Testing projected wild bee distributions in agricultural habitats: predictive power depends on species traits and habitat type

Species distribution models (SDM) are increasingly used to understand the factors that regulate variation in biodiversity patterns and to help plan conservation strategies. However, these models are rarely validated with independently collected data and it is unclear whether SDM performance is maintained across distinct habitats and for species with different functional traits. Highly mobile species, such as bees, can be particularly challenging to model. Here, we use independent sets of occurrence data collected systematically in several agricultural habitats to test how the predictive performance of SDMs for wild bee species depends on species traits, habitat type, and sampling technique. We used a species distribution modeling approach parametrized for the Netherlands, with presence records from 1990 to 2010 for 193 Dutch wild bees. For each species, we built a Maxent model based on 13 climate and landscape variables. We tested the predictive performance of the SDMs with independent datasets collected from orchards and arable fields across the Netherlands from 2010 to 2013, using transect surveys or pan traps. Model predictive performance depended on species traits and habitat type. Occurrence of bee species specialized in habitat and diet was better predicted than generalist bees. Predictions of habitat suitability were also more precise for habitats that are temporally more stable (orchards) than for habitats that suffer regular alterations (arable), particularly for small, solitary bees. As a conservation tool, SDMs are best suited to modeling rarer, specialist species than more generalist and will work best in long-term stable habitats. The variability of complex, short-term habitats is difficult to capture in such models and historical land use generally has low thematic resolution. To improve SDMs’ usefulness, models require explanatory variables and collection data that include detailed landscape characteristics, for example, variability of crops and flower availability. Additionally, testing SDMs with field surveys should involve multiple collection techniques

A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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

Managing trap-nesting bees as crop pollinators : Spatiotemporal effects of floral resources and antagonists

The decline of managed honeybees and the rapid expansion of mass-flowering crops increase the risk of pollination limitation in crops and raise questions about novel management approaches for wild pollinators in agroecosystems. Adding artificial nesting sites, such as trap nests, can promote cavity-nesting bees in agroecosystems, but effectiveness could be limited by the availability of floral resources in the surrounding landscape and by natural antagonists. In two European regions, we exposed artificial trap nests in paired field boundaries adjacent to oilseed rape (OSR) fields or non-flowering crops for 2 years within 32 landscapes covering two independent gradients of OSR cover and semi-natural habitat (SNH) cover in the landscape. We analysed the effects of local and landscape-wide floral resource availability, land-use intensity, landscape complexity and natural antagonists on community composition and population dynamics of trap-nesting bees. Numbers of brood cells showed a strong, three-fold increase in response to the additional nesting sites. Species richness and abundance of cavity-nesting bees that were active during OSR flowering increased significantly with increasing amounts of early season landscape-wide floral resource availability, such as the cultivation of OSR. Later foraging species benefited instead from the availability of late-season alternative flower resources or SNH cover once the mass-flowering had ceased. Density-dependent parasitism increased following mass-flowering, while no density-dependent effect was found during mass-flowering. Structural equation modelling revealed that the influence of floral resource availability on community growth rate was mediated by community size. Community size showed a strong negative effect on community growth rate. Despite positive density-dependent parasitism, antagonists had only weak regulating effects on community growth rate. Synthesis and applications. Trap-nesting bee populations grow markedly with the increasing availability of food resources in the landscape and effectiveness of trap nests is only marginally limited by natural antagonists. Thus, trap nests could be a simple pollinator-supporting strategy to accompany the current expansion of mass-flowering crops and to ensure pollination services for insect-pollinated crops. Trap nests benefit, not only early season active generalist bees during oilseed rape flowering, but also species with later phenology if accompanied by other pollinator-supporting practices.</p

Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe

Mass-flowering crops (MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi-natural habitats (SNHs). Across six European regions and 2 years, we assessed how landscape-scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were generally unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator-dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator-supporting practices in agricultural landscapes

Agricultural policies exacerbate honeybee pollination service supply-demand mismatches across Europe

Declines in insect pollinators across Europe have raised concerns about the supply of pollination services to agriculture. Simultaneously, EU agricultural and biofuel policies have encouraged substantial growth in the cultivated area of insect pollinated crops across the continent. Using data from 41 European countries, this study demonstrates that the recommended number of honeybees required to provide crop pollination across Europe has risen 4.9 times as fast as honeybee stocks between 2005 and 2010. Consequently, honeybee stocks were insufficient to supply >90% of demands in 22 countries studied. These findings raise concerns about the capacity of many countries to cope with major losses of wild pollinators and highlight numerous critical gaps in current understanding of pollination service supplies and demands, pointing to a pressing need for further research into this issue

Maximal COX-2 and ppRb expression in neurons occurs during early Braak stages prior to the maximal activation of astrocytes and microglia in Alzheimer's disease

Neuronal expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and cell cycle proteins is suggested to contribute to neurodegeneration during Alzheimer's disease (AD). The stimulus that induces COX-2 and cell cycle protein expression in AD is still elusive. Activated glia cells are shown to secrete substances that can induce expression of COX-2 and cell cycle proteins in vitro. Using post mortem brain tissue we have investigated whether activation of microglia and astrocytes in AD brain can be correlated with the expression of COX-2 and phosphorylated retinoblastoma protein (ppRb). The highest levels of neuronal COX-2 and ppRb immunoreactivity are observed in the first stages of AD pathology (Braak 0–II, Braak A). No significant difference in COX-2 or ppRb neuronal immunoreactivity is observed between Braak stage 0 and later Braak stages for neurofibrillary changes or amyloid plaques. The mean number of COX-2 or ppRb immunoreactive neurons is significantly decreased in Braak stage C compared to Braak stage A for amyloid deposits. Immunoreactivity for glial markers KP1, CR3/43 and GFAP appears in the later Braak stages and is significantly increased in Braak stage V-VI compared to Braak stage 0 for neurofibrillary changes. In addition, a significant negative correlation is observed between the presence of KP1, CR3/43 and GFAP immunoreactivity and the presence of neuronal immunoreactivity for COX-2 and ppRb. These data show that maximal COX-2 and ppRb immunoreactivity in neurons occurs during early Braak stages prior to the maximal activation of astrocytes and microglia. In contrast to in vitro studies, post mortem data do not support a causal relation between the activation of microglia and astrocytes and the expression of neuronal COX-2 and ppRb in the pathological cascade of AD

Biodiversity and pollination benefits trade off against profit in an intensive farming system

Agricultural expansion and intensification have boosted global food production but have come at the cost of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Biodiversity-friendly farming that boosts ecosystem services, such as pollination and natural pest control, is widely being advocated to maintain and improve agricultural productivity while safeguarding biodiversity. A vast body of evidence showing the agronomic benefits of enhanced ecosystem service delivery represent important incentives to adopt practices enhancing biodiversity. However, the costs of biodiversity-friendly management are rarely taken into account and may represent a major barrier impeding uptake by farmers. Whether and how biodiversity conservation, ecosystem service delivery, and farm profit can go hand in hand is unknown. Here, we quantify the ecological, agronomic, and net economic benefits of biodiversity-friendly farming in an intensive grassland–sunflower system in Southwest France. We found that reducing land-use intensity on agricultural grasslands drastically enhances flower availability and wild bee diversity, including rare species. Biodiversity-friendly management on grasslands furthermore resulted in an up to 17% higher revenue on neighboring sunflower fields through positive effects on pollination service delivery. However, the opportunity costs of reduced grassland forage yields consistently exceeded the economic benefits of enhanced sunflower pollination. Our results highlight that profitability is often a key constraint hampering adoption of biodiversity-based farming and uptake critically depends on society’s willingness to pay for associated delivery of public goods such as biodiversity

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines