Proximity to wildflower strips did not boost crop pollination on small, diversified farms harboring diverse wild bees

High pesticide exposure and risk to bees in pollinator plantings adjacent to conventionally managed blueberry fields

Wildflower plantings adjacent to agricultural fields provide diverse floral resources and nesting sites for wild bees. However, their proximity to pest control activities in the crop may result in pesticide exposure if pesticides drift into pollinator plantings. To quantify pesticide residues in pollinator plantings, we sampled flowers and soil from pollinator plantings and compared them to samples from unenhanced field margins and crop row middles. At conventionally managed farms, flowers from pollinator plantings had similar exposure profiles to those from unenhanced field margins or crop row middles, with multiple pesticides and high and similar risk quotient (RQ) values (with pollinator planting RQ: 3.9; without pollinator planting RQ: 4.0). Whereas samples from unsprayed sites had significantly lower risk (RQ: 0.005). Soil samples had overall low risk to bees. Additionally, we placed bumble bee colonies (Bombus impatiens) in field margins of crop fields with and without pollinator plantings and measured residues in bee-collected pollen. Pesticide exposure was similar in pollen from sites with or without pollinator plantings, and risk was generally high (with pollinator planting RQ: 0.5; without pollinator planting RQ: 1.1) and not significant between the two field types. Risk was lower at sites where there was no pesticide activity (RQ: 0.3), but again there was no significant difference between management types. The insecticide phosmet, which is used on blueberry farms for control of Drosophila suzukii, accounted for the majority of elevated risk. Additionally, analysis of pollen collected by bumble bees found no significant difference in floral species richness between sites with or without pollinator plantings. Our results suggest that pollinator plantings do not reduce pesticide risk and do not increase pollen diversity collected by B. impatiens, further highlighting the need to reduce exposure through enhanced IPM adoption, drift mitigation, and removal of attractive flowering weeds prior to insecticide applications.

Quantifying potential trade-offs and win-wins between arthropod diversity and yield on cropland under agri-environment schemes-A meta-analysis

In Europe, agri-environment schemes (AES) are a key instrument to combat the ongoing decline of farmland biodiversity. AES aim is to support biodiversity and maintain ecosystem services, such as pollination or pest control. To what extent AES affect crop yield is still poorly understood. We performed a systematic review, including hierarchical meta-analyses, to investigate potential trade-offs and win-wins between the effectiveness of AES for arthropod diversity and agricultural yield on European croplands. Altogether, we found 26 studies with a total of 125 data points that fulfilled our study inclusion criteria. From each study, we extracted data on biodiversity (arthropod species richness and abundance) and yield for fields with AES management and control fields without AES. The majority of the studies reported significantly higher species richness and abundance of arthropods (especially wild pollinators) in fields with AES (31 % increase), but yields were at the same time significantly lower on fields with AES compared to control fields (21 % decrease). Aside from the opportunity costs, AES that promote out-of-production elements (e.g. wildflower strips), supported biodiversity (29-32 % increase) without significantly compromising yield (2-5 % increase). Farmers can get an even higher yield in these situations than in current conventional agricultural production systems without AES. Thus, our study is useful to identify AES demonstrating benefits for arthropod biodiversity with negligible or relatively low costs regarding yield losses. Further optimization of the design and management of AES is needed to improve their effectiveness in promoting both biodiversity and minimizing crop yield losses.

Increasing flower species richness in agricultural landscapes alters insect pollinator networks: Implications for bee health and competition

Ecological restoration programs are established to reverse land degradation, mitigate biodiversity loss, and reinstate ecosystem services. Following recent agricultural intensification that led to a decrease in flower diversity and density in rural areas and subsequently to the decline of many insects, conservation measures targeted at pollinators have been established, including sown wildflower strips (WFS) along field margins. Historically successful in establishing a high density of generalist bees and increasing pollinator diversity, the impact of enhanced flower provision on wider ecological interactions and the structure of pollinator networks has been rarely investigated. Here, we tested the effects of increasing flower species richness and flower density in agricultural landscapes on bee‐plant interaction networks. We measured plant species richness and flower density and surveyed honeybee and bumblebee visits on flowers across a range of field margins on 10 UK farms that applied different pollinator conservation measures. We found that both flower species richness and flower density significantly increased bee abundance, in early and late summer, respectively. At the network level, we found that higher flower species richness did not significantly alter bee species' generality indices, but significantly reduced network connectance and marginally reduced niche overlap across honeybees and bumblebee species, a proxy for insect competition. While higher connectance and niche overlap is believed to strengthen network robustness and often is the aim for the restoration of pollinator networks, we argue that carefully designed WFS may benefit bees by partitioning their foraging niche, limiting competition for resources and the potential for disease transmission via shared floral use. We also discuss the need to extend WFS and their positive effects into spring when wild bee populations are established.