Organic farming in isolated landscapes does not benefit flower-visiting insects and pollination

Organic farming has often been found to provide benefits for biodiversity, but the benefits can depend on the species considered and characteristics of the surrounding landscape. In an intensively farmed area of Northeast Italy we investigated whether isolated organic farms, in a conventionally farmed landscape, provided local benefits for insect pollinators and pollination services. We quantified the relative effects of local management (i.e. the farm system), landscape management (proportion of surrounding uncultivated land) and interactions between them. We compared six organic and six conventional vine fields. The proportion of surrounding uncultivated land was calculated for each site at radii of 200, 500, 1000 and 2000 m. The organic fields did not differ from the conventional in their floral resources or proportion of surrounding uncultivated land. Data were collected on pollinator abundance and species richness, visitation rates to, and pollination of experimental potted plants. None of these factors were significantly affected by the farming system. The abundance of visits to the potted plants in the conventional fields tended to be negatively affected by the proportion of surrounding uncultivated land. The proportion fruit set, weight of seeds per plant and seed weight in conventional and organic fields were all negatively affected by the proportion of surrounding uncultivated land. In vine fields the impact of the surrounding landscape was stronger than the local management. Enhancement of biodiversity through organic farming should not be assumed to be ubiquitous, as potential benefits may be offset by the crop type, organicmanagement practices and the specific habitat requirements in the surrounding landscape.

Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands

Despite widespread concern about declines in pollination services, little is known about the patterns of change in most pollinator assemblages. By studying bee and hoverfly assemblages in Britain and the Netherlands, we found evidence of declines (pre- versus post-1980) in local bee diversity in both countries; however, divergent trends were observed in hoverflies. Depending on the assemblage and location, pollinator declines were most frequent in habitat and flower specialists, in univoltine species, and/or in nonmigrants. In conjunction with this evidence, outcrossing plant species that are reliant on the declining pollinators have themselves declined relative to other plant species. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest a causal connection between local extinctions of functionally linked plant and pollinator species.

Local management and landscape drivers of pollination and biological control services in a Kenyan agro-ecosystem

Arthropods that have a direct impact on crop production (i.e. pests, natural enemies and pollinators) can be influenced by both local farm management and the context within which the fields occur in the wider landscape. However, the contributions and spatial scales at which these drivers operate and interact are not fully understood, particularly in the developing world. The impact of both local management and landscape context on insect pollinators and natural enemy communities and on their capacity to deliver related ecosystem services to an economically important tropical crop, pigeonpea was investigated. The study was conducted in nine paired farms across a gradient of increasing distance to semi-native vegetation in Kibwezi, Kenya. Results show that proximity of fields to semi-native habitats negatively affected pollinator and chewing insect abundance. Within fields, pesticide use was a key negative predictor of pollinator, pest and foliar active predator abundance. On the contrary, fertilizer application significantly enhanced pollinator and both chewing and sucking insect pest abundance. At a 1 km spatial scale of fields, there were significant negative effects of the number of semi-native habitat patches within fields dominated by mass flowering pigeonpea on pollinators abundance. For service provision, a significant decline in fruit set when insects were excluded from flowers was recorded. This study reveals the interconnections of pollinators, predators and pests with pigeonpea crop. For sustainable yields and to conserve high densities of both pollinators and predators of pests within pigeonpea landscapes, it is crucial to target the adoption of less disruptive farm management practices such as reducing pesticide and fertilizer inputs.

Quantifying the value of ecosystem services: a case study of honeybee pollination in the UK

There is concern that insect pollinators, such as honey bees, are currently declining in abundance, and are under serious threat from environmental changes such as habitat loss and climate change; the use of pesticides in intensive agriculture, and emerging diseases. This paper aims to evaluate how much public support there would be in preventing further decline to maintain the current number of bee colonies in the UK. The contingent valuation method (CVM) was used to obtain the willingness to pay (WTP) for a theoretical pollinator protection policy. Respondents were asked whether they would be WTP to support such a policy and how much would they pay? Results show that the mean WTP to support the bee protection policy was £1.37/week/household. Based on there being 24.9 million households in the UK, this is equivalent to £1.77 billion per year. This total value can show the importance of maintaining the overall pollination service to policy makers. We compare this total with estimates obtained using a simple market valuation of pollination for the UK.

Pollination services in the UK: how important are honeybees?

Pollination services are known to provide substantial benefits to human populations and agriculture in particular. Although many species are known to provide pollination services, honeybees (Apis mellifera) are often assumed to provide the majority of these services to agriculture. Using data from a range of secondary sources, this study assesses the importance of insect pollinated crops at regional and national scales and investigates the capacity of honeybees to provide optimal pollination services to UK agriculture. The findings indicate that insect pollinated crops have become increasingly important in UK crop agriculture and, as of 2007, accounted for 20% of UK cropland and 19% of total farmgate crop value. Analysis of honeybee hive numbers indicates that current UK populations are only capable of supplying 34% of pollination service demands even under favourable assumptions, falling from 70% in 1984. In spite of this decline, insect pollinated crop yields have risen by an average of 54% since 1984, casting doubt on long held beliefs that honeybees provide the majority of pollination services. Future land use and crop production patterns may further increase the role of pollination services to UK agriculture, highlighting the importance of measures aimed at maintaining both wild and managed species.

Detecting insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales.

Recently there has been considerable concern about declines in bee communities in agricultural and natural habitats. The value of pollination to agriculture, provided primarily by bees, is >$200 billion/year worldwide, and in natural ecosystems it is thought to be even greater. However, no monitoring program exists to accurately detect declines in abundance of insect pollinators; thus, it is difficult to quantify the status of bee communities or estimate the extent of declines. We used data from 11 multiyear studies of bee communities to devise a program to monitor pollinators at regional, national, or international scales. In these studies, 7 different methods for sampling bees were used and bees were sampled on 3 different continents. We estimated that a monitoring program with 200–250 sampling locations each sampled twice over 5 years would provide sufficient power to detect small (2–5%) annual declines in the number of species and in total abundance and would cost U.S.$2,000,000. To detect declines as small as 1% annually over the same period would require >300 sampling locations. Given the role of pollinators in food security and ecosystem function, we recommend establishment of integrated regional and international monitoring programs to detect changes in pollinator communities.

Identifying key knowledge needs for evidence-based conservation of wild insect pollinators: a collaborative cross-sectoral exercise

In response to evidence of insect pollinator declines, organisations in many sectors, including the food and farming industry, are investing in pollinator conservation. They are keen to ensure that their efforts use the best available science. We convened a group of 32 ‘conservation practitioners’ with an active interest in pollinators and 16 insect pollinator scientists. The conservation practitioners include representatives from UK industry (including retail), environmental non-government organisations and nature conservation agencies. We collaboratively developed a long list of 246 knowledge needs relating to conservation of wild insect pollinators in the UK. We refined and selected the most important knowledge needs, through a three-stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each need at a workshop. We present the top 35 knowledge needs as scored by conservation practitioners or scientists. We find general agreement in priorities identified by these two groups. The priority knowledge needs will structure ongoing work to make science accessible to practitioners, and help to guide future science policy and funding. Understanding the economic benefits of crop pollination, basic pollinator ecology and impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators emerge strongly as priorities, as well as a need to monitor floral resources in the landscape.

Agricultural policies exacerbate honeybee pollination service supply-demand mismatches across Europe

Declines in insect pollinators across Europe have raised concerns about the supply of pollination services to agriculture. Simultaneously, EU agricultural and biofuel policies have encouraged substantial growth in the cultivated area of insect pollinated crops across the continent. Using data from 41 European countries, this study demonstrates that the recommended number of honeybees required to provide crop pollination across Europe has risen 4.9 times as fast as honeybee stocks between 2005 and 2010. Consequently, honeybee stocks were insufficient to supply >90% of demands in 22 countries studied. These findings raise concerns about the capacity of many countries to cope with major losses of wild pollinators and highlight numerous critical gaps in current understanding of pollination service supplies and demands, pointing to a pressing need for further research into this issue.

Reversing insect pollinator decline

Pollination by insects enables the reproduction of flowering plants and is critical to UK agriculture.1 Insect pollinators have declined globally, with implications for food security and wild habitats. This POSTnote summarises the causes for the recent trends, gaps in knowledge and possible strategies for reversing pollinator decline.

A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK

Using a choice experiment survey this study examines the UK public's willingness to pay to conserve insect pollinators in relation to the levels of two pollination service benefits: maintaining local produce supplies and the aesthetic benefits of diverse wildflower assemblages. Willingness to pay was estimated using a Bayesian mixed logit with two contrasting controls for attribute non-attendance, exclusion and shrinkage. The results suggest that the UK public have an extremely strong preference to avoid a status quo scenario where pollinator populations and pollination services decline. Total willingness to pay was high and did not significantly vary between the two pollination service outputs, producing a conservative total of £379M over a sample of the tax-paying population of the UK, equivalent to £13.4 per UK taxpayer. Using a basic production function approach, the marginal value of pollination services to these attributes is also extrapolated. The study discusses the implications of these findings and directions for related future research into the non-market value of pollination and other ecosystem services.

Pollinator conservation: the difference between managing for pollination services and preserving pollinator diversity

Our review looks at pollinator conservation and highlights the differences in approach between managing for pollination services and preserving pollinator diversity. We argue that ecosystem service management does not equal biodiversity conservation, and that maintaining species diversity is crucial in providing ecosystem resilience in the face of future environmental change. Management and policy measures therefore need to focus on species not just in human dominated landscapes but need to benefit wider diversity of species including those in specialised habitats. We argue that only by adopting a holistic ecosystem approach we can ensure the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the long-term.

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.

Measuring the economic value of pollination services: principles, evidence and knowledge gaps

An increasing degree of attention is being given to the ecosystem services which insect pollinators supply, and the economic value of these services. Recent research suggests that a range of factors are contributing to a global decline in pollination services, which are often used as a “headline” ecosystem service in terms of communicating the concept of ecosystem services, and how this ties peoples׳ well-being to the condition of ecosystems and the biodiversity found therein. Our paper offers a conceptual framework for measuring the economic value of changes in insect pollinator populations, and then reviews what evidence exists on the empirical magnitude of these values (both market and non-market). This allows us to highlight where the largest gaps in knowledge are, where the greatest conceptual and empirical challenges remain, and where research is most needed.

Entomophilous pollination in rape (Brassica napus L. var. oleifera) in Brazil

The most frequent insect visitors to the flower were: Apis mellifera, 80.6%; Trigona spinipes, 12.8% and Dialictus sp, 6.6%. -from Authors

Mutualism from the inside: coordinated development of plant and insect in an active pollinating fig wasp

Recent studies on the obligate interaction between fig trees and their pollinating agaonid wasps have focused on population aspects and wasp-seed exploitation at the level of the inflorescence. Detailed studies on larval and gall development are required to more fully understand how resources are exploited and adaptations fine-tuned by each partner in nursery pollination mutualisms. We studied the larval development of the active pollinating fig wasp, Pegoscapus sp., and the galling process of individual flowers within the figs of its monoecious host, Ficus citrifolia, in Brazil. The pollinator development is strongly dependent on flower pollination. Figs entered by pollen-free wasps were in general more likely to abort. Retained, unpollinated figs had both higher larval mortality and a lower number of wasps. Pegoscapus sp. larvae are adapted to plant development, with two contrasting larval feeding strategies proceeding alongside gall development. The first two larval stages behave as ovary parasites. Later larval stages feed on hypertrophied endosperm. This indicates that a successful galling process relies on endosperm, and also reveals why pollination would be a prerequisite for the production of high-quality galls for this Pegoscapus species.