Insecticide and low food quality treatments reduce health and pollination services of two key pollinator taxa.

Pesticides and the lack of floral resources are key drivers of insect decline in agricultural areas. Both land‐use stressors can have a variety of synergistic and sublethal effects on pollinators, affecting their health and foraging behaviour. Pollinating insects include species with vastly different life histories, giving them potentially different vulnerability and resilience to stressors. However, most research has generally focused on bees. Here, we contrast synergistic effects of nutritional stress and pesticide use on social bumblebees and solitary hoverflies.We experimentally tested the effects of the neonicotinoid acetamiprid and low‐quality food on health traits of Bombus terrestris workers and Episyrphus balteatus adults (ovarian development, body size and colony development or survival). The foraging behaviour of treated pollinators was recorded in a semi‐field setup and, for B. terrestris, we measured the pollen amount on the body surface and the pollen deposited on stigmata after a single floral visit.Both stressors affected bumblebee health. Additionally, insecticide‐treated workers showed increased flower handling times and flight durations, while low‐quality food reduced the amount of pollen on the surface of bumblebees and the pollen deposited on stigmata. Syrphids were mostly affected by low‐quality food, which decreased their survival probability and changed their foraging behaviour. Furthermore, we found an interactive effect between the two stressors, reducing E. balteatus ovary development.Synthesis and applications. Insecticide and food stress affected fitness traits of both bumblebees and syrphid flies, possibly reducing pollinator populations under natural conditions. Especially for bumblebees, long‐term exposure led to a reduction in the provision of pollination services, both by changing their behaviour and reducing pollen transfer. We found differences between the two pollinator groups, showing that results gained from single groups like bees should not be extrapolated to all pollinators. Interactive effects indicate potential buffering effects of high‐quality food against other stressors and highlight the importance of considering synergies between multiple stressors in risk assessments. This further emphasizes the relevance of floral resources such as wild flower strips in agricultural areas to conserve pollinators and pollination services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]