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.

Impacts of a pesticide on pollinator species richness at different spatial scales

Pesticides are an important potential cause of biodiversity and pollinator decline. Little is known about the impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators in the field. Insect pollinators were sampled in an agricultural system in Italy with the aim of detecting the impacts of pesticide use. The insecticide fenitrothion was over 150 times greater in toxicity than other pesticides used in the area, so sampling was set up around its application. Species richness of wild bees, bumblebees and butterflies were sampled at three spatial scales to assess responses to pesticide application: (i) the ‘field’ scale along pesticide drift gradients; (ii) the ‘landscape’ scale sampling in different crops within the area and (iii) the ‘regional’ scale comparing two river basins with contrasting agricultural intensity. At the field scale, the interaction between the application regime of the insecticide and the point in the season was important for species richness. Wild bee species richness appeared to be unaffected by one insecticide application, but declined after two and three applications. At the landscape scale, the species richness of wild bees declined in vine fields where the insecticide was applied, but did not decline in maize or uncultivated fields. At the regional scale, lower bumblebee and butterfly species richness was found in the more intensively farmed basin with higher pesticide loads. Our results suggest that wild bees are an insect pollinator group at particular risk from pesticide use. Further investigation is needed on how the type, quantity and timing of pesticide application impacts pollinators.

Enhancing pollinator biodiversity in intensive grasslands

Increased agricultural intensification has led to well-documented declines in the fauna and flora associated with intensive grasslands in the UK. We aimed to quantify the effectiveness of different field margin management strategies for putting bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity back into intensive grasslands. Using four intensive livestock farms in south-west England, we manipulated conventional management practices (addition of inorganic fertilizer, cutting frequency and height, and aftermath grazing) to generate seven grass-based treatments along a gradient of decreasing management intensity. We also tested two more interventionist treatments which introduced sown components into the sward: (i) a cereal, grass and legume mix, and (ii) a diverse conservation mix with kale, mixed cereals, linseed and legumes. These crop mixtures were intended to provide forage and structural resources for pollinators but were not intended to have agronomic value as livestock feed. Using a replicated block design, we monitored bumblebee and butterfly responses in 27 plots (10 x 50 m) in each farm from 2003 to 2006. Bumblebees were most abundant, species-rich and diverse in the sown treatments and virtually absent from the grass-based treatments. The diverse conservation mix treatment supported larger and more diverse bumblebee assemblages than the cereal, grass and legume mix treatment. The sown treatments, and the most extensively managed grass-based treatments, had the highest abundance, species richness and diversity of adult butterflies, whereas butterfly larvae were only found in the grass-based treatments. Bumblebee and butterfly assemblage structure was driven by floral abundance, floral richness, the availability of nectar resources, and sward structure. Only vegetation cover was correlated with butterfly larval abundance. Synthesis and applications. This study has identified management options in the margins of intensive grasslands which can enhance bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity. Extensification of conventional grass management by stopping fertilization, reducing cutting frequency and not grazing, benefits butterflies. However, to enhance bumblebees requires a more interventionist approach in the form of sowing flower-rich habitat. Both approaches are potentially suitable for adoption in agri-environment schemes in the UK and Europe.

Responses of invertebrate trophic level, feeding guild and body size to the management of improved grassland field margins

P>1. Management of lowland mesotrophic grasslands in north-west Europe often makes use of inorganic fertilizers, high stocking densities and silage-based forage systems to maximize productivity. The impact of these practices has resulted in a simplification of the plant community combined with wide-scale declines in the species richness of grassland invertebrates. We aim to identify how field margin management can be used to promote invertebrate diversity across a suite of functionally diverse taxa (beetles, planthoppers, true bugs, butterflies, bumblebees and spiders). 2. Using an information theoretic approach we identify the impacts of management (cattle grazing, cutting and inorganic fertilizer) and plant community composition (forb species richness, grass species richness and sward architecture) on invertebrate species richness and body size. As many of these management practices are common to grassland systems throughout the world, understanding invertebrate responses to them is important for the maintenance of biodiversity. 3. Sward architecture was identified as the primary factor promoting increased species richness of both predatory and phytophagous trophic levels, as well as being positively correlated with mean body size. In all cases phytophagous invertebrate species richness was positively correlated with measures of plant species richness. 4. The direct effects of management practices appear to be comparatively weak, suggesting that their impacts are indirect and mediated though the continuous measures of plant community structure, such as sward architecture or plant species richness. 5. Synthesis and applications. By partitioning field margins from the remainder of the field, economically viable intensive grassland management can be combined with extensive management aimed at promoting native biodiversity. The absence of inorganic fertilizer, combined with a reduction in the intensity of both cutting and grazing regimes, promotes floral species richness and sward architectural complexity. By increasing sward architecture the total biomass of invertebrates also increased (by c. 60% across the range of sward architectural measures seen in this study), increasing food available for higher trophic levels, such as birds and mammals.

Enhancing habitat to help the plight of the bumblebee

Modern farming has caused considerable declines in UK bumblebee populations, and, while options exist for farmers to increase the quantity of bee-friendly habitat, uptake has been low. Robin Blake explains how existing habitats on farms could be enhanced for the benefit of bumblebees

Pollinator community responses to the spatial population structure of wild plants: A pan-European approach

Land-use changes can alter the spatial population structure of plant species, which may in turn affect the attractiveness of flower aggregations to different groups of pollinators at different spatial scales. To assess how pollinators respond to spatial heterogeneity of plant distributions and whether honeybees affect visitation by other pollinators we used an extensive data set comprising ten plant species and their flower visitors from five European countries. In particular we tested the hypothesis that the composition of the flower visitor community in terms of visitation frequencies by different pollinator groups were affected by the spatial plant population structure, viz. area and density measures, at a within-population (‘patch’) and among-population (‘population’) scale. We found that patch area and population density were the spatial variables that best explained the variation in visitation frequencies within the pollinator community. Honeybees had higher visitation frequencies in larger patches, while bumblebees and hoverflies had higher visitation frequencies in sparser populations. Solitary bees had higher visitation frequencies in sparser populations and smaller patches. We also tested the hypothesis that honeybees affect the composition of the pollinator community by altering the visitation frequencies of other groups of pollinators. There was a positive relationship between visitation frequencies of honeybees and bumblebees, while the relationship with hoverflies and solitary bees varied (positive, negative and no relationship) depending on the plant species under study. The overall conclusion is that the spatial structure of plant populations affects different groups of pollinators in contrasting ways at both the local (‘patch’) and the larger (‘population’) scales and, that honeybees affect the flower visitation by other pollinator groups in various ways, depending on the plant species under study. These contrasting responses emphasize the need to investigate the entire pollinator community when the effects of landscape change on plant–pollinator interactions are studied.

Enhancement of buffer strips can improve provision of multiple ecosystem services

Farmland invertebrates play a pivotal role in the provision of ecosystem services, i.e. services that benefit humans. For example, bumblebees, solitary bees and honeybees, are crucial to the pollination of many of the world's crops and wildflowers, with over 70% of the world's major food crops dependent on the pollination services provided by these insects. The larvae of some butterfly species are considered to be pests; however, together with moth and sawfly larvae, they represent a key dietary component for many farmland birds. Spiders and ground beetles predate on crop pests including aphids, whilst soil macrofauna such as earthworms are vital for soil fertility services and nutrient recycling. Despite their importance, population declines of invertebrates have been observed during the last sixty years in the UK and NW Europe. For example, seven UK bumblebee species are in decline, and in the last 20 years, the species Bombus subterraneus (short-haired bumblebee) has become extinct, whilst there was a 54% decline in honeybee colony numbers in England from 1985 to 2005. Comparable trends have been documented for butterflies with a 23% decline in UK farmland species such as Anthocharis cardamines (orange tip) between 1990 and 2007. These declines have been widely attributed to the modern intensive arable management practices that have been developed to maximise crop yield. For example, loss and fragmentation of foraging and nesting habitats, including species-rich meadows and hedgerows, have been implicated in the decline of bees and butterflies. Increased use of herbicides and fertilisers has caused detrimental effects on many plant species with negative consequences for predatory invertebrates such as spiders and beetles which rely on plants for food and shelter.

The identity of crop pollinators helps target conservation for improved ecosystem services

Insect pollinated mass flowering crops are becoming more widespread and there is a need to understand which insects are primarily responsible for the pollination of these crops so conservation measures can be appropriately targeted in the face of pollinator declines. This study used field surveys in conjunction with cage manipulations to identify the relative contributions of different pollinator taxa to the pollination of two widespread flowering crops, field beans and oilseed rape. Flower visiting pollinator communities observed in the field were distinct for each crop; while field beans were visited primarily by a few bumblebee species, multiple pollinator taxa visited oilseed, and the composition of this pollinator community was highly variable spatially and temporally. Neither pollinator community, however, appears to be meeting the demands of crops in our study regions. Cage manipulations showed that multiple taxa can effectively pollinate both oilseed and field beans, but bumblebees are particularly effective bean pollinators. Combining field observations and cage manipulations demonstrated that the pollination demands of these two mass flowering crops are highly contrasting, one would benefit from management to increase the abundance of some key taxa, whilst for the other, boosting overall pollinator abundance and diversity would be more appropriate. Our findings highlight the need for crop specific mitigation strategies that are targeted at conserving specific pollinator taxa (or group of taxa) that are both active and capable of crop pollination in order to reduce pollination deficits and meet the demands of future crop production.

Interactive effect of floral abundance and semi-natural habitats on pollinators in field beans (Vicia faba)

Pollination services are economically important component of agricultural biodiversity which enhance the yield and quality of many crops. An understanding of the suitability of extant habitats for pollinating species is crucial for planning management actions to protect and manage these service providers. In a highly modified agricultural ecosystem, we tested the effect of different pollination treatments (open, autonomous self- and wind-pollination) on pod set, seed set, and seed weight in field beans (Vicia faba). We also investigated the effect of semi-natural habitats and flower abundance on pollinators of field beans. Pollinator sampling was undertaken in ten field bean fields along a gradient of habitat complexity; CORINE land cover classification was used to analyse the land use patterns between 500–3000 m around the sites. Total yield from open-pollination increased by 185% compared to autonomous self-pollination. There was positive interactive effect of local flower abundance and cover of semi-natural habitats on overall abundance of pollinators at 1500 and 2000 m, and abundance of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) at 1000–2000 m. In contrast, species richness of pollinators was only correlated with flower abundance and not with semi-natural habitats. We did not find a link between pod set from open-pollination and pollinator abundance, possibly due to variations in the growing conditions and pollinator communities between sites. We conclude that insect pollination is essential for optimal bean yields and therefore the maintenance of semi-natural habitats in agriculture-dominated landscapes should ensure stable and more efficient pollination services in field beans.

Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: the roles of farmers and environmental context

1. Agri-environment schemes remain a controversial approach to reversing biodiversity losses, partly because the drivers of variation in outcomes are poorly understood. In particular, there is a lack of studies that consider both social and ecological factors. 2. We analysed variation across 48 farms in the quality and biodiversity outcomes of agri-environmental habitats designed to provide pollen and nectar for bumblebees and butterflies or winter seed for birds. We used interviews and ecological surveys to gather data on farmer experience and understanding of agri-environment schemes, and local and landscape environmental factors. 3. Multimodel inference indicated social factors had a strong impact on outcomes and that farmer experiential learning was a key process. The quality of the created habitat was affected positively by the farmer’s previous experience in environmental management. The farmer’s confidence in their ability to carry out the required management was negatively related to the provision of floral resources. Farmers with more wildlife-friendly motivations tended to produce more floral resources, but fewer seed resources. 4. Bird, bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity responses were strongly affected by the quantity of seed or floral resources. Shelter enhanced biodiversity directly, increased floral resources and decreased seed yield. Seasonal weather patterns had large effects on both measures. Surprisingly, larger species pools and amounts of semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape had negative effects on biodiversity, which may indicate use by fauna of alternative foraging resources. 5. Synthesis and application. This is the first study to show a direct role of farmer social variables on the success of agri-environment schemes in supporting farmland biodiversity. It suggests that farmers are not simply implementing agri-environment options, but are learning and improving outcomes by doing so. Better engagement with farmers and working with farmers who have a history of environmental management may therefore enhance success. The importance of a number of environmental factors may explain why agri-environment outcomes are variable, and suggests some – such as the weather – cannot be controlled. Others, such as shelter, could be incorporated into agri-environment prescriptions. The role of landscape factors remains complex and currently eludes simple conclusions about large-scale targeting of schemes.

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes

Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife-friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non-organic, biodiversity-focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100-m and 250-m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100-m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds. Policy implications. The wildlife-friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife-friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.

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.