Georg K.S. Andersson

Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees

Understanding the effects of neonicotinoid insecticides on bees is vital because of reported declines in bee diversity and distribution and the crucial role bees have as pollinators in ecosystems and agriculture. Neonicotinoids are suspected to pose an unacceptable risk to bees, partly because of their systemic uptake in plants, and the European Union has therefore introduced a moratorium on three neonicotinoids as seed coatings in flowering crops that attract bees. The moratorium has been criticized for being based on weak evidence, particularly because effects have mostly been measured on bees that have been artificially fed neonicotinoids. Thus, the key question is how neonicotinoids influence bees, and wild bees in particular, in real-world agricultural landscapes. Here we show that a commonly used insecticide seed coating in a flowering crop can have serious consequences for wild bees. In a study with replicated and matched landscapes, we found that seed coating with Elado, an insecticide containing a combination of the neonicotinoid clothianidin and the non-systemic pyrethroid β-cyfluthrin, applied to oilseed rape seeds, reduced wild bee density, solitary bee nesting, and bumblebee colony growth and reproduction under field conditions. Hence, such insecticidal use can pose a substantial risk to wild bees in agricultural landscapes, and the contribution of pesticides to the global decline of wild bees may have been underestimated. The lack of a significant response in honeybee colonies suggests that reported pesticide effects on honeybees cannot always be extrapolated to wild bees.

Specialization of mutualistic interaction networks decreases toward tropical latitudes.

Species-rich tropical communities are expected to be more specialized than their temperate counterparts. Several studies have reported increasing biotic specialization toward the tropics, whereas others have not found latitudinal trends once accounting for sampling bias or differences in plant diversity. Thus, the direction of the latitudinal specialization gradient remains contentious. With an unprecedented global data set, we investigated how biotic specialization between plants and animal pollinators or seed dispersers is associated with latitude, past and contemporary climate, and plant diversity. We show that in contrast to expectation, biotic specialization of mutualistic networks is significantly lower at tropical than at temperate latitudes. Specialization was more closely related to contemporary climate than to past climate stability, suggesting that current conditions have a stronger effect on biotic specialization than historical community stability. Biotic specialization decreased with increasing local and regional plant diversity. This suggests that high specialization of mutualistic interactions is a response of pollinators and seed dispersers to low plant diversity. This could explain why the latitudinal specialization gradient is reversed relative to the latitudinal diversity gradient. Low mutualistic network specialization in the tropics suggests higher tolerance against extinctions in tropical than in temperate communities.

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Significance Many of the world’s crops are pollinated by insects, and bees are often assumed to be the most important pollinators. To our knowledge, our study is the first quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution of non-bee pollinators to global pollinator-dependent crops. Across 39 studies we show that insects other than bees are efficient pollinators providing 39% of visits to crop flowers. A shift in perspective from a bee-only focus is needed for assessments of crop pollinator biodiversity and the economic value of pollination. These studies should also consider the services provided by other types of insects, such as flies, wasps, beetles, and butterflies—important pollinators that are currently overlooked. 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.

Assessing the effect of the time since transition to organic farming on plants and butterflies

Summary 1. Environmental changes may not always result in rapid changes in species distributions, abundances or diversity. In order to estimate the effects of, for example, land‐use changes caused by agri‐environment schemes (AES) on biodiversity and ecosystem services, information on the time‐lag between the application of the scheme and the responses of organisms is essential. 2. We examined the effects of time since transition (TST) to organic farming on plant species richness and butterfly species richness and abundance. Surveys were conducted in cereal fields and adjacent field margins on 60 farms, 20 conventional and 40 organic, in two regions in Sweden. The organic farms were transferred from conventional management between 1 and 25 years before the survey took place. The farms were selected along a gradient of landscape complexity, indicated by the proportion of arable land, so that farms with similar TST were represented in all landscape types. Organism responses were assessed using model averaging. 3. Plant and butterfly species richness was c. 20% higher on organic farms and butterfly abundance was about 60% higher, compared with conventional farms. Time since transition affected butterfly abundance gradually over the 25‐year period, resulting in a 100% increase. In contrast, no TST effect on plant or butterfly species richness was found, indicating that the main effect took place immediately after the transition to organic farming. 4. Increasing landscape complexity had a positive effect on butterfly species richness, but not on butterfly abundance or plant species richness. There was no indication that the speed of response to organic farming was affected by landscape complexity. 5.  Synthesis and applications. The effect of organic farming on diversity was rapid for plant and butterfly species richness, whereas butterfly abundance increased gradually with time since transition. If time‐lags in responses to AESs turn out to be common, long‐term effects would need to be included in management recommendations and policy to capture the full potential of such schemes.

Organic farming improves pollination success in strawberries.

Pollination of insect pollinated crops has been found to be correlated to pollinator abundance and diversity. Since organic farming has the potential to mitigate negative effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity, it may also benefit crop pollination, but direct evidence of this is scant. We evaluated the effect of organic farming on pollination of strawberry plants focusing on (1) if pollination success was higher on organic farms compared to conventional farms, and (2) if there was a time lag from conversion to organic farming until an effect was manifested. We found that pollination success and the proportion of fully pollinated berries were higher on organic compared to conventional farms and this difference was already evident 2–4 years after conversion to organic farming. Our results suggest that conversion to organic farming may rapidly increase pollination success and hence benefit the ecosystem service of crop pollination regarding both yield quantity and quality.

Sparing Land for Biodiversity at Multiple Spatial Scales

A common approach to the conservation of farmland biodiversity and the promotion of multifunctional landscapes, particularly in landscapes containing only small remnants of non-crop habitats, has been to maintain landscape heterogeneity and reduce land-use intensity. In contrast, it has recently been shown that devoting specific areas of non-crop habitats to conservation, segregated from high-yielding farmland (‘land sparing’), can more effectively conserve biodiversity than promoting low-yielding, less intensively managed farmland occupying larger areas (‘land sharing’). In the present paper we suggest that the debate over the relative merits of land sparing or land sharing is partly blurred by the differing spatial scales at which it is suggested that land sparing should be applied. We argue that there is no single correct spatial scale for segregating biodiversity protection and commodity production in multifunctional landscapes. Instead we propose an alternative conceptual construct, which we call ‘multiple-scale land sparing’, targeting biodiversity and ecosystem services in transformed landscapes. We discuss how multiple-scale land sparing may overcome the apparent dichotomy between land sharing and land sparing and help to find acceptable compromises that conserve biodiversity and landscape multifunctionality.

Ignoring Ecosystem-Service Cascades Undermines Policy for Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes

Over and above food, agricultural landscapes provide citizens with crucial public-good ecosystem services, such as biodiversity conservation, cultural values, recreational opportunities and food security. Because continuing agricultural intensification undermines the ability of landscapes to provide public goods, policies have been implemented to preserve landscape multifunctionality, but with limited success. We suggest that one reason for this lack of success is that the cascading nature of ecosystem services has not been sufficiently addressed. While different definitions of multifunctionality emphasize different parts of the service cascades, we argue that efficient policies targeting multifunctionality simultaneously need to consider ecosystem services along the entire cascade, i.e. both intermediate and final ones. By understanding how multiple final ecosystem services are promoted by single measures with effects on multiple intermediate ecosystem services or by single intermediate ecosystem services with effects on multiple final ecosystem services, measures can be identified that simultaneously benefit private and public goods, allowing the latter to hitchhike on management for the former. Even if such synergistic solutions are less efficient in terms of promoting yields compared to non-synergistic solutions, policies such as payment for ecosystem services to promote them may be cost-efficient since the private benefit reduces the need for public payment. Furthermore, by focusing on the ecosystem service cascade, social-ecological scale-mismatches along the cascade hampering the implementation of synergistic solutions can be identified and targeted by policy. We exemplify our reasoning with the potential benefit to biodiversity conservation from yield-enhancing ecosystem services.

Pollinator communities in strawberry crops - variation at multiple spatial scales.

Predicting potential pollination services of wild bees in crops requires knowledge of their spatial distribution within fields. Field margins can serve as nesting and foraging habitats for wild bees and can be a source of pollinators. Regional differences in pollinator community composition may affect this spill-over of bees. We studied how regional and local differences affect the spatial distribution of wild bee species richness, activity-density and body size in crop fields. We sampled bees both from the field centre and at two different types of semi-natural field margins, grass strips and hedges, in 12 strawberry fields. The fields were distributed over four regions in Northern Europe, representing an almost 1100 km long north-south gradient. Even over this gradient, daytime temperatures during sampling did not differ significantly between regions and did therefore probably not impact bee activity. Bee species richness was higher in field margins compared with field centres independent of field size. However, there was no difference between centre and margin in body-size or activity-density. In contrast, bee activity-density increased towards the southern regions, whereas the mean body size increased towards the north. In conclusion, our study revealed a general pattern across European regions of bee diversity, but not activity-density, declining towards the field interior which suggests that the benefits of functional diversity of pollinators may be difficult to achieve through spill-over effects from margins to crop. We also identified dissimilar regional patterns in bee diversity and activity-density, which should be taken into account in conservation management.

Organic management in apple orchards: Higher impacts on biological control than on pollination

Intensive agricultural management negatively affects both natural enemies of pests and pollinators. Such management also has the potential to adversely affect the ecosystem services that these communities confer. Organic management has been proposed as an alternative method to mitigate such problems by restoring the services provided by arthropod communities. We evaluated the effect of organic management on two ecosystem services provided by arthropods in apple orchards: pollination and biological control. We used relative decrease in colonies to assess biological control of the major apple aphid pest, and measured pollination through fruit set, number of seeds per apple and pollinator visitation. Additionally, we monitored the organisms responsible for pollination and biological control services and established the impact of pollination on apple quality. Our results show a strong effect of organic management on biological control and on the temporal dynamic of natural enemy–pest interactions. Parameters such as aphid colony suppression, first and repeated occurrence of natural enemies, natural enemy species evenness and natural enemy abundance were significantly higher in organic compared to conventional orchards. Predatory bugs were the natural enemies best‐affected by organic management and played a key role in early predation of aphids preventing colony growth. In this instance, pollination was not influenced by organic management. It is likely due to the temporal scale at which this service is delivered, a scale that differs greatly from biological control, combined with differences in the dispersal capacity of the organisms involved. Fruit weight, calcium, potassium and magnesium content were positively affected by pollination success. Synthesis and applications. We found that organic management in apple orchards preserves the local natural enemy community, and specifically predatory bug populations, essential for early aphid colony suppression. Our results suggest that, in conventional orchards, local management options that decrease or even eliminate pesticide use early in the season would increase the biological control of aphids. This would lead to reduction in apple damage at harvest. Our results on pollination success indicate that the implementation of organic management at orchard scale does not enhance pollination services for apple growers.