↓ Skip to main content

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
65 news outlets
blogs
15 blogs
policy
7 policy sources
twitter
463 X users
facebook
19 Facebook pages
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
647 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1582 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, November 2015
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1517092112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Romina Rader, Ignasi Bartomeus, Lucas A Garibaldi, Michael P D Garratt, Brad G Howlett, Rachael Winfree, Saul A Cunningham, Margaret M Mayfield, Anthony D Arthur, Georg K S Andersson, Riccardo Bommarco, Claire Brittain, Luísa G Carvalheiro, Natacha P Chacoff, Martin H Entling, Benjamin Foully, Breno M Freitas, Barbara Gemmill-Herren, Jaboury Ghazoul, Sean R Griffin, Caroline L Gross, Lina Herbertsson, Felix Herzog, Juliana Hipólito, Sue Jaggar, Frank Jauker, Alexandra-Maria Klein, David Kleijn, Smitha Krishnan, Camila Q Lemos, Sandra A M Lindström, Yael Mandelik, Victor M Monteiro, Warrick Nelson, Lovisa Nilsson, David E Pattemore, Natália de O Pereira, Gideon Pisanty, Simon G Potts, Menno Reemer, Maj Rundlöf, Cory S Sheffield, Jeroen Scheper, Christof Schüepp, Henrik G Smith, Dara A Stanley, Jane C Stout, Hajnalka Szentgyörgyi, Hisatomo Taki, Carlos H Vergara, Blandina F Viana, Michal Woyciechowski

Abstract

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 463 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,582 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 <1%
Brazil 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
India 3 <1%
France 2 <1%
Poland 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Other 15 <1%
Unknown 1538 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 266 17%
Student > Master 257 16%
Student > Bachelor 240 15%
Researcher 209 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 76 5%
Other 197 12%
Unknown 337 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 744 47%
Environmental Science 240 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 58 4%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 25 2%
Social Sciences 15 <1%
Other 94 6%
Unknown 406 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 939. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 February 2024.
All research outputs
#18,220
of 25,770,491 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#559
of 103,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174
of 397,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#12
of 885 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,770,491 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 103,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 397,636 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 885 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.