Characterization Factors to Assess Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance in Life Cycle Assessment.

While wild pollinators play a key role in global food production, their assessment is currently missing from the most commonly used environmental impact assessment method, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is mainly due to constraints in data availability and compatibility with LCA inventories. To target this gap, relative pollinator abundance estimates were obtained with the use of a Delphi assessment, during which 25 experts, covering 16 nationalities and 45 countries of expertise, provided scores for low, typical, and high expected abundance associated with 24 land use categories. Based on these estimates, this study presents a set of globally generic characterization factors (CFs) that allows translating land use into relative impacts to wild pollinator abundance. The associated uncertainty of the CFs is presented along with an illustrative case to demonstrate the applicability in LCA studies. The CFs based on estimates that reached consensus during the Delphi assessment are recommended as readily applicable and allow key differences among land use types to be distinguished. The resulting CFs are proposed as the first step for incorporating pollinator impacts in LCA studies, exemplifying the use of expert elicitation methods as a useful tool to fill data gaps that constrain the characterization of key environmental impacts.

Grand challenges in entomology: Priorities for action in the coming decades.

Entomology is key to understanding terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems at a time of unprecedented anthropogenic environmental change and offers substantial untapped potential to benefit humanity in a variety of ways, from improving agricultural practices to managing vector-borne diseases and inspiring technological advances.We identified high priority challenges for entomology using an inclusive, open, and democratic four-stage prioritisation approach, conducted among the membership and affiliates (hereafter 'members') of the UK-based Royal Entomological Society (RES).A list of 710 challenges was gathered from 189 RES members. Thematic analysis was used to group suggestions, followed by an online vote to determine initial priorities, which were subsequently ranked during an online workshop involving 37 participants.The outcome was a set of 61 priority challenges within four groupings of related themes: (i) 'Fundamental Research' (themes: Taxonomy, 'Blue Skies' [defined as research ideas without immediate practical application], Methods and Techniques); (ii) 'Anthropogenic Impacts and Conservation' (themes: Anthropogenic Impacts, Conservation Options); (iii) 'Uses, Ecosystem Services and Disservices' (themes: Ecosystem Benefits, Technology and Resources [use of insects as a resource, or as inspiration], Pests); (iv) 'Collaboration, Engagement and Training' (themes: Knowledge Access, Training and Collaboration, Societal Engagement).Priority challenges encompass research questions, funding objectives, new technologies, and priorities for outreach and engagement. Examples include training taxonomists, establishing a global network of insect monitoring sites, understanding the extent of insect declines, exploring roles of cultivated insects in food supply chains, and connecting professional with amateur entomologists. Responses to different challenges could be led by amateur and professional entomologists, at all career stages.Overall, the challenges provide a diverse array of options to inspire and initiate entomological activities and reveal the potential of entomology to contribute to addressing global challenges related to human health and well-being, and environmental change.

Supporting wild pollinators in agricultural landscapes through targeted legume mixtures.

Insect-pollinated legumes are rich in plant-based proteins making them a vital constituent of sustainable healthy diets for people and livestock. Furthermore, they deliver or support a range of ecosystem services that underpin agricultural production and their prevalence in agricultural landscapes is likely to increase. Under typical implementation and management, the value of legumes to pollinators has, however, been questioned. Through exploring a range of legume crops, grown as monocultures and mixtures, this study aims to identify multifunctional legume cropping systems that optimise forage availability for a diversity of wild pollinators whilst delivering a wide range of agronomic and environmental benefits. This study innovatively explores legume mixtures concurrently with monocultures of the component species using replicated small-plot field trials established in two geographical locations. Observational plots assessed the richness and abundance of floral resources, and wild pollinators (i.e. bumblebees and hoverflies) throughout the peak flowering period. Densely flowering, highly profitable legumes (e.g. Trifolium incarnatum and Trifolium mixes) supported abundant and rich pollinator assemblages. The functional makeup of floral visitors was strongly influenced by flower structure and hoverflies, with their shorter proboscises, were largely constrained to legumes with shallower corolla and open weed species. Floral richness was not a key driver of pollinator assemblages; however, clear intra-specific differences were observed in flowering phenology. Combining functionally distinct legumes with respect to flower structure and phenology, will support a wider suite of pollinating insects and help stabilise the temporal availability of forage. For highly competitive legumes (e.g. Vicia faba and Vicia sativa), planting in discrete patches is recommended to reduce the risk of less competitive species failing in mixtures. Legumes can provide valuable forage for pollinators; however, they fail to meet all resource requirements. They should therefore be used in combination with agri-environmental measures targeted to promote early-season forage (e.g. hedgerows and farm woodlands), open flowers for hoverflies, saprophytic hoverfly larval resources (e.g. ditches and ponds) and nesting habitats (e.g. undisturbed field margins).

Rapid assessment of insect pollination services to inform decision-making.

Pollinator declines have prompted efforts to assess how land-use change affects insect pollinators and pollination services in agricultural landscapes. Yet many tools to measure insect pollination services require substantial landscape-scale data and technical expertise. In expert workshops, 3 straightforward methods (desk-based method, field survey, and empirical manipulation with exclusion experiments) for rapid insect pollination assessment at site scale were developed to provide an adaptable framework that is accessible to nonspecialist with limited resources. These methods were designed for TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment) and allow comparative assessment of pollination services at a site of conservation interest and in its most plausible alternative state (e.g., converted to agricultural land). We applied the methods at a nature reserve in the United Kingdom to estimate the value of insect pollination services provided by the reserve. The economic value of pollination services provided by the reserve ranged from US$6163 to US$11,546/year. The conversion of the reserve to arable land would provide no insect pollination services and a net annual benefit from insect-pollinated crop production of approximately $1542/year (US$24∙ha-1 ∙year-1 ). The methods had wide applicability and were readily adapted to different insect-pollinated crops: rape (Brassica napus) and beans (Vicia faba) crops. All methods were rapidly employed under a low budget. The relatively less robust methods that required fewer resources yielded higher estimates of annual insect pollination benefit.

Diversidad y Conservación de Gasterópodos Subterráneos de Agua Dulce en los Estados Unidos y en México Resumen Las declinaciones de los polinizadores han impulsado los esfuerzos por evaluar cómo el cambio del uso de suelo afecta a los insectos polinizadores y los servicios de polinización en los paisajes agrícolas. Aun así, muchas de las herramientas para medir los servicios de los insectos polinizadores requieren datos sustanciales a escala de paisaje y el conocimiento de expertos. Desarrollamos tres métodos sencillos (método de gabinete, censo de campo y manipulación empírica con experimentos de exclusión) durante algunos talleres de expertos para la evaluación rápida de la polinización por insectos a escala de sitio con el objetivo de proporcionar un marco de trabajo adaptable y accesible para quienes no son especialistas y cuentan con recursos limitados. Estos métodos fueron diseñados para TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment, en inglés) y permiten la evaluación comparativa de los servicios de polinización en los sitios de interés para la conservación y su estado alternativo más plausible (p. ej.: convertido a suelo agrícola). Aplicamos los métodos en una reserva natural del Reino Unido para estimar el valor de los servicios de polinización por insectos que proporciona la reserva. El valor económico de los servicios de polinización que proporciona la reserva varió desde US$6,163 a US$11,546 al año-1 . La conversión de la reserva a suelo arable no proporcionaría servicios de polinización por insectos, pero sí un beneficio anual neto a partir de la producción de cultivos polinizados por insectos de aproximadamente $1,542 al año-1 (US$24 ha-1 año-1 ). Los métodos tuvieron una aplicabilidad generalizada y estaban ya adaptados a los diferentes cultivos polinizados por insectos: cultivos de colza (Brassica napus) y habas (Vicia faba). Todos los métodos pudieron usarse con bajo presupuesto. Los métodos relativamente menos robustos que requirieron menos recursos produjeron estimados más elevados del beneficio anual de la polinización por insectos.

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.

Improving the farmland biodiversity value of riparian buffer strips: conflicts and compromises.

The intensity of management of lowland grassland fields in the United Kingdom, coupled with the fact that such grasslands dominate much of the lowland landscape, means that there are now few opportunities for many plants, invertebrates, birds, or mammals to survive. The Scottish Agricultural College (SAC) has investigated whether fencing off the margins of such fields next to watercourses to control diffuse pollution has any positive impacts on biodiversity, based on assessments of vegetation composition and condition and structure of assemblages of invertebrates of importance as foodstuffs to farmland birds. Fencing watercourses increased the abundance of key groups of invertebrates. However, the invertebrate species diversity was not increased unless the margins were ≥ 5.4 m in width. Margins established in the study area to prevent access by livestock to watercourses or to enhance biodiversity are generally ≤ 2.6 m wide and are therefore unlikely to provide conditions for additional invertebrate species to use. The dense, tall swards within such margins are also unlikely to provide foraging opportunities for farmland birds. Management (such as low-intensity grazing by livestock in the margins) is essential to provide the conditions required for these groups, but this could conflict with the diffuse pollution mitigation aims. A compromise is proposed whereby limited autumn/winter grazing by livestock could be used to open the vegetation structure in the margins. Grazing by livestock at that time may be acceptable since it is not occurring in the period of main diffuse pollution concern (i.e., the fecal contamination of watercourses and bathing waters in the spring and summer). It is also essential that a landscape-scale approach is taken, driven by knowledge of the full needs of the species concerned, when deciding where best to target agri-environmental actions aimed at farmland bird conservation.