Search

Understanding the relationships between trait diversity, species diversity and ecosystem functioning is essential for sustainable management. For functions comprising two trophic levels, trait matching between interacting partners should also drive functioning. However, the predictive ability of trait diversity and matching is unclear for most functions, particularly for crop pollination, where interacting partners did not necessarily co-evolve. World-wide, we collected data on traits of flower visitors and crops, visitation rates to crop flowers per insect species and fruit set in 469 fields of 33 crop systems. Through hierarchical mixed-effects models, we tested whether flower visitor trait diversity and/or trait matching between flower visitors and crops improve the prediction of crop fruit set (functioning) beyond flower visitor species diversity and abundance. Flower visitor trait diversity was positively related to fruit set, but surprisingly did not explain more variation than flower visitor species diversity. The best prediction of fruit set was obtained by matching traits of flower visitors (body size and mouthpart length) and crops (nectar accessibility of flowers) in addition to flower visitor abundance, species richness and species evenness. Fruit set increased with species richness, and more so in assemblages with high evenness, indicating that additional species of flower visitors contribute more to crop pollination when species abundances are similar. Synthesis and applications. Despite contrasting floral traits for crops world-wide, only the abundance of a few pollinator species is commonly managed for greater yield. Our results suggest that the identification and enhancement of pollinator species with traits matching those of the focal crop, as well as the enhancement of pollinator richness and evenness, will increase crop yield beyond current practices. Furthermore, we show that field practitioners can predict and manage agroecosystems for pollination services based on knowledge of just a few traits that are known for a wide range of flower visitor species. Despite contrasting floral traits for crops world-wide, only the abundance of a few pollinator species is commonly managed for greater yield. Our results suggest that the identification and enhancement of pollinator species with traits matching those of the focal crop, as well as the enhancement of pollinator richness and evenness, will increase crop yield beyond current practices. Furthermore, we show that field practitioners can predict and manage agroecosystems for pollination services based on knowledge of just a few traits that are known for a wide range of flower visitor species.

Pollinators benefit from increasing floral resources in agricultural landscapes, which could be an underexplored co‐benefit of mass‐flowering crop cultivation. However, the impacts of mass‐flowering crops on pollinator communities are complex and appear to be context‐dependent, mediated by factors such as crop flowering time and the availability of other flower resources in the landscape. A synthesis of research is needed to develop management recommendations for effective pollinator conservation in agroecosystems.By combining 22 datasets from 13 publications conducted in nine temperate countries (20 European, 2 North American), we investigated if mass‐flowering crop flowering time (early or late season), bloom state (during or after crop flowering) and extent of non‐crop habitat cover in the landscape moderated the effect of mass‐flowering crop cover on wild pollinator abundance and species richness in mass‐flowering crop and non‐crop habitats.During bloom, wild bee abundance and richness are negatively related to mass‐flowering crop cover. Dilution effects were predominant in crop habitats and early in the season, except for bumblebees, which declined with mass‐flowering crop cover irrespective of habitat or season. Late in the season and in non‐crop habitats, several of these negative relationships were either absent or reversed. Late‐season mass‐flowering crop cover is positively related to honeybee abundance in crop habitats and to other bee abundance in non‐crop habitats. These results indicate that crop‐adapted species, like honeybees, move to forage and concentrate on late‐season mass‐flowering crops at a time when flower availability in the landscape is limited, potentially alleviating competition for flower resources in non‐crop habitats. We found no evidence of pollinators moving from mass‐flowering crop to non‐crop habitats after crop bloom.Synthesis and applications: Our results confirm that increasing early‐season mass‐flowering crop cover dilutes wild pollinators in crop habitats during bloom. We find that dilution effects were absent late in the season. While mass‐flowering crop cultivation alone is unlikely to be sufficient for maintaining pollinators, as part of carefully designed diverse crop rotations or mixtures combined with the preservation of permanent non‐crop habitats, it might provide valuable supplementary food resources for pollinators in temperate agroecosystems, particularly later in the season when alternative flower resources are scarce. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Biological control, an essential ecosystem service to agriculture, can be affected by ecological processes operating at landscape scales. Here we assessed the effect of landscape complexity, measured as proportion of arable land (PAL), on the abundance of aphids, parasitoids, and specialist and generalist predators. In addition we set up cage experiments to test the ability of these groups of enemies to suppress aphid densities. Landscape context did not significantly explain differences in aphid or parasitoid densities between fields. However, aphid densities were significantly higher in field interior compared to the margin. Coccinellid (specialist predator) abundance showed a similar pattern, with higher density in the field interior, indicating an aggregative response to aphid prey. In addition, Coccinellid abundance increased with PAL, but only in field interiors and not at the field margins. The abundance of carabids (generalist predators) increased with PAL, suggesting that they benefit from landscape simplification. The cage experiment revealed that specialist as well as generalist predators were able to reduce the number of aphids on barley tillers and that a combination of both guilds did not provide a greater reduction of aphids. Our results suggest higher densities of generalist predators with increasing PAL. Nonetheless, the greater abundance of coccinellids and carabid beetles in cereal fields embedded in simple landscapes does not necessarily imply better pest control since natural enemies may compete, thereby limiting their ability to control pests. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

While pesticide use is subject to strict regulatory oversight worldwide, it remains a main concern for environmental protection, including biodiversity conservation. This is partly due to the current regulatory approach that relies on separate assessments for each single pesticide, crop use, and non-target organism group at local scales. Such assessments tend to overlook the combined effects of overall pesticide usage at larger spatial scales. Integrative landscape-based approaches are emerging, enabling the consideration of agricultural management, the environmental characteristics, and the combined effects of pesticides applied in a same or in different crops within an area. These developments offer the opportunity to deliver informative risk predictions relevant for different decision contexts including their connection to larger spatial scales and to combine environmental risks of pesticides, with those from other environmental stressors. We discuss the needs, challenges, opportunities and available tools for implementing landscape-based approaches for prospective and retrospective pesticide Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA). A set of "building blocks" that emerged from the discussions have been integrated into a conceptual framework. The framework includes elements to facilitate its implementation, in particular: flexibility to address the needs of relevant users and stakeholders; means to address the inherent complexity of environmental systems; connections to make use of and integrate data derived from monitoring programs; and options for validation and approaches to facilitate future use in a regulatory context. The conceptual model can be applied to existing ERA methodologies, facilitating its comparability, and highlighting interoperability drivers at landscape level. The benefits of landscape-based pesticide ERA extend beyond regulation. Linking and validating risk predictions with relevant environmental impacts under a solid science-based approach will support the setting of protection goals and the formulation of sustainable agricultural strategies. Moreover, landscape ERA offers a communication tool on realistic pesticide impacts in a multistressors environment for stakeholders and citizens., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Traditionally managed semi-natural pastures are recognised for their high biodiversity. One drawback is that these pastures are often low in fodder production and hence rather unprofitable, which may lead to abandonment. Two ways to increase production and profitability and maintain grazing are to (i) offer the grazers supplementary feed, or (ii) co-enclose the semi-natural pasture with an improved pasture. Both practices may transfer nutrients to the semi-natural pasture, with potential negative effects on biodiversity. This systematic review aimed to analyse the available evidence concerning the following primary question: "What is the effect of giving grazers access to additional nutrient sources on biodiversity in semi-natural pastures?" (Q1). We also used two supporting questions: "What is the effect of giving grazers access to additional nutrient sources on nutrient status of the soils of semi-natural pastures?" (Q2) and "How do the grazers of semi-natural pastures behave while having access to additional nutrient sources?" (Q3)., Methods: Searches for peer-reviewed and grey literature were made using bibliographic databases, search engines, specialist websites, and stakeholder contacts. Literature was screened for relevance according to predefined eligibility criteria, and critical appraisal was performed using the tool CEECAT. A database of the relevant studies was compiled. Descriptive information about the evidence base is presented in tables and an interactive evidence atlas. Because of absent study setup replication, Q1 and Q2 were not analysed quantitatively. However, sample size allowed the use of mixed modelling to quantitatively analyse Q3 regarding the effects of (i) co-enclosing an improved pasture on grazers' electivity for the improved area, and (ii) supplementary feed on the forage intake of grazers., Review Findings: A total of 12 articles on the effects of supplementary feeding and 19 on the effects of co-enclosing an improved pasture were included, of which some targeted multiple review questions. Because of the limited literature, it is not possible to draw any conclusions concerning the effects on biodiversity (Q1) or nutritional status (Q2) in semi-natural pastures. For Q3, 28 studies fulfilled our criteria, of which 18 investigated the behaviour of grazers related to co-enclosing an improved pasture, and 10 investigated their forage intake while having access to supplementary fodder. The results show that all grazer species except goats preferred grazing in the improved areas regardless of whether they were grazing together with other grazer species or not. We found no effect of supplementary feeding on forage intake of the grazers., Conclusions: We detected a knowledge gap concerning the effects of the two additional nutrient sources on semi-natural pasture biodiversity (Q1) and nutrient status (Q2), which points toward further research needs. Analysis of Q3 showed that grazers prefer to graze improved compared to semi-natural pasture areas. However, how this behaviour subsequently affects nutrient transport and biodiversity is unclear and cannot be translated into management recommendations. To gain better knowledge about the primary question of our review, research focusing specifically on this question is needed. We provide suggestions for how such studies could be designed, including spatio-temporal setup, and key management and environmental conditions to consider., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

There are substantial concerns about impaired honey bee health and colony losses due to several poorly understood factors. We used MALDI profiling (MALDI BeeTyping®) analysis to investigate how some environmental and management factors under field conditions across Europe affected the honey bee haemolymph peptidome (all peptides in the circulatory fluid), as a profile of molecular markers representing the immune status of Apis mellifera. Honey bees were exposed to a range of environmental stressors in 128 agricultural sites across eight European countries in four biogeographic zones, with each country contributing eight sites each for two different cropping systems: oilseed rape (OSR) and apple (APP). The full haemolymph peptide profiles, including the presence and levels of three key immunity markers, namely the antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) Apidaecin, Abaecin and Defensin-1, allowed the honey bee responses to environmental variables to be discriminated by country, crop type and site. When considering just the AMPs, it was not possible to distinguish between countries by the prevalence of each AMP in the samples. However, it was possible to discriminate between countries on the amounts of the AMPs, with the Swedish samples in particular expressing high amounts of all AMPs. A machine learning model was developed to discriminate the haemolymphs of bees from APP and OSR sites. The model was 90.6 % accurate in identifying the crop type from the samples used to build the model. Overall, MALDI BeeTyping® of bee haemolymph represents a promising and cost-effective "blood test" for simultaneously monitoring dozens of peptide markers affected by environmental stressors at the landscape scale, thus providing policymakers with new diagnostic and regulatory tools for monitoring bee health., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Declines in insect pollinators have been linked to a range of causative factors such as disease, loss of habitats, the quality and availability of food, and exposure to pesticides. Here, we analysed an extensive dataset generated from pesticide screening of foraging insects, pollen-nectar stores/beebread, pollen and ingested nectar across three species of bees collected at 128 European sites set in two types of crop. In this paper, we aimed to (i) derive a new index to summarise key aspects of complex pesticide exposure data and (ii) understand the links between pesticide exposures depicted by the different matrices, bee species and apple orchards versus oilseed rape crops. We found that summary indices were highly correlated with the number of pesticides detected in the related matrix but not with which pesticides were present. Matrices collected from apple orchards generally contained a higher number of pesticides (7.6 pesticides per site) than matrices from sites collected from oilseed rape crops (3.5 pesticides), with fungicides being highly represented in apple crops. A greater number of pesticides were found in pollen-nectar stores/beebread and pollen matrices compared with nectar and bee body matrices. Our results show that for a complete assessment of pollinator pesticide exposure, it is necessary to consider several different exposure routes and multiple species of bees across different agricultural systems., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Marie-Pierre CHAUZAT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Marion LAURENT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Matthias ALBRECHT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Mark JF BROWN reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Joachim DE MIRANDA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Reet KARISE reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Jessica KNAPP reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Jose SERRANO MARINO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Simon G. POTTS reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Maj RUNDLOF reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Janine SCHWARZ reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Eleanor ATTRIDGE reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Irene BOTTERO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Elena CINI reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Maria Pilar DE LA RUA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Gennaro DI PRISCO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Christophe DOMINIK reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Daniel DZUL reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Andres GARCIA REINA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Simon HODGE reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Alexandra M KLEIN reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Anina KNAUER reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Marika MAND reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Vicente MARTINEZ LOPEZ reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Giorgia SERRA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Helena PEREIRA-PEIXOTO reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Risto RAIMETS reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Oliver SCHWEIGER reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Deepa SENAPATHI reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Jane C. STOUT reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Giovanni TAMBURINI reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Cecilia COSTA reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Tomasz KILJANEK reports financial support was provided by European Commission. Anne-Claire MARTEL reports financial support was provided by European Commission. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Sustainable agriculture requires balancing crop yields with the effects of pesticides on non-target organisms, such as bees and other crop pollinators. Field studies demonstrated that agricultural use of neonicotinoid insecticides can negatively affect wild bee species 1,2 , leading to restrictions on these compounds 3 . However, besides neonicotinoids, field-based evidence of the effects of landscape pesticide exposure on wild bees is lacking. Bees encounter many pesticides in agricultural landscapes 4-9 and the effects of this landscape exposure on colony growth and development of any bee species remains unknown. Here we show that the many pesticides found in bumble bee-collected pollen are associated with reduced colony performance during crop bloom, especially in simplified landscapes with intensive agricultural practices. Our results from 316 Bombus terrestris colonies at 106 agricultural sites across eight European countries confirm that the regulatory system fails to sufficiently prevent pesticide-related impacts on non-target organisms, even for a eusocial pollinator species in which colony size may buffer against such impacts 10,11 . These findings support the need for postapproval monitoring of both pesticide exposure and effects to confirm that the regulatory process is sufficiently protective in limiting the collateral environmental damage of agricultural pesticide use., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Infectious and parasitic agents (IPAs) and their associated diseases are major environmental stressors that jeopardize bee health, both alone and in interaction with other stressors. Their impact on pollinator communities can be assessed by studying multiple sentinel bee species. Here, we analysed the field exposure of three sentinel managed bee species (Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis) to 11 IPAs (six RNA viruses, two bacteria, three microsporidia). The sentinel bees were deployed at 128 sites in eight European countries adjacent to either oilseed rape fields or apple orchards during crop bloom. Adult bees of each species were sampled before their placement and after crop bloom. The IPAs were detected and quantified using a harmonised, high-throughput and semi-automatized qPCR workflow. We describe differences among bee species in IPA profiles (richness, diversity, detection frequencies, loads and their change upon field exposure, and exposure risk), with no clear patterns related to the country or focal crop. Our results suggest that the most frequent IPAs in adult bees are more appropriate for assessing the bees' IPA exposure risk. We also report positive correlations of IPA loads supporting the potential IPA transmission among sentinels, suggesting careful consideration should be taken when introducing managed pollinators in ecologically sensitive environments., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Bees are essential pollinators of many crops and wild plants, and pesticide exposure is one of the key environmental stressors affecting their health in anthropogenically modified landscapes. Until recently, almost all information on routes and impacts of pesticide exposure came from honey bees, at least partially because they were the only model species required for environmental risk assessments (ERAs) for insect pollinators. Recently, there has been a surge in research activity focusing on pesticide exposure and effects for non- Apis bees, including other social bees (bumble bees and stingless bees) and solitary bees. These taxa vary substantially from honey bees and one another in several important ecological traits, including spatial and temporal activity patterns, foraging and nesting requirements, and degree of sociality. In this article, we review the current evidence base about pesticide exposure pathways and the consequences of exposure for non- Apis bees. We find that the insights into non- Apis bee pesticide exposure and resulting impacts across biological organizations, landscapes, mixtures, and multiple stressors are still in their infancy. The good news is that there are many promising approaches that could be used to advance our understanding, with priority given to informing exposure pathways, extrapolating effects, and determining how well our current insights (limited to very few species and mostly neonicotinoid insecticides under unrealistic conditions) can be generalized to the diversity of species and lifestyles in the global bee community. We conclude that future research to expand our knowledge would also be beneficial for ERAs and wider policy decisions concerning pollinator conservation and pesticide regulation.

Pesticides represent one of the greatest threats to bees and other beneficial insects in agricultural landscapes. Potential exposure is generated through compound- and crop-specific patterns of pesticide use over space and time and unique degradation behavior among compounds. Realized exposure develops through bees foraging from their nests across the spatiotemporal mosaic of floral resources and associated pesticides throughout the landscape. Despite the recognized importance of a landscape-wide approach to assessing exposure, we lack a sufficiently-evaluated predictive framework to inform mitigation decisions and environmental risk assessment for bees. We address this gap by developing a bee pesticide exposure model that incorporates spatiotemporal pesticide use patterns, estimated rates of pesticide degradation, floral resource dynamics across habitats, and bee foraging movements. We parameterized the model with pesticide use data from a public database containing crop-field- and date-specific records of uses throughout our study region over an entire year. We evaluate the model performance in predicting bee pesticide exposure using a dataset of pesticide residues in pollens gathered by bumble bees (Bombus vosnesenskii) returning to colonies across 14 spatially independent landscapes in Northern California. We applied alternative model formulations of pesticide accumulation and degradation, floral resource seasonality, and bee foraging behavior to evaluate different levels of detail for predicting observed pesticide exposure. Our best model explained 73 % of observed variation in pesticide exposure of bumble bee colonies, with generally positive correlations for the dominant compounds. Timing and location of pesticide use were integral, but more detailed parameterizations of pesticide degradation, floral resources, and bee foraging improved the predictions little if at all. Our results suggest that this approach to predict bees' pesticide exposure has value in extending from the local field scale to the landscape in environmental risk assessment and for exploring mitigation options to support bees in agricultural landscapes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Neal Williams reports financial support was provided by National Science Foundation. Neal Williams reports financial support was provided by California Department of Food and Agriculture. Neal Williams reports financial support was provided by California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Neal Williams reports financial support was provided by Almond Board of California. Neal Williams reports financial support was provided by KIND Foundation. Maj Rundlof reports financial support was provided by Swedish Research Council. Maj Rundlof reports financial support was provided by Swedish Research Council Formas. Charlie Nicholson reports financial support was provided by California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Co Authors participation in the SESYNC Pursuit Working Group. Data availability: The data are uploaded and available through figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24460183.v1. Model code is available via Github: https://github.com/CCNicholson/SEMLE., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Neonicotinoids, systemic insecticides that are distributed into all plant tissues and protect against pests, have become a common part of crop production, but can unintentionally also affect non-target organisms, including pollinators. Such effects can be direct effects from insecticide exposure, but neonicotinoids can affect plant physiology, and effects could therefore also be indirectly mediated by changes in plant phenology, attractiveness and nutritional value. Under controlled greenhouse conditions, we tested if seed treatment with the neonicotinoid clothianidin affected oilseed rape's production of flower resources for bees and the content of the secondary plant products glucosinolates that provide defense against herbivores. Additionally, we tested if seed treatment affected the attractiveness of oilseed rape to flower visiting bumblebees, using outdoor mesocosms. Flowers and leaves of clothianidin-treated plants had different profiles of glucosinolates compared with untreated plants. Bumblebees in mesocosms foraged slightly more on untreated plants. Neither flower timing, flower size nor the production of pollen and nectar differed between treatments, and therefore cannot explain any preference for untreated oilseed rape. We instead propose that this small but significant preference for untreated plants was related to the altered glucosinolate profile caused by clothianidin. Thereby, this study contributes to the understanding of the complex relationships between neonicotinoid-treated crops and pollinator foraging choices, by suggesting a potential mechanistic link by which insecticide treatment can affect insect behavior., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the risk assessment for honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. This guidance document describes how to perform risk assessment for bees from plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. It is a review of EFSA's existing guidance document, which was published in 2013. The guidance document outlines a tiered approach for exposure estimation in different scenarios and tiers. It includes hazard characterisation and provides risk assessment methodology covering dietary and contact exposure. The document also provides recommendations for higher tier studies, risk from metabolites and plant protection products as mixture., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Widespread contamination of ecosystems with pesticides threatens non-target organisms. However, the extent to which life-history traits affect pesticide exposure and resulting risk in different landscape contexts remains poorly understood. We address this for bees across an agricultural land-use gradient based on pesticide assays of pollen and nectar collected by Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis, representing extensive, intermediate and limited foraging traits. We found that extensive foragers (A. mellifera) experienced the highest pesticide risk-additive toxicity-weighted concentrations. However, only intermediate (B. terrestris) and limited foragers (O. bicornis) responded to landscape context-experiencing lower pesticide risk with less agricultural land. Pesticide risk correlated among bee species and between food sources and was greatest in A. mellifera-collected pollen-useful information for future postapproval pesticide monitoring. We provide foraging trait- and landscape-dependent information on the occurrence, concentration and identity of pesticides that bees encounter to estimate pesticide risk, which is necessary for more realistic risk assessment and essential information for tracking policy goals to reduce pesticide risk., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Neonicotinoid insecticides applied to flowering crops can have negative impacts on bees, with implications for crop pollination. To assess if exposure to the neonicotinoid clothianidin via a treated crop (rapeseed) affected bee behaviour, pollination performance (to strawberry), and bee reproduction, we provided each of 12 outdoor cages with rapeseed (autumn-sown plants complemented with a few spring-sown plants to extend the flowering period) grown from either clothianidin-treated or untreated (control) seeds, together with strawberry plants and a small population of red mason bees (Osmia bicornis). We expected clothianidin to reduce bee foraging activity, resulting in impaired strawberry pollination and bee reproduction. During the early stage of the experiment, we observed no difference between treatments in the length of entire foraging trips, or the combined number of rapeseed and strawberry flowers that the bees visited during these trips. During the later stage of the experiment, we instead determined the time a female took to visit 10 rapeseed flowers, as a proxy for foraging performance. We found that they were 10% slower in clothianidin cages. Strawberries weighed less in clothianidin cages, suggesting reduced pollination performance, but we were unable to relate this to reduced foraging activity, because the strawberry flowers received equally many visits in the two treatments. Clothianidin-exposed females sealed their nests less often, but offspring number, sex ratio and weight were similar between treatments. Observed effects on bee behaviour appeared by the end of the experiment, possibly because of accumulated effects of exposure, reduced bee longevity, or higher sensitivity of the protocols we used during the later phase of the experiment. Although the lack of a mechanistic explanation calls for interpreting the results with cautiousness, the lower strawberry weight in clothianidin cages highlights the importance of understanding complex effects of plant protection products, which could have wider consequences than those on directly exposed organisms., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Seventy five percent of the world's food crops benefit from insect pollination. Hence, there has been increased interest in how global change drivers impact this critical ecosystem service. Because standardized data on crop pollination are rarely available, we are limited in our capacity to understand the variation in pollination benefits to crop yield, as well as to anticipate changes in this service, develop predictions, and inform management actions. Here, we present CropPol, a dynamic, open, and global database on crop pollination. It contains measurements recorded from 202 crop studies, covering 3,394 field observations, 2,552 yield measurements (i.e., berry mass, number of fruits, and fruit density [kg/ha], among others), and 47,752 insect records from 48 commercial crops distributed around the globe. CropPol comprises 32 of the 87 leading global crops and commodities that are pollinator dependent. Malus domestica is the most represented crop (32 studies), followed by Brassica napus (22 studies), Vaccinium corymbosum (13 studies), and Citrullus lanatus (12 studies). The most abundant pollinator guilds recorded are honey bees (34.22% counts), bumblebees (19.19%), flies other than Syrphidae and Bombyliidae (13.18%), other wild bees (13.13%), beetles (10.97%), Syrphidae (4.87%), and Bombyliidae (0.05%). Locations comprise 34 countries distributed among Europe (76 studies), North America (60), Latin America and the Caribbean (29), Asia (20), Oceania (10), and Africa (7). Sampling spans three decades and is concentrated on 2001-2005 (21 studies), 2006-2010 (40), 2011-2015 (88), and 2016-2020 (50). This is the most comprehensive open global data set on measurements of crop flower visitors, crop pollinators and pollination to date, and we encourage researchers to add more datasets to this database in the future. This data set is released for non-commercial use only. Credits should be given to this paper (i.e., proper citation), and the products generated with this database should be shared under the same license terms (CC BY-NC-SA)., (© 2021 The Ecological Society of America.)

Flupyradifurone is a novel butenolide insecticide, first approved as an active substance for use in plant protection products by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2084. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities, in November 2020, asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. In addition, in June 2020, the Dutch Authorities notified the Commission, under Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, of new information on flupyradifurone on the wild bee species Megachile rotundata . This notification is also referred to in the French notification on flupyradifurone. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to quantify the likelihood of this body of evidence constituting proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments. A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For the human health, only one study was considered relevant for the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone in vitro . These data did not provide sufficient information to overrule the EU assessment, as in vivo studies already addressed the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone. Environment: All available data investigated hazards in bee species. For honey bees, the likelihood of the new data indicating higher hazards than the previous EU assessment was considered low or moderate, with some uncertainties. However, among solitary bee species - which were not addressed in the previous EU assessment - there was evidence that Megachile rotundata may be disproportionately sensitive to flupyradifurone. This sensitivity, which may partially be explained by the low bodyweight of this species, was mechanistically linked to inadequate bodily metabolisation processes., (© 2022 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action currently under the third renewal (AIR3) of the Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 844/2012. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to advise on the likelihood that body of evidence would constitute proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments.A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) the data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) the weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) the uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For human health, no conclusive evidence of higher hazards compared to previous assessment was found for genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity including developmental neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity. However, due to the lack of adequate assessment of the current data set, the PPR Panel recommends conducting an assessment of endocrine disrupting properties for acetamiprid in line with EFSA/ECHA guidance document for the identification of endocrine disruptors. For environment, no conclusive, robust evidence of higher hazards compared to the previous assessment was found for birds, aquatic organisms, bees and soil organisms. However, the potential of high inter-species sensitivity of birds and bees towards acetamiprid requires further consideration., (© 2022 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Conditions experienced early in development can affect the future performance of individuals and populations. Demographic theories predict persistent population impacts of past resources, but few studies have experimentally tested such carry-over effects across generations or cohorts. We used bumble bees to test whether resource timing had persistent effects on within-colony dynamics over sequential cohorts of workers. We simulated a resource pulse for field colonies either early or late in their development and estimated colony growth rates during pulse- and non-pulse periods. During periods when resources were not supplemented, early-pulse colonies grew faster than late-pulse colonies; early-pulse colonies grew larger as a result. These results revealed persistent effects of past resources on current growth and support the importance of transient dynamics in natural ecological systems. Early-pulse colonies also produced more queen offspring, highlighting the critical nature of resource timing for the population, as well as colony, dynamics of a key pollinator., (© 2021 The Ecological Society of America.)

While an increasing number of studies indicate that the range, diversity and abundance of many wild pollinators has declined, the global area of pollinator-dependent crops has significantly increased over the last few decades. Crop pollination studies to date have mainly focused on either identifying different guilds pollinating various crops, or on factors driving spatial changes and turnover observed in these communities. The mechanisms driving temporal stability for ecosystem functioning and services, however, remain poorly understood. Our study quantifies temporal variability observed in crop pollinators in 21 different crops across multiple years at a global scale. Using data from 43 studies from six continents, we show that (i) higher pollinator diversity confers greater inter-annual stability in pollinator communities, (ii) temporal variation observed in pollinator abundance is primarily driven by the three-most dominant species, and (iii) crops in tropical regions demonstrate higher inter-annual variability in pollinator species richness than crops in temperate regions. We highlight the importance of recognizing wild pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes to stabilize pollinator persistence across years to protect both biodiversity and crop pollination services. Short-term agricultural management practices aimed at dominant species for stabilizing pollination services need to be considered alongside longer term conservation goals focussed on maintaining and facilitating biodiversity to confer ecological stability.