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.

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.

Participatory crop improvement: the challenges of and opportunities for institutionalisation in the Indian public research sector

This thesis considers Participatory Crop Improvement (PCI) methodologies and examines the reasons behind their continued contestation and limited mainstreaming in conventional modes of crop improvement research within National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS). In particular, it traces the experiences of a long-established research network with over 20 years of experience in developing and implementing PCI methods across South Asia, and specifically considers its engagement with the Indian NARS and associated state-level agricultural research systems. In order to address the issues surrounding PCI institutionalisation processes, a novel conceptual framework was derived from a synthesis of the literatures on Strategic Niche Management (SNM) and Learning-based Development Approaches (LBDA) to analyse the socio-technical processes and structures which constitute the PCI ‘niche’ and NARS ‘regime’. In examining the niche and regime according to their socio-technical characteristics, the framework provides explanatory power for understanding the nature of their interactions and the opportunities and barriers that exist with respect to the translation of lessons and ideas between niche and regime organisations. The research shows that in trying to institutionalise PCI methods and principles within NARS in the Indian context, PCI proponents have encountered a number of constraints related to the rigid and hierarchical structure of the regime organisations; the contractual mode of most conventional research, which inhibits collaboration with a wider group of stakeholders; and the time-limited nature of PCI projects themselves, which limits investment and hinders scaling up of the innovations. It also reveals that while the niche projects may be able to induce a ‘weak’ form of PCI institutionalisation within the Indian NARS by helping to alter their institutional culture to be more supportive of participatory plant breeding approaches and future collaboration with PCI researchers, a ‘strong’ form of PCI institutionalisation, in which NARS organisations adopt participatory methodologies to address all their crop improvement agenda, is likely to remain outside of the capacity of PCI development projects to deliver.