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.

Analyzing the relative importance of habitat quantity and quality for boosting pollinator populations in agricultural landscapes.

To increase pollinator populations, international policy targets minimum levels of seminatural habitat cover, but it is unknown whether improving the quality of existing habitats could bring similar benefits without the need of reducing cropland area. Using data we collected in 26 Italian agricultural landscapes during the entire flying season, we explored the relative importance of habitat quantity (seminatural habitat cover) and quality (flower availability) on pollinator densities in seminatural habitats. We obtained transect-based counts and estimated the effect of habitat quantity (proportion of seminatural habitat) and quality (flower cover and richness) on wild bee and hoverfly densities. We used the relationships revealed in the data to simulate pollinator population sizes in landscapes with varying habitat quantity and quality. Wild bee densities were only related to flower availability, whereas hoverfly densities were additionally related to seminatural habitat cover. We found that in complex agricultural landscapes (above 15% seminatural habitat cover), improving habitat quality increased pollinator populations more effectively than increasing habitat quantity. However, increasing habitat quantity was by far the most effective approach for boosting pollinator populations in simple landscapes.

Análisis de la importancia relativa de la cantidad y calidad del hábitat para incrementar las poblaciones de polinizadores en los paisajes agrícolas Resumen Las políticas internacionales buscan que existan niveles mínimos de cobertura seminatural del hábitat para incrementar las poblaciones de polinizadores y se desconoce si mejorar la calidad de los hábitats existentes podría brindar beneficios similares sin tener que reducir el área de cultivo. Usamos datos recolectados en 26 paisajes agrícolas de Italia durante la temporada de vuelo para analizar la importancia relativa de la cantidad (cobertura de hábitat seminatural) y calidad (disponibilidad de flores) del hábitat para la densidad de polinizadores en los hábitats seminaturales. Obtuvimos conteos basados en transectos y estimamos el efecto de la cantidad (proporción del hábitat seminatural) y calidad (riqueza y cobertura de flores) del hábitat sobre la densidad de las abejas silvestres y los sírfidos. Usamos la relación revelada por los datos para simular el tamaño poblacional de los polinizadores en los paisajes con diferente calidad y cantidad de hábitat. La densidad de las abejas silvestres sólo se relacionó con la disponibilidad de flores cuando la densidad de sírfidos se relacionó con la cobertura del hábitat seminatural. Descubrimos que en los paisajes agrícolas complejos (por encima del 15% de cobertura de hábitat seminatural) cuya calidad mejoraba, las poblaciones de polinizadores incrementaban de manera más eficiente que cuando se mejoraba la cantidad. Sin embargo, incrementar la cantidad del hábitat fue por mucho la estrategia más efectiva para acrecentar las poblaciones de polinizadores en paisajes simples.

Effects of landscape complexity on pollinators are moderated by pollinators' association with mass-flowering crops.

Conserving and restoring semi-natural habitat, i.e. enhancing landscape complexity, is one of the main strategies to mitigate pollinator decline in agricultural landscapes. However, we still have limited understanding of how landscape complexity shapes pollinator communities in both crop and non-crop habitat, and whether pollinator responses to landscape complexity vary with their association with mass-flowering crops. Here, we surveyed pollinator communities on mass-flowering leek crops and in nearby semi-natural habitat in landscapes of varying complexity. Surveys were done before and during crop bloom and distinguished between pollinators that visit the crop frequently (dominant), occasionally (opportunistic), or not at all (non-crop). Forty-seven per cent of the species in the wider landscape were also observed on leek flowers. Crop pollinator richness increased with local pollinator community size and increasing landscape complexity, but relationships were stronger for opportunistic than for dominant crop pollinators. Relationships between pollinator richness in semi-natural habitats and landscape complexity differed between groups with the most pronounced positive effects on non-crop pollinators. Our results indicate that while dominant crop pollinators are core components of crop pollinator communities in all agricultural landscapes, opportunistic crop pollinators largely determine species-richness responses and complex landscapes are local hotspots for both biodiversity conservation and potential ecosystem service provision.

Establishment of wildflower fields in poor quality landscapes enhances micro-parasite prevalence in wild bumble bees.

The current worldwide pollinator decline is caused by the interplay of different drivers. Several strategies have been undertaken to counteract or halt this decline, one of which is the implementation of wildflower fields. These supplementary flowers provide extra food resources and have proven their success in increasing pollinator biodiversity and abundance. Yet such landscape alterations could also alter the host-pathogen dynamics of pollinators, which could affect the populations. In this study, we investigated the influence of sown wildflower fields on the prevalence of micro-parasites and viruses in the wild bumble bee Bombus pascuorum, one of the most abundant bumble bee species in Europe and the Netherlands. We found that the effect of sown wildflower fields on micro-parasite prevalence is affected by the composition of the surrounding landscape and the size of the flower field. The prevalence of micro-parasites increases with increasing size of sown wildflower fields in landscapes with few semi-natural landscape elements. This effect was not observed in landscapes with a high amount of semi-natural landscape elements. We elaborate on two mechanisms which can support these findings: (1) "transmission hot spots" within the altered flower-networks, which could negatively impact hosts experiencing an increased exposure; (2) improved tolerance of the hosts, withstanding higher parasite populations.

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.

Insect pollination is at least as important for marketable crop yield as plant quality in a seed crop.

The sustainability of agriculture can be improved by integrating management of ecosystem services, such as insect pollination, into farming practices. However, large-scale adoption of ecosystem services-based practices in agriculture is lacking, possibly because growers undervalue the benefits of ecosystem services compared to those of conventional management practices. Here we show that, under representative real-world conditions, pollination and plant quality made similar contributions to marketable seed yield of hybrid leek (Allium porrum). Relative to the median, a 25% improvement of plant quality and pollination increased crop value by an estimated $18 007 and $17 174 ha-1 respectively. Across five crop lines, bumblebees delivered most pollination services, while other wild pollinator groups made less frequent but nevertheless substantial contributions. Honeybees actively managed for pollination services did not make significant contributions. Our results show that wild pollinators are an undervalued agricultural input and managing for enhancing pollinators makes sense economically in high-revenue insect-pollinated cropping systems.

Museum specimens reveal loss of pollen host plants as key factor driving wild bee decline in The Netherlands.

Evidence for declining populations of both wild and managed bees has raised concern about a potential global pollination crisis. Strategies to mitigate bee loss generally aim to enhance floral resources. However, we do not really know whether loss of preferred floral resources is the key driver of bee decline because accurate assessment of host plant preferences is difficult, particularly for species that have become rare. Here we examine whether population trends of wild bees in The Netherlands can be explained by trends in host plants, and how this relates to other factors such as climate change. We determined host plant preference of bee species using pollen loads on specimens in entomological collections that were collected before the onset of their decline, and used atlas data to quantify population trends of bee species and their host plants. We show that decline of preferred host plant species was one of two main factors associated with bee decline. Bee body size, the other main factor, was negatively related to population trend, which, because larger bee species have larger pollen requirements than smaller species, may also point toward food limitation as a key factor driving wild bee loss. Diet breadth and other potential factors such as length of flight period or climate change sensitivity were not important in explaining twentieth century bee population trends. These results highlight the species-specific nature of wild bee decline and indicate that mitigation strategies will only be effective if they target the specific host plants of declining species.

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.

Arthropod predator identity and evenness jointly shape the delivery of pest control services.

BACKGROUND: Maximizing the effectiveness of natural pest control requires a detailed understanding of how service delivery is affected by natural enemy community diversity and composition. Many studies have investigated the effects of natural enemy abundance and species richness on pest control. Studies examining the effects of evenness and species identity are fewer and have produced inconsistent results. Here we test the effects of arthropod predator community evenness and species identity on natural pest control by exposing aphid (Sitobion avenae) colonies in experimental cages to arthropod predator communities that had the same abundance and species richness but differed in evenness and dominant species. RESULTS: We found that the identity of the most dominant species in the arthropod predator community predominantly drove the pest control efficiency. However, additional to the effects of species identity, we also found a causal positive relationship between the evenness of arthropod predator communities and the suppression of pest growth. CONCLUSION: Our results provide support for the hypothesis that ecosystem service provision is generally a function of the abundance and efficiency of the most dominant species of the service-providing groups. This could partly explain why management practices aiming at promoting abundance of natural enemies often have mixed effects on pest control. Our results also demonstrate that diversity components such as evenness have important additional effects. However, in real-world ecosystems these effects may be obscured because evenness is generally confounded with abundance or species richness in natural enemy predator communities. © 2023 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss--a meta-analysis.

In Europe, agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been introduced in response to concerns about farmland biodiversity declines. Yet, as AES have delivered variable results, a better understanding of what determines their success or failure is urgently needed. Focusing on pollinating insects, we quantitatively reviewed how environmental factors affect the effectiveness of AES. Our results suggest that the ecological contrast in floral resources created by schemes drives the response of pollinators to AES but that this response is moderated by landscape context and farmland type, with more positive responses in croplands (vs. grasslands) located in simple (vs. cleared or complex) landscapes. These findings inform us how to promote pollinators and associated pollination services in species-poor landscapes. They do not, however, present viable strategies to mitigate loss of threatened or endangered species. This indicates that the objectives and design of AES should distinguish more clearly between biodiversity conservation and delivery of ecosystem services.

Potential tradeoffs between effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation, soil organic matter content and fertilizer application in raspberry production.

Ecological intensification has been proposed as an alternative paradigm for intensive agriculture to boost yield sustainably through utilizing ecosystem services. A prerequisite to achieving this is to understand the relations between multiple ecosystem services and production, while taking growth conditions such as nutrient availability into consideration. Here, we conducted a pot-field experiment to study the interactive effects of soil organic matter (SOM) content and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) inoculation on the production of raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.) under four levels of fertilizer application. Raspberry flower number, fruit number and yield only significantly increased with fertilizer inputs but were not impacted by SOM content or AMF inoculation. Fruit set and single berry weight were influenced by both SOM content and AMF inoculation, in complex three-way interactions with fertilizer application. Fruit set of AMF inoculated plants increased with fertilizer inputs in low SOM soils, but decreased with fertilizer inputs under high SOM soils, with the highest fruit set occurring at no fertilizer inputs. In low SOM soils, the relation between single berry weight and fertilizer application was more pronounced in inoculated plants than in non-inoculated plants, while in high SOM soils the relative benefits of AMF inoculation on single berry weight decreased with increasing fertilizer inputs. We attribute the lack of effects of AMF inoculation and SOM content on flower number, fruit number and yield mainly to potential tradeoffs between the experimental variables that all influence resource uptake by plant root systems. Our results suggest that potentially beneficial effects of AMF and SOM can be offset by each other, probably driven by the dynamic relations between AMF and the host plants. The findings reveal fundamental implications for managing AMF inoculation and SOM management simultaneously in real-world agricultural systems.

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

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.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.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.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. 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.

La intensificación agrícola y la consecuente pérdida de hábitats de alta calidad son desencadenantes clave del declive de los insectos polinizadores. Con el objetivo de disminuir el impacto ambiental de la agricultura, la Política Agrícola Común (PAC) de la UE de 2014 definió un conjunto de medidas para hábitats y paisajes (Áreas de Enfoque Ecológico: EFA por sus siglas en inglés) que los agricultores podían seleccionar como requisito para recibir pagos agrícolas básicos. Para informar la reforma de la PAC a partir a 2020, realizamos una evaluación a escala europea para determinar cómo las diferentes opciones de EFA varían en su potencial para asistir a los insectos polinizadores bajo un manejo estándar y amigable con los polinizadores, así como su aceptación por parte de los agricultores.El proceso estructurado de elicitación Delphi para evaluar las opciones de EFA involucró a 22 expertos de 18 países europeos. Se consideraron los requisitos de los diferentes taxones de polinizadores (es decir, abejorros, abejas solitarias y sírfidos) evaluando cada opción por su potencial para proporcionar forraje, sitios de nidificación y recursos para las larvas.Las opciones de EFA variaron sustancialmente en la cantidad de recursos que se percibía que proporcionan y su efectividad vario geográfica y temporalmente. Por ejemplo, los márgenes de cultivos proporcionan un forraje relativamente bueno durante toda la temporada en el sur y el este de Europa, pero carecen de forraje a principios de temporada en el norte y oeste de Europa. Bajo el manejo estándar, ninguna opción de EFA logró puntuaciones altas en todas las categorías de recursos y en general se percibió una escasez de forraje al final de la temporada.Los expertos identificaron oportunidades sustanciales para mejorar la calidad del hábitat mediante la adopción de un manejo amigable con los polinizadores. Sin embargo, mejorar la gestión por sí solo es poco probable que garantice que se cumplan todos los requisitos necesarios para los polinizadores. Nuestro análisis sugiere que una combinación de manejo inadecuado, diferencias de calidad inherentes a los distintos hábitat y el sesgo de aceptación hacia cultivos de cobertura y cultivos que fijan nitrógeno limitan severamente el potencial de los EFA para apoyar a los polinizadores en los paisajes agrícolas europeos. Implicaciones políticas. Para conservar a los polinizadores y ayudar a proteger los servicios de polinización, nuestro estudio destaca la necesidad de crear una variedad de hábitats interconectados y bien administrados que se complementen entre sí en los recursos que ofrecen. Para lograr esto, la PAC post­2020 debe integrar los diferentes vehículos de implementación destinados a proteger la biodiversidad (por ejemplo, condicionalidad mejorada, esquemas ecológicos y medidas agroambientales y climáticas). Para mejorar la calidad del hábitat, recomendamos un marco de monitoreo efectivo con indicadores orientados a objetivos y incentivar la colaboración entre los administradores de las tierras.

L'intensification agricole et la perte associée d'habitats semi­naturels sont les principaux moteurs du déclin des insectes pollinisateurs. Dans l'intention de réduire l'impact environnemental de l'agriculture, la politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'UE de 2014 a défini un ensemble d'habitats et d'éléments paysagers (surfaces d'intérêt écologique: SIE) dans la mise en place ou le respect desquels les agriculteurs pouvaient s'engager comme condition pour bénéficier d'aides économiques européennes (droit au paiement de base). Pour éclairer la PAC post­2020, nous avons évalué à l'échelle européenne et à dire d'expert, d'une part les potentialités des diverses SIE à favoriser les insectes pollinisateurs, via une gestion standard et via une gestion optimisée, et d'autre part l'étendue de l'adoption de ces mesures par les agriculteurs.Un processus structuré d'élaboration et d'agrégation des opinions (méthode Delphi) a fait appel à 22 experts de 18 pays européens pour évaluer les potentialités des diverses SIE. Considérant les traits bioécologiques des principaux taxons pollinisateurs (i.e. bourdons, abeilles solitaires et syrphes), chaque SIE a été évaluée pour son potentiel à fournir des ressources trophiques et des sites de reproduction (sites de nidification pour les bourdons et abeilles, sites de ponte et développement larvaire pour les syrphes).Les SIE différaient considérablement les unes des autres sur les ressources qu'elles étaient censées offrir et leur efficacité variait géographiquement et temporellement. Par exemple, les bords de champ peuvent fournir des ressources trophiques tout au long de l'année en Europe du Sud et de l'Est mais pas en début de saison en Europe du Nord et de l'Ouest. En cas de gestion standard, aucun type de SIE n'atteint de score élevé pour aucun type de ressource, et une période de disette alimentaire survient en fin de saison.Les experts ont mis en évidence de possibles et substantielles améliorations des SIE par le biais de leur gestion optimisée. Cependant, cette seule amélioration ne garantit pas la fourniture de ressources suffisantes aux pollinisateurs des paysages agricoles européens. Pour cela, des habitats spécifiques doivent être favorisés, dont la mise en place ne doit pas être entravée par un choix massif de SIE à base de cultures intermédiaires pièges à nitrates ou fixatrices d'azote. Implications politiques. Pour préserver les pollinisateurs et le service de pollinisation des plantes entomophiles, notre étude souligne la nécessité de créer une diversité d'habitats interconnectés, gérés de façon optimale, qui se complètent mutuellement dans les ressources qu'ils offrent. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la PAC post­2020 doit adopter une vision holistique de la mise en œuvre des différents leviers de protection de la biodiversité (e.g. éco­conditionnalité renforcée, programmes verts ou 'eco­schemes', mesures agro­environnementales et climatiques). Pour réellement améliorer la qualité des habitats, nous recommandons des suivis efficaces de la biodiversité à l'aide d'indicateurs pertinents. Enfin, pour optimiser la disposition spatiale des SIE et leur connectivité, la collaboration entre les différents gestionnaires des espaces agricoles doit être encouragée.

A intensificação agrícola e a perda associada de habitats de elevada qualidade são os principais factores que impulsionam o declínio dos insetos polinizadores. A fim de mitigar o impacto ambiental da agricultura, a Política Agrícola Comum (PAC) da UE, de 2014, definiu um conjunto de atributos ou estruturas do habitat e da paisagem, designadas de Áreas Foco Ecológico (AFEs) que devem ser mantidas pelos agricultores como requisito para obter as ajudas económicas previstas nas medidas agroambientais. No presente trabalho realizamos uma avaliação à escala europeia das diferentes opções destas estruturas, a fim de munir a PAC pós­2020, com informação sobre a importância das AFEs. Estas variam muito quanto ao seu potencial no apoio às populações de polinizadores, de acordo com a extensão da sua aceitação pelos agricultores e das práticas adoptadas por estes na sua gestão, que podem consistir em práticas padrão ou práticas mais amigáveis para os polinizadores.Um processo estruturado, com base na técnica de elicitação de Delphi foi desenvolvido, envolvendo 22 especialistas de 18 países europeus, com o objectivo de avaliar as opções de AFEs previstas na PAC. Esta avaliação levou em consideração os requisitos do ciclo de vida dos taxa dos principais polinizadores, ou seja, as abelhas, as abelhas solitárias e os sirfídeos ou moscas­das­flores. Cada AFE foi avaliada quanto ao seu potencial para fornecer alimento, locais de nidificação, e recursos para as larvas dos sirfídeos.A percepção quanto à eficácia das AFEs como fonte de recursos (alimento) para os polinizadores variou substancialmente, do ponto de vista quer geográfico, quer temporal (época do ano). Por exemplo, a AFE, faixas verdes nas margens do campo são consideradas uma boa fonte de alimento, no sul e leste da Europa, durante todo ano, mas ineficazes, no norte e oeste da Europa, no início do ano. Nenhuma EFA alcançou pontuações elevadas na categoria de recursos (fonte de alimento), quando submetida ao maneio padrão, sendo consideradas ineficientes, na segunda metade do ano.Os especialistas envolvidos identificaram oportunidades de melhoria substancial na qualidade do habitat, através da adopção de práticas de maneio das EFAs mais "amigáveis" para com os polinizadores. No entanto, a melhoria das práticas de maneio das EFAs por si só, dificilmente garantirá todos os requisitos necessários para a manutenção das populações de polinizadores. A nossa avaliação sugere que a combinação de práticas de má gestão (maneio), diferenças inerentes à qualidade do habitat dos polinizadores e o aumento do bias que resulta da utilização de espécies de crescimento rápido ou fixadoras de azoto limitam severamente o papel e potencial destas estruturas na manutenção das populações de polinizadores nas paisagens agrícolas europeias. Implicações políticas. A conservação dos polinizadores ajuda a proteger os serviços de polinização providenciados por estes. O nosso estudo destaca a necessidade de criar uma variedade de habitats interconectados e geridos de forma que se complementem na oferta de recursos (alimento, locais de nidificação e recursos para as larvas) aos polinizadores. Para atingir este objectivo, a PAC pós­2020 deve adoptar uma visão holística na implementação das EFAs, que integre os diferentes programas destinados a protecção da biodiversidade (por exemplo, maior condicionalidade, esquemas ecológicos, e medidas agroambientais e de adaptação climática). Para melhorar a qualidade do habitat, recomendamos uma estrutura de monitorização eficaz suportada por indicadores quantitativos e qualitativos orientados para metas, que permitam facilitar a tomada de decisões direcionadas especificamente para as EFAs, e que a colaboração entre os gestores da terra (agricultores) seja incentivada.

Size and Sex-Dependent Shrinkage of Dutch Bees during One-and-a-Half Centuries of Land-Use Change.

Land-use change and global warming are important factors driving bee decline, but it is largely unknown whether these drivers have resulted in changes in the life-history traits of bees. Recent studies have shown a stronger population decline of large- than small-bodied bee species, suggesting there may have been selective pressure on large, but not on small species to become smaller. Here we test this hypothesis by analyzing trends in bee body size of 18 Dutch species over a 147-year period using specimens from entomological collections. Large-bodied female bees shrank significantly faster than small-bodied female bees (6.5% and 0.5% respectively between 1900 and 2010). Changes in temperature during the flight period of bees did not influence the size-dependent shrinkage of female bees. Male bees did not shrink significantly over the same time period. Our results could imply that under conditions of declining habitat quantity and quality it is advantageous for individuals to be smaller. The size and sex-dependent responses of bees point towards an evolutionary response but genetic studies are required to confirm this. The declining body size of the large bee species that currently dominate flower visitation of both wild plants and insect-pollinated crops may have negative consequences for pollination service delivery.

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.

Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.

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.

Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?

Biodiversity continues to decline, despite the implementation of international conservation conventions and measures. To counteract biodiversity loss, it is pivotal to know how conservation actions affect biodiversity trends. Focussing on European farmland species, we review what is known about the impact of conservation initiatives on biodiversity. We argue that the effects of conservation are a function of conservation-induced ecological contrast, agricultural land-use intensity and landscape context. We find that, to date, only a few studies have linked local conservation effects to national biodiversity trends. It is therefore unknown how the extensive European agri-environmental budget for conservation on farmland contributes to the policy objectives to halt biodiversity decline. Based on this review, we identify new research directions addressing this important knowledge gap.