Recovery under pressure: Pollinator services and biodiversity trends across restored and human-modified landscapes

Author info »

Introduction

Description

Pollinator populations are declining due to multiple, often interacting pressures. Habitat loss from urbanization and agricultural intensification reduces floral and nesting resources. Pesticide exposure, particularly neonicotinoids, affects pollinator survival, reproduction and behavior. Climate change alters phenology, shifts species distributions and exacerbates drought and heat stress. Invasive species can compete with native pollinators or disrupt plant-pollinator networks. These pressures collectively reduce species richness, abundance and functional diversity, with consequences for ecosystem resilience (Saldiva PH, et al. 1995). Declines in pollinator diversity and abundance reduce pollination services, leading to lower crop yields, reduced genetic diversity of plants and disrupted plant–pollinator interactions. Functional redundancy within pollinator communities can buffer some impacts, but the loss of key species or functional groups can result in abrupt declines in pollination efficiency. Maintaining diverse and resilient pollinator communities is thus essential for ecosystem service provision and long-term landscape sustainability.

Restored landscapes, such as reforested areas, wildflower meadows and urban green spaces, provide floral resources and nesting habitats critical for pollinator recovery. Habitat complexity, including heterogeneity in plant species composition, flower morphology and spatial arrangement, enhances pollinator diversity by supporting species with different foraging preferences and nesting requirements. Long-term restoration projects demonstrate that pollinator richness and abundance increase with structural and floral diversity, especially when native plant species are prioritized. Landscape connectivity plays a crucial role in pollinator movement and gene flow (Dornelas M, et al. 2018). Restored habitat patches that are well-connected to natural or semi-natural areas facilitate recolonization, reduce isolation effects and promote metapopulation stability. Corridors, hedgerows and buffer zones can enhance landscape connectivity, supporting both common and rare pollinator species. Connectivity also improves resilience to environmental fluctuations, enabling pollinator communities to adapt to climate stress or disturbances. Pollinator recovery is often gradual and depends on multiple ecological and management factors. Early-successional species may colonize restored areas quickly, while specialist and long-lived species may take years to establish (van Klink R, et al. 2021). Recovery trajectories are influenced by initial habitat conditions, landscape context and ongoing management practices such as mowing regimes, invasive species control and pesticide reduction. Adaptive management that monitors species responses and adjusts practices accordingly enhances restoration success.

Intensified agriculture reduces habitat heterogeneity and floral resources, negatively affecting pollinator diversity. Monocultures provide short-term resource pulses but insufficient nesting sites and year-round foraging opportunities. Integrating agroecological practices, such as cover crops, flower strips, hedgerows and reduced pesticide use, can mitigate these impacts. Studies show that diversified farmland can sustain both crop production and pollinator communities, highlighting the potential for reconciling agricultural productivity with conservation goals. Urbanization often fragments natural habitats, but cities can also serve as refuges for pollinators when managed appropriately (Carvalho C, et al. 2022). Urban gardens, green roofs, parks and street plantings provide floral and nesting resources, particularly for generalist pollinators. Pollinator diversity in cities can rival that of agricultural landscapes if habitat heterogeneity and native plant species are incorporated. Urban planning that integrates green infrastructure, community gardens and pollinator-friendly plantings can enhance both biodiversity and human well-being.

Conclusion

Acknowledgement

Conflict of Interest

References

1. Kale, J. R., Reis, E., Venkateswaran, A. (2009). Rank‐order tournaments and incentive alignment: The effect on firm performance. The Journal of Finance64:1479-1512.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

2. Saldiva, P. H., Pope III, C. A., Schwartz, J., Dockery, D. W., Lichtenfels, A. J., Salge, J. M., Bohm, G. M. (1995). Air pollution and mortality in elderly people: A time-series study in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal50 :159-163.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

3. Dornelas, M., Antao, L. H., Moyes, F., Bates, A. E., Magurran, A. E., Adam, D., Murphy, G. (2018). BioTIME: A database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene. Global Ecology and Biogeography27:760-786.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

4. van Klink, R., Bowler, D. E., Comay, O., Driessen, M. M., Ernest, S. M., Gentile, A., Chase, J. M. (2021). InsectChange: A global database of temporal changes in insect and arachnid assemblages. Ecology102:e03354.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at

5. Carvalho, C., Oliveira, A., Caeiro, E., Miralto, O., Parrinha, M., Sampaio, A., Salgueiro, P. A. (2022). Insect pollination services in actively and spontaneously restored quarries converge differently to natural reference ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Management318:115450.

Google Scholar   Cross Ref           Indexed at