Search

There is increasing evidence that farmers in many areas are achieving below maximum yields due to insufficient pollination. Practical and effective approaches are needed to maintain wild pollinator populations within agroecosystems so they can deliver critical pollination services that underpin crop production. We established nesting and wildflower habitat interventions in 24 UK apple orchards and measured effects on flower-visiting insects and the pollination they provide, exploring how this was affected by landscape context. We quantified the extent of pollination deficits and assessed whether the management of wild pollinators can reduce deficits and deliver improved outcomes for growers over 3 years. Wildflower interventions increased solitary bee numbers visiting apple flowers by over 20%, but there was no effect of nesting interventions. Other pollinator groups were influenced by both local and landscape-scale factors, with bumblebees and hoverflies responding to the relative proportion of semi-natural habitat at larger spatial scales (1000 m), while honeybees and other flies responded at 500 m or less. By improving fruit number and quality, pollinators contributed more than £16 k per hectare. However, deficits (where maximum potential was not being reached due to a lack of pollination) were recorded and the extent of these varied across orchards, and from year to year, with a 22% deficit in output in the worst (equivalent to ~£14 k/ha) compared to less than 3% (equivalent to ~£2 k/ha) in the best year. Although no direct effect of our habitat interventions on deficits in gross output was observed, initial fruit set and seed set deficits were reduced by abundant bumblebees, and orchards with a greater abundance of solitary bees saw lower deficits in fruit size. The abundance of pollinators in apple orchards is influenced by different local and landscape factors that interact and vary between years. Consequently, pollination, and the extent of economic output d

1. Resilient pollination services depend on sufficient abundance of pollinating insects over time. Currently, however, most knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators is based on changes in pollinator species richness and distribution only. 2. Systematic, long‐term monitoring of pollinators is urgently needed to provide baseline information on their status, to identify the drivers of declines and to inform suitable response measures. 3. Power analysis was used to determine the number of sites required to detect a 30% change in pollinator populations over 10 years. We then evaluated the full economic costs of implementing four national monitoring schemes in the UK: (a) professional pollinator monitoring, (b) professional pollination service monitoring, (c) volunteer collected pan traps and (d) volunteer focal floral observations. These costs were compared to (a) the costs of implementing separate, expert‐designed research and monitoring networks and (b) the economic benefits of pollination services threatened by pollinator loss. 4. Estimated scheme costs ranged from £6,159/year for a 75‐site volunteer focal flower observation scheme to £2.7 M/year for an 800‐site professional pollination service monitoring network. The estimated research costs saved using the site network as research infrastructure range from £1.46–4.17 M/year. The economic value of UK crop yield lost following a 30% decline in pollinators was estimated at ~£188 M/year. 5. Synthesis and applications: We evaluated the full costs of running pollinator monitoring schemes against the economic benefits to research and society they provide. The annual costs of monitoring are <0.02% of the economic value of pollination services that would be lost after a 30% decline in pollination services. Furthermore, by providing high‐quality scientific data, monitoring schemes would save at least £1.5 on data collection per £1 spent. Our findings demonstrate that long‐term systematic monitoring can be a cost‐e

1. Resilient pollination services depend on sufficient abundance of pollinating insects over time. Currently, however, most knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators is based on changes in pollinator species richness and distribution only. 2. Systematic, long‐term monitoring of pollinators is urgently needed to provide baseline information on their status, to identify the drivers of declines and to inform suitable response measures. 3. Power analysis was used to determine the number of sites required to detect a 30% change in pollinator populations over 10 years. We then evaluated the full economic costs of implementing four national monitoring schemes in the UK: (a) professional pollinator monitoring, (b) professional pollination service monitoring, (c) volunteer collected pan traps and (d) volunteer focal floral observations. These costs were compared to (a) the costs of implementing separate, expert‐designed research and monitoring networks and (b) the economic benefits of pollination services threatened by pollinator loss. 4. Estimated scheme costs ranged from £6,159/year for a 75‐site volunteer focal flower observation scheme to £2.7 M/year for an 800‐site professional pollination service monitoring network. The estimated research costs saved using the site network as research infrastructure range from £1.46–4.17 M/year. The economic value of UK crop yield lost following a 30% decline in pollinators was estimated at ~£188 M/year. 5. Synthesis and applications. We evaluated the full costs of running pollinator monitoring schemes against the economic benefits to research and society they provide. The annual costs of monitoring are <0.02% of the economic value of pollination services that would be lost after a 30% decline in pollination services. Furthermore, by providing high‐quality scientific data, monitoring schemes would save at least £1.5 on data collection per £1 spent

1. Resilient pollination services depend on sufficient abundance of pollinating insects over time. Currently, however, most knowledge about the status and trends of pollinators is based on changes in pollinator species richness and distribution only. 2. Systematic, long‐term monitoring of pollinators is urgently needed to provide baseline information on their status, to identify the drivers of declines and to inform suitable response measures. 3. Power analysis was used to determine the number of sites required to detect a 30% change in pollinator populations over 10 years. We then evaluated the full economic costs of implementing four national monitoring schemes in the UK: (a) professional pollinator monitoring, (b) professional pollination service monitoring, (c) volunteer collected pan traps and (d) volunteer focal floral observations. These costs were compared to (a) the costs of implementing separate, expert‐designed research and monitoring networks and (b) the economic benefits of pollination services threatened by pollinator loss. 4. Estimated scheme costs ranged from £6,159/year for a 75‐site volunteer focal flower observation scheme to £2.7 M/year for an 800‐site professional pollination service monitoring network. The estimated research costs saved using the site network as research infrastructure range from £1.46–4.17 M/year. The economic value of UK crop yield lost following a 30% decline in pollinators was estimated at ~£188 M/year. 5. Synthesis and applications. We evaluated the full costs of running pollinator monitoring schemes against the economic benefits to research and society they provide. The annual costs of monitoring are <0.02% of the economic value of pollination services that would be lost after a 30% decline in pollination services. Furthermore, by providing high‐quality scientific data, monitoring schemes would save at least £1.5 on data collection per £1 spent