Search

BACKGROUND: Natural enemy pest control (NPC) is becoming more desirable as restrictions increase on pesticide use. Carabid beetles are proven agents of NPC, controlling pests and weeds in crop areas. Agro-ecological measures can be effective for boosting carabid abundance and associated NPC, however the benefits of specific interventions to production are seldom communicated to farmers. We explore pathways to improved NPC by engaging farmers and increasing knowledge about Farm Management Practices (FMPs) beneficial to carabids using engagement materials. We used a questionnaire to measure awareness, beliefs, and attitudes to carabids and analysed these within a framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), relative to a control group. RESULTS: We found awareness of carabid predation to be associated with beliefs of pest and weed control efficacy. Within the framework of TPB, we found that current implementation of FMPs was higher if farmers perceived them to be both important for carabids, and easy to implement. This was also true for future intention to implement, yet the perceived importance was influenced by engagement materials. Field margins/buffer strips and beetle banks (16% and 13% of responses) were the most favoured by farmers as interventions for carabids. CONCLUSION: The TPB is a valuable tool with which to examine internal elements of farmer behaviour. In this study self-selected participants were influenced by online engagement in a single intervention, proving this approach has the potential to change behaviour. Our results are evidence for the effectiveness of raising awareness of NPC to change attitudes and increase uptake of sustainable practices.

Reconciling biodiversity conservation with agricultural production requires a better understanding of how key ecosystem service providing species respond to agricultural intensification. Carabid beetles and spiders represent two widespread guilds providing biocontrol services. Here we surveyed carabid beetles and spiders in 66 winter wheat fields in four northwestern European countries and analyzed how the activity density and diversity of carabid beetles and spiders were related to crop yield (proxy for land-use intensity), percentage cropland (proxy for landscape complexity) and soil organic carbon content, and whether these patterns differed between dominant and non-dominant species. 90 % of individuals respectively. We found that carabids and spiders were generally related to different aspects of agricultural intensification. Carabid species richness was positively related with crop yield and evenness was negatively related to crop cover. The activity density of non-dominant carabids was positively related with soil organic carbon content. Meanwhile, spider species richness and non-dominant spider species richness and activity density were all negatively related to percentage cropland. Our results show that practices targeted to enhance one functionally important guild may not promote another key guild, which helps explain why conservation measures to enhance natural enemies generally do not ultimately enhance pest regulation. Dominant and non-dominant species of both guilds showed mostly similar responses suggesting that management practices to enhance service provisioning by a certain guild can also enhance the overall diversity of that particular guild.

Context Agri-environment schemes support land management interventions that benefit biodiversity, environmental objectives, and other public goods. Process-based model simulations suggest the English scheme, as implemented in 2016, increased wild bee pollination services to pollinator-dependent crops and non-crop areas in a geographically heterogeneous manner. Objectives We investigated which interventions drove the scheme-wide predicted pollination service increase to oilseed rape, field beans and non-cropped areas. We determined whether the relative contribution of each intervention was related to floral and/or nesting resource quality of the intervention, area of uptake, or placement in the landscape. Methods We categorised interventions into functional groups and used linear regression to determine the relationship between predicted visitation rate increase and each category’s area within a 10 km grid tile. We compared the magnitude of the regression coefficients to measures of resource quality, area of uptake nationally, and placement to infer the factors underpinning this relationship. Results Hedgerow/woodland edge management had the largest positive effect on pollination service change, due to high resource quality. Fallow areas were also strong drivers, despite lower resource quality, implying effective placement. Floral margins had limited benefit due to later resource phenology. Interventions had stronger effects where there was less pre-existing semi-natural habitat. Conclusions Future schemes could support greater and more resilient pollination service in arable landscapes by promoting hedgerow/woodland edge management and fallow interventions. Including early-flowering species and increasing uptake would improve the effect of floral margins. Spatial targeting of interventions should consider landscape context and pairing complimentary interventions to maximise whole-scheme effectiveness.

International audience; To provide a complete portrayal of the multiple factors negatively impacting insects in agricultural landscapes it is necessary to assess the concurrent incidence, magnitude, and interactions among multiple stressors over substantial biogeographical scales. Trans-national ecological field investigations with wide-ranging stakeholders typically encounter numerous challenges during the design planning stages, not least that the scientific soundness of a spatially replicated study design must account for the substantial geographic and climatic variation among distant sites. ‘PoshBee’ (Pan-European assessment, monitoring, and mitigation of Stressors on the Health of Bees) is a multi-partner transdisciplinary agroecological project established to investigate the suite of stressors typically encountered by pollinating insects in European agricultural landscapes. To do this, PoshBee established a network of 128 study sites across eight European countries and collected over 50 measurements and samples relating to the nutritional, toxicological, pathogenic, and landscape components of the bees’ environment. This paper describes the development process, rationale, and end-result of each aspect of the of the PoshBee field investigation. We describe the main issues and challenges encountered during the design stages and highlight a number of actions or processes that may benefit other multi-partner research consortia planning similar large-scale studies. It was soon identified that in a multi-component study design process, the development of interaction and communication networks involving all collaborators and stakeholders requires considerable time and resources. It was also necessary at each planning stage to be mindful of the needs and objectives of all stakeholders and partners, and further challenges inevitably arose when practical limitations, such as time restrictions and labour constraints, were superimposed upon prototype study designs. To promote clarity for all stakeholders, for each sub-component of the study, there should be a clear record of the rationale and reasoning that outlines how the final design transpired, what compromises were made, and how the requirements of different stakeholders were accomplished. Ultimately, multi-national agroecological field studies such as PoshBee benefit greatly from the involvement of diverse stakeholders and partners, ranging from field ecologists, project managers, policy legislators, mathematical modelers, and farmer organisations. While the execution of the study highlighted the advantages and benefits of large-scale transdisciplinary projects, the long planning period emphasized the need to formally describe a design framework that could facilitate the design process of future multi-partner collaborations.

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 deficits, also vary between orchards and years. We highlight how approaches, including establishing wildflower areas and optimizing the ratio of cropped and non-cropped habitats can increase the abundance of key apple pollinators and improve outcomes for growers.

1. Wild bees provide a critical ecosystem service by pollinating globally important crops. Documented bee declines, notably in agricultural landscapes, therefore threaten future food security. Yet, evaluations of methods to inventory bees are rarely carried out in different crops or focus specifically upon crop pollinating species. 2. We utilise standardised field datasets to elucidate differences in the capacity of transect walks, observation plots and pan traps to sample wild bee pollinator communities in four contrasting crops. Our results indicate that individual survey methods detect different components of crop pollinator communities, with guild and body size potentially important causal factors behind these differences. 3. Transects detected half or less of the total potential pollinator community in three of our four study crops. Whilst transects were the most efficient method for sampling bumblebees, they often missed smaller solitary species, which were most efficiently sampled by yellow pan traps. 4. Crop type is likely an important determinant of the most suitable survey methods to sample bee pollinator communities. Whilst transects alone are sufficient in crops pollinated predominantly by bumblebees, pan traps, and potentially observation plots, may be an important addition in some crops where smaller solitary bee species are potentially important pollinators. 5. Our results indicate that the most efficient methods to sample bee species in agricultural landscapes are dependent upon crop type and pollinator community composition. We use our findings to make a set of recommendations on the inventorying and monitoring of bee pollinator crop communities that can inform regional and national monitoring programmes.

Research into pollinators in managed landscapes has recently combined approaches of pollination ecology and landscape ecology, because key stressors are likely to interact across wide areas. While laboratory and field experiments are valuable for furthering understanding, studies are required to investigate the interacting drivers of pollinator health and diversity across a broader range of landscapes and a wider array of taxa. Here, we use a network of 96 study landscapes in six topographically diverse regions of Britain, to test the combined importance of honeybee density, insecticide loadings, floral resource availability and habitat diversity to pollinator communities. We also explore the interactions between these drivers and the cover and proximity of semi-natural habitat. We found that among our four drivers, only honeybee density was positively related to wild pollinator abundance and diversity, and the positive association between abundance and floral resources depended on insecticide loadings and habitat diversity. By contrast, our exploratory models including habitat composition metrics revealed a complex suite of interactive effects. These results demonstrate that improving pollinator community composition and health is unlikely to be achieved with general resource enhancements only. Rather, local land-use context should be considered in fine-tuning pollinator management and conservation. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Natural processes influencing pollinator health: from chemistry to landscapes’.

1) Carabid beetles are major predators in agro-ecosystems. The composition of their communities within crop environments governs the pest control services they provide. An understudied aspect is the distribution of predacious carabid larvae in the soil. 2) We used novel subterranean trapping with standard pitfall trapping, within a multi-crop rotation experiment, to assess the responses of above- and below-ground carabid communities to management practices 3) Crop and trap type significantly affected pooled carabid abundance with an interaction of the two, the highest numbers of carabids were caught in subterranean traps in barley under sown with grass. 4) Trap type accounted for the most variance observed in carabid community composition, followed by crop. 5) Tillage responses were only apparent at the species level for three of the eight species modelled. 6) Responses to crop type varied by species. Most species had higher abundance in under-sown barley, than grass, wheat and barley. Crop differences were greater in the subterranean trap data. For predaceous larvae standard pitfalls showed lowest abundances in under-sown barley, yet subterranean traps revealed actual abundances to be highest in this crop. 7) Comprehensive estimation of ecosystem services should incorporate both above- and below ground community appraisal, towards appropriate management.

Pollinator declines have prompted efforts to assess how land-use change affects insect pollinators and pollination services in agricultural landscapes. Yet many tools to measure insect pollination services require substantial landscape-scale data and technical expertise. In expert workshops, 3 straightforward methods (desk-based method, field survey, and empirical manipulation with exclusion experiments) for rapid insect pollination assessment at site scale were developed to provide an adaptable framework that is accessible to nonspecialist with limited resources. These methods were designed for TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment) and allow comparative assessment of pollination services at a site of conservation interest and in its most plausible alternative state (e.g., converted to agricultural land). We applied the methods at a nature reserve in the United Kingdom to estimate the value of insect pollination services provided by the reserve. The economic value of pollination services provided by the reserve ranged from US$6163 to US$11,546/year. The conversion of the reserve to arable land would provide no insect pollination services and a net annual benefit from insect-pollinated crop production of approximately $1542/year (US$24∙haDiversidad y Conservación de Gasterópodos Subterráneos de Agua Dulce en los Estados Unidos y en México Resumen Las declinaciones de los polinizadores han impulsado los esfuerzos por evaluar cómo el cambio del uso de suelo afecta a los insectos polinizadores y los servicios de polinización en los paisajes agrícolas. Aun así, muchas de las herramientas para medir los servicios de los insectos polinizadores requieren datos sustanciales a escala de paisaje y el conocimiento de expertos. Desarrollamos tres métodos sencillos (método de gabinete, censo de campo y manipulación empírica con experimentos de exclusión) durante algunos talleres de expertos para la evaluación rápida de la polinización por insectos a escala de sitio con el objetivo de proporcionar un marco de trabajo adaptable y accesible para quienes no son especialistas y cuentan con recursos limitados. Estos métodos fueron diseñados para TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment, en inglés) y permiten la evaluación comparativa de los servicios de polinización en los sitios de interés para la conservación y su estado alternativo más plausible (p. ej.: convertido a suelo agrícola). Aplicamos los métodos en una reserva natural del Reino Unido para estimar el valor de los servicios de polinización por insectos que proporciona la reserva. El valor económico de los servicios de polinización que proporciona la reserva varió desde US$6,163 a US$11,546 al año昆虫授粉服务的快速评估为决策提供依据 授粉者数量下降推动了评估土地利用变化如何影响农业景观中昆虫授粉者和授粉服务的研究工作。然而, 许多评估昆虫授粉服务的工具都需要大量景观尺度的数据和专业技术。我们通过专家研讨会开发了3种简单的方法(案头研究方法、野外调查和利用排除性实验的经验操作), 可用于快速评估研究站点的昆虫授粉情况, 为资源有限的非专业人员提供了一个适应性框架。我们的方法是为生态系统服务站点评估工具包(TESSA)设计的, 可以在具有保护意义的站点和其最合理的替代状态下(如转换为农业用地)对授粉服务进行比较评估。我们在英国一个自然保护区应用这些方法估计了该保护区提供的昆虫授粉服务的价值。结果显示, 保护区提供的授粉服务的经济价值从6,163美元/年到11,546美元/年不等。保护区如果转换为耕地, 则不能提供昆虫授粉服务, 而昆虫授粉作物的生产则可以提供的约1,542美元/年(24美元/公顷/年)的年净收益。我们的方法具有广泛的适用性, 可用于不同的昆虫授粉作物, 如油菜(Brassica napus)和蚕豆(Vicia faba)。以上方法都可以在低预算的情况下快速使用。需要资源较少但相对较不稳健的方法会得到更高的昆虫授粉年效益估计值。【翻译:胡怡思;审校:聂永刚】.

Agri-environment schemes are programmes where landholders enter into voluntary agreements (typically with\ud governments) to manage agricultural land for environmental protection and nature conservation objectives.\ud Previous work at local scale has shown that these features can provide additional floral and nesting resources to\ud support wild pollinators, which may indirectly increase floral visitation to nearby crops. However, the effect of\ud entire schemes on this important ecosystem service has never previously been studied at national scale. Focusing\ud on four wild pollinator guilds (ground-nesting bumblebees, tree-nesting bumblebees, ground-nesting solitary\ud bees, and cavity-nesting solitary bees), we used a state-of-the-art, process-based spatial model to examine the\ud relationship between participation in agri-environment schemes across England during 2016 and the predicted\ud abundances of these guilds and their visitation rates to four pollinator dependent crops (oilseed rape, field beans,\ud orchard fruit and strawberries). Our modelling predicts that significant increases in national populations of\ud ground-nesting bumblebees and ground-nesting solitary bees have occurred in response to the schemes. Lack of\ud significant population increases for other guilds likely reflects specialist nesting resource requirements not wellcatered\ud for in schemes. We do not predict statistically significant increases in visitation to pollinator-dependent\ud crops at national level as a result of scheme interventions but do predict some localised areas of significant\ud increase in bumblebee visitation to crops flowering in late spring. Lack of any significant change in visitation to\ud crops which flower outside this season is likely due to a combination of low provision of nesting resource relative\ud to floral resource by scheme interventions and low overall participation in more intensively farmed landscapes.\ud We recommend future schemes place greater importance on nesting resource provision alongside floral resource\ud provision, better cater for the needs of specialised species and promote more contiguous patches of semi-natural\ud habitat to better support solitary bee visitation.

This study presents the first approach to characterise relative land use impacts on pollinator abundance for life cycle assessment (LCA). Pollinators make an essential contribution to global crop production and in recent years evidence of declines has raised concerns on how land use, among other factors, affects pollinators. Our novel method assesses land use impacts on pollinator abundance and proposes a new impact category that is compatible with the current framework of life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). While a systematic literature research showed the existence of multiple models that could assess pollinator abundance impacts, their parameterization is too complicated for applications in LCA. Therefore, a simplified method based on expert knowledge is presented. The practical application of the method is illustrated through the connection to, and characterisation of, relevant land use types derived from the widely used LCA database, ecoinvent. The illustrative characterisation factors demonstrate that key differences among land use types can be reflected through the proposed approach. Further development of robust characterisation factors through a larger sample of pollinator abundance estimates, and improvements to the model, such as considerations of spatial differentiation, will contribute to the identification of impacts of agricultural practices in LCA studies, helping prevent further pollinator abundance decline.

Disturbances alter biodiversity via their specific characteristics, including severity and extent in the landscape, which act at different temporal and spatial scales. Biodiversity response to disturbance also depends on the community characteristics and habitat requirements of species. Untangling the mechanistic interplay of these factors has guided disturbance ecology for decades, generating mixed scientific evidence of biodiversity responses to disturbance. Understanding the impact of natural disturbances on biodiversity is increasingly important due to human-induced changes in natural disturbance regimes. In many areas, major natural forest disturbances, such as wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks, are becoming more frequent, intense, severe, and widespread due to climate change and land-use change. Conversely, the suppression of natural disturbances threatens disturbance-dependent biota. Using a meta-analytic approach, we analysed a global data set (with most sampling concentrated in temperate and boreal secondary forests) of species assemblages of 26 taxonomic groups, including plants, animals, and fungi collected from forests affected by wildfires, windstorms, and insect outbreaks. The overall effect of natural disturbances on α-diversity did not differ significantly from zero, but some taxonomic groups responded positively to disturbance, while others tended to respond negatively. Disturbance was beneficial for taxonomic groups preferring conditions associated with open canopies (e.g. hymenopterans and hoverflies), whereas ground-dwelling groups and/or groups typically associated with shady conditions (e.g. epigeic lichens and mycorrhizal fungi) were more likely to be negatively impacted by disturbance. Across all taxonomic groups, the highest α-diversity in disturbed forest patches occurred under moderate disturbance severity, i.e. with approximately 55% of trees killed by disturbance. We further extended our meta-analysis by applying a unified diversity concept based on Hill numbers to estimate α-diversity changes in different taxonomic groups across a gradient of disturbance severity measured at the stand scale and incorporating other disturbance features. We found that disturbance severity negatively affected diversity for Hill number q = 0 but not for q = 1 and q = 2, indicating that diversity–disturbance relationships are shaped by species relative abundances. Our synthesis of α-diversity was extended by a synthesis of disturbance-induced change in species assemblages, and revealed that disturbance changes the β-diversity of multiple taxonomic groups, including some groups that were not affected at the α-diversity level (birds and woody plants). Finally, we used mixed rarefaction/extrapolation to estimate biodiversity change as a function of the proportion of forests that were disturbed, i.e. the disturbance extent measured at the landscape scale. The comparison of intact and naturally disturbed forests revealed that both types of forests provide habitat for unique species assemblages, whereas species diversity in the mixture of disturbed and undisturbed forests peaked at intermediate values of disturbance extent in the simulated landscape. Hence, the relationship between α-diversity and disturbance severity in disturbed forest stands was strikingly similar to the relationship between species richness and disturbance extent in a landscape consisting of both disturbed and undisturbed forest habitats. This result suggests that both moderate disturbance severity and moderate disturbance extent support the highest levels of biodiversity in contemporary forest landscapes., British Ecological Society LRB20/1002, Junta de Andalucia, European Commission B-FQM-366-UGR20, Centro ANID Basal FB210015, Direccion de Investigacion Universidad de La Frontera DIUFRO DI20-0066, Federal Ministry of Education & Research (BMBF), Max Planck Society, INCT Madeiras da Amazonia, Federal Ministry of Education & Research (BMBF) 01LB1001A 01LK1602A, Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI/FINEP) 01.11.01248.00, Russian Science Foundation (RSF) 21-14-00227, Ministry of Education, Youth & Sports - Czech Republic Czech Republic Government LTC 20058, Czech Academy of Sciences RVO67985939, UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) GR3/11743, Greek project POL-AEGIS, Program THALES MIS 376737, Projekt DEAL TH 2218/5-1

Renewable energy deployment has accelerated exponentially, taking up a growing area of land at a time of increasing land use pressure and environmental degradation. Land use change for renewable energy can have positive and negative environmental consequences, but robustly quantifying the effects is challenging. Here, we evaluate the monetary benefits of pollination services from installing honeybee hives in solar parks and discuss how they could inform policy and practice. If honeybee hives were installed in all existing solar parks within England, we estimate that the pollination service benefits for pollinator dependent field crops, top fruits and soft fruit would have been £5.9 million in 2017. This is grounded in honeybee pollination crop values of £4.81–£75.04 ha−1 for field crops and £635–£10,644 ha−1 for fruit. However, given the greater field crop land areas the total associated economic benefits were greater than for fruit. Honeybee pollination service benefits could theoretically be as high as £80 million per year if the spatial distribution of crops was altered. However, the viability of this is uncertain given other factors that influence crop location and the potential trade-offs with wild pollinators. We outline how honeybee pollination service benefits could contribute to solar park business cases, inform the planning process, and be used as environmental sustainability indicators by industry. Such energy-economic-ecosystem wins demonstrate the potential of incorporating environmental co-benefits into energy decarbonisation policies and a means of addressing the land-energy-ecosystem nexus.

Fil: Dicks, Lynn V. University of Cambridge. Department of Zoology. Reino Unido. Fil: Breeze, Tom D. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Ngo, Hien T. IPBES Secretariat. Alemania. Fil: Senapathi, Deepa. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: An, Jiandong. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Institute of Apicultural Research. China. Fil: Aizen, Marcelo A. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Basu, Parthiba. University of Calcutta. Department of Zoology. India. Fil: Buchori, Damayanti. IPB University. Center for Transdisciplinary and Sustainability Sciences. Indonesia. Fil: Galetto, Leonardo. Universidad de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Córdoba, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Gemmill-Herren, Barbara. World Agroforestry Centre. Kenia. Fil: Howlett, Brad G. The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited. Nueva Zelanda. Fil: Imperatriz-Fonseca, Vera L. University of Sao Paulo. Biosciences Institute. Brasil Fil: Johnson, Steven D. University of KwaZulu-Natal. School of Life Sciences. Centre for Functional Biodiversity. Sudáfrica. Fil: Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó. Centre for Ecological Research. Institute of Ecology and Botany. Hungría. Fil: Jung Kwon, Yong. Kyungpook National University. School of Applied Biosciences. Corea del Sur. Fil: Lattorff, H. Michael G. International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology. Kenia. Fil: Lungharwo, Thingreipi. Naga Women’s Union. India. Fil: Seymour, Colleen L. Kirstenbosch Research Centre. South African National Biodiversity Institute. Sudáfrica. Fil: Vanbergen, Adam J. University of Bourgogne Franche-Comté. Francia. Fil: Potts, Simon G. Reading University. School of Agriculture, Policy and Development.Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.

The importance of wild bees for crop pollination is well established, but less is known about which species contribute to service delivery to inform agricultural management, monitoring and conservation. Using sites in Great Britain as a case study, we use a novel qualitative approach combining ecological information and field survey data to establish a national list of crop pollinating bees for four economically important crops (apple, field bean, oilseed rape and strawberry). A traits data base was used to establish potential pollinators, and combined with field data to identify both dominant crop flower visiting bee species and other species that could be important crop pollinators, but which are not presently sampled in large numbers on crops flowers. Whilst we found evidence that a small number of common, generalist species make a disproportionate contribution to flower visits, many more species were identified as potential pollinators, including rare and specialist species. Furthermore, we found evidence of substantial variation in the bee communities of different crops. Establishing a national list of crop pollinators is important for practitioners and policy makers, allowing targeted management approaches for improved ecosystem services, conservation and species monitoring. Data can be used to make recommendations about how pollinator diversity could be promoted in agricultural landscapes. Our results suggest agri-environment schemes need to support a higher diversity of species than at present, notably of solitary bees. Management would also benefit from targeting specific species to enhance crop pollination services to particular crops. Whilst our study is focused upon Great Britain, our methodology can easily be applied to other countries, crops and groups of pollinating insects., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised., To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.

Floral plantings are promoted to foster ecological intensification of agriculture through provisioning of ecosystem services. However, a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of different floral plantings, their characteristics and consequences for crop yield is lacking. Here we quantified the impacts of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control (18 studies) and pollination services (17 studies) in adjacent crops in North America, Europe and New Zealand. Flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average. However, effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively. These findings provide promising pathways to optimise floral plantings to more effectively contribute to ecosystem service delivery and ecological intensification of agriculture in the future., Our quantitative synthesis of the impacts of floral plantings on pest control, crop pollination and yield reveals that flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average, while effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of this variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively, with important implications for the the design and implementation of these measures to effectively promote ecological intensification of agriculture in the future

Organic mulches are a traditional method of groundcover management in temperate commercial orchards, now\ud largely replaced by herbicides and synthetic fertilisers. As a potential contribution to improving orchard sustainability,\ud we hypothesised that the addition of organic mulches would: (H1) improve soil fertility and lead to\ud greater tree growth and yields; (H2) support a larger and more biologically active community of soil organisms,\ud assessed as increased soil respiration and greater earthworm numbers and biomass; and (H3) increase leaf litter\ud decomposition and burial, potentially reducing the risk of apple scab disease (Venturia inaequalis). Cuttings from\ud two legume-based cover crop mixtures grown in the alleyway spaces between tree rows and two traditional\ud mulch materials, straw and compost, were trialled alongside a bare soil business-as-usual control for two years,\ud using a randomized complete block design in a conventionally managed commercial ‘Gala’ apple orchard in the\ud UK.\ud Compared to the control, the compost mulch significantly increased both soil carbon and nitrogen by over 50\ud %. The straw mulch effectively suppressed weeds by about 90 % and increased soil moisture by about 5 %. Cover\ud crop cuttings increased moisture levels and increased earthworm numbers and mass by 1.7 and 1.8 times greater\ud respectively in the double-rate ‘legume-grass’ cuttings treatment. Increasing the quantity of cover crop cuttings\ud produced more positive effects; the cumulative addition of cuttings can benefit several soil-derived ecosystem\ud services. This study took place in a commercial apple orchard, the findings may therefore be applicable to other\ud orchard and row-grown perennial crops.

Renewable power capacity is increasing globally in response to energy decarbonisation, with solar photovoltaic (PV) projected to be the dominant renewable. A significant proportion of solar PV is deployed as ground-mounted solar parks with potential implications for the hosting ecosystem. Given their relatively rapid introduction, the impacts on land use and the local environment are poorly understood. However, if deployed and managed strategically, solar parks could offer unique opportunities to enhance the local environment and benefit biodiversity, with implications for ecosystem components such as pollinators. With a focus on north-west Europe, we systematically review the available evidence on how land management practices relevant to solar parks can enhance pollinator biodiversity. We assessed 185 articles for the quantity and agreement of evidence for 27 management interventions and assigned a confidence score to each finding. We show that a range of interventions applied to solar parks could increase their ability to enhance pollinator biodiversity. We then use our assessment to synthesise ten evidence-based recommendations on how to improve solar park management for pollinators by providing foraging and reproductive resources, undergoing considered management practices, increasing landscape heterogeneity and connectivity and providing microclimatic variation. Ensuring beneficial management of rapidly growing solar parks contributes to their wider environmental sustainability, with positive implications for both pollinator conservation and the energy sector in general.

1. Pollinators experience large spatio-temporal fluctuations in resource availability when mass-flowering crops are rotated with resource-poor cereal crops. Yet, few studies have considered the effect this has on pollinator population stability, nor how this might be mitigated to maintain consistent crop pollination services.2. We assess the potential of boundary features (standard narrow grassy margins, hedgerows and wide agri-environment margins) to support and stabilise pollinator populations and pollination service in agricultural landscapes under crop rotation. Assuming a six-year rotation, we use a process-based pollinator model to predict yearly pollinator population size and in-crop visitation rates to oil seed rape and feld bean across 117 study landscapes in England, with varying amounts of boundary features. We model both ground-nesting bumblebees and solitary bees and compare the predictions including and excluding boundary features from the landscapes.3. Ground-nesting bumblebee populations, whose longer-lifetime colonies benet from continuity of resources, were larger and more stable (relative to the no-features scenario) in landscapes with more boundary features (up to 20% and 8%, respectively, in some of the most arable landscapes). Ground nesting solitary bee populations were also larger but not significantly more stable, except with the introduction of wide permanent agri-environment margins, due to their shorter lifetimes and shorter foraging/dispersal ranges.4. Crop visitation by ground-nesting bumblebees was greater and more stable in landscapes with more boundary features, partly due to increased colony growth prior to crop flowering. Time averaged crop visitation by ground-nesting solitary bees was slightly lower, due to females dividing their foraging time between boundary features and the crop, however, the more stable delivery (again up to 20% reduction in variability) compensated for this by nonetheless increasing the minimum pollination service delivered in any given year.5. Synthesis and applications. Boundary features have an important role in stabilising pollinator populations and pollination service in rotational systems, although maintenance of larger semi natural habitat patches may be more effective for stabilising less mobile solitary bee populations. We recommend using combinations of boundary features, accounting for pollinator range when spacing features/rotating crops, and synchronising boundary feature management with crop rotation to maximise their stabilising benefits.

Insect pollination increases the yield and quality of many crops and therefore, understanding the role of insect pollinators in crop production is necessary to sustainably\ud increase yields. Avocado Persea americana benefits from insect pollination, however,\ud a better understanding of the role of pollinators and their contribution to the production of this globally important crop is needed. In this study, we carried out a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies investigating the pollination\ud ecology of avocado to answer the following questions: (a) Are there any research\ud gaps in terms of geographic location or scientific focus? (b) What is the effect of insect pollinators on avocado pollination and production? (c) Which pollinators are the\ud most abundant and effective and how does this vary across location? (d) How can insect pollination be improved for higher yields? (e) What are the current evidence gaps\ud and what should be the focus of future research? Research from many regions of the\ud globe has been published, however, results showed that there is limited information\ud from key avocado producing countries such as Mexico and the Dominican Republic.\ud In most studies, insects were shown to contribute greatly to pollination, fruit set\ud and yield. Honeybees Apis mellifera were important pollinators in many regions due\ud to their efficiency and high abundance, however, many wild pollinators also visited\ud avocado flowers and were the most frequent visitors in over 50% of studies. This\ud study also highlighted the effectiveness of stingless bees (Meliponini) and blow flies\ud (Calliphoridae) as avocado pollinators although, for the majority of flower visitors,\ud there is a lack of data on pollinator efficiency. For optimal yields, growers should ensure a sufficient abundance of pollinators in their orchards either through increasing\ud honeybee hive density or, for a more sustainable approach, by managing wild pollinators through practices that protect or promote natural habitat.

A recurrent concern in nature conservation is the potential competition for forage plants between wild bees and managed honey bees. Specifically, that the highly sophisticated system of recruitment and large perennial colonies of honey bees quickly exhaust forage resources leading to the local extirpation of wild bees. However, different species of bees show different preferences for forage plants. We here summarize known forage plants for honey bees and wild bee species at national scale in Denmark. Our focus is on floral resources shared by honey bees and wild bees, with an emphasis on both threatened wild bee species and foraging specialist species. Across all 292 known bee species from Denmark, a total of 410 plant genera were recorded as forage plants. These included 294 plant genera visited by honey bees and 292 plant genera visited by different species of wild bees. Honey bees and wild bees share 176 plant genera in Denmark. Comparing the pairwise niche overlap for individual bee species, no significant relationship was found between their overlap and forage specialization or conservation status. Network analysis of the bee-plant interactions placed honey bees aside from most other bee species, specifically the module containing the honey bee had fewer links to any other modules, while the remaining modules were more highly inter-connected. Despite the lack of predictive relationship from the pairwise niche overlap, data for individual species could be summarized. Consequently, we have identified a set of operational parameters that, based on a high foraging overlap (>70%) and unfavorable conservation status (Vulnerable+Endangered+Critically Endangered), can guide both conservation actions and land management decisions in proximity to known or suspected populations of these species.

Floral resources (nectar and pollen) provide food for insect pollinators but have declined in the countryside due to land use change. Given widespread pollinator loss, it is important that we quantify their food supply to help develop conservation actions. While nectar resources have been measured in rural landscapes, equivalent data are lacking for urban areas, an important knowledge gap as towns and cities often host diverse pollinator populations.We quantified the nectar supply of urban areas, farmland and nature reserves in the UK by combining floral abundance and nectar sugar production data for 536 flowering plant taxa, allowing us to compare landscape types and assess the spatial distribution of nectar sugar among land uses within cities.The magnitude of nectar sugar production did not differ significantly among the three landscapes. In urban areas the nectar supply was more diverse in origin and predominantly delivered by non‐native flowering plants. Within cities, urban land uses varied greatly in nectar sugar production. Gardens provided the most nectar sugar per unit area and 85% of all nectar at a city scale, while gardens and allotments produced the most diverse supplies of nectar sugar. Floral abundance, commonly used as a proxy for pollinators’ food supply, correlated strongly with nectar resources, but left a substantial proportion of the variation in nectar supply unexplained.Synthesis. We show that urban areas are hotspots of floral resource diversity rather than quantity and their nectar supply is underpinned by the contribution of residential gardens. Individual gardeners have an important role to play in pollinator conservation as ornamental plants, usually non‐native in origin, are a key source of nectar in towns and cities.

2017-2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisations AEI, NWO, ECCyT and NSF Funding information, Allen-Perkins A, Magrach A, Dainese M, Garibaldi LA, Kleijn D, Rader R, Reilly JR, Winfree R, Lundin O, McGrady CM, Brittain C, Biddinger DJ, Artz DR, Elle E, Hoffman G, Ellis JD, Daniels J, Gibbs J, Campbell JW, Brokaw J, Wilson JK, Mason K, Ward KL, Gundersen KB, Bobiwash K, Gut L, Rowe LM, Boyle NK, Williams NM, Joshi NK, Rothwell N, Gillespie RL, Isaacs R, Fleischer SJ, Peterson SS, Rao S, Pitts-Singer TL, Fijen T, Boreux V, Rundlöf M, Viana BF, Klein AM, Smith HG, Bommarco R, Carvalheiro LG, Ricketts TH, Ghazoul J, Krishnan S, Benjamin FE, Loureiro J, Castro S, Raine NE, de Groot GA, Horgan FG, Hipólito J, Smagghe G, Meeus I, Eeraerts M, Potts SG, Kremen C, García D, Miñarro M, Crowder DW, Pisanty G, Mandelik Y, Vereecken NJ, Leclercq N, Weekers T, Lindstrom SAM, Stanley DA, Zaragoza-Trello C, Nicholson CC, Scheper J, Rad C, Marks EAN, Mota L, Danforth B, Park M, Bezerra ADM, Freitas BM, Mallinger RE, Oliveira da Silva F, Willcox B, Ramos DL, D da Silva E Silva F, Lázaro A, Alomar D, González-Estévez MA, Taki H, Cariveau DP, Garratt MPD, Nabaes Jodar DN, Stewart RIA, Ariza D, Pisman M, Lichtenberg EM, Schüepp C, Herzog F, Entling MH, Dupont YL, Michener CD, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Burns KLW, Vilà M, Robson A, Howlett B, Blechschmidt L, Jauker F, Schwarzbach F, Nesper M, Diekötter T, Wolters V, Castro H, Gaspar H, Nault BA, Badenhausser I, Petersen JD, Tscharntke T, Bretagnolle V, Willis Chan DS, Chacoff N, Andersson GKS, Jha S, Colville JF, Veldtman R, Coutinho J, Bianchi FJJA, Sutter L, Albrecht M, Jeanneret P, Zou Y, Averill AL, Saez A, Sciligo AR, Vergara CH, Bloom EH, Oeller E, Badano EI, Loeb GM, Grab H, Ekroos J, Gagic V, Cunningham SA, Åström J, Cavigliasso P, Trillo A, Classen A, Mauchline AL, Montero-Castaño A, Wilby A, Woodcock BA, Sidhu CS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vogiatzakis IN, Herrera JM, Otieno M, Gikungu MW, Cusser SJ, Nauss T, Nilsson L, Knapp J, Ortega-Marcos JJ, González JA, Osborne JL, Blanche R, Shaw RF, Hevia V, Stout J, Arthur AD, Blochtein B, Szentgyorgyi H, Li J, Mayfield MM, Woyciechowski M, Nunes-Silva P, Halinski de Oliveira R, Henry S, Simmons BI, Dalsgaard B, Hansen K, Sritongchuay T, O'Reilly AD, Chamorro García FJ, Nates Parra G, Magalhães Pigozo C, Bartomeus I

Fil: Senapathi, Deepa. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Fründ, Jochen. University of Freiburg. Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources. Biometry and Environmental System Analysis. Alemania. Fil: Albrecht, Matthias. Agroscope. Institute for Sustainability Sciences. Suiza. Fil: Garratt, Michael P. D. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Kleijn, David. Wageningen University. Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation Group. Países Bajos. Fil: Pickles, Brian J. University of Reading. School of Biological Sciences. Reino Unido. Fil: Potts, Simon G. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: An, Jiandong. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Institute of Apicultural Research. China. Fil: Andersson, Georg K. S. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Andersson, Georg K. S. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Bänsch, Svenja. University of Göttingen. Department of Crop Sciences. Functional Agrobiodiversity. Alemania. Fil: Basu, Parthiba. University of Calcutta. Centre for Pollination Studies. India. Fil: Benjamin, Faye. The State University of New Jersey. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources. Estados Unidos. Fil: Bezerra, Antonio Diego M. The State University of New Jersey. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources. Estados Unidos. Fil: Bhattacharya, Ritam. University of Calcutta. Centre for Pollination Studies. India. Fil: Biesmeijer Jacobus C. Naturalis Biodiversity Centre. Países Bajos. Fil: Blaauw, Brett. University of Georgia. Department of Entomology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Blitzer, Eleanor J. Carroll College. Department of Biology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Brittain, Claire A. Jealott’s Hill International Research Centre. Syngenta. Reino Unido. Fil: Carvalheiro, Luísa G. Universidade Federal de Goiás. Departamento de Ecologia. Brasil. Fil: Cariveau, Daniel P. University of Minnesota. Department of Entomology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Chakraborty, Pushan. University of Calcutta. Centre for Pollination Studies. India. Fil: Chatterjee, Arnob. University of Calcutta. Centre for Pollination Studies. India. Fil: Chatterjee, Soumik. University of Calcutta. Centre for Pollination Studies. India. Fil: Cusser, Sarah. Michigan State University. W. K. Kellogg Biological Station. Estados Unidos. Fil: Danforth, Bryan N. Cornell University. Department of Entomology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Degani, Erika. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Freitas, Breno M. The State University of New Jersey. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources. Estados Unidos. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Geslin, Benoit. Aix Marseille Univ, Avignon Université. IMBE. Francia. Fil: de Groot, G. Arjen. Wageningen University and Research. Wageningen Environmental Research. Países Bajos. Fil: Harrison, Tina. University of California Davis. Department of Entomology and Nematology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Howlett, Brad. The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited. Nueva Zelanda. Fil: Isaacs, Rufus. Michigan State University. Department of Entomology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Jha, Shalene. The University of Texas at Austin. Department of Integrative Biology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Klatt, Björn Kristian. University of Göttingen. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology. Alemania. Fil: Krewenka, Kristin. University of Heidelberg. Heidelberg Research Service. Alemania. Fil: Leigh, Samuel. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Lindström, Sandra A. M. Lund University. Department of Biology. Biodiversity. Suecia. Fil: Mandelik, Yael. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment. Department of Entomology. Israel. Fil: McKerchar, Megan. University of Worcester. School of Science and Environment. Reino Unido. Fil: Park, Mia. Cornell University. Department of Entomology. Estados Unidos. Fil: Pisanty, Gideon. Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Canada. Fil: Rader, Romina. University of New England. School of Environment and Rural Science. Australia. Fil: Reemer, Menno. Naturalis Biodiversity Centre. Países Bajos. Fil: Rundlöf, Maj. Lund University. Department of Biology. Biodiversity. Suecia. Fil: Smith, Barbara. University of Calcutta. Centre for Pollination Studies. India. Fil: Smith, Henrik G. Lund University. Centre of Environmental and Climate Research & Department of Biology. Suecia. Fil: Nunes Silva, Patrícia. Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biologia. Brasil. Fil: Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf. University of Würzburg. Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology. Alemania. Fil: Tscharntke, Teja. University of Göttingen. Department of Crop Sciences. Agroecology. Alemania. Fil: Webber, Sean. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Westbury, Duncan B. University of Worcester. School of Science and Environment. Reino Unido. Fil: Westphal, Catrin. University of Göttingen. Department of Crop Sciences. Functional Agrobiodiversity. Alemania. Fil: Wickens, Jennifer B. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Wickens, Victoria J. University of Reading. School of Agriculture, Policy & Development. Centre for Agri-Environmental Research. Reino Unido. Fil: Winfree, Rachael. The State University of New Jersey. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources. Estados Unidos. Fil: Zhang, Hong. Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences. Institute of Apicultural Research. China. Fil: Klein, Alexandra-Maria. University of Freiburg. Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources. Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology. Alemania. 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. .

To mitigate climate change, land take for renewable energy is accelerating at a time of increasing land use pressure and environmental degradation. Given land use change is the dominant driver of nature decline, over and above that of climate change, inclusion of local ecosystem consequences of land take for renewable energy decisions is critical. However, consideration of ecosystem impacts is hindered by lack of understanding and robust quantification methodologies. Here, we quantify the economic benefits of installing honeybee hives in solar parks by estimating the potential contribution to crop yields. We estimated that if honeybee hives were installed in all existing solar parks within England, pollination service benefits for pollinator dependent field crops, top fruits and soft fruit would have been £5.9 million in 2017, grounded in honeybee pollination crop values of £4.81-£75.04 ha-1 for field crops and £635-£10,644 ha-1 for fruit. If crop distributions were optimised to maximise solar park honeybee pollination, economic benefits could reach up to £80 million per year. However, this indicative of the maximum possible return and is unlikely to be viable given the other factors that influence crop distribution. Quantification of ecosystem co-benefits and costs of land take for renewable energy could inform location and management decisions, with the potential to improve ecosystem health in addition to energy system decarbonisation.

Solar photovoltaics (PV) is projected to become the dominant renewable, with much capacity being installed as ground-mounted solar parks. Land use change for solar can affect ecosystems across various spatial scales and solar parks offer a unique opportunity for ecological enhancement. One compelling potential benefit put in practice by the solar industry is management for insect pollinators. Specifically, solar parks can provide refuge for pollinators through the provision of suitable habitat, potentially contributing to halting and reversing widespread declines recorded in a number of pollinator groups. There is scope to both manage and design solar parks for pollinators, but understanding is limited. Using a combination of GIS and a process-based pollinator model, we explore how solar park size, shape and management could affect ground-nesting bumblebee abundance inside solar parks and surrounding landscapes in the UK. We show that within solar parks, the floral resources provided by different management practices is a key factor affecting bumblebee abundance, but the impacts are dependent on landscape context. In comparison, solar park size and shape have a lesser impact. Moreover, the effects of both solar park management and design extend into the surrounding landscape, affecting bumblebee abundance up to 1 km away from the solar park. If designed and managed optimally, solar parks therefore have the potential to boost local pollinator abundance and pollination services to surrounding land. Our results demonstrate how incorporating biodiversity into solar park design and management decisions could benefit groups such as pollinators and contribute to the wider environmental sustainability of solar parks.

Human driven environmental changes increase the concentrations of polluting reactive compounds in the troposphere, such as ozone and nitrogen oxides. These changes lead to biodiversity losses and alter plant physiology and plant-pollinator interactions, essential for pollination services, with potential consequences for agricultural production. Here we used 133 unique sampling events from NW Europe to investigate how air pollution (ozone and nitrogen oxides) and other sources of nitrogen is related to pollinator visitation rate and their contribution to agricultural production, also considering possible interactive effects with landscape quality and pesticide input. We showed that ozone modulates the effect of pesticide exposure and temperature on crop pollinators, increasing the probability of negative impacts on crop pollination. Indeed, when ozone levels are highest, the strength of the effect of pesticide on pollinators is more than double then when ozone levels are intermediate. This indicates that air pollution should be considered in management plans and policies aiming to safeguard biodiversity and promote more sustainable food production practices.

A study of factors impacting landslide displacement rates was conducted on the Ripley Landslide within the Thompson River valley in British Columbia, Canada for the International Programme on Landslides’ project #202. Seasonal and multiyear changes in atmospheric factors cause cyclic fluctuation of matric suction in the vadose zone through changes to the in situ water content. The ingress of moisture is shown to contribute to multiyear and seasonal loss of stability causing increasing landslide displacement rates, often disregarded in slope stability calculations. However, the water content in the unsaturated zone is important, especially in semi-arid to arid climates where the water table is low and large portions of the slope are unsaturated. Additional tools for studying long-term variations in climate and seasonal changes in water content are presented. These tools are used to characterize historical climate and compare several factors that have resulted in changing landslide displacement rates and magnitude. Infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt directly contributes to matric suction loss in the head scarp and is exacerbated by the presence of tension cracks. While groundwater levels are often correlated to changing displacement rates, changes in matric suction can also influence the rates of displacement. Climatic trends over subsequent years alter the long-term soil water accumulation which impacts rates of landslide displacement. By accounting for additional strength, or potentially a loss in strength due to increasing water content, it is possible to develop a more complete understanding of the mechanisms of climate change which drive displacement rates in the translational, metastable earthen slides that dominate the Thompson River valley. These mechanisms can be applied to comparable river valleys around the world.

Evidence of declines in wild and managed pollinators and pollination services is increasingly being documented around the world. This has driven the development of a wide range of practical management and policy responses which were reviewed in the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) global assessment of ‘Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production’. We take 38 responses from this report as a basis to explore the importance of scale for the effective delivery of an intervention's benefit to pollinators. We considered five scale categories: Spatial, the spatial scale at which the response is most effective; Temporal, the time scale over which the response is most effective; Actors, the number of actors needed for most effectively implementing a response; Social, the sphere of influence or motivation that determines an effective response; and, Sector, the sector(s) of society which should be involved to increase effectiveness. Each scale category was split into multiple levels and we scored each in terms of how important they were for determining the effectiveness of a given response option. Using our combined scores, we aim to explore general trends and raise awareness around the main issues relating to the importance of scale, with illustrated examples from the literature. We show how scales have impacted on the effectiveness of interventions and provide recommendations on how to improve scale matching when planning a response action. While the relative importance of scales and levels for effectiveness was heterogeneous across response options, there were some general patterns. Interventions were only effective when targeted over the right spatial scales over a sufficient period of time and involved all relevant social and sectoral groups and actors.

Background and aims – Agricultural intensification and loss of farmland heterogeneity have contributed to population declines of wild bees and other pollinators, which may have caused subsequent declines in insect-pollinated wild plants. Material and methods – Using data from 37 studies on 22 pollinator-dependent wild plant species across Europe, we investigated whether flower visitation and seed set of insect-pollinated plants decline with an increasing proportion of arable land within 1 km. Key results – Seed set increased with increasing flower visitation by bees, most of which were wild bees, but not with increasing flower visitation by other insects. Increasing proportion of arable land had a strongly variable effect on seed set and flower visitation by bees across studies. Conclusion – Factors such as landscape configuration, local habitat quality, and temporally changing resource availability (e.g. due to mass-flowering crops or honey bee hives) could have modified the effect of arable land on pollination. While our results highlight that the persistence of wild bees is crucial to maintain plant diversity, we also show that pollen limitation due to declining bee populations in homogenized agricultural landscapes is not a universal driver causing parallel losses of bees and insect-pollinated plants., EU FP5 QLRT-2001-01495, Swiss Federal Office for Science and Technology (01·0524-2), FORMAS, Estonian Ministry of Education and Research IUT (IUT20-33), Internal Grant Agency of the Faculty of Environmental Sciences Czech University of Life Sciences Prague 42900/1312/3166, MC-CIG BeeFun project: PCIG14-GA-2013-631653, DAFM, IRC, Formas (2018-01466), German Ministry of Research and Education (FKZ: 01LC1104A), NKFIH project (FK123813), NKFIH (KKP 133839), European Union in the 7th Framework Programme (grant 244090), MTA Bolyai Fellow

International audience; This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.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