ORCID Profile
0000-0002-0196-6013
Current Organisation
University of Reading
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 09-02-2021
DOI: 10.1111/JEN.12869
Publisher: The Royal Society
Date: 17-03-2021
Abstract: While an increasing number of studies indicate that the range, ersity and abundance of many wild pollinators has declined, the global area of pollinator-dependent crops has significantly increased over the last few decades. Crop pollination studies to date have mainly focused on either identifying different guilds pollinating various crops, or on factors driving spatial changes and turnover observed in these communities. The mechanisms driving temporal stability for ecosystem functioning and services, however, remain poorly understood. Our study quantifies temporal variability observed in crop pollinators in 21 different crops across multiple years at a global scale. Using data from 43 studies from six continents, we show that (i) higher pollinator ersity confers greater inter-annual stability in pollinator communities, (ii) temporal variation observed in pollinator abundance is primarily driven by the three-most dominant species, and (iii) crops in tropical regions demonstrate higher inter-annual variability in pollinator species richness than crops in temperate regions. We highlight the importance of recognizing wild pollinator ersity in agricultural landscapes to stabilize pollinator persistence across years to protect both bio ersity and crop pollination services. Short-term agricultural management practices aimed at dominant species for stabilizing pollination services need to be considered alongside longer term conservation goals focussed on maintaining and facilitating bio ersity to confer ecological stability.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-02-2016
DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS10841
Abstract: Nature Communications 6: Article number: 7414 (2015) Published: 16 June 2015 Updated: 18 February 2016. The authors inadvertently omitted Kimiora L. Ward, who managed and contributed data, from the author list. This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-09-2015
Publisher: American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Date: 04-10-2019
Abstract: Bio ersity benefits pollination, pest control, and crop productivity but suffers from land-use intensification.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 16-06-2015
DOI: 10.1038/NCOMMS8414
Abstract: There is compelling evidence that more erse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for bio ersity conservation. However, it is unclear how much bio ersity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological ersity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-02-2022
DOI: 10.1002/ECY.3614
Abstract: Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open, and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e., berry mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). S ling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001–2005 (21 studies), 2006–2010 (40), 2011–2015 (88), and 2016–2020 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non‐commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY‐NC‐SA).
Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Date: 02-08-2018
Abstract: Decades of research have fostered the now-prevalent assumption that noncrop habitat facilitates better pest suppression by providing shelter and food resources to the predators and parasitoids of crop pests. Based on our analysis of the largest pest-control database of its kind, noncrop habitat surrounding farm fields does affect multiple dimensions of pest control, but the actual responses of pests and enemies are highly variable across geographies and cropping systems. Because noncrop habitat often does not enhance biological control, more information about local farming contexts is needed before habitat conservation can be recommended as a viable pest-suppression strategy. Consequently, when pest control does not benefit from noncrop vegetation, farms will need to be carefully comanaged for competing conservation and production objectives.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 17-07-2022
DOI: 10.1111/ELE.14069
Abstract: The benefits of animal pollination to crop yield are well known. In contrast, the effects of animal pollination on the spatial or temporal stability (the opposite of variability) of crop yield remain poorly understood. We use meta‐analysis to combine variability information from 215 experimental comparisons between animal‐pollinated and wind‐ or self‐pollinated control plants in apple, oilseed rape and faba bean. Animal pollination increased yield stability (by an average of 32% per unit of yield) at between‐flower, ‐plant, ‐plot and ‐field scales. Evidence suggests this occurs because yield benefits of animal pollination become progressively constrained closer to the maximum potential yield in a given context, causing clustering. The increase in yield stability with animal pollination is greatest when yield benefits of animal pollination are greatest, indicating that managing crop pollination to increase yield also increases yield stability. These additional pollination benefits have not yet been included in economic assessments but provide further justification for policies to protect pollinators.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 20-02-2019
DOI: 10.1101/554170
Abstract: Human land use threatens global bio ersity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by few abundant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 crop systems, we partition the relative importance of abundance and species richness for pollination, biological pest control and final yields in the context of on-going land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services independent of abundance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the bio ersity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society.
Publisher: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Date: 30-11-2016
Abstract: Many of the world’s crops are pollinated by insects, and bees are often assumed to be the most important pollinators. To our knowledge, our study is the first quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution of non-bee pollinators to global pollinator-dependent crops. Across 39 studies we show that insects other than bees are efficient pollinators providing 39% of visits to crop flowers. A shift in perspective from a bee-only focus is needed for assessments of crop pollinator bio ersity and the economic value of pollination. These studies should also consider the services provided by other types of insects, such as flies, wasps, beetles, and butterflies—important pollinators that are currently overlooked.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-10-2020
DOI: 10.1002/FES3.254
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 30-11-2023
DOI: 10.1002/EAP.2743
Abstract: There is increasing evidence that farmers in many areas are achieving below maximum yields due to insufficient pollination. Practical and effective approaches are needed to maintain wild pollinator populations within agroecosystems so they can deliver critical pollination services that underpin crop production. We established nesting and wildflower habitat interventions in 24 UK apple orchards and measured effects on flower‐visiting insects and the pollination they provide, exploring how this was affected by landscape context. We quantified the extent of pollination deficits and assessed whether the management of wild pollinators can reduce deficits and deliver improved outcomes for growers over 3 years. Wildflower interventions increased solitary bee numbers visiting apple flowers by over 20%, but there was no effect of nesting interventions. Other pollinator groups were influenced by both local and landscape‐scale factors, with bumblebees and hoverflies responding to the relative proportion of semi‐natural habitat at larger spatial scales (1000 m), while honeybees and other flies responded at 500 m or less. By improving fruit number and quality, pollinators contributed more than £16 k per hectare. However, deficits (where maximum potential was not being reached due to a lack of pollination) were recorded and the extent of these varied across orchards, and from year to year, with a 22% deficit in output in the worst (equivalent to ~£14 k/ha) compared to less than 3% (equivalent to ~£2 k/ha) in the best year. Although no direct effect of our habitat interventions on deficits in gross output was observed, initial fruit set and seed set deficits were reduced by abundant bumblebees, and orchards with a greater abundance of solitary bees saw lower deficits in fruit size. The abundance of pollinators in apple orchards is influenced by different local and landscape factors that interact and vary between years. Consequently, pollination, and the extent of economic output deficits, also vary between orchards and years. We highlight how approaches, including establishing wildflower areas and optimizing the ratio of cropped and non‐cropped habitats can increase the abundance of key apple pollinators and improve outcomes for growers.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 06-2013
DOI: 10.1890/120126
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 10-10-2023
DOI: 10.1111/AFE.12594
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Michael Garratt.