Effects of Land-Use Change on the Pollination Services for Litchi and Longan Orchards: A Case Study of Huizhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work "Effects of land-use change on the pollination services for litchi and longan: a case study of Huizhou" is interesting and concerns essential issues. However, the work in its present form is only understandable for authors and people dealing with this topic.

The paper does not discuss the quantitative methods used in the research. It is not known what the tables in the article contain. Besides, it is unknown whether they are needed because the authors do not refer to them (Table 4, 5).

What are "hotspots" and "cold spots"?

Another question. How did the authors measure the correlation included in Table 5?

Chapter 3 describes the data, and the authors have identified it as the results. On the other hand, the fourth chapter is a combination of the chapter on research results and a summary.

In conclusion, Autors should significantly rebuild the work if it is to be printed.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The work "Effects of land-use change on the pollination services for litchi and longan: a case study of Huizhou" is interesting and concerns essential issues.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment. We appreciate for the positive feedback.

 

Point 2: The paper does not discuss the quantitative methods used in the research. It is not known what the tables in the article contain. Besides, it is unknown whether they are needed because the authors do not refer to them (Table 4, 5)

 

Response 2: Thanks for the comments. According to the comments, we have briefly outlined the quantitative methods used in this article in the summary section, including the InVEST-Pollination module, Hotspot analyses, and Geographical Detector. We also have introduced the quantitative methods in Section 3 of Chapter 2 in detail. Please check lines 164-221.

We have briefly described the contents of the tables and referenced them in the paper. Please check lines 219, 228, 268, 302, 316-317.

We have changed Table 4 and Table 5 to Table 5 and Table 6 respectively and referenced them in lines 316-317. Table 5 and Table 6, as the data support, are very important for us to discuss the effect of land-use change on the pollination service of litchi and longan orchards.

 

Point 3: What are "hotspots" and "cold spots"?

 

Response 3: Thanks for the comments. We have clarified Hotspot analyses in the Methods and made the definition of Hotspots and cold spots statistically significant spatial clusters of high values and low values, respectively[1]. Please check lines 194-196.

 

Point 4: Another question. How did the authors measure the correlation included in Table 5?

 

Response 4: Thanks for the comments. We have changed Table 5 to Table 6 (Please check in lines 354-355). We have added an index, which is abundance index change of wild bees per unit area , to measure the impact of land-use conversion on the abundance index of wild bees in Table 6. For example, conversion of forest land to irrigated cropland per 1 km2 reduced the abundance index of wild bees by 1.55.

 

Point 5: Chapter 3 describes the data, and the authors have identified it as the results. On the other hand, the fourth chapter is a combination of the chapter on research results and a summary.

 

Response 5: Thanks for the comments. In Chapter 3, we have rewritten the results of polling service analysis by the InVEST model, hotspot analysis and geodetector analyses, respectively. Please check lines  265-274, 289-296 and 302-310, respectively.

We have rewritten Chapter 4 completely. We have firstly discussed the effects of land-use change on the pollination services for litchi and longan orchards (Please check lines 316-351). From the operation mechanism of the pollination module of the InVEST model, And then we have clarified how land-use change affects pollination services for litchi and longan orchards (Please check lines 369-390).

 

Reference:

1.      Li, G.; Fang, C.; Wang, S. Exploring spatiotemporal changes in ecosystem-service values and hotspots in China(Article). Science of the Total Environment 2016, Vol.545-546, 609-620, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.067.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The current manuscript assesses changes in pollinator abundance in relation to changes in land use in Huizhou, China. I am supportive of studies that assess the impact of land use change on ecosystem services and believe this could potentially be an important contribution to evidence and of interest to readers of the journal. However, the manuscript needs considerable editing before it can be considered for publication, as per my comments below. Several passages are confusing and seem out of place, with methods, results and discussion seemingly randomly scattered throughout the text without a logical flow. In addition, the Methods section needs more details to make the methods clearer. I would also suggest some English language editing for clarity. My comments below are per page and line number.

 

P1, L9-25: the Abstract should include a brief description of the methods used. The authors seem to criticise pollination service evaluation models, but do not make clear what type of modelling they used. Also, the last sentence is confusing; I was not very clear what the authors meant by the spatial differentiation of pollination services. I would suggest rewriting the Abstract to clarify these points.

P1-2, L39-53: this paragraph feels out of place and inappropriate for the beginning of the Introduction section. It seems this text could be recycled into the Discussion section when the merits and drawbacks of different methods can be discussed in relation to the authors’ own methods. I would suggest either simplifying this paragraph to mention different methods only briefly or moving it to the Discussion section.

P2, L67-73: any examples of such research? References? Many assertions are made here without evidence to back them up.

P2, L84-88: I was not very clear what the authors meant here. How exactly has this model improved our understanding of pollination services in relation to land use change? I would suggest the authors clarify what exactly has changed by the adoption of this model.

P2, L89: shortcomings in what sense? In our overall understanding of the impact of land use change on pollination services? Please clarify.

P2, L90-91: this sentence is vague. What uncertainties are these?

P2, L96: I would suggest the authors clarify at the beginning what longan and litchi are as not all readers will be familiar with these terms. Please state these are orchard plantations, also in the title and in the Abstract. I would also suggest making it clear, either in the Introduction or Methods, why these are important plantations to study. What is their commercial significance and what scale of land use change are we referring to here in terms of land dedicated to these crops?

P3, L97: it is not clear at this point what type of data the authors are using to make mention of ‘further basic data’. What are ‘basic’ data? Have the authors used ‘advanced’ data other than ‘basic’ data? This passage needs rewriting for clarity.

P3, L101-102: in China?

P3, L110-111: this needs more clarification. What biophysical parameters are the authors referring to, and what type of survey was conducted?

P4, L133: what biophysical parameters are these?

P4, L138: what land use attributes are the authors referring to?

P4, L138-142: it seems three different methods were used to assess pollinator diversity and/or abundance if I understood correctly. Can the authors please clarify exactly what type of data each of these methods are providing and why they complement each other? Also, some methods seem to be referred to without references. Have these methods been tested before? If so, please provide references.

P4, L151: I am not convinced ‘Methods’ is the best title for this subsection. Please be more specific as to what this subsection refers to.

P4, L153-154: is there an appropriate reference for this model? If the authors mention one institution responsible for developing it, they should probably mention all institutions involved, or might be easier to provide a full reference.

P5, L158: what biophysical parameters?

P5, L159-160: does this mean the index is constrained between 0 and 1, or this specific study found values between 0 and 1? By higher value, do the authors mean values closer to 1? This passage needs rewriting for clarity.

P5, L162-168: if these are Appendix files, please make that clearer.

P5, L172-173: make it clear in the first sentence to what period this downward trend refers to.

P5, L179-181: why are three decimal places used here but only two elsewhere? Are these numbers meant to be thousands? This is confusing; keep consistent throughout the text.

P6, L195: in what period? Always mention the period of time comprising the increase/decrease in land use.

P7, L211-212: within 1,000 m of what? It seems this would have been useful information in the Methods section.

P7, L218: I was not clear what the vice versa meant here. Please rewrite this sentence for clarity.

P7, L219-228: this paragraph seems out of place and more suitable for a Discussion section.

Table 2: this table does not seem to be referenced in the main text. Also, if the authors are providing mean values, they should also provide a measure of variability (e.g., standard deviation) around these mean values.

P8, L238-241: it seems this is the first time this methodology is mentioned. This would be more appropriate in the Methods section. Also, the authors have not defined what ‘hotspots’ and ‘coldspots’ are prior to this point. It is difficult to understand what is meant here.

P8, L246-261: this paragraph seems more suitable for the Discussion section.

Fig. 5: this figure does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the main text. Also, we are really missing a definition of hotspot and coldspot to contextualise this figure. What do the percentage confidences in the figure legend mean?

P9, L267-272: again, this seems more appropriate for the Methods section.

P9, L272-277: this passage is confusing. I am not clear what is meant by the different land uses being the dominant environmental variables explaining pollination services. Do the authors mean to say these were the land uses mostly associated with increased pollination services? Please rewrite it for clarity, this was also confusing in the Abstract. In addition, this comes across as Results rather than Discussion, and is odd to present tables and figures in the Discussion section. Why was this not presented in the Results section?

P9, L277-285: what two environmental variables? What do the authors mean by ‘two single variables’? It is not clear what variables they are referring to. This is very confusing. Please rewrite for clarity.

Fig. 6: what are the numbers in the figure? Some explanation should be added to the figure caption as to what this figure is showing.

P10-11, L300-318: this is a long passage that only seems to repeat results that were presented previously and not really discuss the mechanisms behind them. Also, the Discussion section should ideally refer to previous work and existing literature to contextualise the study results. That is not done at any point in the Discussion section.

Table 4 and 5: these tables do not seem to be mentioned in the main text. What do they refer to? They seem out of place.

P11-12, L324-347: based on what evidence are the authors making these recommendations? Do they know these actions to be effective in increasing pollination services in this region (or in any other region)? This is a long passage without any references to previous work in this area and no evidence to back up these recommendations. It comes across as a personal wish list of the authors. Moreover, the authors never made clear in the Introduction that one of the objectives of the study was to come up with land management recommendations. This should have been set out at the beginning and these recommendations should be based on evidence as much as possible.

P13, L390-392: not clear what is meant by ‘quantity of pollination services’. Please clarify.

P13, L394-395: not clear what is meant by ‘expanding the land use’. Please clarify.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: The current manuscript assesses changes in pollinator abundance in relation to changes in land use in Huizhou, China. I am supportive of studies that assess the impact of land use change on ecosystem services and believe this could potentially be an important contribution to evidence and of interest to readers of the journal.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment. We appreciate for the positive feedback.

 

Point 2: L9-25: the Abstract should include a brief description of the methods used. The authors seem to criticise pollination service evaluation models, but do not make clear what type of modelling they used. Also, the last sentence is confusing; I was not very clear what the authors meant by the spatial differentiation of pollination services. I would suggest rewriting the Abstract to clarify these points.

 

Response 2: Thanks for the comments. According to the comments, we have briefly outlined the quantitative methods used in this article in the summary section, including the InVEST-Pollination module, Hotspot analyses and Geographical Detector (Line 17-27). We have rewritten the sentences which expressed the impact degree of influencing factors on pollination services of litchi and longan orchards by a more understandable expression (Line 35-38).

 

Point 3: L39-53: this paragraph feels out of place and inappropriate for the beginning of the Introduction section. It seems this text could be recycled into the Discussion section when the merits and drawbacks of different methods can be discussed in relation to the authors’ own methods. I would suggest either simplifying this paragraph to mention different methods only briefly or moving it to the Discussion section.

 

Response 3: Thanks for the comments. After repeated consideration, we have deleted this paragraph, because this paragraph focused on ecology and had little to do with the theme.

 

Point 4: L67-73: any examples of such research? References? Many assertions are made here without evidence to back them up.

 

Response 4: Thanks for the comments. We have rewritten these two sentences and added the reference (Line 65-68). By the way, we have rewritten the sentence in lines 71-72 to make it more suitable for the theme.

 

Point 5: L84-88: I was not very clear what the authors meant here. How exactly has this model improved our understanding of pollination services in relation to land use change? I would suggest the authors clarify what exactly has changed by the adoption of this model.

 

Response 5: Thanks for the comments. Here we have described the relationship between land use change and pollination service in this model. Namely, based on the land-use map, this model derives an index of the abundance of wild bees in the region by using the nesting preference of wild bees for different land-use types, the availability of floral resources for different land-use types, and the foraging distance of wild bees. The index of the abundance of wild bees was used to represent the value of pollination services in litchi and longan orchards (Line 82-87).

 

Point 6: L89: shortcomings in what sense? In our overall understanding of the impact of land use change on pollination services? Please clarify.

 

Response 6: Thanks for the comments. We have clarified that the shortcoming is the accuracy of calculating the pollinator abundance index is reduced, which will cause the evaluation results of land-use change on pollination service to be inconsistent with the reality (Line 91-93).

 

Point 7: L90-91: this sentence is vague. What uncertainties are these?

 

Response 7: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence. Please check lines 91-93.

 

Point 8: L96: I would suggest the authors clarify at the beginning what longan and litchi are as not all readers will be familiar with these terms. Please state these are orchard plantations, also in the title and in the Abstract. I would also suggest making it clear, either in the Introduction or Methods, why these are important plantations to study. What is their commercial significance and what scale of land use change are we referring to here in terms of land dedicated to these crops?

 

Response 8: Thanks for the comment. We have stated longan and litchi are orchard plantations in this paper. We have clarified the reasons why longan and litchi are important plantations to study. The first reason is litchi and longan orchards are the main orchard types in the study area, which accounted for 22.54 % of all orchards in Huizhou in 2019. The second reason is the dependence of litchi and longan on insect pollination was 0.97 and 0.81, respectively[1]. Therefore, the commercial significance is pollination services of insects have an important impact on the yield of litchi and longan. We can better study the impact of land-use change on pollination services in litchi and longan orchards in the large-scale areas. Please check lines 123-128.

 

Point 9: L97: it is not clear at this point what type of data the authors are using to make mention of ‘further basic data’. What are ‘basic’ data? Have the authors used ‘advanced’ data other than ‘basic’ data? This passage needs rewriting for clarity.

 

Response 9: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that the basic data are litchi and longan orchards patches, pollinator species of litchi and longan, and the number of pollinators and flowering plants with different land-use types. Because the nesting suitability and availability of floral resources of land-use types were calculated by these data, we called these data basic data. Please check lines 99-100.

 

Point 10: L101-102: in China?

 

Response 10: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that Huizhou is located in southern China (Line 105).

 

Point 11: L110-111: this needs more clarification. What biophysical parameters are the authors referring to, and what type of survey was conducted?

 

Response 11: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that the biophysical parameters are the species and number of pollinators in litchi and longan, the species of flowering plants, and their vegetation coverage. And field sampling survey was conducted. Please check lines 114-116.

 

Point 1: L133: what biophysical parameters are these?

 

Response 12: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that the biophysical parameters are the body length of wild bees, the activity of wild bees in different seasons, and the preference of wild bees for nesting in different land-use types. Please check lines 144-146.

 

Point 13: L138: what land use attributes are the authors referring to?

 

Response 13: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence to make it more accurate. Please check lines 149-150.

 

Point 14: L138-142: it seems three different methods were used to assess pollinator diversity and/or abundance if I understood correctly. Can the authors please clarify exactly what type of data each of these methods are providing and why they complement each other? Also, some methods seem to be referred to without references. Have these methods been tested before? If so, please provide references.

 

Response 14: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence to make it more accurate and added the reference. The two-point sampling method and five-point sampling method were used to investigate plant communities. Please check lines 151-153.

 

Point 15: L151: I am not convinced ‘Methods’ is the best title for this subsection. Please be more specific as to what this subsection refers to.

 

Response 15: Thanks for the comment. We have introduced three methods in detail in this subsection, such as the InVEST-Pollination module, Hotspot analyses, and Geographical Detector. Therefore, the title of the methods can be summarized. Please check the Methods.

 

Point 16: L153-154: is there an appropriate reference for this model? If the authors mention one institution responsible for developing it, they should probably mention all institutions involved, or might be easier to provide a full reference.

 

Response 16: Thanks for the comment. We have completely rewritten this section and introduced the operation principle of the model with an appropriate reference. Please check lines 164-172.

 

Point 17: L158: what biophysical parameters?

 

Response 17: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that the biophysical parameters are the activity of wild bees in different seasons, the foraging distance, and relative abundance of wild bees. Please check lines 167-169.

 

Point 18: L159-160: does this mean the index is constrained between 0 and 1, or this specific study found values between 0 and 1? By higher value, do the authors mean values closer to 1? This passage needs rewriting for clarity.

 

Response 18: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that the index is constrained between 0 and 1. A higher value, which means closer to 1, indicated higher wild bee abundance. Please check lines 169-172.

 

Point 19: L162-168: if these are Appendix files, please make that clearer.

 

Response 19: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified that these are Appendix. Please check lines 179, 184, 188.

 

Point 20: L172-173: make it clear in the first sentence to what period this downward trend refers to.

 

Response 20: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified the period which is from 2015 to 2019 in the first sentence. Please check line 225.

 

Point 21: L179-181: why are three decimal places used here but only two elsewhere? Are these numbers meant to be thousands? This is confusing; keep consistent throughout the text.

 

Response 21: Thanks for the comment. We have modified all the numbers in this article so that they retain the last two decimal places. But some of the numbers in Table 3 are too small, so we can only keep the last four decimal places.

 

Point 22: L195: in what period? Always mention the period of time comprising the increase/decrease in land use.

 

Response 22: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified the period which is from 2015 to 2019 in the first sentence. Please check line 249.

We have mentioned the period time comprising the increase/decrease in land use.

 

 

Point 23: L211-212: within 1,000 m of what? It seems this would have been useful information in the Methods section.

 

Response 23: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence to make it more accurate. Because the foraging distance of wild bees is 1000 meters, the research scope is set to litchi and longan orchards and their outward extension area (buffer zone). Please check lines 265-266.

 

Point 24: L218: I was not clear what the vice versa meant here. Please rewrite this sentence for clarity.

 

Response 24: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence to make it more accurate. Please check lines 273-274.

 

Point 25: L219-228: this paragraph seems out of place and more suitable for a Discussion section.

 

Response 25: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this paragraph in Discussion section. Please check lines 319-328.

 

Point 26: Table 2: this table does not seem to be referenced in the main text. Also, if the authors are providing mean values, they should also provide a measure of variability (e.g., standard deviation) around these mean values.

 

Response 26: Thanks for the comment. Because we have added a table in the Methods, we have changed Table 2 to Table 3. We have referenced Table 3 in line 268, and we provide the standard deviation in Table 3.

 

Point 27: L238-241: it seems this is the first time this methodology is mentioned. This would be more appropriate in the Methods section. Also, the authors have not defined what ‘hotspots’ and ‘coldspots’ are prior to this point. It is difficult to understand what is meant here.

 

Response 27: Thanks for the comment. We have clarified Hotspot analyses in the Methods and made the definition of Hotspots and cold spots statistically significant spatial clusters of high values and low values, respectively[2]. Please check lines 193-204.

 

Point 28: L246-261: this paragraph seems more suitable for the Discussion section.

 

Response 28: Thanks for the comment.  We have rewritten this paragraph in the Discussion section. Please check lines 329-344.

 

Point 29: Fig. 5: this figure does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the main text. Also, we are really missing a definition of hotspot and coldspot to contextualise this figure. What do the percentage confidences in the figure legend mean?

 

Response 29: Thanks for the comment. We have referenced Fig. 5 in line 289 and clarified what the percentage confidences in the figure legend mean. It divides confidence levels according to -scores. And <−1.65 or >+1.65, <−1.96 or >+1.96 and <−2.58 or >+2.58 are critical -scores for 90, 95 and 99% confidence levels, respectively. Please check lines 203-204.

 

Point 30: L267-272: again, this seems more appropriate for the Methods section.

 

Response 30: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this paragraph in the Methods section. Please check lines 205-221.

 

Point 31: L272-277: this passage is confusing. I am not clear what is meant by the different land uses being the dominant environmental variables explaining pollination services. Do the authors mean to say these were the land uses mostly associated with increased pollination services? Please rewrite it for clarity, this was also confusing in the Abstract. In addition, this comes across as Results rather than Discussion, and is odd to present tables and figures in the Discussion section. Why was this not presented in the Results section?

 

Response 31: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten the results analysis of the Geodetector in the Results section. We have rewritten this sentence to make it more understandable. Please check lines 302-307. And we also have rewritten it in the Abstract. Please check lines 35-38.

 

Point 32: L277-285: what two environmental variables? What do the authors mean by ‘two single variables’? It is not clear what variables they are referring to. This is very confusing. Please rewrite for clarity.

 

Response 32: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence in the Results section to make it more understandable. Please check lines 307-310.

 

Point 33: Fig. 6: what are the numbers in the figure? Some explanation should be added to the figure caption as to what this figure is showing.

 

Response 33: Thanks for the comment. We have added a note to describe numbers in the figure indicating their impact degree on the pollination services of litchi and longan orchards, ranging from 0 to 1. (+) indicates positive impact, and (-) indicates negative impact. Please check lines 365-368.

 

Point 34: L300-318: this is a long passage that only seems to repeat results that were presented previously and not really discuss the mechanisms behind them. Also, the Discussion section should ideally refer to previous work and existing literature to contextualise the study results. That is not done at any point in the Discussion section.

 

Response 34: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten the influence mechanism of land use on the pollination services for litchi and longan orchards in lines 369-390. From the operation mechanism of the pollination module of the InVEST model, we have clarified how land-use change affects pollination services for litchi and longan orchards.

 

Point 35: Table 4 and 5: these tables do not seem to be mentioned in the main text. What do they refer to? They seem out of place.

 

Response 35: Thanks for the comment. We have changed Table 4 and Table 5 to Table 5 and Table 6, respectively. We have referenced Tables 5and 6 in lines 316-317. Table 5 and Table 6, as the data support, are very important for us to discuss the effect of land-use change on the pollination service of litchi and longan orchards.

 

Point 36: L324-347: based on what evidence are the authors making these recommendations? Do they know these actions to be effective in increasing pollination services in this region (or in any other region)? This is a long passage without any references to previous work in this area and no evidence to back up these recommendations. It comes across as a personal wish list of the authors. Moreover, the authors never made clear in the Introduction that one of the objectives of the study was to come up with land management recommendations. This should have been set out at the beginning and these recommendations should be based on evidence as much as possible.

 

Response 36: Thanks for the comment. For the sake of caution, we have deleted these sections because we were unable to make realistic recommendations. We also deleted the reference in the introduction to proposals for land use management.

 

Point 37: L390-392: not clear what is meant by ‘quantity of pollination services’. Please clarify.

 

Response 37: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence. Please check line 430.

 

Point 38: L394-395: not clear what is meant by ‘expanding the land use’. Please clarify

 

Response 38: Thanks for the comment. We have rewritten this sentence. Please check lines 434-436.

 

 

Reference:

1. Liu, P.; Wu, J.; Li, H.; Suwen，Lin. Evaluation of economic value of agricultural bee pollination in China. Scientia Agricultura Sinica 2011, 24, 5117-5123.
2. Li, G.; Fang, C.; Wang, S. Exploring spatiotemporal changes in ecosystem-service values and hotspots in China(Article). Science of the Total Environment 2016, Vol.545-546, 609-620, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.067.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations. The work in its current form gained scientific and cognitive value. The only thing the work could improve is increasing the number of literature items.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear editor and reviewers,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript.

We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments of the reviewer and the editor. We hope that our responses and the associated changes can be sufficient. If there are any unclear issues, we would like to offer further clarifications.

To show how we have considered the reviewer’ and editor’ comments, all changes are highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Authors

 

Point 1: Congratulations. The work in its current form gained scientific and cognitive value. The only thing the work could improve is increasing the number of literature items.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for this comment. We appreciate for the positive feedback.We have rewritten the Discussion and added 5 related literatures[1-5] in this section. Please check lines 393, 399, 401, 406.

 

Reference:

1. Groff, S.C.; Loftin, C.S.; Drummond, F.; Bushmann, S.; McGill, B. Parameterization of the InVEST Crop Pollination Model to spatially predict abundance of wild blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Aiton) native bee pollinators in Maine, USA. Environmental Modelling & Software2016, 79, 1-9, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.01.003.
2. Steffan-Dewenter, I., Munzenberg, U., Burger, C., Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 2002, 83, 1421-1432, doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1421:Sdeolc]2.0.Co.
3. Kennedy, C.M.; Lonsdorf, E.; Neel, M.C.; Williams, N.M.; Ricketts, T.H.; Winfree, R.; Bommarco, R.; Brittain, C.; Burley, A.L.; Cariveau, D.; et al. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecology Letters 2013, 16, 584-599, doi:10.1111/ele.12082.
4. Polce, C.; Termansen, M.; Aguirre-Guti, J.; eacute; rrez; Boatman, N.D.; Budge, G.E.; Crowe, A.; Garratt, M.P.; St; et al. Species Distribution Models for Crop Pollination: A Modelling Framework Applied to Great Britain. School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 2013, 8, e76308, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076308.
5. Garibaldi, L.A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Kremen, C.; Morales, J.M.; Bommarco, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Carvalheiro, L.s.G.; Chacoff, N.P.; Dudenhoffer, J.H.; Greenleaf, S.S.; et al. Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecology Letters 2011, 14, 1062-1072, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx