Bugter, Rob; Connop, Stuart; Cruz-Lopez, Leopoldo; Cunningham, Saul A.; Darvill, Ben; Diekotter, Tim; Dorn, Silvia; Downing, Nicola; Entling, Martin H.; Farwig, Nina; Felicioli, Antonio; Fonte, Steven J.; Fowler, Robert; Franzen, Markus; Goulson, Dave; Grass, Ingo; Hanley, Mick E.; Hendrix, Stephen D.; Herrmann, Farina; Herzog, Felix; Holzschuh, Andrea; Jauker, Birgit; Kessler, Michael; Knight, M. E.; Kruess, Andreas; Lavelle, Patrick; Le Feon, Violette; Lentini, Pia; Malone, Louise A.; Marshall, Jon; Pachon, Eliana Martinez; McFrederick, Quinn S.; Morales, Carolina L.; Mudri-Stojnic, Sonja; Nates-Parra, Guiomar; Nilsson, Sven G.; Ockinger, Erik; Osgathorpe, Lynne; Parra-H, Alejandro; Peres, Carlos A.; Persson, Anna S.; Petanidou, Theodora; Poveda, Katja; Power, Eileen F.; Quaranta, Marino; Quintero, Carolina; Rader, Romina; Richards, Miriam H.; Roulston, T'ai; Rousseau, Laurent; Sadler, Jonathan P.; Samnegard, Ulrika; Schellhorn, Nancy A.; Schuepp, Christof; Schweiger, Oliver; Smith-Pardo, Allan H.; Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf; Stout, Jane C.; Tonietto, Rebecca K.; Tscharntke, Teja; Tylianakis, Jason M.; Verboven, Hans A. F.; Vergara, Carlos H.; Verhulst, Jort; Westphal, Catrin; Yoon, Hyung Joo; Purvis, AndyScientific Reports (2016), 6 (), 31153CODEN: SRCEC3; ISSN:2045-2322. (Nature Publishing Group)Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterize, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geog. and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geog. and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geog. and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecol. surprises.
- 49Orford, K. A.; Murray, P. J.; Vaughan, I. P.; Memmott, J. Modest Enhancements to Conventional Grassland Diversity Improve the Provision of Pollination Services. J. Appl. Ecol. 2016, 53, 906– 915, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.1260849https://chemport.cas.org/services/resolver?origin=ACS&resolution=options&coi=1%3ACAS%3A280%3ADC%252BC1c%252FhslOjsw%253D%253D&md5=0342777973d229de544763489d4cb67dModest enhancements to conventional grassland diversity improve the provision of pollination servicesOrford Katherine A; Memmott Jane; Murray Phil J; Vaughan Ian PThe Journal of applied ecology (2016), 53 (3), 906-915 ISSN:0021-8901.Grassland for livestock production is a major form of land use throughout Europe and its intensive management threatens biodiversity and ecosystem functioning in agricultural landscapes. Modest increases to conventional grassland biodiversity could have considerable positive impacts on the provision of ecosystem services, such as pollination, to surrounding habitats.Using a field-scale experiment in which grassland seed mixes and sward management were manipulated, complemented by surveys on working farms and phytometer experiments, the impact of conventional grassland diversity and management on the functional diversity and ecosystem service provision of pollinator communities were investigated.Increasing plant richness, by the addition of both legumes and forbs, was associated with significant enhancements in the functional diversity of grassland pollinator communities. This was associated with increased temporal stability of flower-visitor interactions at the community level. Visitation networks revealed pasture species Taraxacum sp. (Wigg.) (dandelion) and Cirsium arvense (Scop.) (creeping thistle) to have the highest pollinator visitation frequency and richness. Cichorium intybus (L.) (chichory) was highlighted as an important species having both high pollinator visitation and desirable agronomic properties.Increased sward richness was associated with an increase in the pollination of two phytometer species; Fragaria × ananassa (strawberry) and Silene dioica (red campion), but not Vicia faba (broad bean). Enhanced functional diversity, richness and abundance of the pollinator communities associated with more diverse neighbouring pastures were found to be potential mechanisms for improved pollination. Synthesis and applications. A modest increase in conventional grassland plant diversity with legumes and forbs, achievable with the expertise and resources available to most grassland farmers, could enhance pollinator functional diversity, richness and abundance. Moreover, our results suggest that this could improve pollination services and consequently surrounding crop yields (e.g. strawberry) and wildflower reproduction in agro-ecosystems.
- 50Albrecht, M.; Kleijn, D.; Williams, N. M.; Tschumi, M.; Blaauw, B. R.; Bommarco, R.; Campbell, A. J.; Dainese, M.; Drummond, F. A.; Entling, M. H.; Ganser, D.; Arjen de Groot, G.; Goulson, D.; Grab, H.; Hamilton, H.; Herzog, F.; Isaacs, R.; Jacot, K.; Jeanneret, P.; Jonsson, M.; Knop, E.; Kremen, C.; Landis, D. A.; Loeb, G. M.; Marini, L.; McKerchar, M.; Morandin, L.; Pfister, S. C.; Potts, S. G.; Rundlöf, M.; Sardiñas, H.; Sciligo, A.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T.; Venturini, E.; Veromann, E.; Vollhardt, I. M. G.; Wäckers, F.; Ward, K.; Westbury, A.; Wilby, M.; Woltz, S.; Wratten, L.; Sutter, L. The Effectiveness of Flower Strips and Hedgerows on Pest Control, Pollination Services and Crop Yield: A Quantitative Synthesis. J. Appl. Ecol. 2020, 23, 1488– 1498, DOI: 10.1111/ele.13576There is no corresponding record for this reference.
Supporting Information
Supporting Information
The Supporting Information is available free of charge at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c05311.
Geographical distribution of expert panel and areas of expertise; boxplots for normalized Sx estimates of block 1; boxplots for normalized Sx estimates of block 2; convergence of Sx expert scores; boxplots for normalized Sx estimates of block 3; confidence of experts on typical scores of abundances; and CFs for land occupation impacts on pollinator abundance (PDF)
Normalized Sx estimates of pollinator abundance (XLSX)
Example of the CFs’ application (XLSX)
Terms & Conditions
Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.