Search results

International audience There is mounting evidence of pollinator decline all over the world and consequences in many agricultural areas could be significant. We assessed these consequences by measuring 1) the contribution of insect pollination to the world agricultural output economic value, and 2) the vulnerability of world agriculture in the face of pollinator decline. We used a bioeconomic approach, which integrated the production dependence ratio on pollinators, for the 100 crops used directly for human food worldwide as listed by FAO. The total economic value of pollination worldwide amounted to €153 billion, which represented 9.5% of the value of the world agricultural production used for human food in 2005. In terms of welfare, the consumer surplus loss was estimated between €190 and €310 billion based upon average price elasticities of –1.5 to –0.8, respectively. Vegetables and fruits were the leading crop categories in value of insect pollination with about €50 billion each, followed by edible oil crops, stimulants, nuts and spices. The production value of a ton of the crop categories that do not depend on insect pollination averaged €151 while that of those that are pollinator-dependent averaged €761. The vulnerability ratio was calculated for each crop category at the regional and world scales as the ratio between the economic value of pollination and the current total crop value. This ratio varied considerably among crop categories and there was a positive correlation between the rate of vulnerability to pollinators decline of a crop category and its value per production unit. Looking at the capacity to nourish the world population after pollinator loss, the production of 3 crop categories – namely fruits, vegetables, and stimulants– will clearly be below the current consumption level at the world scale and even more so for certain regions like Europe. Yet, although our valuation clearly demonstrates the economic importance of insect pollinators, it cannot be considered as a scenario since it does not ...

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

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.

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 ...

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 ...

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, ...

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 ...

1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, ...