Are existing biodiversity conservation strategies appropriate in a changing climate?

Many countries have conservation plans for threatened species, but such plans have generally been developed without taking into account the potential impacts of climate change. Here, we apply a decision framework, specifically developed to identify and prioritise climate change adaptation actions and demonstrate its use for 30 species threatened in the UK. Our aim is to assess whether government conservation recommendations remain appropriate under a changing climate. The species, associated with three different habitats (lowland heath, broadleaved woodland and calcareous grassland), were selected from a range of taxonomic groups (primarily moths and vascular plants, but also including bees, bryophytes, carabid beetles and spiders). We compare the actions identified for these threatened species by the decision framework with those included in existing conservation plans, as developed by the UK Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation. We find that many existing conservation recommendations are also identified by the decision framework. However, there are large differences in the spatial prioritisation of actions when explicitly considering projected climate change impacts. This includes recommendations for actions to be carried out in areas where species do not currently occur, in order to allow them to track movement of suitable conditions for their survival. Uncertainties in climate change projections are not a reason to ignore them. Our results suggest that existing conservation plans, which do not take into account potential changes in suitable climatic conditions for species, may fail to maximise species persistence. Comparisons across species also suggest a more habitat-focused approach could be adopted to enable climate change adaptation for multiple species.

How much flower-rich habitat is enough for wild pollinators? Answering a key policy question with incomplete knowledge

In 2013, an opportunity arose in England to develop an agri-environment package for wild pollinators, as part of the new Countryside Stewardship scheme launched in 2015. It can be understood as a 'policy window', a rare and time-limited opportunity to change policy, supported by a narrative about pollinator decline and widely supported mitigating actions. An agri-environment package is a bundle of management options that together supply sufficient resources to support a target group of species. This paper documents information that was available at the time to develop such a package for wild pollinators. Four questions needed answering: (1) Which pollinator species should be targeted? (2) Which resources limit these species in farmland? (3) Which management options provide these resources? (4) What area of each option is needed to support populations of the target species? Focussing on wild bees, we provide tentative answers that were used to inform development of the package. There is strong evidence that floral resources can limit wild bee populations, and several sources of evidence identify a set of agri-environment options that provide flowers and other resources for pollinators. The final question could only be answered for floral resources, with a wide range of uncertainty. We show that the areas of some floral resource options in the basic Wild Pollinator and Farmland Wildlife Package (2% flower-rich habitat and 1 km flowering hedgerow), are sufficient to supply a set of six common pollinator species with enough pollen to feed their larvae at lowest estimates, using minimum values for estimated parameters where a range was available. We identify key sources of uncertainty, and stress the importance of keeping the Package flexible, so it can be revised as new evidence emerges about how to achieve the policy aim of supporting pollinators on farmland.

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.