Suchergebnisse

Background and Aims: Variation in inbreeding depression (δ) among individual plants is considered to play a central role in mating system evolution and population genetics. Moreover, such variation could be linked to individual susceptibility to pollen limitation (PL) because those individuals strongly affected by δ for seed production will require more outcross pollen for setting a given number of fruits or seeds. However, no study has tested explicitly for associations between PL and δ at the individual plant level. This study assesses the extent of among-individual variation in PL and δ, the consistency of δ across life stages, and the relationships between individual PL and δ in the mixed-mating shrub Myrtus communis. Methods Controlled hand-pollinations were performed in a natural M. communis population. Marked flowers were monitored until fruit production and a greenhouse experiment was conducted with the seeds produced.Key Results Compared with selfing, outcross-pollination enhanced seed number per fruit, germination rate and seedling growth, but did not enhance fruit-set. Only seed number per fruit was pollen limited and, thus, cumulative pollen limitation depended more on pollen quality (outcross pollen) than on quantity. The effects of δ varied considerably across life stages and individual plants. Cumulative δ was high across individuals (mean δ = 0·65), although there were no positive correlations between δ values at different life stages. Interestingly, maternal plants showing stronger δ for seed production were more pollen limited, but they were also less affected by δ for seedling growth because of a seed size/number trade-off. Conclusions Results show a general inconsistency in δ across life stages and individuals, suggesting that different deleterious loci are acting at different stages. The association between δ and PL at the individual level corroborates the idea that pollen limitation may be 'genotype-dependent' regardless of other factors. © The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. ; This study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (grant number CGL2008-000938/BOS) and the Andalusian Regional Government (grant number P07-RNM-02869). ; Peer Reviewed

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers – (i) that conservation is not a political priority, (ii) that there is poor engagement between scientists and decision-makers, and (iii) that conservation problems are complex and uncertain – have often been highlighted in the literature as significant constraints on the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy. There is also repeated identification of the solutions to these barriers. In this perspective, we consider three reasons for this: (1) the barriers are insurmountable, (2) the frequently-proposed solutions are poor, (3) there are implementation challenges to putting solutions into practice. We argue that implementation challenges are most likely to be preventing the solutions being put into practice and that the research agenda for conservation science-policy interfaces needs to move away from identifying barriers and solutions, and towards a detailed investigation of how to overcome these implementation challenges.

Improving the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy has been a long-standing focus of the conservation community. A plethora of studies have examined conservation science-policy interfaces, including a recent global survey of scientists, policy-makers, and practitioners. This identified a list of top barriers and solutions to evidence use, which have considerable overlap with those identified by other studies conducted over the last few decades. The three top barriers – (i) that conservation is not a political priority, (ii) that there is poor engagement between scientists and decision-makers, and (iii) that conservation problems are complex and uncertain – have often been highlighted in the literature as significant constraints on the use of scientific evidence in conservation policy. There is also repeated identification of the solutions to these barriers. In this perspective, we consider three reasons for this: (1) the barriers are insurmountable, (2) the frequently-proposed solutions are poor, (3) there are implementation challenges to putting solutions into practice. We argue that implementation challenges are most likely to be preventing the solutions being put into practice and that the research agenda for conservation science-policy interfaces needs to move away from identifying barriers and solutions, and towards a detailed investigation of how to overcome these implementation challenges.

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision-making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence-informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy-makers to adopt pro-environmental long-term policies.

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision‐making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence‐informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy‐makers to adopt pro‐environmental long‐term policies.

Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision‐making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence‐informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy‐makers to adopt pro‐environmental long‐term policies.

Background and aims – Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods – Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results – Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion – Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants. ; EU FP5 QLRT-2001-01495 ; Swiss Federal Office for Science and Technology (01·0524-2) ; FORMAS ; Estonian Ministry of Education and Research IUT (IUT20-33) ; Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague 42900/1312/3166 ; MC-CIG BeeFun project: PCIG14-GA-2013-631653 ; DAFM ; IRC ; Formas (2018-01466) ; German Ministry of Research and Education (FKZ: 01LC1104A) ; NKFIH project (FK123813) ; NKFIH (KKP 133839) ; European Union in the 7th Framework Programme (grant 244090), ; MTA Bolyai Fellow ; Peer reviewed