177 Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Naturae, 5: 177–193, 2020, ISSN 2543-8832 DOI: 10.24917/25438832.5.12 Saikat Kumar Basu1, William Cetzal-Ix2*, Alminda Magbalot-Fernandez3, Peiman Zandi4,5 1PS Lethbridge, AB Canada T1J 4B3 2Tecnológico Nacional de México, Instituto Tecnológico de Chiná. Calle 11 entre 22y 28, Colonia Centro Chiná 24050. Campeche, México; *rolito22@hotmail.com 3School of Agriculture & Food Technology, �e University of the South Paci�c, Private Mail Bag, Apia, Samoa 4International Faculty of Applied Technology, Yibin University, Yibin, Sichuan, 644600, P. R. China 5Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, P. R. China Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects An alarming decline has been observed in insect pollinator populations and subpop- ulations living in various ecosystems across the planet. Among insect pollinators, bees have been the most impacted. Native populations of several endemic (indigenous) bees are showing very serious decline, being pushed almost to the verge of extinction (Tollefson, 2019). Many countries around the world have documented elevated de- clines in bee populations, including China, Brazil, North America and Europe. �e reasons underlying such a worrying decline are not well-known. Numerous factors, such as: excessive pollution, rapid rises in aggressive industrial agriculture, excess use of various toxic synthetic chemicals in agriculture, transformation in land use policies and practices, Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), poor immunity, loss of vigour in genetic strains, genetic bottlenecks, a rise in various parasitic diseases and a lack of suitable foraging plants (melliferous vegetation) and adequate nutrition (inadequate supply of nectar and pollen across di�erent seasons), are attributed to this rapid de- cline of pollinator insect populations, including bees and bumblebees (Gallai et al., 2009; Potts et al., 2010; Henry et al., 2012). �e scenario is extremely disturbing as it is inter-connected with the future agricultural productivity, food security and stability of our natural or semi-natural global ecosystems. It is therefore essential to formulate a comprehensive, long-term, cost e�cient and sustainable model for conserving insect pollinators to secure the future of two important global areas, namely: agriculture (including apiculture) and forestry (Basu, Cetzal-Ix, 2018 a, b, 2019; Coh-Martinez et al., 2019). �e wide diversity of �owering plants – both dicotyledonous and monocotyledon- S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 178 ous plants (which include a vast majority of our food and industrial crops), are directly or indirectly dependent on natural pollinators through cross-pollination necessary for their generative reproduction. Natural pollinators include not only insects like bees (such as honeybees and/or native bees), bumblebees, moths and butter�ies (Fig. 1–2 – Appendix 1) and some species of pollination-friendly ants, wasps, beetles and �ies but certain species of slugs and snails, birds (humming birds, sun birds, parakeets, etc.) and mammals (such as di�erent species of bats). Several species other than in- sects, like reptiles (lizards) and amphibians, are also suspected of being active agents of cross-pollination. A rich diversity of animal species, not only insects, are involved in the process of cross-pollination (Robinson et al., 2017). In fact, honey bees are re- sponsible for only a third of the pollination of crops and a very small percentage of pollination of wild plants. �ere are many other insects that carry out this work and they are also in trouble – their population and subpopulations across the planet are decreasing alarmingly (Kremen et al., 2007). However, the native bees, bumblebees (Tab. 1 – Appendix 2) and honey bees are the most endangered (Garibaldi et al., 2013; Kleijn et al., 2015). �e gradual reduction of insect pollinator populations is alarming since they have direct implications for our future and the stability of fragile global ecosystems (Ripple et al., 2017). �ey play a key role in maintaining plant diversity. �e local extinction of even a single species of pollinator can lead to the disappearance of some plant species populations (Lever et al., 2014; Embry, 2018). �us, it is critical to focus on developing a comprehensive, but sustainable and a�ordable, conservation policy for insect polli- nators for di�erent countries. If the human factor is not included in the conservation equation for protecting the insect pollinators the conservation policy cannot be suc- cessful in any part of the planet. Hence, it is essential that we develop a low-cost and low-maintenance, farmer- and environment-friendly simple “green approach” that can help save the endangered pollinator populations without stressing economies. �e aim of this study is to brie�y review traditional and novel methods for pro- tecting pollinating insects and to propose the creation of special refuges – “Pollinator Sanctuaries”, that condition suitable habitats and an abundance of food for bees, bum- blebees and other pollinators. Traditional ways to protect pollinators Traditional ways of protecting insects and other pollinators are classi�ed in terms of species protection or biotope protection. �e disappearance of biotopes of a given spe- cies is the most common reason for quantity decline and, consequently, extinction. In- clusion of a species on a list prohibiting their destruction by individuals is usually not su�cient to safeguard its durability if the biotope in which it occurs is transformed. Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 179 �erefore, modern species protection emphasizes the protection of habitats of species, not just the species themselves. It is currently thought that the most e�ective method is the preservation of all natural diversity in the context of preserving rich gene pools in changing environmental conditions (Pickett, Cadenasso, 2002; Gastauera et al., 2013). In terms of risk to the richness of pollinating insects, the loss of habitats and �ower resources results from structural simpli�cation of the agricultural landscape and in- creased intensity of the use of arable land and grassland (Kleijn et al., 2009; Goulson et al., 2015). It is believed that the loss of uncultivated habitats (fallow lands) and in- creased land use are particularly harmful to rare pollinator species (Kleijn et al., 2015). �e systematic loss of this type of species may contribute to the biotic homogenization of entomofauna groups (Gámez-Virués et al., 2015). Studies generally show negative relationships between the local richness of wild bees and the decreasing complexity of the landscape in terms of the reduction of natural and semi-natural habitat areas (Hendrickx et al., 2007; Scheper et al., 2013; Ekroos et al., 2020). In the second half of the last century, the approach to protective management also gradually changed. It was once thought that the most e�ective way of protection was the so-called passive (conservation) protection, which is e�ective, but more so in pre- serving the resources of diversity of forest communities (Sołtys-Lelek et al., 2014), including forest pollinators (Robinson et al., 2017). In the case of semi-natural com- munities – xerothermic grasslands, meadows and pastures, which focus the greatest richness of pollinating insects, conservation protection leads to the overgrowth of these surfaces and the gradual elimination of light-sensitive species (Drury, Nisbet, 1973). As a result, it also signi�cantly reduces the diversity of entomofauna (Maina et al., 2019). �erefore, it is currently believed that in the preservation of non-forest biotopes and all the diversity associated with these habitats balanced, extensive utilitarian man- agements, such as moderate grazing or mowing and extensive fertilisation, are neces- sary. In neighbouring arable �elds, it is recommended to limit the use of herbicides and other plant protection products that can harm pollinating insects (Holzschuh et al., 2007; Kleijn et al., 2009; Robinson et al., 2017; Ekroos et al., 2020). �ese treat- ments are not only important for maintaining the diversity of �owering plants but for maintaining the species richness of bees, bumblebees, butter�ies and other insects. Meadows and other grasslands o�er both nests and �ower resources for insects for most of the growing season, unless they are used too intensively (Gathmann et. al., 1994; Albrecht et al., 2007; Batáry et al., 2010; Winfree, 2010). Grasslands support both species important for plant pollination and species requiring protection, par- ticularly if they o�er a variety of �ower resources (Sutter et al., 2017). However, since many (immeasurable) factors can simultaneously a�ect biodiversity (Cornell, Har- rison, 2014), it can be assumed that the high local intensity of land use will have an S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 180 overriding negative impact on pollinating insects, thus limiting their diversity, despite the potential availability of resource habitat (Ekroos, Kuussaari, 2012; Kennedy et. al., 2013; Hopfenmüller et al., 2014; Ekroos et al., 2020). Innovative proposals in the protection of pollinating insects Since bees and other pollinators are mobile organisms, they can survive even in in- tensively managed landscapes, as long as there are enough semi-natural habitats for their nesting and foraging (Jabr, 2013). �is may suggest that the protection of com- mon pollinating insects can be maintained in intensive farming systems, as long as a minimum number of semi-natural habitats are available to them (Baldock et al., 2015; Ekroos et al., 2016). �ese conclusions led to the emergence of new postulates important in the protection of pollinating insects in anthropogenic habitats, especially in areas of large urban agglomerations. Considering how important numerous plants pollinated by insects are for the entire human economy (Potts et al., 2016), the notion of pollinator protection in urban areas has begun to be promoted (Garbuzov, Rat- nieks, 2014). Over the last several years, building houses for insects has become popular in both city parks and green areas, in rural areas, in gardens and even on farms themselves Fig. 3. An example of a house for insects of pollinating with wood (a) and mixed construction (b) (Photo. S.K Basu) Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 181 (Falk, 2015). �e construction of an insect house is very simple and can be a do-it- yourself project (Fig. 3). Detailed instructions on this topic can be found in many available online sources (e.g. Carlton, 2017). �e houses should be placed in a quiet, sunny and dry place. �ey can be made of wood or using elements of straw, reed or bricks. A “wild �ower meadow”, as well as a piece of un-mowed neglected lawn or planting nectaring plants, such as Erica sp., Rubus sp., Salix sp., �ymus sp., Tilia sp., attracts useful pollinating insects to them (Carvell et al., 2007; Salisbury et al., 2015). Such insect houses also have a very important didactic function; we can better get to know and understand the world of nature, and some housing structures allow for the observing the stages of insect development. Another interesting idea for the protection of pollinating insects is the establish- ment of “�ower meadows” in urban areas. �is idea has been popular in recent years, both in Western Europe, e.g. Great Britain, France and Germany, and in Central Europe, e.g. in Poland. �is type of meadow is an alternative to monotonous urban lawns, and can also be a feeding place and refuge for pollinating insects (Baldock et al., 2015). �rough �owering plants, the meadow can have a positive e�ect on the aes- thetics of the area, delighting with colours and smell (Hoylea et al., 2017). Residents can also use the meadow, and the installation of information boards about plants and insect species occurring there and the purpose of the entire undertaking can ful�l ed- ucational functions (Lindemann-Matthies, Bose, 2007). Urban “�ower meadows” can be made on virtually any well-sunned surface that is not dominated by large trees. �e species composition, properly selected for the type of soil, allows for the use of areas that are o�en degraded by humans, where it may be di�cult to maintain a nice lawn (roadsides, road lanes, neighbourhoods of public transport tracks, etc.). Exemplary compositions of plant mixtures can easily be found on many online sources (Tab. 2 – Appendix 2), which strongly support the idea of protection, but they are not always satisfactory in the context of the utility quality for pollinators and the length of access (Garbuzov, Ratnieks, 2014; Harmon-�reatt, Hendrix, 2015; Hicks et al., 2016). �e “�ower meadow” is also an economically viable alternative to city lawns. Savings arise from the caretaking of the area by limiting mowing to one or two mowing opera- tions in a season. However, there are also opponents of this type of project, who hold that urban “�ower meadows” are not ideal for protection of insects. �e fact that city meadows are o�en in the vicinity of streets may have unintended but harmful conse- quences: insects attracted by plants may be more vulnerable to being hit by a car. In addition, the creation of small isolated meadows �lled with “potential prey” is a sure way to attract predators (such as birds) that very quickly reduce the number of insects. Even the best mix of meadow plants selected to a given area should be cared (weeded) for the �rst several years to prevent expansive weeds from dominating and displacing the nectar plants (Hoylea et al., 2017); this obviously requires �nancial expenditure. S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 182 Also, the use of alien species in decorative plants mixtures should be avoided as they can quickly become a threat to the native �ora (Salisbury et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2011). Certainly, the idea of urban “�ower meadows” is very interesting and worthy of further scienti�c investigation. Another idea for protecting pollinating insects is to leave small set-aside fragments in agricultural areas where crop and meadow weeds can survive. �ey can be �eld edges or mid�eld balks. �ey can provide refuging, nesting (Svensson et al., 2000) and food for pollinators, especially when they are additionally sown with native mixtures of nectaring plants (Carvell et al., 2007; Kuussaari et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2011). Studies conducted in many countries, in Canada, the USA, Germany, and Great Brit- ain, con�rm the fact that these habitats are usually rich in �owering weed species, therefore they are a natural refuge for many pollinating insects. �e richness of �ower species translates directly into the richness of insects found in these areas (Carvell et al., 2007; Maina et al., 2019). Of course, it is very important that the neighbour- ing �elds are cultivated organically, without intensive use of pesticides, as this has a direct impact on the number of insects. If agricultural lands are to be managed to preserve the diversity of species, including wild bees, maintaining diverse com- munities close to arable �elds and/or modifying agricultural production practices in these areas can signi�cantly improve the protection of local bee communities (Holzschuh et al., 2007; Winfree, 2010; Kennedy et. al., 2013; Maina et al., 2019). “Pollinator Sanctuaries” – our novel proposeof pollinating insects to protect Our proposal is a combination of the concept of �ower meadows and the creation of areas separated from agricultural use in order to increase the resource of wild nectar �owers. We propose the creation of “Pollinator Sanctuaries”, which will be simulta- neously gardens and habitats for pollinating insects. “Pollinator Sanctuaries” can oc- cur in the form of small plots, placed in various, normally unused places, e.g. along highways, boulevards, avenues, parks, gardens and lawns, wetland areas and around perimeters of large and small golf courses (Basu, Cetzal-Ix, 2017; Martínez-Puc et al., 2018). �ose places will be sown with locally adapted “plant mixes” consisting of local honey-bearing plants (such as: Fabaceae: Lotus corniculatus L. Fig. 1a, Medicago sativa L. Fig. 1c, Vicia villosa Roth Fig. 2f; Asteraceae: Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Sch. Bip. Fig. 2d – Appendix 1) and pollinator-friendly acclimatised annual/bi- ennial/perennial forage crop species (such as Asteraceae: Gaillardia sp., Fig. 1b, Echi- nops sphaerocephalus L., Fig. 1d, Echinacea purpurea L., Fig. 2e; Brassicaceae: Brassica napus L. Fig. 2c; and Hydrophyllaceae: Phacelia sp., Fig. 2a, b – Appendix 1), in vari- ous proportions used in agriculture. An important step in achieving that goal will be to establish “Pollinator Sanctuaries” across di�erent agro-climatic zones. Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 183 Plant species selected for the mix must be �owering in sequence, one a�er another, to extend the pollinator (bees) foraging period and provide them with an adequate supply of nectar and pollen. Plants mixes need to be developed based on appropriate agronomic parameters of the growing region and on local agro-climatic conditions, keeping in mind the local pollinator diversity and their preferences. Plant mixes con- stituting only native wild�owers, currently available commercially, are not a viable option due to their poor adaptability to local agronomic conditions, high yield �uctu- ations (based on locality and annual production variation) and high production cost. Development of suitable, environment-friendly plant mixes for various agro-climatic regions could therefore provide a long-term, low-cost and sustainable measure for conserving endangered pollinator insects (Basu, Cetzal-Ix, 2017; Basu, 2019). �is model targets several trophic levels within a natural or arti�cial ecosystem to conserve multiple species simultaneously in addition to local pollinator insects there- by e�ciently protecting and enriching local biodiversity (Robinson et al., 2017; Basu, Cetzal-Ix, 2018 a, b). In this way, a “Pollinator Sanctuary” would not only attract pol- linator insects but other species of insects and small passerine birds and then raptors that survive on other birds and rodents that take refuge in such ecosystems. Di�er- ent birds, small or medium sized mammals, amphibians and reptiles are all drawn to such natural ecosystems, providing a multiple tier or multiple trophic level dynamic ecosystem operating within just a few years of establishment at an extremely low and a�ordable cost requiring only simple management (Basu, 2019). �e proposed model has been in use in Canada for the enhancement of local bio- diversity. �e model not only helps pollinator insect conservation but at the same time the can provide cover crops, used in promoting soil health, in phytoremediation, in transformation of agriculturally non-suitable areas into ecologically productive natu- ral ecosystems units, as grazing area for pasture animals, in maintenance of pasture and rangelands, in crop rotation, as organic agriculture, in biomass generation and, last but not least, in local biodiversity enrichment. Our proposed model is simple and nature-based and does not interfere or put any negative pressure on the local econ- omy (Basu, Cetzal-Ix, 2017). �us, it has the potential for integrating economy with ecology while protecting species and enhancing biodiversity of small island nations through a simple nature-based approach. Conclusions In face of mass extinction of pollinating insects in many regions of the world, all pro- posals for their protection, both the older, classic as well as the new, should be com- prehensively used. Numerous agri-environmental programs that directly or indirectly S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 184 protect pollinating insects seem to help in this regard. Of course, attention should be paid to the local conditions and an e�ort made to try to adapt the selection of appropriate methods and protective strategies to them as much as possible. Universal social education is also important in this respect, which should emphasise, especially in isolated (island) areas, the absolute need to protect the biological resources of local �ora and thus local entomofauna. �is is an essential element in preserving biological resources, of which we are only a small part, in times of the highest anthropo-pressure to date. Acknowledgement �e authors thank of ESBEC Group, USA & Performance Seed, Lethbridge, AB Canada. Con�ict of interest �e authors declare no con�ict of interest related to this article. References Albrecht, M., Duelli, P., Müller, C., Kleijn, D., Schmid, B. (2007).�e Swiss agri-environment scheme en- hances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in nearby intensively managed farm land. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01306.x Animal Diversity Web (ADW) database. Bombus. https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Bombus/classi�- cation/ Baldock, K.C.R., Goddard, M.A., Hicks, D.M., Kunin, W.E., Mitschunas, N., Osgathorpe, L.M., Potts, S.G., Robertson, K.M., Scott, A.V., Stone, G.N., Vaughan, I.P., Memmott, J. (2015). Where is the UK’s pollinator biodiversity? �e importance of urban areas for �ower-visiting insects. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 282(1803), 20142849. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2849 Basu, S.K., Cetzal-Ix, W. (2017). Establishing Bee Sanctuaries in North America for Conserving Insect Pollinators With Special Emphasis to Native Bees. International Journal on Agricultural Sciences, 8(1), 1–8. Basu, S.K., Cetzal-Ix, W. (2018a). Call of the wild: Conservation of natural insect pollinators should be a priority. Biodiversity, 19, 240–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/14888386.2018.1523747 Basu, S.K., Cetzal-Ix, W. (2018b). Traditional honey collectors in the Sundarbans region and their im- pact on the local mangrove ecosystem and biodiversity: a case study with particular reference to the human-animal con�ict. Biodiversity, 19, 248–254. https://doi.org/:10.1080/14888386.2018.1508365 Basu, S.K., Cetzal-Ix, W. (2019). A Canadian model for establishing Pollinator Sanctuaries for successful pollinator insect conservation with special emphasis to bees. NESA Newsletter, 22(10), 7–9. Batáry, P., Báldi, A., Sárospataki, M., Kohler, F., Verhulst, J., Knop, E., Herzog, F., Kleijn, D. (2010). E�ect of conservation management on bees and insect-pollinated grassland plant communities in three European countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 136, 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. agee.2009.11.004 Carlton, M. (2017). How to Make and Manage a Bee Hotel: Instructions that Really Work. https://www. foxleas.com/make-a-bee-hotel.asp [updated November 2017]. Carvell, C., Meek, W.R., Pywell, R.F., Goulson, D., Nowakowski, M. (2007). Comparing the e�cacy of agri‐environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable �eld margins. Journal f Applied Ecology, 44, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01249.x Coh-Martinez, M.E., Cetzal-Ix, W., Martinez-Puc, J.F., Basu, S.K., Noguera-Savelli, E., Cuevas, M.J. Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 185 (2019). Beekeepers perceptions on diversity and �owering phenology of species with apicultural po- tential in the in the community of Xmabén, Hopelchén, Campeche, México. Journal of Ethnobiology & Ethnomedicine, 15, 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-019-0296-1 Cornell, V.H., Harrison, S.P. (2014). What are species pools and when are they important? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 45–67. DOI:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys120213-091759. Dąbrowska, A., Kulik, M. (2020). Projekt naukowy „Łąki kwietne” realizowany przez Wody Polskie (Scien- ti�c project “Flower meadows” implemented by Polish Waters). https://stopsuszy.pl/projekt-laki-kwi- etne-realizowany-przez-wody-polskie/ [In Polish] Drury, W.H., Nisbet, I.C.T. (1973). Succession. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, 54(3), 331–368. Ekroos, J., Kleijn, D., Batáry, P., Albrech,t M., Báldid, A., Blüthgen, N., Knop, E., Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Smith, H.G. (2020). High land-use intensity in grasslands constrains wild bee species richness in Europe. Biological Conservation, 241, 108255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108255 Ekroos, J., Kuussaari, M. (2012). Landscape context a�ects the relationship between local and land- scape species richness of butter�ies in semi-natural habitats. Ecography, 34, 232–238. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2011.07005.x Ekroos, J., Ödman, A.M., Andersson, G.K.S., Birkhofer, K., Herbertsson, L., Klatt, B.K., Olsson, O., Ols- son, P.A., Persson, A.S., Prentice, H.C., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H.G. (2016). Sparing land for biodi- versity at multiple spatial scales. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 145. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fevo.2015.00145 Ellis, A., Myers, M., Ricketts, S.S., Taylor, H. (2015). Do pollinators contribute to nutritional health? Plos One, 10(1), 114805. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114805 Embry, P. (2018). Our native bees: North America’s endangered pollinators and the �ght to save them hard- cover. USA: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Entomological Society of America. Falk, S. (2015). Field Guide to the Bees of Great Britain and Ireland (Field Guides). UK: Bloomsbury Pub- lishing PLC. 432 pp. Flora Polski atlas-roslin.pl. Rośliny naczyniowe dziko rosnące, uprawne, ozdobne gruntowe, mszaki (Polish �ora atlas-roslin.pl. Vascular plants growing wild, cultivated, ornamental, ground, bryophytes). https:// www.atlas-roslin.pl/ [In Polish] Gallai, N., Salles, J.M., Settele, J., Vaissière, B.E. (2009). Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics, 68(3), 810–821. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014 Gámez-Virués, S., Perović, D.J., Gossner, M.M., Börschig, C., Blüthgen, N., De Jong, H., Simons, N.K., Klein, A-M., Krauss, J., Maier, G., Scherber, C., Steckel, J., Rothenwöhrer, C., Ste�an-Dewenter, I., Weiner, C.N., Weisser, W., Werner, M., Tscharntke, T., Westphal, C. (2015). Landscape simpli�cation �lters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. Nature Communications, 6, 8568. https://doi. org/: 10.1038/ncomms9568 Garbuzov, M., Ratnieks, F.L.W. (2014). Quantifying variation among garden plants in attractiveness to bees and other �ower-visiting insects. Functional Ecology, 28(2), 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365- 2435.12178 Garibaldi, L., Ste�an-Dewenter, I., Winfree, R., Aizen M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. (2013). Wild pollinators enhance fruit set of crops regardless of honey bee abundance. Science, 339, 1608–1611. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230200 Gastauera, M., Treinb, L., Meira-Netoa, J.A.A., Schumacherb, W. (2013). Evaluation of biotope’s impor- tance for biotic resource protection by the Bonner Approach. Ecological Indicators, 24, 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.014 S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 186 Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías ,C., Rotheray, E.L. (2015). Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of �owers. Science, 347(6229), 1255957. https://doi.org/10.1126/sci- ence.1255957 Harmon-�reatt, A.N., Hendrix S.D. (2015). Prairie restorations and bees: the potential ability of seed mixes to foster native bee communities. Basic and Applied Ecology, 16(1), 64–72. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.11.001 Hendrickx, F., Maelfait, J.-P., Van Wingerden, W., Schweiger, O., Speelmans, M., Aviron, S., Augenstein, I., Billeter, R., Bailey, D., Bukacek, R., Burel, F., Diekötter, T., Dirksen, F., Herzog, F., Liira, J., Rouba- lova, M., Vandomme, V., Bugter, R. (2007). How landscape structure, land use intensity and habitat diversity a�ect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(2), 340–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01270.x Henry, M., Béguin, M., Requier, M., Rollin, O., Odoux, J.-F., Aupine, P., Aptel, J., Tchamitchian, S., De- courtye, A. (2012). A common pesticide decreases foraging success and survival in honey bees. Sci- ence, 336(6079), 348–350. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1215039 Hicks, D.M., Ouvrard, P., Baldock, K.C.R., Baude, M., Goddard, M.A., Kunin, W.E., Mitschunas, N., Memmott, J., Morse, H., Nikolitsi, M., Osgathorpe, L.M., Potts, S.G., Robertson, K.M., Scott, A.V., Sinclair, F., Westbury, D.B., Stone, G.N. (2016). Food for Pollinators: Quantifying the Nectar and Pol- len Resources of Urban Flower Meadows. Plos One, 11(6), e0158117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0158117 Holzschuh, A., Ste�an‐Dewenter, I., Kleijn D., Tscharntke ,T. (2007). Diversity of �ower‐visiting bees in cereal �elds: e�ects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. Journal f Ap- plied Ecology, 44, 41–49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01259.x Hopfenmüller, S., Ste�an-Dewenter I., Holzschuh A. (2014). Trait-speci�c responses to wild bee commu- nities to landscape composition, con�guration and local factors. Plos One, 9(8), e104439. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104439 Hoylea, H., Jorgensena, A., Warrenb, P., Dunnetta, N., Evansb, K. (2017). “Not in their front yard” �e opportunities and challenges of introducing perennial urban meadows: A local authority stake- holder perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ufug.2017.05.009 IUCN – International Union for Conservation of Nature (2020). �e IUCN Red List of �reatened Species. Version 2019-3. https://www.iucnredlist.org. Jabr, F. (2013). �e Mind-Boggling Math of Migratory Beekeeping. Scienti�c American, https://www.sci- enti�camerican.com/article/migratory-beekeeping-mind-boggling-math/. 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., Carvalheiro, L.G., Chaco�, N.P., Cunningham, S.A., Dan- forth, B.N., Dudenhö�er, J.-H., Elle, E., Gaines, H.R., Garibaldi, L.A., Gratton, C., Holzschuh, A., Isaacs, R., Javorek, S.K., Jha, S., Klein, A.M., Krewenka, K., Mandelik, Y., May�eld, M.M., Morandin, L., Neame, L.A., Otieno, M., Park, M., Potts, S.G., Rundlöf, M., Saez, A., Ste�an‐Dewenter, I., Taki, H., Viana, B.F., Westphal, C., Wilson J.K., Greenleaf, S.S., Kremen, C. (2013). A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape e�ects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecology Letters, 16(5), 584–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12082 Kleijn, D., Kohler, F., Báldi, A., Batáry, P., Concepción, E.D., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., Gabriel, D., Holzschuh, A., Knop, E., Kovács, A., Marshall, E.J.P., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J. (2009). On the relationship be- tween farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences, 276, 903–909. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2008.1509 Kleijn, D., Winfree, R., Bartomeus, I., Carvalheiro, L.G., Henry, M., Isaacs, R. (2015). Delivery of crop pollination services is an insu�cient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nature Communica- tions, 6, 7414. https://doi.org/7414 10.1038/ncomms8414 Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 187 Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, S.G., Roulston, T.A., Ste�an-Dewenter, I., Vázquez, D.P., Winfree, R., Adams, L., Crone, E.E., Greenleaf, S.S., Keitt, T.H., Klein, A.-M., Regetz, J., Ricketts, T.H. (2007). Pollination and other eco- system services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the e�ects of land-use change. Ecology Letters, 10(4), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x Kuussaari, M., Hyvönen, T., Härmä, O. (2011). Pollinator insects bene�t from rotational fallows. Agri- culture, Ecosystems & Environment, 143(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.03.006 Lever, J.J., Nes, E.H., Sche�er, M., Bascompte, J. (2014). �e sudden collapse of pollinator communities. Ecology Letters, 17(3), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12236 Lindemann-Matthies, P., Bose, E. (2007). Species richness, structural diversity and species composi- tion in meadows created by visitors of a botanical garden in Switzerland. Landscape and Urban Planning, 79(3–4), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.007 Maina, A.R., Webbba, E.B., Goynea, K.W., Mengelc, D. (2019). Field-level characteristics in�uence wild bee functional guilds on public lands managed for conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation, 17, e00598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00598 Martínez-Puc, J.F., Cetzal-Ix, W., González-Valdivia, N.A., Casanova-Lugo, F., Basu, S.K. (2018). Char- acterization of beekeeping activity in the main municipalities of honey production in Campeche, Mexico. Journal of the Selva Andina Animal Science, 5(1), 45–53. [In Spanish] Ollerton, J., Winfree, R., Tarrant, S. (2011). How many �owering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos, 120(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L. (2002). �e ecosystem as a multidimentional Concept: Meaning, Model, and Metaphor. Ecosystems, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0051-y Potts, S., Biesmeijer, J., Kremen, C., Neumann, P, Schweiger, O., Kunin, W. (2010). Global pollinator declines: trends impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 256, 345–353. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 Potts, S.G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H.T., Aizen, M.A., Biesmeijer, J.C., Breeze, T.D., Dicks, L.V., Garibaldi, L.A., Hill, R., Settele, J., Vanbergen, A.J. (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature, 540, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20588 Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T.M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M.I., Laurance, W.F. (2017). World scientists’ warning to humanity: A second notice. BioScience, 67, 1026–1028. https:// doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125 Robinson, S., Cetzal-Ix, W., Basu, S.K. (2017). Wild bee decline and conservation in North Amer- ica. Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia Naturae, 2, 159–169. https://doi. org/10.24917/25438832.2.12 Scheper, J., Holzschuh, A., Kuussaari, M., Potts, S.G., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H.G., Kleijn, D. (2013). Envi- ronmental factors driving the e�ectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a meta-analysis. Ecology Letters, 16, 912–920. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12128 Sołtys-Lelek, A., Barabasz-Krasny, B., Możdżeń, K. (2014). Selected aspects of the protection of biotopes on the example of the Ojców National Park (Southern Poland). Annales Universitatis Paedagogicae Cracoviensis Studia ad Didacticam Biologiae Pertinentia, 4(174), 99–117. Sutter, L., Jeanneret, P., Bartual, A.M., Bocci, G., Albrecht, M. (2017). Enhancing plant diversity in ag- ricultural landscapes promotes both rare bees and dominant crop-pollinating bees through com- plementary increase in key �oral resources. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1856–1864. https://doi. org/10.1111/1365-2664. 12907 Svenssona, B., Lagerlöfa, J., Svensson, B.G. (2000). Habitat preferences of nest-seeking bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in an agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 77(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00106-1 S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 188 Tollefson, J. (2019). Humans are driving one million species to extinction. Nature, 569, 171. https://doi. org/10.1038/d41586-019-01448-4 Williams, N.M., Cariveau, D., Winfree, R., Kremen, C. (2011). Bees in disturbed habitats use, but do not prefer, alien plants. Basic and Applied Ecology, 12(4), 332–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae. 2010.11.008 Winfree, R. (2010). �e conservation and restoration of wild bees. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1195, 169–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05449.x Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 189 Appendix 1 Fig 1. Insect pollinators: a – A honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) collecting pollen and nectar from �owers of Bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.); b – A brown bellied bumblebee (Bombus griseocollis D. Geer) foraging on blanket �ower (Gaillardia sp.); c – A Western white butter�y (Pontia occidentalis Reakirt) foraging on alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) �owers; d – An Orange belted bumblebee or tricoloured bum- blebee (Bombus ternarius Say) foraging on �owers of showy globe thistle (Echinops sphaerocephalus L.) (Photo. S.K Basu) S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 190 Fig. 2. Insect pollinators cont.: a – A large Nevada bumblebee (Bombus nevadensis Cresson) foraging on Scorpion weed (Phacelia sp.); b – Hunt’s bumblebees (B. huntii Greene) foraging on Scorpion weed (Phacelia sp.); c – A Western checkered butter�y (Pontia protodice Boisduval & Le Conte) foraging on canola (Brassica napus L.); d – A Stratiomyid �y visiting scentless chamomile (Tripleurospermum in- odorum (L.) Sch. Bip.); e – A honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) foraging on purple cone �ower (Echinacea purpurea L.); f – A bumblebee (Bombus sp.) foraging on hairy vetch (Vicia villosa Roth) �ower (Photo. S.K Basu) Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 191 Appendix 2 Tab. 1. Endangered or threatened bumblebees species in North America according to IUCN (2020); RLC = IUCN – Red List of �reatened Species, CR – Critically Endangered, LC – Least Concern, EN – En- dangered, VU – Vulnerable, DD – Data De�cient; nomenclature of animal species added according to Animal Diversity Web… Taxa Population trend RLC Geographic range Elevation [m] Bombus a�nis Cresson Decreasing CR Canada – B. appositus Cresson Unknown LC Canada, United States – B. bimaculatus Cresson Stable LC Canada, United States – B. borealis Kirby Stable LC Canada, United States – B. brachycephalus Han- dlirsch Decreasing EN Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras 300–2800 B. caliginosus Frison Decreasing VU Canada, United States – B. centralis Cresson Stable LC Canada, United States – B. citrinus Smith Stable LC Canada, United States – B. ephippiatus Say Stable LC Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama 0–3595 B. fervidus Fabricius Decreasing VU Canada, United States, Mexico – B. �avifrons Cresson Stable LC Canada, United States – B. franklin Frison Decreasing CR United States – B. fraternus Smith Decreasing EN United States – B. frigidus Smith Stable LC Canada, United States – B. griseocollis De Geer Stable LC Canada, United States – B. haueri Handlirsch Decreasing EN Mexico 1025–2700 B. huntii Greene Decreasing LC Canada, United States, Mexico – B. macgregori Labougle & Ayala Stable LC Mexico, Guatemala 1250–3260 B. medius Cresson Decreasing VU Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua 700–2500 B. melanopygus Nylander Stable LC Canada, United States – B. mexicanus Cresson Decreasing VU Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica 0–2693 B. morrisoni Cresson Decreasing VU Canada, United States – B. nevadensis Cresson Stable LC Canada, United States, Mexico 0–2741 B. occidentalis Greene Decreasing VU Canada, United States – B. pensylvanicus De Geer Decreasing VU Canada, United States, Mexico – B. perplexus Cresson Stable LC Canada, United States – B. pullatus Franklin Unknown DD Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama 0–3400 B. rufocinctus Cresson Stable LC Canada, United States – B. sandersoni Franklin Stable LC Canada, United States – B. sitkensis Nylander Stable LC Canada, United States – B. steindachneri Han- dlirsch Decreasing EN Mexico 0–2600 S ai ka t K um ar B as u, W ill ia m C et za l-I x, A lm in da M ag ba lo t- Fe rn an de z, P ei m an Z an di 192 B. suckleyi Greene Decreasing CR Canada, United States – B. sylvicola Kirby Stable LC Canada, United States – B. ternarius Say Stable LC Canada, United States – B. terricola Kirby Decreasing VU Canada – B. trinominatus Dalla Torre Stable LC Mexico, Guatemala 2527–3500 B. vagans Smith Stable LC Canada, United States – B. vandykei Frison Stable LC Canada, United States 0–2200 B. variabilis Cresson Decreasing CR Canada, United States, Mexico, Guatemala – B. vosnesenskii Radosz- kowski Stable LC Canada, United States 0 B. weisi Friese Stable LC Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica 1000–3200 Tab. 2. Examples of seed mixtures recommended for establishing �ower meadows in Central Europe (Sources: Dąbrowska, Kulik, 2020); nomenclature of plants according Flora Polski atlas… Family Dry habitats, neutral or alkaline soils (grassland species) Fresh habitats, neutral soils, wide pH range (fresh meadows species) Fresh habitats of di�erent fertility (�eld �owers, usually 1–year’s) Asteraceae Achillea millefolium Achillea millefolium Centaurea cyanus Centaurea scabiosa Centaurea jacea Chamomilla recutita Cichorium intybus Leucanthemum vulgare Matricaria perforata – Tragopogon pratensis – Apiaceae Daucus carota Daucus carota – – Pastinaca sativa – Boraginaceae Echium vulgare – – Campanulaceae Campanula patula – Caryophyllaceae Saponaria o�cinalis – – Anthemis tinctoria – – Dipsacaceae – Knautia arvensis – Fabaceae – Lotus corniculatus Vicia villosa – Trifolium pratense – – Vicia cracca – Geraniaceae – Geranium pratense – Lamiaceae Salvia pratensis – – Scrophulariaceae Verbascum nigrum – – V. densi�orum – – Papaveraceae – – Papaver rhoeas Poaceae Brachypodium pinnatum Arrhenatherum elatius – – Festuca rubra – – Poa pratensis – Rosaceae Agrimonia eupatora Sanguisroba o�cinalis – Rubiaceae – Galium verum – Traditional and novel proposals for the protection of endangered pollinating insects 193 Tradycyjne i nowe propozycje ochrony zagrożonych owadów zapylających Streszczenie Obecnie wymieranie owadów zapylających staje się problemem ogólnoświatowym. Jest to istotne nie tylko z punktu widzenia utraty bioróżnorodności, ale ma ogromne znaczenie dla rolnictwa i gospodarki żywno- ściowej świata. Tradycyjne sposoby ochrony owadów i innych zapylaczy postrzega się, albo w kategoriach ochrony gatunkowej, albo ochrony biotopowej, w ich naturalnych lub półnaturalnych siedliskach. Jednak coraz częściej podejmuje się próby ochrony tej grupy owadów w środowiskach silnie zmienionych przez człowieka, jak na przykład aglomeracje miejskie i towarzysząca im infrastruktura. Istnieją też inne propozy- cje, np. zakładanie pewnego rodzaju upraw – „Ostoje Zapylaczy”, na niewielkich poletkach w sąsiedztwie pól uprawnych lub miejscach nie przydatnych gospodarczo. W obecnej sytuacji wszystkie propozycje ochrony, zarówno te starsze – klasyczne, jak i te nowe, powinny być stosowane w sposób kompleksowy, bo tylko to może przynieść poprawę sytuacji owadów zapylających. Key words: bee, biodiversity, insects, methods of protection, pollination Received: [2020.05.15] Accepted: [2020.07.30]