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)

Opportunities to reduce pollination deficits and address production shortfalls in an important insect pollinated crop

Pollinators face multiple pressures and there is evidence of populations in decline. As demand for insect-pollinated crops increases, crop production is threatened by shortfalls in pollination services. Understanding the extent of current yield deficits due to pollination and identifying opportunities to protect or improve crop yield and quality through pollination management is therefore of international importance. To explore the extent of ‘pollination deficits’, where maximum yield is not being achieved due to insufficient pollination, we use an extensive dataset on a globally important crop, apples. We quantified how these deficits vary between orchards and countries as well as compare ‘pollinator dependence’ across different apple varieties. We found evidence of pollination deficits and in some cases, risks of over-pollination were even apparent where fruit quality could be reduced by too much pollination. In almost all regions studied we found some orchards performing significantly better than others, in terms of avoiding a pollination deficit and crop yield shortfalls due to sub-optimal pollination. This represents an opportunity to improve production through better pollinator and crop management. Our findings also demonstrate that pollinator dependence varies considerably between apple varieties in terms of fruit number and fruit quality. We propose that assessments of pollination service and deficits in crops can be used to quantify supply and demand for pollinators and help target local management to address deficits although crop variety has a strong influence on the role of pollinators

Study participant recruitment process.

Study participant recruitment process.</p

The multi-group mediation model with offline compulsive buying as the outcome and its standardized path coefficients for T1, T2 and T3, respectively.

Note. *p T1 = 377.307, χ²T2 = 255.708, χ²T3 = 322.092], df = 420, RMSEA = 0.052 [0.048–0.056], SRMR = 0.044, CFI = 0.961, TLI = 0.960. Standardized indirect effect was 0.188 (p (DOCX)</p

Changes in the number of new COVID cases in the U.S., the level of COVID-related distress, and compulsive buying throughout the period of data collection.

Note. COSS = Compulsive Online Shopping Scale. T1 = day 14 –day 80 of the pandemic (03/26/2020–06/01/2020); T2 = day 81 –day 140 of the pandemic (06/02/2020–07/17/2020); T3 = day 141 –day 206 of the pandemic (07/18/2020–10/02/2020). Lines were smoothed to reduce noise in the presentation of the data. Source for the number of new COVID cases in the U.S.: https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/download-todays-data-geographic-distribution-covid-19-cases-worldwide.</p

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of the assessed measures.

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations of the assessed measures.</p

Gender differences of the assessed measures.

Note. CISS task = Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations task-focused coping subscale; CISS emot. = Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations emotion-focused coping subscale; COSS = Compulsive Online Shopping Scale; BSAS = Bergen Shopping Addiction Scale; SES = Subjective socio-economic status. (DOCX)</p

Competing perceptions on biodiversity and its benefits: theoretical and methodological implications of a focus group study

The paper presents the first-hand results of a biodiversity assessment process carried out within the BioBio project. Focus group methodology was used to explore how farmers relate to biodiversity and what kind of benefits they realize. In each of the three case study areas one focus group was dedicated to organic farmers and another one to conventional farmers in order to compare their perceptions. Our results suggest that biodiversity is not an independent, purely scientific concept for farmers, but it is considered through their everyday life and farming practices. When farmers think about biodiversity they address species and habitat diversity the most frequently. Complexity is also an important component of biodiversity for them, and the complex nature of biodiversity is often linked to their personal philosophical and spiritual commitments. Farmers – regardless of being organic or conventional ones – attribute a mixture of values to biodiversity. Beside economic benefits, the ethical and social values attached to biodiversity are also crucial and are often more directly acknowledged. These results warn us that scientific concepts become inherently value-laden when we put them into the local context. Hence, scientists should be aware of the various contexts of valuation and should understand how participants conceptualize the subject of valuation before choosing the appropriate method of valuation. Furthermore, the large variety of different values farmers attached to biodiversity reinforces that monetary valuation methods may have limits in biodiversity valuation because they may restraint the range of benefits acknowledged by farmers

Pituitary Adenylate Cyclase Activating Polypeptide Has Inhibitory Effects on Melanoma Cell Proliferation and Migration In Vitro

Pituitary adenylate cyclase activating polypeptide (PACAP) is an endogenous neuropeptide which is distributed throughout the body. PACAP influences development of various tissues and exerts protective function during cellular stress and in some tumour formation. No evidence is available on its role in neural crest derived melanocytes and its malignant transformation into melanoma. Expression of PACAP receptors was examined in human skin samples, melanoma lesions and in a primary melanocyte cell culture. A2058 and WM35 melanoma cell lines, representing two different stages of melanoma progression, were used to investigate the effects of PACAP. PAC1 receptor was identified in melanocytes in vivo and in vitro and in melanoma cell lines as well as in melanoma lesions. PACAP administration did not alter viability but decreased proliferation of melanoma cells. With live imaging random motility, average speed, vectorial distance and maximum distance of migration of cells were reduced upon PACAP treatment. PACAP administration did not alter viability but decreased proliferation capacity of melanoma cells. On the other hand, PACAP administration decreased the migration of melanoma cell lines towards fibronectin chemoattractant in the Boyden chamber. Furthermore, the presence of the neuropeptide inhibited the invasion capability of melanoma cell lines in Matrigel chambers. In summary, we provide evidence that PACAP receptors are expressed in melanocytes and in melanoma cells. Our results also prove that various aspects of the cellular motility were inhibited by this neuropeptide. On the basis of these results, we propose PACAP signalling as a possible target in melanoma progression