Suchergebnisse

Erratum : DOI : 10.1371/journal.pone.0091459 Clé UT : 000332396200255 ; International audience ; 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.

1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

1. Pollination by insects is a key input into many crops, with managed honeybees often being hired to support pollination services. Despite substantial research into pollination management, no European studies have yet explored how and why farmers managed pollination services and few have explored why beekeepers use certain crops. 2. Using paired surveys of beekeepers and farmers in 10 European countries, this study examines beekeeper and farmer perceptions and motivations surrounding crop pollination. 3. Almost half of the farmers surveyed believed they had pollination service deficits in one or more of their crops. 4. Less than a third of farmers hired managed pollinators; however, most undertook at least one form of agri‐environment management known to benefit pollinators, although few did so to promote pollinators. 5. Beekeepers were ambivalent towards many mass‐flowering crops, with some beekeepers using crops for their honey that other beekeepers avoid because of perceived pesticide risks. 6. The findings highlight a number of largely overlooked knowledge gaps that will affect knowledge exchange and co‐operation between the two groups. ; Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/Award Number: 841.11.001; Ministarstvo Prosvete, Nauke i Tehnološkog Razvoja, Grant/Award Number: 43001; Natural Environment Research Council, Grant/Award Number: NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1; Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS, Grant/Award Number: V4‐1622 and P1‐0255; Rural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division; Bayer Crop Science; European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Grant/Award Number: oc‐2013‐1‐15320; BBSRC, Grant/ Award Number: BB/R00580X/1; The Scottish Government Rural Affairs and the Environment Strategic Research Programme ; info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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.

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.

Agri-environment schemes are programmes where landholders enter into voluntary agreements (typically with governments) to manage agricultural land for environmental protection and nature conservation objectives. Previous work at local scale has shown that these features can provide additional floral and nesting resources to support wild pollinators, which may indirectly increase floral visitation to nearby crops. However, the effect of entire schemes on this important ecosystem service has never previously been studied at national scale. Focusing on four wild pollinator guilds (ground-nesting bumblebees, tree-nesting bumblebees, ground-nesting solitary bees, and cavity-nesting solitary bees), we used a state-of-the-art, process-based spatial model to examine the relationship between participation in agri-environment schemes across England during 2016 and the predicted abundances of these guilds and their visitation rates to four pollinator dependent crops (oilseed rape, field beans, orchard fruit and strawberries). Our modelling predicts that significant increases in national populations of ground-nesting bumblebees and ground-nesting solitary bees have occurred in response to the schemes. Lack of significant population increases for other guilds likely reflects specialist nesting resource requirements not well-catered for in schemes. We do not predict statistically significant increases in visitation to pollinator-dependent crops at national level as a result of scheme interventions but do predict some localised areas of significant increase in bumblebee visitation to crops flowering in late spring. Lack of any significant change in visitation to crops which flower outside this season is likely due to a combination of low provision of nesting resource relative to floral resource by scheme interventions and low overall participation in more intensively farmed landscapes. We recommend future schemes place greater importance on nesting resource provision alongside floral resource provision, better cater for the needs of specialised species and promote more contiguous patches of semi-natural habitat to better support solitary bee visitation.

Agri-environment schemes are programmes where landholders enter into voluntary agreements (typically with governments) to manage agricultural land for environmental protection and nature conservation objectives. Previous work at local scale has shown that these features can provide additional floral and nesting resources to support wild pollinators, which may indirectly increase floral visitation to nearby crops. However, the effect of entire schemes on this important ecosystem service has never previously been studied at national scale. Focusing on four wild pollinator guilds (ground-nesting bumblebees, tree-nesting bumblebees, ground-nesting solitary bees, and cavity-nesting solitary bees), we used a state-of-the-art, process-based spatial model to examine the relationship between participation in agri-environment schemes across England during 2016 and the predicted abundances of these guilds and their visitation rates to four pollinator dependent crops (oilseed rape, field beans, orchard fruit and strawberries). Our modelling predicts that significant increases in national populations of ground-nesting bumblebees and ground-nesting solitary bees have occurred in response to the schemes. Lack of significant population increases for other guilds likely reflects specialist nesting resource requirements not wellcatered for in schemes. We do not predict statistically significant increases in visitation to pollinator-dependent crops at national level as a result of scheme interventions but do predict some localised areas of significant increase in bumblebee visitation to crops flowering in late spring. Lack of any significant change in visitation to crops which flower outside this season is likely due to a combination of low provision of nesting resource relative to floral resource by scheme interventions and low overall participation in more intensively farmed landscapes. We recommend future schemes place greater importance on nesting resource provision alongside floral resource provision, better cater for the ...