Robin J. Blake

Enhancing habitat to help the plight of the bumblebee

Modern farming has caused considerable declines in UK bumblebee populations, and, while options exist for farmers to increase the quantity of bee-friendly habitat, uptake has been low. Robin Blake explains how existing habitats on farms could be enhanced for the benefit of bumblebees.

Novel Management to Enhance Spider Biodiversity in Existing Grass Buffer Strips

1 Grass buffer strips have been widely sown to mitigate against intensive agricultural management practices that have negatively impacted on invertebrate and plant biodiversity in arable farming systems. Typically, such strips are floristically species poor and are dominated by grasses. In the present study, we developed management practices to enhance the floristic and structural diversity of these existing strips for the benefit of spiders, a key provider of natural pest control in crops. 2 Across three UK arable farms, we investigated the benefits of: (i) scarification to create germination niches into which wildflower seeds were sown and (ii) the effect of graminicide applications to suppress grass dominance. Spiders were sampled twice per year (July and September) during 2008 and 2009. 3 The combination of scarification with wildflower seeds, as well as graminicide, resulted in the greatest wildflower cover and lowest grass cover, with a general trend of increased abundance of adult and juvenile spiders. The abundance of Pachygnatha degeeri, Bathyphantes gracilis and juvenile wolf spiders of the genus Pardosa was positively correlated with wildflower cover, probably reflecting increased prey availability. Sward structure was negatively correlated with Erigone atra, Oedothorax fuscus and juvenile Pardosa abundance. 4 Management that utilizes existing commonly adopted agri‐environment options, such as grass buffer strips, represents a potentially important conservation tool for increasing the quantity and quality of invertebrate habitats. This can maximize opportunities for the provision of multiple ecosystem services, including pest regulation by predators such as spiders. These management practices have the potential to be incorporated into existing U.K. and European agri‐environment schemes.

Are neonicotinoids killing bees

Since their introduction in the 1990s, neonicotinoids have become the most widely used insecticides in the world accounting for over 25% of the global insecticide market and with a value of approximately

Investigating the Phytotoxicity of the Graminicide Fluazifop-P-butyl against Native UK Wildflower Species

4 billion in 20141. These insecticides have been subject to the same registration procedures as other pesticides to ensure they meet rigorous scientific and regulatory requirements to protect human health and the environment. However, over the last ten years there have been increasing claims of adverse effects on pollinators and other wildlife following the use of certain neonicotinoid insecticides. For example, numerous laboratory, semi-field, and field studies have been conducted to understand the impact of neonicotinoids on bees; however, results have been widely debated and contested. In response, in 2013, the European Union on the advice of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) restricted the use of three neonicotinoids clothianidin and imidacloprid (manufactured by Bayer) and thiamethoxam (manufactured by Syngenta), amid concerns that they have harmful effects on bees. The UK government reluctantly implemented this moratorium but did not feel that available field trial evidence supported the restrictions, and thus called for a refocus to deliver a precautionary, hazard-based approach to pesticide use to help protect bees. EFSA is currently conducting a review of available data to assess the risks to bees from the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam, and a decision is expected later in 2017. Recently the European Commission (EC) has proposed an outright ban on all field uses of neonicotinoids with applications confined to areas where bees are not present, e.g. glasshouses; however, this requires ratification by Member States. In this issue of Pest Management Science, we are pleased to present a compilation of articles inspired by a conference entitled ‘Are neonicotinoids killing bees?’ organised by the Agrisciences technical interest group of Society of Chemical Industry (SCI), and held at SCI Headquarters, 14/15 Belgrave Square, London, UK on 22 September 2016. The conference heard from experts from academia, the crop protection industry, and regulatory agencies, in addition to beekeepers and farmers, to explore the data behind the ban, the impact of alternative control methods, and what the options are for the future, through promotion of sound scientific evidence to aid decision-making.

Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes : Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases

BACKGROUND The selective graminicide fluazifop-P-butyl is used for the control of grass weeds in dicotyledonous crops, and commonly applied in amenity areas to reduce grass productivity and promote wildflower establishment. However, evidence suggests that fluazifop-P-butyl might also have phytotoxic effects on some non-target plants. This study investigates the effects of fluazifop-P-butyl on the emergence, phytotoxicity and above-ground biomass of nine perennial wildflower species and two grass species, following pre- and post-emergent applications at half, full and double label rates in a series of glasshouse experiments. RESULTS While pre- and post-emergent applications of fluazifop-P-butyl caused reductions in seedling emergence and increased phytotoxicity on native wildflower and grass species, these effects were temporary for the majority of wildflower species tested, and generally only occurred at the double application rate. No differences in biomass were observed at any of the rates, suggesting good selectivity and no long-term effects of fluazifop-P-butyl application on the wildflower species from either pre-emergent or post-emergent applications. CONCLUSION These results have direct relevance to the management of amenity areas for biodiversity, as they confirm the suitability of these wildflower species for inclusion in seed mixtures where fluazifop-P-butyl is to be applied to control grass productivity.