Bees are a group of insects closely related to wasps. The first bee evolved from its wasp ancestor about 120 million years ago, when it started using the pollen of plants as a food source for its young. At about the same rime in the evolution of life on our planet, the flowering plants were becoming very common. A great mutualism formed: the flowering plants provided food for bees, and, in return, bees moved pollen from one plant to another (pollination). Over the next 120 million years, the flowering plants flourished into the huge diversity we see today and the bees evolved into a diverse, common and important group of insects.

Pollination is a critical ecosystem function with high ecological and economic value. Conservation initiatives aimed at protecting diverse pollinator communities in natural and agricultural habitats are essential, but the implementation and success of such initiatives often depends on public support. Mass media play an important role in building public awareness around environmental issues, and biased coverage can have damaging effects. Here, we present the first analysis of how Australian mainstream media present the 'pollinator' paradigm. We gathered insect pollinator and pollination related articles from major Australian online newspapers published over a period of 9 years, and performed a qualitative content analysis using deductive coding to record information on the pollinator species or groups discussed in the story. We found 151 stories, and demonstrate that within these, there was a disproportionate focus on introduced European honey bees as the most important, or only, pollinator insect relevant to Australia. Only 15% of stories mentioned native bees as pollinators and 17% mentioned non-bee pollinators. There is potential that the trend we report here for pollinators may be indicative of a larger overall simplification and neglect of biodiversity concepts in mainstream media, both in Australia and globally. As public awareness of science and environmental issues partly depend on disseminating accurate information beyond the scholar network, it is imperative that the broader effects of inaccurate science communication are fully understood.

In their Perspective "Conserving honey bees does not help wildlife" (26 January, p. 392), J. Geldmann and J. P. González-Varo argue that because managed honey bees are an agricultural animal, their crop pollination does not fit the definition of an ecosystem service. This distinction, the authors suggest, is a key step to wild pollinator conservation. This argument highlights a fundamental misinterpretation of the ecology of ecosystem services: Services are delivered to beneficiaries through ecological processes and interactions, not by organisms alone.

Protective covers (i.e., glasshouses, netting enclosures, and polytunnels) are increasingly used in crop production to enhance crop quality, yield, and production efficiency. However, many protected crops require insect pollinators to achieve optimal pollination and there is no consensus about how best to manage pollinators and crop pollination in these environments. We conducted a systematic literature review to synthesise knowledge about the effect of protective covers on pollinator health and pollination services and identified 290 relevant studies. Bees were the dominant taxon used in protected systems (90%), represented by eusocial bees (e.g., bumble bees (Bombus spp.), honey bees (Apis spp.), stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini)) and solitary bees (e.g., Amegilla spp., Megachile spp., and Osmia spp.). Flies represented 9% of taxa and included Calliphoridae, Muscidae, and Syrphidae. The remaining 1% of taxa was represented by Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. Of the studies that assessed pollination services, 96% indicate that pollinators were active on the crop and/or their visits resulted in improved fruit production compared with flowers not visited by insects (i.e., insect visits prevented, or flowers were self- or mechanically pollinated). Only 20% of studies evaluated pollinator health. Some taxa, such as mason or leafcutter bees, and bumble bees can function well in covered environments, but the effect of covers on pollinator health was negative in over 50% of the studies in which health was assessed. Negative effects included decreased reproduction, adult mortality, reduced forager activity, and increased disease prevalence. These effects may have occurred as a result of changes in temperature/humidity, light quality/quantity, pesticide exposure, and/or reduced access to food resources. Strategies reported to successfully enhance pollinator health and efficiency in covered systems include: careful selection of bee hive location to reduce heat stress and improve dispersal through the crop; increased floral diversity; deploying appropriate numbers of pollinators; and manipulation of flower physiology to increase attractiveness to pollinating insects. To improve and safeguard crop yields in pollinator dependent protected cropping systems, practitioners need to ensure that delivery of crop pollination services is compatible with suitable conditions for pollinator health.