Emerging threats and opportunities to managed bee species in European agricultural systems: a horizon scan.

Managed bee species provide essential pollination services that contribute to food security worldwide. However, managed bees face a diverse array of threats and anticipating these, and potential opportunities to reduce risks, is essential for the sustainable management of pollination services. We conducted a horizon scanning exercise with 20 experts from across Europe to identify emerging threats and opportunities for managed bees in European agricultural systems. An initial 63 issues were identified, and this was shortlisted to 21 issues through the horizon scanning process. These ranged from local landscape-level management to geopolitical issues on a continental and global scale across seven broad themes-Pesticides & pollutants, Technology, Management practices, Predators & parasites, Environmental stressors, Crop modification, and Political & trade influences. While we conducted this horizon scan within a European context, the opportunities and threats identified will likely be relevant to other regions. A renewed research and policy focus, especially on the highest-ranking issues, is required to maximise the value of these opportunities and mitigate threats to maintain sustainable and healthy managed bee pollinators within agricultural systems.

The use of ecological models to assess the effects of a plant protection product on ecosystem services provided by an orchard.

The objective of this case study was to explore the feasibility of using ecological models for applying an ecosystem services-based approach to environmental risk assessment using currently available data and methodologies. For this we used a 5 step approach: 1) selection of environmental scenario, 2) ecosystem service selection, 3) development of logic chains, 4) selection and application of ecological models and 5) detailed ecosystem service assessment. The study system is a European apple orchard managed according to integrated pest management principles. An organophosphate insecticide was used as the case study chemical. Four ecosystem services are included in this case study: soil quality regulation, pest control, pollination and recreation. Logic chains were developed for each ecosystem service and describe the link between toxicant effects on service providing units and ecosystem services delivery. For the soil quality regulation ecosystem service, springtails and earthworms were the service providing units, for the pest control ecosystem service it was ladybirds, for the pollination ecosystem service it was honeybees and for the recreation ecosystem service it was the meadow brown butterfly. All the ecological models addressed the spatio-temporal magnitude of the direct effects of the insecticide on the service providing units and ecological production functions were used to extrapolate these outcomes to the delivery of ecosystem services. For all ecosystem services a decision on the acceptability of the modelled and extrapolated effects on the service providing units could be made using the protection goals as set by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Developing quantitative ecological production functions for extrapolation of ecosystem services delivery from population endpoints remains one of the major challenges. We feel that the use of ecological models can greatly add to this development, although the further development of existing ecological models, and of new models, is needed for this.

Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees: Foundation and Summaries.

Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality, and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees. For those that possess life histories that are distinct from A. mellifera, further risk assessments may be warranted. In January 2017, 40 bee researchers, representative of regulatory agencies, academia, and agrochemical industries, gathered to discuss the current state of science on pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees and to determine how well honey bee exposure estimates, implemented by different regulatory agencies, may be protective for non-Apis bees. Workshop participants determined that although current risk assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, several routes of exposure are unique to non-Apis bees and warranted further investigation. In this forum article, we discuss these key routes of exposure relevant to non-Apis bees and identify important research gaps that can help inform future bee risk assessment decisions.

Application of ecosystem services in natural resource management decision making.

An ecosystem services (ES) approach to natural resource management (NRM) can provide the framework for balancing economic, ecological, and societal drivers in decision making. The efficacy of such an approach depends on the successful execution of several key activities, from early and continuous engagement with relevant stakeholders, to development and application of ecological production functions (EPFs), to explicit recognition of uncertainty in the process. Although there are obstacles to the implementation of an ES approach in NRM, including unclear regulatory and policy frameworks and the paucity of useful EPFs, many of the tools are currently available or sufficiently developed. An ES approach can and, in some cases, should involve qualitative rather than quantitative assessment when the stakes are not very high or when quantitative approaches would not be cost effective because of highly uncertain results. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:74-84. © 2016 SETAC.

Food production, ecosystem services and biodiversity: We can't have it all everywhere.

Debate about how sustainable intensification and multifunctionality might be implemented continues, but there remains little understanding as to what extent they are achievable in arable landscapes. Policies that influence agronomic decisions are rarely made with an appreciation of the trade-offs that exist between food production, biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision. We present an approach that can reveal such trade-offs when used to assess current and future policy options that affect agricultural inputs (e.g. pesticides, nutrients) and practices. In addition, by demonstrating it in a pesticide policy context, we show how safeguarding a range of ecosystem services may have serious implications for UK food security. We suggest that policy change is most usefully implemented at a landscape scale to promote multifunctionality, tailoring pesticide risk assessment and incentives for management that support bundles of ecosystem services to specific landscape contexts. In some instances tough trade-offs may need to be accepted. However, our approach can ensure that current knowledge is used to inform policy decisions for progress towards a more balanced food production system.

Integrating ecosystem services into crop protection and pest management: Case study with the soil fumigant 1,3-dichloropropene and its use in tomato production in Italy.

Ecosystems provide the conditions for producing food, regulating water, and providing wildlife habitats; these, among others, are known as ecosystem services (ESs). Food production is both economically and culturally important to southern European farmers, particularly in Italy where farmers grow flavorsome tomatoes with passion and pride. Growers rely on pesticides for crop protection, the potential environmental impact of which is often questioned by regulators and other stakeholders. The European regulatory system for the approval of pesticides includes a thorough evaluation of risks to the environment and is designed to be protective of ecosystems. The consideration of ESs in environmental decision making is a growing trend, and the present case study provides an example of how ESs evaluation could be used to enhance agricultural practices and regulatory policy for crop protection. By attacking plant roots, nematodes may affect the growth and yield of fruit and vegetable crops, and the income earned by farmers at harvest time. Available solutions include chemical treatments such as 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D), physical treatments (solarization), and biological treatments (biofumigation). In order to characterize the risks and benefits associated with the use of 1,3-D in crop protection, ESs and socioeconomic analyses were applied to its use in the control of nematodes in tomato cultivation in southern Italy. The present study confirmed the benefits of 1,3-D to tomato production in Italy, with significant positive effects on production yields and farm income when compared to limited and transient potential impacts on services such as soil function. It was confirmed that 1,3-D allows farm income to be maintained and secures tomato production in these regions for the future. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2016;12:801-810. © 2016 SETAC.

Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides.

General protection goals for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products are stated in European legislation but specific protection goals (SPGs) are often not precisely defined. These are however crucial for designing appropriate risk assessment schemes. The process followed by the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as examples of resulting SPGs obtained so far for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is presented. The ecosystem services approach was used as an overarching concept for the development of SPGs, which will likely facilitate communication with stakeholders in general and risk managers in particular. It is proposed to develop SPG options for 7 key drivers for ecosystem services (microbes, algae, non target plants (aquatic and terrestrial), aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial non target arthropods including honeybees, terrestrial non-arthropod invertebrates, and vertebrates), covering the ecosystem services that could potentially be affected by the use of pesticides. These SPGs need to be defined in 6 dimensions: biological entity, attribute, magnitude, temporal and geographical scale of the effect, and the degree of certainty that the specified level of effect will not be exceeded. In general, to ensure ecosystem services, taxa representative for the key drivers identified need to be protected at the population level. However, for some vertebrates and species that have a protection status in legislation, protection may be at the individual level. To protect the provisioning and supporting services provided by microbes it may be sufficient to protect them at the functional group level. To protect biodiversity impacts need to be assessed at least at the scale of the watershed/landscape.

Risk assessment to honey bees: a scheme developed in France for non-sprayed systemic compounds.

BACKGROUND: Directive 91/414/EEC envisages that the systemic properties of active substances, if any, are taken into account in evaluating the risk posed to the environment by plant protection products. Among others, honey bees may be exposed to substances via this route, which may pose problems when substances with high toxicity are ingested through pollen or nectar. The guidance documents in support of the risk assessment to bees within the framework of Directive 91/414/EEC do not provide detailed technical guidance on how to proceed in a risk assessment for substances with systemic properties. RESULTS: A stepwise approach aiming specifically to assess the risk posed by non-sprayed systemic substances to bees is therefore proposed. This approach first identifies substances with systemic properties, which should be quantified in plant material as pollen and nectar. Exposure estimates calculated for different categories of bees (e.g. foraging bees), based on expected concentrations of the product in pollen or nectar, may be compared with several toxicity endpoints for acute or chronic effects on adults and/or larvae with a toxicity/exposure ratio, which is a measurement of potential risks. CONCLUSION: Such a ratio is proposed to be used as a trigger for any further refined assessment that would focus on the measurement of effects at the colony level.

Gait disorders in patients with fibromyalgia.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare gait in patients with fibromyalgia and in matched controls. METHODS: Measurements must be obtained in patients with fibromyalgia, as the evaluation scales for this disorder are semi-quantitative. We used a patented gait analysis system (Locometrix Centaure Metrix, France) developed by the French National Institute for Agricultural Research. Relaxed walking was evaluated in 14 women (mean age 50+/-5 years; mean height 162+/-5 cm; and mean body weight 68+/-13 kg) meeting American College of Rheumatology criteria for fibromyalgia and in 14 controls matched on sex, age, height, and body weight. RESULTS: Gait during stable walking was severely altered in the patients. Walking speed was significantly diminished (P<0.001) as a result of reductions in stride length (P<0.001) and cycle frequency (P<0.001). The resulting bradykinesia (P<0.001) was the best factor for separating the two groups. Regularity was affected in the patients (P<0.01); this variable is interesting because it is independent of age and sex in healthy, active adults. CONCLUSION: Measuring the variables that characterize relaxed walking provides useful quantitative data in patients with fibromyalgia.