Avoiding a bad apple: insect pollination enhances fruit quality and economic value

Insect pollination is important for food production globally and apples are one of the major fruit crops which are reliant on this ecosystem service. It is fundamentally important that the full range of benefits of insect pollination to crop production are understood, if the costs of interventions aiming to enhance pollination are to be compared against the costs of the interventions themselves. Most previous studies have simply assessed the benefits of pollination to crop yield and ignored quality benefits and how these translate through to economic values. In the present study we examine the influence of insect pollination services on farmgate output of two important UK apple varieties; Gala and Cox. Using field experiments, we quantify the influence of insect pollination on yield and importantly quality and whether either may be limited by sub-optimal insect pollination. Using an expanded bioeconomic model we value insect pollination to UK apple production and establish the potential for improvement through pollination service management. We show that insects are essential in the production of both varieties of apple in the UK and contribute a total of £36.7 million per annum, over £6 million more than the value calculated using more conventional dependence ratio methods. Insect pollination not only affects the quantity of production but can also have marked impacts on the quality of apples, influencing size, shape and effecting their classification for market. These effects are variety specific however. Due to the influence of pollination on both yield and quality in Gala, there is potential for insect pollination services to improve UK output by up to £5.7 million per annum. Our research shows that continued pollinator decline could have serious financial implications for the apple industry but there is considerable scope through management of wild pollinators or using managed pollinator augmentation, to improve the quality of production. Furthermore, we show that it is critically important to consider all production parameters including quality, varietal differences and management costs when valuing the pollination service of any crop so investment in pollinator management can be proportional to its contribution

The identity of crop pollinators helps target conservation for improved ecosystem services

Insect pollinated mass flowering crops are becoming more widespread and there is a need to understand which insects are primarily responsible for the pollination of these crops so conservation measures can be appropriately targeted in the face of pollinator declines. This study used field surveys in conjunction with cage manipulations to identify the relative contributions of different pollinator taxa to the pollination of two widespread flowering crops, field beans and oilseed rape. Flower visiting pollinator communities observed in the field were distinct for each crop; while field beans were visited primarily by a few bumblebee species, multiple pollinator taxa visited oilseed, and the composition of this pollinator community was highly variable spatially and temporally. Neither pollinator community, however, appears to be meeting the demands of crops in our study regions. Cage manipulations showed that multiple taxa can effectively pollinate both oilseed and field beans, but bumblebees are particularly effective bean pollinators. Combining field observations and cage manipulations demonstrated that the pollination demands of these two mass flowering crops are highly contrasting, one would benefit from management to increase the abundance of some key taxa, whilst for the other, boosting overall pollinator abundance and diversity would be more appropriate. Our findings highlight the need for crop specific mitigation strategies that are targeted at conserving specific pollinator taxa (or group of taxa) that are both active and capable of crop pollination in order to reduce pollination deficits and meet the demands of future crop production

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Urban ecosystems

Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 requires member states to Map and Assess the state of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). This report provides guidance for mapping and assessment of urban ecosystems. The MAES urban pilot is a collaboration between the European Commission, the European Environment Agency, volunteering Member States and cities, and stakeholders. Its ultimate goal is to deliver a knowledge base for policy and management of urban ecosystems by analysing urban green infrastructure, condition of urban ecosystems and ecosystem services. This report presents guidance for mapping urban ecosystems and includes an indicator framework to assess the condition of urban ecosystems and urban ecosystem services. The scientific framework of mapping and assessment is designed to support in particular urban planning policy and policy on green infrastructure at urban, metropolitan and regional scales. The results are based on the following different sources of information: a literature survey of 54 scientific articles, an online-survey (on urban ecosystems, related policies and planning instruments and with participation of 42 cities), ten case studies (Portugal: Cascais, Oeiras, Lisbon; Italy: Padua, Trento, Rome; The Netherlands: Utrecht; Poland: Poznań; Spain: Barcelona; Norway: Oslo), and a two-day expert workshop. The case studies constituted the core of the MAES urban pilot. They provided real examples and applications of how mapping and assessment can be organized to support policy; on top, they provided the necessary expertise to select a set of final indicators for condition and ecosystem services. Urban ecosystems or cities are defined here as socio-ecological systems which are composed of green infrastructure and built infrastructure. Urban green infrastructure (GI) is understood in this report as the multi-functional network of urban green spaces situated within the boundary of the urban ecosystem. Urban green spaces are the structural components of urban GI. This study has shown that there is a large scope for urban ecosystem assessments. Firstly, urban policies increasingly use urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in their planning process. Secondly, an increasing amount of data at multiple spatial scales is becoming available to support these policies, to provide a baseline, and to compare or benchmark cities with respect to the extent and management of the urban ecosystem. Concrete examples are given on how to delineate urban ecosystems, how to choose an appropriate spatial scale, and how to map urban ecosystems based on a combination of national or European datasets (including Urban Atlas) and locally collected information (e.g., location of trees). Also examples of typologies for urban green spaces are presented. This report presents an indicator framework which is composed of indicators to assess for urban ecosystem condition and for urban ecosystem services. These are the result of a rigorous selection process and ensure consistent mapping and assessment across Europe. The MAES urban pilot will continue with work on the interface between research and policy. The framework presented in this report needs to be tested and validated across Europe, e.g. on its applicability at city scale, on how far the methodology for measuring ecosystem condition and ecosystem service delivery in urban areas can be used to assess urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions

The costs of beekeeping for pollination services in the UK? An explorative study

Honey bees are a key managed pollination service resource in crop agriculture, providing flexible, highly generalist and resilient pollination service delivery to a broad range of UK crops. Despite their potential economic impacts, there is little information on the actual costs involved in providing pollination services experienced by UK beekeepers. Utilizing an online survey of UK beekeepers, this study examines the full economic costs of providing pollination services to crops in the UK, as well as examining the differences in costs experienced by different beekeepers. The findings indicate that <10% of respondent beekeepers, mainly professionals, actively provide pollination services to crops, and rarely receive payment for this in field crops. In apple orchards, where beekeepers most often receive payments, the benefits to the orchard are estimated at 86–149 times the payments received by beekeepers. Although exploratory, the findings highlight the need for wider collection of information on beekeeping costs and several key knowledge gaps that could influence future development of the UK bee farming industry

Species distribution models for crop pollination: a modelling framework applied to Great Britain

Insect pollination benefits over three quarters of the world's major crops. There is growing concern that observed declines in pollinators may impact on production and revenues from animal pollinated crops. Knowing the distribution of pollinators is therefore crucial for estimating their availability to pollinate crops; however, in general, we have an incomplete knowledge of where these pollinators occur. We propose a method to predict geographical patterns of pollination service to crops, novel in two elements: the use of pollinator records rather than expert knowledge to predict pollinator occurrence, and the inclusion of the managed pollinator supply. We integrated a maximum entropy species distribution model (SDM) with an existing pollination service model (PSM) to derive the availability of pollinators for crop pollination. We used nation-wide records of wild and managed pollinators (honey bees) as well as agricultural data from Great Britain. We first calibrated the SDM on a representative sample of bee and hoverfly crop pollinator species, evaluating the effects of different settings on model performance and on its capacity to identify the most important predictors. The importance of the different predictors was better resolved by SDM derived from simpler functions, with consistent results for bees and hoverflies. We then used the species distributions from the calibrated model to predict pollination service of wild and managed pollinators, using field beans as a test case. The PSM allowed us to spatially characterize the contribution of wild and managed pollinators and also identify areas potentially vulnerable to low pollination service provision, which can help direct local scale interventions. This approach can be extended to investigate geographical mismatches between crop pollination demand and the availability of pollinators, resulting from environmental change or policy scenarios

Climate-driven spatial mismatches between British orchards and their pollinators: increased risks of pollination deficits

Understanding how climate change can affect crop-pollinator systems helps predict potential geographical mismatches between a crop and its pollinators, and therefore identify areas vulnerable to loss of pollination services. We examined the distribution of orchard species (apples, pears, plums and other top fruits) and their pollinators in Great Britain, for present and future climatic conditions projected for 2050 under the SRES A1B Emissions Scenario. We used a relative index of pollinator availability as a proxy for pollination service. At present there is a large spatial overlap between orchards and their pollinators, but predictions for 2050 revealed that the most suitable areas for orchards corresponded to low pollinator availability. However, we found that pollinator availability may persist in areas currently used for fruit production, but which are predicted to provide sub-optimal environmental suitability for orchard species in the future. Our results may be used to identify mitigation options to safeguard orchard production against the risk of pollination failure in Great Britain over the next 50 years; for instance choosing fruit tree varieties that are adapted to future climatic conditions, or boosting wild pollinators through improving landscape resources. Our approach can be readily applied to other regions and crop systems, and expanded to include different climatic scenarios

The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) in Europe: twelve lessons learned from empirical ecosystem service accounting

Open Access Article; Published online: 16 Sep 2022The Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting (INCA) was developed and supported by the European Commission to test and implement the System of integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting – Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). Through the compilation of nine Ecosystem Services (ES) accounts, INCA can make available to any interested ecosystem accountant a number of lessons learned. Amongst the conceptual lessons learned, we can mention: (i) for accounting purposes, ES should be clustered according to the existence (or not) of a sustainability threshold; (ii) the assessment of ES flow results from the interaction of an ES potential and an ES demand; (iii) the ES demand can be spatially identified, but for an overarching environmental target, this is not possible; ES potential and ES demand could mis-match; (iv) because the demand remains unsatisfied; (v) because the ES is used above its sustainability threshold or (vi) because part of the potential flow is missed; (vii) there can be a cause-and-effect relationship between ecosystem condition and ES flow; (viii) ES accounts can complement the SEEA Central Framework accounts without overlapping or double counting. Amongst the methodological lessons learned, we can mention: (ix) already exiting ES assessments do not directly provide ES accounts, but will likely need some additional processing; (x) ES cannot be defined by default as intermediate; (xi) the ES remaining within ecosystems cannot be reported as final; (xii) the assessment and accounting of ES can be undertaken throughout a fast track approach or more demanding modelling procedures

EU-wide methodology to map and assess ecosystem condition

The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 calls for developing an EU-wide methodology to map, assess and achieve good condition of ecosystems, so they can deliver benefits to society through the provision of ecosystem services. The EU-wide methodology presented in this report addresses this methodological gap. The EU-wide methodology has adopted the System of Environmental Economic Accounting - Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) as reference framework. The SEEA EA is an integrated framework for organizing biophysical information about ecosystems, adopted as a global statistical standard by the United Nations. The SEEA EA is also the reference framework under the proposal for the amendment of Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 on European environmental economic accounts. Building on previous work done within the MAES initiative, the EU-wide methodology presents useful insights to operationalise the SEEA EA at EU level by integrating different EU data streams in a consistent way with this global statistical standard to consistently map and assess ecosystem condition in the EU across all ecosystem types. The adoption of the SEEA EA framework offers the flexibility to integrate different data flows, leveraging the use of available EU data, such as data reported by MS under EU legislation and EU geospatial data. The EU-wide methodology. The implementation of the EU-wide methodology, making use of available data, will provide the scientific knowledge base to support a range of policies and legal instruments

Upscaling biodiversity: estimating the species–area relationship from small samples

The challenge of biodiversity upscaling, estimating the species richness of a large area from scattered local surveys within it, has attracted increasing interest in recent years, producing a wide range of competing approaches. Such methods, if successful, could have important applications to multi‐scale biodiversity estimation and monitoring. Here we test 19 techniques using a high quality plant data set: the GB Countryside Survey 1999, detailed surveys of a stratified random sample of British landscapes. In addition to the full data set, a set of geographical and statistical subsets was created, allowing each method to be tested on multiple data sets with different characteristics. The predictions of the models were tested against the “true” species–area relationship for British plants, derived from contemporaneously surveyed national atlas data. This represents a far more ambitious test than is usually employed, requiring 5–10 orders of magnitude in upscaling. The methods differed greatly in their performance; while there are 2,326 focal plant taxa recorded in the focal region, up‐scaled species richness estimates ranged from 62 to 11,593. Several models provided reasonably reliable results across the 16 test data sets: the Shen and He and the Ulrich and Ollik models provided the most robust estimates of total species richness, with the former generally providing estimates within 10% of the true value. The methods tested proved less accurate at estimating the shape of the species–area relationship (SAR) as a whole; the best single method was Hui's Occupancy Rank Curve approach, which erred on average by <20%. A hybrid method combining a total species richness estimate (from the Shen and He model) with a downscaling approach (the Šizling model) proved more accurate in predicting the SAR (mean relative error 15.5%) than any of the pure upscaling approaches tested. There remains substantial room for improvement in upscaling methods, but our results suggest that several existing methods have a high potential for practical application to estimating species richness at coarse spatial scales. The methods should greatly facilitate biodiversity estimation in poorly studied taxa and regions, and the monitoring of biodiversity change at multiple spatial scales