The need for coordinated transdisciplinary research infrastructures for pollinator conservation and crop pollination resilience

There is a growing concern about the status and trends of animal pollinators worldwide. Pollinators provide a key service to both wild plants and crops by mediating their reproduction, so pollinator conservation is of fundamental importance to conservation and to food production. Understanding of the extent of pollinator declines is constrained by the paucity of accessible data, which leads to geographically- and taxonomically-biased assessments. In addition, land conversion to agriculture and intensive agricultural management are two of the main threats to pollinators. This is paradoxical, as crop production depends on pollinators to maximize productivity. There is a need to reconcile conservation and ecosystem service provision in agroecosystems. These challenges require coordinated transdisciplinary research infrastructures. Specifically, we need better research infrastructures to (i) describe pollinator decline patterns worldwide, (ii) monitor current pollinator trends, and (iii) understand how to enhance pollinator numbers and pollination in agroecosystems. This can be achieved, first, by redoubling the efforts to make historical data on species occurrences, interactions and traits openly available and easy to integrate across databases. Second, by empowering citizen science to monitor key pollinator species in a coordinated way and standardizing, consolidating and integrating long term collection protocols both in natural and agricultural areas. Finally, there is a need to develop multi-actor, localised research infrastructures allowing integration of social, economic and ecological approaches in agriculture. We illustrate how decentralized infrastructures can accelerate the process of co-producing research and integrating data collection across scientists, managers, members of the public, farmers and disciplines. The time is ripe to harness the power of coordinated research infrastructures to understand and mitigate pollinator declines

Comparing groups versus individuals in decision making: A systematic review protocol

Background Biodiversity management requires effective decision making at various stages. However decision making in the real world is complex, driven by multiple factors and involves a range of stakeholders. Understanding the factors that influence decision making is crucial to addressing the conflicts that arise in conservation. Decisions can be made either by individuals or by groups. This precise context has been studied extensively for several decades by behavioural economists, social psychologists and intelligence analysts. The observations from these disciplines can offer useful insights for biodiversity conservation. A systematic review on group versus individual decision making is currently lacking. This systematic review would enable us to synthesize the key insights from these disciplines for a range of scenarios useful for conservation. Methods The review will document studies that have investigated differences between group and individual decision making. The focus will be on empirical studies; the comparators in this case are decisions made by individuals while the intervention is group decision making. Outcomes include level of bias in decision outcomes or group performance. The search terms will include various combinations of the words “group”, “individual” and “decision-making”. The searches will be conducted in major publication databases, google scholar and specialist databases. Articles will be screened at the title and abstract and full text level by two reviewers. After checking for internal validity, the articles will be synthesized into subsets of decision contexts in which decision making by groups and individuals have been compared. The review process, all extracted data, original studies identified in the systematic review process and inclusion and exclusion decisions will be freely available as Additional file 1 in the final review.NM is funded by the Fondation Weiner Anspach in Belgium. WJS is funded by Arcadia. LVD was supported under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) Programme, grant code NE/K015419/1. GES is funded by The Nature Conservancy.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13750-016-0066-

Giving stakeholders a voice in governance: Biodiversity priorities for New Zealand's agriculture

Abstract: Mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society is recognised by international policy as critical to achieving positive conservation outcomes. With ‘participatory governance’ increasingly being applied to achieve collective action in conservation, there are growing calls to critically review such processes to capture their complexity and manage for emergent outcomes. This paper critically reviews a case study, aiming to give a broad range of stakeholders a voice in setting biodiversity priorities for New Zealand's agricultural landscape, in relation to four principles for knowledge co‐production in sustainability: context‐based, pluralistic, goal‐orientated and interactive. Aiming to facilitate an inclusive but rapid participation process, while not overburdening those willing to participate, three pathways for engagement were offered. Stakeholder participants were recruited from public, private and civic sectors involved in managing New Zealand's farmland biodiversity. An initial scoping exercise helped elevate biodiversity groups and management actions distinct to New Zealand's social and environmental context. Online surveys then gave stakeholders, from a diverse range of roles and sectors, a nationwide voice to express their own biodiversity interests and needs; these were reviewed by an advisor panel to reach consensus on final priorities that reflected the biodiversity outcomes that matter most to stakeholders involved in managing New Zealand's agricultural landscape and the management practices they considered most relevant to achieving those outcomes. This knowledge co‐production process delivered multiple gains that would not have been achieved had a more traditional science‐based process been applied, such as wide stakeholder engagement, identification of a tangible starting point, mitigation of bias or conflict risks, enhanced researcher and practitioner capabilities and a shared understanding of the opportunities and challenges for future development. Institutes addressing conservation challenges within local contexts need to: be ‘boundary‐spanning’ to manage cross‐scale influences and enable desired conservation behaviours; plan explicitly for the substantial effort required to overcome existing power hierarchies and facilitate transparent and structured decision processes that deliver social justice; better capture the relational values of nature to more successfully leverage peoples’ connection to nature in conservation policies and practices; and incorporate wider environmental (e.g. biosecurity), social, economic and political considerations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article

Decision support tools for agriculture: Towards effective design and delivery

Decision support tools, usually considered to be software-based, may be an important part of the quest for evidence-based decision-making in agriculture to improve productivity and environmental outputs. These tools can lead users through clear steps and suggest optimal decision paths or may act more as information sources to improve the evidence base for decisions. Yet, despite their availability in a wide range of formats, studies in several countries have shown uptake to be disappointingly low. This paper uses a mixed methods approach to investigate the factors affecting the uptake and use of decision support tools by farmers and advisers in the UK. Through a combination of qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, we found that fifteen factors are influential in convincing farmers and advisers to use decision support tools, which include usability, cost-effectiveness, performance, relevance to user, and compatibility with compliance demands. This study finds a plethora of agricultural decision support tools in operation in the UK, yet, like other studies, shows that their uptake is low. A better understanding of the fifteen factors identified should lead to more effective design and delivery of tools in the future.This research was funded as part of Defra's Sustainable Intensification Platform (Project Code LM0201). In addition, WJS was funded by Arcadia, LVD was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) programme, grant code NE/K015419/1. T.A. was supported by the European Commission's Marie Curie International Incoming Fellowship Programme (PIIF-GA-2011-303221) and the Isaac Newton Trust.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Elsevier via https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.00

Exploring the spatialities of technological and user re-scripting: The case of decision support tools in UK agriculture

The use of decision support tools on-farm may help to deliver evidence-based guidance to farmers, helping to improve productivity and prevent environmental degradation. While much research has sought to increase the uptake of decision support tools in practice, largely by identifying desirable characteristics of system design, rather little work has used a spatial lens to investigate how they are actually used. Using Latour’s notion of ‘the script’, this paper looks at the spatialities of technological and user re-scripting associated with the introduction of decision support tools on-farm. Although there is some literature on how technologies may be re-scripted by users, studies concerning decision support tools are more limited. Furthermore, while there are studies about how technology (not decision support tools) re-scripts agricultural societies, these are generally concerned with macro-level impacts (e.g. labour changes), rather than exploring life on individual farms. This paper, therefore, focuses on exploring the spatialities of re-scripting, investigating how tools themselves are co-constituted in various ways by different users in different spaces, but more particularly on how life on the farm may be changed by the introduction of decision tools. A case study of decision support tool use on farms in England and Wales demonstrates the need to explore spaces on individual farms if we wish to understand processes occurring at the interface between tools and farmers. Firstly, situated knowledge held by farmers and advisers leads to resistance, negotiation, and re-scripting of decision support tools, which are perceived to provide the ‘view from nowhere’. Secondly, the introduction of decision support tools changes the workflows of farmers, affecting how and when they interact with different spaces of their farm. In signalling the need for more research to theorise the spatialities of re-scripting, we briefly explore how our work can inform policy and the development of decision support tools

bmotif: A package for motif analyses of bipartite networks

1. Bipartite networks are widely-used to represent a diverse range of species interactions, such as pollination, herbivory, parasitism and seed dispersal. The structure of these networks is usually characterised by calculating one or more indices that capture different aspects of network architecture. While these indices capture useful properties of networks, they are relatively insensitive to changes in network structure. Consequently, variation in ecologically-important interactions can be missed. Network motifs are a way to characterise network structure that is substantially more sensitive to changes in pairwise interactions, and is gaining in popularity. However, there is no software available in R, the most popular programming language among ecologists, for conducting motif analyses in bipartite networks. Similarly, no mathematical formalisation of bipartite motifs has been developed. 2. Here we introduce bmotif: a package for counting motifs, and species positions within motifs, in bipartite networks. Our code is primarily an R package, but we also provide MATLAB and Python code of the core functionality. The software is based on a mathematical framework where, for the first time, we derive formal expressions for motif frequencies and the frequencies with which species occur in different positions within motifs. This framework means that analyses with bmotif are fast, making motif methods compatible with the permutational approaches often used in network studies, such as null model analyses. 3. We describe the package and demonstrate how it can be used to conduct ecological analyses, using two examples of plant-pollinator networks. We first use motifs to examine the assembly and disassembly of an Arctic plant-pollinator community, and then use them to compare the roles of native and introduced plant species in an unrestored site in Mauritius. 4. bmotif will enable motif analyses of a wide range of bipartite ecological networks, allowing future research to characterise these complex networks without discarding important meso-scale structural detail.Cambridge Faculty of Mathematics Bridgwater Summer Research Fund/CMP bursary fun

The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management.

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.This is the final published version. It first appeared from Wiley http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cobi.1253

Impacts of selected Ecological Focus Area options in European farmed landscapes on climate regulation and pollination services: a systematic map protocol

Background: This systematic map protocol responds to an urgent policy need to evaluate key environmental benefits of new compulsory greening measures in the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), with the aim of building a policy better linked to environmental performance. The systematic map will focus on Ecological Focus Areas (EFAs), in which larger arable farmers must dedicate 5% of their arable land to ecologically beneficial habitats, landscape features and land uses. The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre has used a software tool called the ‘EFA calculator’ to inform the European Commission about environmental benefits of EFA implementation. However, there are gaps in the EFA calculator’s coverage of ecosystem services, especially ‘global climate regulation’, and an opportunity to use systematic mapping methods to enhance its capture of evidence, in advance of forthcoming CAP reforms. We describe a method for assembling a database of relevant, peer-reviewed research conducted in all agricultural landscapes in Europe and neighbouring countries with similar biogeography, addressing the primary question: what are the impacts of selected EFA features in agricultural land on two policy-relevant ecosystem service outcomes—global climate regulation and pollination? The method is streamlined to allow results in good time for the current, time-limited opportunity to influence reforms of the CAP greening measures at European and Member State level. Methods: We will search four bibliographic databases in English, using a predefined and tested search string that focuses on a subset of EFA options and ecosystem service outcomes. The options and outcomes are selected as those with particular policy relevance and traction. Only articles in English will be included. We will screen search results at title, abstract and full text levels, recording the number of studies deemed non-relevant (with reasons at full text). A systematic map database that displays the meta-data (i.e. descriptive summary information about settings and methods) of relevant studies will be produced following full text assessment. The systematic map database will be published as a MS-Excel database. The nature and extent of the evidence base will be discussed, and the applicability of methods to convert the available evidence into EFA calculator scores will be assessed

Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The conservation evidence database

Conservation practitioners, policy-makers and researchers work within shared spaces with many shared goals. Improving the flow of information between conservation researchers, practitioners and policy-makers could lead to dramatic gains in the effectiveness of conservation practice. However, several barriers can hinder this transfer including lack of time, inaccessibility of evidence, the real or perceived irrelevance of scientific research to practical questions, and the politically motivated spread of disinformation. Conservation Evidence works to overcome these barriers by providing a freely-available database of summarized scientific evidence for the effects of conservation interventions on biodiversity. The methods used to build this database – a combination of discipline-wide literature searching and subject-wide evidence synthesis – have been developed over the last 15 years to address the challenges of synthesizing large volumes of evidence of varying quality and measured outcomes. Here, we describe the methods to enhance understanding of the database and how it should be used. We discuss how the database can help to expand multi-directional information transfers between research, practice and policy, which should improve the implementation of evidence-based conservation and, ultimately, achieve better outcomes for biodiversity