Using ecological and field survey data to establish a national list of the wild bee pollinators of crops

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.LH was funded by NERC QMEE CDT. EJB was funded by a BBSRC Ph.D. studentship under grant BB/F016581/1. LB was was supported by the Scholarship Program of the German Federal Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, DBU, AZ 20014/302). AJC was funded by the BBSRC and Syngenta UK as part of a case award Ph.D. (grant no. 1518739). AE was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant number 405940-115642). DG and A-MK were funded by grant PCIN2014-145-C02-02 (MinECo; EcoFruit project BiodivERsA-FACCE2014-74). MG was supported by Establishing a UK Pollinator Monitoring and Research Partnership (PMRP) a collaborative project funded by Defra, the Welsh and Scottish Governments, JNCC and project partners’. GAdG was funded via research projects BO-11-011.01-051 and BO-43-011.06-007, commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. DK was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (BO-11-011.01-011). AK-H was funded by the NKFIH project (FK123813), the Bolyai János Fellowship of the MTA, the ÚNKP-19-4-SZIE-3 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry for Innovation and Technology, and together with RF by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund OTKA 101940. MM was funded by Waitrose & Partners, Fruition PO, and the University of Worcester. MM was funded by grant INIA-RTA2013-00139-C03-01 (MinECo and FEDER). BBP and RFS were funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council as part of Wessex BESS (ref. NE/J014680/1). NJV was funded by the Walloon Region (Belgium) Direction générale opérationnelle de l’Agriculture, des Ressources naturelles et de l’Environnement (DGO3) for the "Modèle permaculturel" project on biodiversity in micro-farms, FNRS/FWO joint programme EOS — Excellence Of Science CliPS: Climate change and its impact on Pollination Services (project 30947854)". CW was funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) (Project number 405945293). BW was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) under research programme NE/N018125/1 ASSIST – Achieving Sustainable Agricultural Systems www.assist.ceh.ac.uk. TB and TO are supported by BBSRC, NERC, ESRC and the Scottish Government under the Global Food Security Programme (Grant BB/R00580X/1)

Seizure prediction : ready for a new era

Acknowledgements: The authors acknowledge colleagues in the international seizure prediction group for valuable discussions. L.K. acknowledges funding support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1130468) and the James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020419) and acknowledges the contribution of Dean R. Freestone at the University of Melbourne, Australia, to the creation of Fig. 3.Peer reviewedPostprin

Wild insect diversity increases inter-annual stability in global crop pollinator communities.

While an increasing number of studies indicate that 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 recognising 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 stabilising pollination services need to be considered alongside longer-term conservation goals focussed on maintaining and facilitating biodiversity to confer ecological stability

Bee pollination vs. strawberry yield, quality and commercial value

Aim was to compare effects of bee pollination and other pollination modes (wind and self-pollination) on strawberry yield and quality as well as the resulting commercial value. Data were collected on an experimental strawberry field with nine commercially important strawberry varieties in 2009 and 2010. The field was split up in 12 blocks, each contains one row of each variety. In 2009, two plants per block and variety were used for each pollination treatment. Pollination treatments were conducted by using plastic bags (slef pollination treatment), mesh bags (wind pollination treatment) or uncovered flowers (open pollination treatment). Strawberries were harvested at maturity and weight, commercial grade, firmness, colour and sugar-acid ratio assessed

Using ecological and field survey data to establish a national list of the wild bee pollinators of crops

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

Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees.

Understanding the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees is vital because of reported declines in bee diversity and distribution and the crucial role bees have as pollinators in ecosystems and agriculture. Neonicotinoids are suspected to pose an unacceptable risk to bees, partly because of their systemic uptake in plants, and the European Union has therefore introduced a moratorium on three neonicotinoids as seed coatings in flowering crops that attract bees. The moratorium has been criticized for being based on weak evidence, particularly because effects have mostly been measured on bees that have been artificially fed neonicotinoids. Thus, the key question is how neonicotinoids influence bees, and wild bees in particular, in real-world agricultural landscapes. Here we show that a commonly used insecticide seed coating in a flowering crop can have serious consequences for wild bees. In a study with replicated and matched landscapes, we found that seed coating with Elado, an insecticide containing a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, applied to oilseed rape seeds, reduced wild bee density, solitary bee nesting, and bumblebee colony growth and reproduction under field conditions. Hence, such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated. The lack of a significant response in honeybee colonies suggests that reported pesticide effects on honeybees cannot always be extrapolated to wild bees

A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production.

Human land use threatens global biodiversity and compromises multiple ecosystem functions critical to food production. Whether crop yield-related ecosystem services can be maintained by a few dominant species or rely on high richness remains unclear. Using a global database from 89 studies (with 1475 locations), we partition the relative importance of species richness, abundance, and dominance for pollination; biological pest control; and final yields in the context of ongoing land-use change. Pollinator and enemy richness directly supported ecosystem services in addition to and independent of abundance and dominance. Up to 50% of the negative effects of landscape simplification on ecosystem services was due to richness losses of service-providing organisms, with negative consequences for crop yields. Maintaining the biodiversity of ecosystem service providers is therefore vital to sustain the flow of key agroecosystem benefits to society