Stated willingness-to-pay for organic fruit and pesticide ban: an evaluation using both web-based and face-to-face interviewing

Income growth in highly industrialised countries has resulted in consumer choice of foodstuffs no longer being primarily influenced by basic factors such as price and organoleptic features. From this perspective, the present study sets out to evaluate how and to what extent consumer choice is influenced by the possible negative effects on health and environment caused by the consumption of fruit containing deposits of pesticides and chemical products. The study describes the results of a survey which explores and estimates consumer willingness to pay in two forms: a yearly contribution for the abolition of the use of pesticides on fruit, and a premium price for organically grown apples guaranteed by a certified label. The same questionnaire was administered to two samples. The first was a conventional face-to-face survey of customers of large retail outlets located around Bologna (Italy); the second was an Internet sample. The discrete choice data were analysed by means of probit and tobit models to estimate the utility consumers attribute to organically grown fruit and to a pesticide ban. The research also addresses questions of validity and representativeness as a fundamental problem in web-based surveys.

Using mobile devices to enhance undergraduate field research

Mobile devices can enhance undergraduate research projects and students’ research capabilities. The use of mobile devices such as tablet computers will not automatically make undergraduates better researchers, but their use should make investigations, writing, and publishing more effective and may even save students time. We have explored some of the possibilities of using “tablets” and “smartphones” to aid the research and inquiry process in geography and bioscience fieldwork. We provide two case studies as illustration of how students working in small research groups use mobile devices to gather and analyze primary data in field-based inquiry. Since April 2010, Apple’s iPad has changed the way people behave in the digital world and how they access their music, watch videos, or read their email much as the entrepreneurs Steve Jobs and Jonathan Ive intended. Now with “apps” and “the cloud” and the ubiquitous references to them appearing in the press and on TV, academics’ use of tablets is also having an impact on education and research. In our discussion we will refer to use of smartphones such as the iPhone, iPod, and Android devices under the term “tablet”. Android and Microsoft devices may not offer the same facilities as the iPad/iphone, but many app producers now provide versions for several operating systems. Smartphones are becoming more affordable and ubiquitous (Melhuish and Falloon 2010), but a recent study of undergraduate students (Woodcock et al. 2012, 1) found that many students who own smartphones are “largely unaware of their potential to support learning”. Importantly, however, students were found to be “interested in and open to the potential as they become familiar with the possibilities” (Woodcock et al. 2012). Smartphones and iPads could be better utilized than laptops when conducting research in the field because of their portability (Welsh and France 2012). It is imperative for faculty to provide their students with opportunities to discover and employ the potential uses of mobile devices in their learning. However, it is not only the convenience of the iPad or tablet devices or smartphones we wish to promote, but also a way of thinking and behaving digitally. We essentially suggest that making a tablet the center of research increases the connections between related research activities.

Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by bumblebees

Recent concern over global pollinator declines has led to considerable research on the effects of pesticides on bees1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Although pesticides are typically not encountered at lethal levels in the field, there is growing evidence indicating that exposure to field-realistic levels can have sublethal effects on bees, affecting their foraging behaviour1, 6, 7, homing ability8, 9 and reproductive success2, 5. Bees are essential for the pollination of a wide variety of crops and the majority of wild flowering plants10, 11, 12, but until now research on pesticide effects has been limited to direct effects on bees themselves and not on the pollination services they provide. Here we show the first evidence to our knowledge that pesticide exposure can reduce the pollination services bumblebees deliver to apples, a crop of global economic importance. Bumblebee colonies exposed to a neonicotinoid pesticide provided lower visitation rates to apple trees and collected pollen less often. Most importantly, these pesticide-exposed colonies produced apples containing fewer seeds, demonstrating a reduced delivery of pollination services. Our results also indicate that reduced pollination service delivery is not due to pesticide-induced changes in individual bee behaviour, but most likely due to effects at the colony level. These findings show that pesticide exposure can impair the ability of bees to provide pollination services, with important implications for both the sustained delivery of stable crop yields and the functioning of natural ecosystems.

Apple pollination: demand depends on variety and supply depends on pollinator identity

Insect pollination underpins apple production but the extent to which different pollinator guilds supply this service, particularly across different apple varieties, is unknown. Such information is essential if appropriate orchard management practices are to be targeted and proportional to the potential benefits pollinator species may provide. Here we use a novel combination of pollinator effectiveness assays (floral visit effectiveness), orchard field surveys (flower visitation rate) and pollinator dependence manipulations (pollinator exclusion experiments) to quantify the supply of pollination services provided by four different pollinator guilds to the production of four commercial varieties of apple. We show that not all pollinators are equally effective at pollinating apples, with hoverflies being less effective than solitary bees and bumblebees, and the relative abundance of different pollinator guilds visiting apple flowers of different varieties varies significantly. Based on this, the taxa specific economic benefits to UK apple production have been established. The contribution of insect pollinators to the economic output in all varieties was estimated to be £92.1M across the UK, with contributions varying widely across taxa: solitary bees (£51.4M), honeybees (£21.4M), bumblebees (£18.6M) and hoverflies (£0.7M). This research highlights the differences in the economic benefits of four insect pollinator guilds to four major apple varieties in the UK. This information is essential to underpin appropriate investment in pollination services management and provides a model that can be used in other entomolophilous crops to improve our understanding of crop pollination ecology.