不一致的嗡嗡声:传粉者的潜力与研究努力

IF 2 3区 农林科学 Q2 ENTOMOLOGY
Marco Bonelli, Elena Eustacchio, Francesco Pietra, Luca Pedrotti, Morena Casartelli, Marco Caccianiga, Mauro Gobbi
{"title":"不一致的嗡嗡声:传粉者的潜力与研究努力","authors":"Marco Bonelli,&nbsp;Elena Eustacchio,&nbsp;Francesco Pietra,&nbsp;Luca Pedrotti,&nbsp;Morena Casartelli,&nbsp;Marco Caccianiga,&nbsp;Mauro Gobbi","doi":"10.1111/jen.13430","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Pollinator insects are essential for the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems and play a critical role in ensuring food security; thus, studies on this topic provide significant benefits for human society. Pollination involves diverse taxa that can vary depending on the specific environment. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to monitor and study all pollinators of an ecosystem, as the research context is often constrained by financial and personnel limitations. European and national directives mostly focus on the monitoring of three taxa: bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila), hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and lepidopterans (Lepidoptera). However, an effective prioritisation of taxa for pollinator research should consider their actual role as pollinators, which can vary according to the considered ecosystem. Moreover, knowledge about the specific potential of different taxa as pollinators in different ecosystems is still limited. Here, we evaluated, in mountain environments in the European Alps, the potential as pollinators of the three aforementioned taxa together with three other occurring flower-visiting taxa: beetles (Coleoptera), muscid flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). We compared them in terms of flower visitor abundance and actual pollen transport. In addition, we evaluated whether the scientific efforts made thus far by European researchers aligned with the actual potential of the different taxa as pollinators in a mountain context. Bees and hoverflies have been found to be both the most effective pollen carriers and the most studied pollinators. Instead, a clear discrepancy is observed for muscid flies and lepidopterans, with the former being underrepresented in the scientific literature compared to their actual potential as pollinators, while the latter are overrepresented, ranking as the second most studied taxon despite being the least abundant visitors and contributing negligibly to pollen transport. Our purpose is not to generalise our findings, but to highlight the relevant discrepancies that may exist between the actual role of pollinators in specific ecosystems and the research efforts directed towards them.</p>","PeriodicalId":14987,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Entomology","volume":"149 7","pages":"1050-1058"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jen.13430","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Buzz of Inconsistency: Pollinator Potential vs. Research Effort\",\"authors\":\"Marco Bonelli,&nbsp;Elena Eustacchio,&nbsp;Francesco Pietra,&nbsp;Luca Pedrotti,&nbsp;Morena Casartelli,&nbsp;Marco Caccianiga,&nbsp;Mauro Gobbi\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jen.13430\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Pollinator insects are essential for the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems and play a critical role in ensuring food security; thus, studies on this topic provide significant benefits for human society. Pollination involves diverse taxa that can vary depending on the specific environment. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to monitor and study all pollinators of an ecosystem, as the research context is often constrained by financial and personnel limitations. European and national directives mostly focus on the monitoring of three taxa: bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila), hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and lepidopterans (Lepidoptera). However, an effective prioritisation of taxa for pollinator research should consider their actual role as pollinators, which can vary according to the considered ecosystem. Moreover, knowledge about the specific potential of different taxa as pollinators in different ecosystems is still limited. Here, we evaluated, in mountain environments in the European Alps, the potential as pollinators of the three aforementioned taxa together with three other occurring flower-visiting taxa: beetles (Coleoptera), muscid flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). We compared them in terms of flower visitor abundance and actual pollen transport. In addition, we evaluated whether the scientific efforts made thus far by European researchers aligned with the actual potential of the different taxa as pollinators in a mountain context. Bees and hoverflies have been found to be both the most effective pollen carriers and the most studied pollinators. Instead, a clear discrepancy is observed for muscid flies and lepidopterans, with the former being underrepresented in the scientific literature compared to their actual potential as pollinators, while the latter are overrepresented, ranking as the second most studied taxon despite being the least abundant visitors and contributing negligibly to pollen transport. Our purpose is not to generalise our findings, but to highlight the relevant discrepancies that may exist between the actual role of pollinators in specific ecosystems and the research efforts directed towards them.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14987,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Applied Entomology\",\"volume\":\"149 7\",\"pages\":\"1050-1058\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jen.13430\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Applied Entomology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jen.13430\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENTOMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Entomology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jen.13430","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENTOMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传粉昆虫对陆地生态系统的功能至关重要,在确保粮食安全方面发挥着关键作用;因此,对这一课题的研究为人类社会提供了显著的益处。授粉涉及不同的分类群,这些分类群可以根据特定的环境而变化。然而,监测和研究生态系统的所有传粉媒介并不总是可能的,因为研究背景往往受到资金和人员限制。欧洲和国家指令主要关注三个分类群的监测:蜜蜂(膜翅目:蜂总科:蚁科)、食蚜蝇(双翅目:蚜科)和鳞翅目(鳞翅目)。然而,传粉者研究分类群的有效优先排序应该考虑它们作为传粉者的实际作用,这可以根据所考虑的生态系统而变化。此外,关于不同分类群在不同生态系统中作为传粉者的具体潜力的知识仍然有限。在欧洲阿尔卑斯山区环境中,我们评估了上述三种类群以及其他三种常见的访花类群:甲虫(鞘翅目)、蝇类(双翅目:蝇科)和蚂蚁(膜翅目:蚁科)作为传粉者的潜力。我们比较了它们的访花量和实际花粉运输量。此外,我们评估了欧洲研究人员迄今为止所做的科学努力是否与不同分类群在山区环境中作为传粉者的实际潜力相一致。蜜蜂和食蚜蝇是最有效的花粉传播者,也是研究最多的传粉者。相反,在蝇类和鳞翅目中观察到一个明显的差异,前者在科学文献中的代表性低于它们作为传粉者的实际潜力,而后者的代表性过高,尽管它们是最不丰富的访客,对花粉运输的贡献微不足道,但仍被列为第二大研究分类群。我们的目的不是概括我们的发现,而是强调在特定生态系统中传粉者的实际作用与针对它们的研究努力之间可能存在的相关差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

The Buzz of Inconsistency: Pollinator Potential vs. Research Effort

The Buzz of Inconsistency: Pollinator Potential vs. Research Effort

Pollinator insects are essential for the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems and play a critical role in ensuring food security; thus, studies on this topic provide significant benefits for human society. Pollination involves diverse taxa that can vary depending on the specific environment. Nevertheless, it is not always possible to monitor and study all pollinators of an ecosystem, as the research context is often constrained by financial and personnel limitations. European and national directives mostly focus on the monitoring of three taxa: bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila), hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and lepidopterans (Lepidoptera). However, an effective prioritisation of taxa for pollinator research should consider their actual role as pollinators, which can vary according to the considered ecosystem. Moreover, knowledge about the specific potential of different taxa as pollinators in different ecosystems is still limited. Here, we evaluated, in mountain environments in the European Alps, the potential as pollinators of the three aforementioned taxa together with three other occurring flower-visiting taxa: beetles (Coleoptera), muscid flies (Diptera: Muscidae) and ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). We compared them in terms of flower visitor abundance and actual pollen transport. In addition, we evaluated whether the scientific efforts made thus far by European researchers aligned with the actual potential of the different taxa as pollinators in a mountain context. Bees and hoverflies have been found to be both the most effective pollen carriers and the most studied pollinators. Instead, a clear discrepancy is observed for muscid flies and lepidopterans, with the former being underrepresented in the scientific literature compared to their actual potential as pollinators, while the latter are overrepresented, ranking as the second most studied taxon despite being the least abundant visitors and contributing negligibly to pollen transport. Our purpose is not to generalise our findings, but to highlight the relevant discrepancies that may exist between the actual role of pollinators in specific ecosystems and the research efforts directed towards them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Applied Entomology publishes original articles on current research in applied entomology, including mites and spiders in terrestrial ecosystems. Submit your next manuscript for rapid publication: the average time is currently 6 months from submission to publication. With Journal of Applied Entomology''s dynamic article-by-article publication process, Early View, fully peer-reviewed and type-set articles are published online as soon as they complete, without waiting for full issue compilation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信