The neonicotinoid insecticide Imidacloprid repels pollinating flies and beetles at field-realistic concentrations

Neonicotinoids are widely used systemic insecticides which, when applied to flowering crops, are translocated to the nectar and pollen where they may impact upon pollinators. Given global concerns over pollinator declines, this potential impact has recently received much attention. Field exposure of pollinators to neonicotinoids depends on the concentrations present in flowering crops and the degree to which pollinators choose to feed upon them. Here we describe a simple experiment using paired yellow pan traps with or without insecticide to assess whether the commonly used neonicotinoid imidacloprid repels or attracts flying insects. Both Diptera and Coleoptera exhibited marked avoidance of traps containing imidacloprid at a field-realistic dose of 1 μg L-1, with Diptera avoiding concentrations as low as 0.01 μg L-1. This is to our knowledge the first evidence for any biological activity at such low concentrations, which are below the limits of laboratory detection using most commonly available techniques. Catch of spiders in pan traps was also slightly reduced by the highest concentrations of imidacloprid used (1 μg L-1), but catch was increased by lower concentrations. It remains to be seen if the repellent effect on insects occurs when neonicotinoids are present in real flowers, but if so then this could have implications for exposure of pollinators to neonicotinoids and for crop pollination. © 2013 Easton, Goulson

Pollination and biological control research: are we neglecting two billion smallholders

Food insecurity is a major world problem, with ca. 870 million people in the world being chronically undernourished. Most of these people live in tropical, developing regions and rely on smallholder farming for food security. Solving the problem of food insecurity is thought to depend, in part, on managing ecosystem services, such as the pollination of crops and the biological control of crop pests, to enhance or maintain food production. Our knowledge regarding regulating ecosystem services in smallholder-farmed (or dualistic) landscapes is limited and whilst pollination has been the focus of considerable research, the provision of natural enemy services, important for every crop worldwide, has been relatively neglected. In order to assess whether ecosystem-service research adequately represents smallholder-farmed landscapes, whilst also considering climatic region and national economic status, we examined the constituent studies of recent quantitative reviews relevant to biological control and pollination. No regulating ecosystem service meta-analysis, to our knowledge, has focussed on smallholder agriculture despite its importance to billions of peoples’ local food security. We found that whilst smallholdings contributed 16% of global farmland area and 83% of the global agricultural population (estimated using FAO’s World Census of Agriculture 2000) only 22 of 190 studies (12%), overall, came from smallholder-farmed landscapes. These smallholder studies mostly concerned coffee production (16 studies). Individual reviews of biological control were significantly and strongly biased towards data from large-scale farming in temperate regions. In contrast pollination reviews included more smallholder studies and were more balanced for climate regions. The high diversity of smallholder-farmed landscapes implies that more research will be needed to understand them compared to large-scale landscapes but we found far more research from the latter. We highlight that these skews in research effort have implications for sustainable intensification and the food security of billions in the developing world. In particular we urge for balance in future ecosystem-services research and synthesis by greater consideration of a diverse range of smallholder-farmed landscapes in Africa and continental Asia

Two Bee-Pollinated Plant Species Show Higher Seed Production when Grown in Gardens Compared to Arable Farmland

Background Insect pollinator abundance, in particular that of bees, has been shown to be high where there is a super-abundance of floral resources; for example in association with mass-flowering crops and also in gardens where flowering plants are often densely planted. Since land management affects pollinator numbers, it is also likely to affect the resultant pollination of plants growing in these habitats. We hypothesised that the seed or fruit set of two plant species, typically pollinated by bumblebees and/or honeybees might respond in one of two ways: 1) pollination success could be reduced when growing in a floriferous environment, via competition for pollinators, or 2) pollination success could be enhanced because of increased pollinator abundance in the vicinity. Methodology/Principal Findings We compared the pollination success of experimental plants of Glechoma hederacea L. and Lotus corniculatus L. growing in gardens and arable farmland. On the farms, the plants were placed either next to a mass-flowering crop (oilseed rape, Brassica napus L. or field beans, Vicia faba L.) or next to a cereal crop (wheat, Triticum spp.). Seed set of G. hederacea and fruit set of L. corniculatus were significantly higher in gardens compared to arable farmland. There was no significant difference in pollination success of G. hederacea when grown next to different crops, but for L. corniculatus, fruit set was higher in the plants growing next to oilseed rape when the crop was in flower. Conclusions/Significance The results show that pollination services can limit fruit set of wild plants in arable farmland, but there is some evidence that the presence of a flowering crop can facilitate their pollination (depending on species and season). We have also demonstrated that gardens are not only beneficial to pollinators, but also to the process of pollination

Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition

The idea that noncrop habitat enhances pest control and represents a win–win opportunity to conserve biodiversity and bolster yields has emerged as an agroecological paradigm. However, while noncrop habitat in landscapes surrounding farms sometimes benefits pest predators, natural enemy responses remain heterogeneous across studies and effects on pests are inconclusive. The observed heterogeneity in species responses to noncrop habitat may be biological in origin or could result from variation in how habitat and biocontrol are measured. Here, we use a pest-control database encompassing 132 studies and 6,759 sites worldwide to model natural enemy and pest abundances, predation rates, and crop damage as a function of landscape composition. Our results showed that although landscape composition explained significant variation within studies, pest and enemy abundances, predation rates, crop damage, and yields each exhibited different responses across studies, sometimes increasing and sometimes decreasing in landscapes with more noncrop habitat but overall showing no consistent trend. Thus, models that used landscape-composition variables to predict pest-control dynamics demonstrated little potential to explain variation across studies, though prediction did improve when comparing studies with similar crop and landscape features. Overall, our work shows that surrounding noncrop habitat does not consistently improve pest management, meaning habitat conservation may bolster production in some systems and depress yields in others. Future efforts to develop tools that inform farmers when habitat conservation truly represents a win–win would benefit from increased understanding of how landscape effects are modulated by local farm management and the biology of pests and their enemies

Isolation and characterization of microsatellite loci in the dark bush cricket, Pholidoptera griseoaptera (Tettigoniidae)

Twelve novel polymorphic microsatellite loci are presented for the dark bush cricket, Pholidoptera griseoaptera. All loci are polymorphic, with up to 37 alleles per locus. These microsatellites will be useful tools for studying the influence of landscape structure and land use intensity in agricultural landscapes on genetic diversity within and among populations of P. griseoapter

Pervasive effects of dispersal limitation on within- and among-community species richness in agricultural landscapes

Aim To determine whether the effect of habitat fragmentation and habitat heterogeneity on species richness at different spatial scales depends on the dispersal ability of the species assemblages and if this results in nested species assemblages. Location Agricultural landscapes distributed over seven temperate Europe countries covering a range from France to Estonia. Methods We sampled 16 local communities in each of 24 agricultural landscapes (16 km(2)) that differ in the amount and heterogeneity of semi-natural habitat patches. Carabid beetles were used as model organisms as dispersal ability can easily be assessed on morphological traits. The proximity and heterogeneity of semi-natural patches within the landscape were related to average local (alpha), between local (beta) and landscape (gamma) species richness and compared among four guilds that differ in dispersal ability. Results For species assemblages with low dispersal ability, local diversity increased as the proximity of semi-natural habitat increased, while mobile species showed an opposite trend. Beta diversity decreased equally for all dispersal classes in relation to proximity, suggesting a homogenizing effect of increased patch isolation. In contrast, habitat diversity of the semi-natural patches affected beta diversity positively only for less mobile species, probably due to the low dispersal ability of specialist species. Species with low mobility that persisted in highly fragmented landscapes were consistently present in less fragmented ones, resulting in nested assemblages for this mobility class only. Main conclusions The incorporation of dispersal ability reveals that only local species assemblages with low dispersal ability show a decrease of richness as a result of fragmentation. This local species loss is compensated at least in part by an increase in species with high dispersal ability, which obscures the effect of fragmentation when investigated across dispersal groups. Conversely, fragmentation homogenizes the landscape fauna for all dispersal groups, which indicates the invasion of non-crop habitats by similar good dispersers across the whole landscape. Given that recolonization of low dispersers is unlikely, depletion of these species in modern agricultural landscapes appears temporally pervasive

How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes

International audience1. Agricultural intensification poses a serious threat to biodiversity as a consequence of increased land-use intensity, decreased landscape heterogeneity and reduced habitat diversity. Although there is interest in the preservation of total species richness of an agricultural landscape (γ diversity), the effects of intensification have been assessed primarily by species richness at a local scale (α diversity). This ignores species richness between local communities (β diversity), which is an important component of total species richness. 2. In this study, measures of land-use intensity, landscape structure and habitat diversity were related to γ, α and β diversity of wild bees (Apoidea), carabid beetles (Carabidae), hoverflies (Syrphidae), true bugs (Heteroptera) and spiders (Araneae) within 16 local communities in 24 temperate European agricultural landscapes. 3. The total landscape species richness of all groups was most strongly affected by increased proximity of semi-natural habitat patches. Bees also decreased in landscapes with a high intensity of farmland management, demonstrating additive effects of both factors. 4. Separating total species diversity into components, the decrease in total species richness could be attributed primarily to a decrease in species diversity between local communities. Species richness of the local communities of all investigated groups decreased with increasing land-use intensity and, in the case of spiders, decreasing proximity of the semi-natural habitat patches. 5. The effect of increased habitat diversity appeared to be of secondary importance to total species richness but caused a shift in the relative contribution of α and β diversity towards the latter