DOCSLIB.ORG

What Do We Currently Know About the Impacts of Pesticide and Fertiliser

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
What Do We Currently Know About the Impacts of Pesticide and Fertiliser EKLIPSE pollinator conservation measures such as flower strips and hedgerows, and what additional research is needed? research and what additional such as flower strips and hedgerows, pollinator conservation measures of adjacent know about the impacts of pesticide and fertiliser use in farmland on effectiveness What do we currently What do we currently know about the impacts of pesticide and fertiliser use in farmland on the effectiveness of adjacent pollinator conservation measures such as flower strips and hedgerows, and what additional research is needed? An EKLIPSE Expert Working Group report www.eklipse-mechanism.eu What do we currently know about the impacts of pesticide and fertiliser use in farmland on the effectiveness of adjacent pollinator conservation measures such as flower strips and hedgerows, and what additional research is needed? An EKLIPSE Expert Working Group report Daniele Alberoni1, Anne Alix2, Lynn Dicks3, Anke C. Dietzsch4, André Krahner4, Stefan Kroder5, Sara Diana Leonhardt6, Veerle Mommaerts7, Nibedita Mukherjee8, Jeffery Pettis9, Noa Simon Delso10, Ana Sançana11, Adam J. Vanbergen12, Vasileios P. Vasileiadis13, Casper J. van der Kooi14, Sara Villa15, Penelope R. Whitehorn16, Thomas Wood17, Benjamin Woodcock18 1 Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Agro-Alimentari, University of Bologna, Italy 2 Corteva Agrisciences, Milton Park, Abingdon, UK 3 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, UK 4 Julius Kühn Institute (JKI), Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Bee Protection, Germany 5 ADAMA Deutschland GmbH, Germany 6 Department of Ecology and Ecosystem Management, Technical University of Munich, Germany 7 Bayer Crop Science SA-NV, Belgium 8 University of Exeter and University of Cambridge, UK 9 Pettis and Associates LLC, Salisbury, MD USA 10 Beekeeping Research and Information Centre (CARI), Belgium 11 Beekeepers Portuguese Cooperative LOUSÃMEL, Portugal 12 Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRAE, Univ. Bourgogne Franche‐Comté, France 13 Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Switzerland 14 Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, the Netherlands 15 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Milano Bicocca, Italy 16 Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology KIT, Germany 17 Laboratory of Zoology, University of Mons, Belgium 18 UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, UK Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial uses is authorised without prior written permission from the EKLIPSE consortium, provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the EKLIPSE consortium. Published by: UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom. This publication needs to be cited as follows: Citation: Alberoni, D., Alix, A., Dicks, L., Dietzsch, A.C., Krahner, A., Kroder, S., Leonhardt, S.D., Mommaerts, V., Mukherjee, N., Pettis, J. Simon Delso, N., Sançana, A., Vanbergen, A.J., Vasileiadis, V.P., van der Kooi, C.J., Villa, S., Whitehorn, P.R., Wood, T., Woodcock, B., (2020). What do we currently know about the impacts of pesticide and fertiliser use in farmland on the effectiveness of adjacent pollinator conservation measures such as flower strips and hedgerows, and what additional research is needed? Report prepared by an EKLIPSE Expert Working Group. UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom. ISBN: 978-1-906698-68-3 Cover photo: Garden bumblebee by Lucy Hulmes, UKCEH Edited by: Estelle Balian, Knowledge Coordination Body Series editors: Karla E. Locher-Krause, Jorge Ventocilla, Heidi Wittmer, Marie Vandewalle, Hilde Eggermont, Allan Watt and Juliette Young. Graphics by: Heather Harris, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, United Kingdom. Print: Seacourt Limited, Oxford, United Kingdom. Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ iii Glossary of Key Terms ............................................................................................................................ iv Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction and context .............................................................................................................. 2 1.1 Organisers ............................................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Context .................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 A Join Fact Finding (JFF) approach ........................................................................................... 3 2. Preparatory work .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 4 3. Format of the workshop ............................................................................................................... 6 4. Results ........................................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Key findings ............................................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Woody structures ................................................................................................................. 8 4.1.2 Nest boxes ............................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.3 Herbaceous strips ................................................................................................................. 9 4.1.4 Semi-natural habitats ......................................................................................................... 11 4.1.5 Cross cutting topics ............................................................................................................ 12 4.1.6 Summary of Key findings .................................................................................................... 13 4.2 Knowledge gaps .................................................................................................................... 14 4.3 Research action trees ............................................................................................................ 23 5. Evaluation and feedback ............................................................................................................. 27 6. Conclusions & Policy recommendations ..................................................................................... 29 References ............................................................................................................................................. 30 Appendix I: List of experts and participants at the workshop ............................................................... 31 Appendix II: –List of documents along with reference numbers .......................................................... 33 Appendix III: Complete database of documents scores by the participants (only available online) ..... 42 Appendix IV: Documents mapped to interventions (only available online) .......................................... 42 Appendix V: Agenda of the workshop ................................................................................................... 43 Appendix VI: Detailed information from participant feedback ............................................................. 48 Appendix VII: Post workshop data sharing ............................................................................................ 49 EKLIPSE – Conservation actions and their impacts on pollinator conservation i List of Figures Figure 1 Participants at the workshop………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 Figure 2 Example of a research action tree produced by the group…………………………………………….. 7 Figure 3 Feedback by the group of participants………………………………………………………………………… 27 List of Tables Table 1 Key findings on Woody structures………………………………………………………………………………….. 8 Table 2 Key findings on nest boxes……………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 Table 3 Key findings on herbaceous strips………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 Table 4 Key findings on semi-natural habitats…………………………………………………………………………… 11 Table 5 Key findings on cross cutting topics………………………………………………………………………………. 12 Table 6 Knowledge gaps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14 Table 7 Summary of knowledge gaps………………………………………………………………………………………… 22 ii eklipse-mechanism.eu Acknowledgements The Expert Working Group (EWG) would like to thank the following individuals and groups for their support in preparing this report: • Saskia Van Crugten (Consultant) for her valuable support as a workshop facilitator. • The EKLIPSE Secretariat and the Knowledge Coordination Body for their support in handling the communications, working group meetings, workshop facilitation and providing advice and direction. Particular thanks go to Estelle Balian, Flore Jeanmart, Allan Watt, Juliette Young, and Karla E. Locher. The Expert working group
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Facilitation Between Plants Shapes Pollination Networks
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/161034; this version posted July 9, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC 4.0 International license. Facilitation between plants shapes pollination networks Gianalberto Losapio1∗, Miguel A. Fortuna1, Jordi Bascompte1, Bernhard Schmid1, Richard Michalet2, Rainer Neumeyer3, Leopoldo Castro4, Pierfilippo Cerretti5, Christoph Germann6, Jean-Paul Haenni7, Seraina Klopfstein8, Javier Ortiz9, Adrian C. Pont10, Pascal Rousse11, J¨urgSchmid12, Daniele Sommaggio13, & Christian Sch¨ob1 1. Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland 2. University of Bordeaux, UMR 5805 EPOC, Avenue des Facult´es,33405, Talence cedex, France 3. Probsteistrasse 89, 8051 Zurich, Switzerland 4. Av. Sanz Gadea 9, 44002 Teruel, Spain 5. Dipartimento di Biologia e Biotecnologie, Universit`adi Roma La Sapienza, Viale dell'universit`a 32, 00185 Roma, Italy 6. Naturmuseum Solothurn, Klosterplatz 2, 4500 Solothurn, Switzerland 7. Mus´eumd'histoire naturelle, Entomologie, Rue des Terreaux 14, 2000 Neuch^atel,Switzer- land 8. Naturhistorisches Museum der Burgergemeinde Bern, WL, Bernastr. 15, 3005 Bern, Switzerland 9. Universidad de Almer´ıa,La Ca~nadade San Urbano, 04120 Almer´ıa,Spain 10. Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW, UK 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/161034; this version posted July 9, 2017. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollinators: First Global Risk Index for Species Declines and Effects on Humanity 16 August 2021
    Pollinators: First global risk index for species declines and effects on humanity 16 August 2021 ecosystems, including many that humans and other animals rely on for nutrition. If they go, we may be in serious trouble." Dicks assembled a 20-strong team of scientists and indigenous representatives to attempt an initial evaluation of the drivers and risks for pollinator declines worldwide. The research is published today in Nature Ecology & Evolution. The top three global causes of pollinator loss are habitat destruction, followed by land management—primarily the grazing, fertilizers and crop monoculture of farming—and then widespread pesticide use, according to the study. The effect of Credit: CC0 Public Domain climate change comes in at number four, although data are limited. Perhaps the biggest direct risk to humans across all Disappearing habitats and use of pesticides are regions is "crop pollination deficit": falls in quantity driving the loss of pollinator species around the and quality of food and biofuel crops. Experts world, posing a threat to "ecosystem services" that ranked the risk of crop yield "instability" as serious provide food and wellbeing to many or high across two-thirds of the planet—from Africa millions—particularly in the Global South—as well asto Latin America—where many rely directly on billions of dollars in crop productivity. pollinated crops through small-holder farming. This is according to an international panel of "Crops dependent on pollinators fluctuate more in experts, led by the University of Cambridge, who yield than, for example, cereals," said Dicks. used available evidence to create the first "Increasingly unusual climatic phenomena, such as planetary risk index of the causes and effects of extreme rainfall and temperature, are already dramatic pollinator declines in six global regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollination of Two Species of Ferocactus: Interactions Between Cactus-Specialist Bees and Their Host Plants
    Functional Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Ecology 2005 Pollination of two species of Ferocactus: interactions 19, 727–734 between cactus-specialist bees and their host plants M. E. MCINTOSH Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 1041 E. Lowell Street; BioSciences West, Room 310, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA Summary 1. Resolving the controversy over the prevalence of generalization in plant–pollinator interactions requires field studies characterizing the pollination effectiveness of all a plant’s floral visitors. Herein, the pollination effectiveness of all visitors to two species of barrel cactus (Ferocactus) was quantified. 2. Flowers of both species were pollinated almost exclusively by cactus-specialist bees: 99% (F. cylindraceus (Engelm.) Orcutt) and 94% (F. wislizeni (Engelm.) Britt. and Rose) of all seeds produced in this study resulted from cactus bee visits. 3. For F. cylindraceus, the cactus-specialist Diadasia rinconis was the most abundant visitor. For F. wislizeni, three cactus-specialists (including D. rinconis) plus generalists in the family Halictidae (which did not act as pollinators) each accounted for a quarter of all visits. 4. Diadasia rinconis visits to F. wislizeni flowers were more effective (per-visit) than visits by the other two cactus-specialists. 5. Pollen-collecting and nectar-collecting visits were equally effective. Nectar-collecting visits were the most abundant. 6. Apart from the non-pollinating halictids, floral visitors surprisingly did not include commonly co-occurring generalist bees. 7. These data suggest that, just as apparently specialized flowers may be visited by a diverse assemblage of generalists, so apparently generalized flowers may be visited predominantly by specialists, and that these specialists may perform virtually all of the pollination.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pollination Deficit Towards Supply Chain Resilience in the Face of Pollinator Decline
    The pollination deficit Towards supply chain resilience in the face of pollinator decline Acknowledgements This resource is an output of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI), supported by the Arcadia Fund. We are grateful for the inputs of all the companies, interviewees and workshop attendees who contributed their time and expertise. Particular thanks go to Dr Alexandra-Maria Klein and Dr Virginie Boreux, to Mars, The Jordans & Ryvita Company, Sustainable Agriculture Network and The Body Shop for inputting into this report. Thanks also to Dr Chloe Montes for her work in shaping this project and to Professor Simon Potts and Dr Tom Breeze. Project partners The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) www.cisl.cam.ac.uk The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership empowers business and policy leaders to make the necessary adjustments to their organisations, industries and economic systems in light of this challenge. By bringing together multidisciplinary researchers with influential business and policy practitioners across the globe, we foster an exchange of ideas across traditional boundaries to generate new solutions- oriented thinking. Fauna & Flora International (FFI) www.fauna-flora.org Fauna & Flora International (FFI) protects threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and that take account of human needs. Operating in more than 50 countries worldwide, FFI saves species from extinction and habitats from destruction, while improving the livelihoods of local people. Founded in 1903, FFI is the world’s longest established international conservation body and a registered charity. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) www.unep-wcmc.org UNEP-WCMC is the specialist biodiversity assessment arm of United Nations Environment, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for Coordinated Transdisciplinary Research Infrastructures for Pollinator Conservation and Crop Pollination Resilience
    Environmental Research Letters LETTER • OPEN ACCESS The need for coordinated transdisciplinary research infrastructures for pollinator conservation and crop pollination resilience To cite this article: Ignasi Bartomeus and Lynn V Dicks 2019 Environ. Res. Lett. 14 045017 View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 139.222.162.213 on 22/07/2019 at 10:06 Environ. Res. Lett. 14 (2019) 045017 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab0cb5 LETTER The need for coordinated transdisciplinary research infrastructures OPEN ACCESS for pollinator conservation and crop pollination resilience RECEIVED 6 November 2018 Ignasi Bartomeus1 and Lynn V Dicks2 ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 1 Estación Biológica de Doñana (EBD-CSIC), Sevilla, Spain 5 March 2019 2 School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom PUBLISHED 17 April 2019 E-mail: [email protected] Keywords: bees, biodiversity, global change, ecosystem services, monitoring, agroecosystems Original content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Abstract Any further distribution of There is a growing concern about the status and trends of animal pollinators worldwide. Pollinators this work must maintain provide a key service to both wild plants and crops by mediating their reproduction, so pollinator attribution to the author(s) and the title of conservation is of fundamental importance to conservation and to food production. Understanding the work, journal citation and DOI. of the extent of pollinator declines is constrained by the paucity of accessible data, which leads to geographically- and taxonomically-biased assessments. In addition, land conversion to agriculture and intensive agricultural management are two of the main threats to pollinators.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservation Evidence Database
    Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The Conservation Evidence database William Sutherland, Nigel Taylor, Douglas Macfarlane, Tatsuya Amano, Alec Christie, Lynn Dicks, Anaëlle Lemasson, Nick Littlewood, Philip Martin, Nancy Ockendon, et al. To cite this version: William Sutherland, Nigel Taylor, Douglas Macfarlane, Tatsuya Amano, Alec Christie, et al.. Build- ing a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The Conservation Evidence database. Biological Conservation, Elsevier, 2019, 238, pp.108199. 10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108199. hal-02503666 HAL Id: hal-02503666 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02503666 Submitted on 10 Mar 2020 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 1 Building a tool to overcome barriers in research-implementation spaces: The Conservation Evidence database William J. Sutherland a,b,, Nigel G. Taylor c, Douglas MacFarlan e d, Tatsuya Amano e, Alec P. Christie a, Lynn V. Dicks f, Anaëlle J. Lemasson g, Nick A. Littlewood a, Philip A. Martin a,b, Nancy Ockendon a, Silviu O. Petrovan a, Rebecca J. Robertson h, Ricardo Rocha a, Gorm E. Shackelford a,b, Rebecca K. Smith a, Elizabeth H.M. Tyler a, Claire F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Making Landscapes Work for Pollinators, Now and Into the Future; the Role of B-Lines
    Making landscapes work for pollinators, now and into the future; the role of B-Lines Workshop Report (a report of the B-Lines workshop held in York on 31 st October 2011) Participating Organisations Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services Systems North Yorkshire County Council Programme (University of York) Buglife Plantlife Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) Rivers of Flowers Co-operative Group Scottish Agricultural College Conservation Grade Stockbridge Technology Centre Food and Environment Research Agency (FERA) The Environment Bank Country Land and Business Association (CLA) University of Cambridge Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust University of Leeds Landlife University of York National Farmers Union (NFU) Yorkshire Wildlife Trust Natural England Yorkshire Dales Millennium Trust Newcastle University West Yorkshire Biodiversity Group North York Moors National Park Authority The B-Lines Initiative in Yorkshire- ‘Bee Roads’ – is supported by The Co-operative’s Plan Bee Programme Introduction This report represents a summary of key discussion points made at, and outcomes from Buglife’s workshop “ Making landscapes works for pollinators, both now and into the future; the role of B-Lines ” held on 31 st October 2011 at Foss House, York. The workshop was organised to discuss the relative merits of different options (both current and new), for conserving/enhancing habitat for pollinators and other invertebrates across our farmed landscape and to discuss the development of more effective delivery models. The aim was to achieve agreement over what needs doing and to move towards a consensus over an improved landscape-scale approach for pollinators. The B-Lines concept was promoted as one of the core components of any new delivery model; representing a long-term solution which integrates widespread farmland work with habitat based landscape-scale delivery (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Interactions Shape Pollination Networks Via Nonadditive Effects
    Zurich Open Repository and Archive University of Zurich Main Library Strickhofstrasse 39 CH-8057 Zurich www.zora.uzh.ch Year: 2019 Plant interactions shape pollination networks via nonadditive effects Losapio, Gianalberto ; Fortuna, Miguel A ; Bascompte, Jordi ; Schmid, Bernhard ; Michalet, Richard ; Neumeyer, Rainer ; Castro, Leopoldo ; Cerretti, Pierfilippo ; Germann, Christoph ; Haenni, Jean-Paul ; Klopfstein, Seraina ; Ortiz-Sanchez, Francisco Javier ; Pont, Adrian C ; Rousse, Pascal ; Schmid, Jürg ; Sommaggio, Daniele ; Schöb, Christian Abstract: Plants grow in communities where they interact with other plants and with other living organ- isms such as pollinators. On the one hand, studies of plant–plant interactions rarely consider how plants interact with other trophic levels such as pollinators. On the other, studies of plant–animal interac- tions rarely deal with interactions within trophic levels such as plant–plant competition and facilitation. Thus, to what degree plant interactions affect biodiversity and ecological networks across trophic levels is poorly understood. We manipulated plant communities driven by foundation species facilitation and sampled plant–pollinator networks at fine spatial scale in a field experiment in Sierra Nevada, Spain. We found that plant–plant facilitation shaped pollinator diversity and structured pollination networks. Nonaddictive effects of plant interactions on pollinator diversity and interaction diversity were synergistic in one foundation species networks while they were additive in another foundation species. Nonaddictive effects of plant interactions were due to rewiring of pollination interactions. In addition, plant facilitation had negative effects on the structure of pollination networks likely due to increase in plant competition for pollination. Our results empirically demonstrate how different network types are coupled, revealing pervasive consequences of interaction chains in diverse communities.
    [Show full text]
  • CAP Fitness Check
    Is the CAP Fit for purpose? An evidence-based fitness-check assessment Leipzig, November 2017 Authors: Guy Pe’er, Sebastian Lakner, Robert Müller, Gioele Passoni, Vasileios Bontzorlos, Dagmar Clough, Francisco Moreira, Clémentine Azam, Jurij Berger, Peter Bezak, Aletta Bonn, Bernd Hansjürgens, Lars Hartmann, Janina Kleemann, Angela Lomba, Amanda Sahrbacher, Stefan Schindler, Christian Schleyer, Jenny Schmidt, Stefan Schüler, Clélia Sirami, Marie von Meyer-Höfer, Yves Zinngrebe. Additional contributions (‘boxes’): Felix Herzog and Stefan Möckel. Additional members of the scoping committee: Tim Benton, Lynn Dicks, Kaley Hart, Jennifer Hauck, Felix Herzog, William Sutherland. The work has gone through external review by Irina Herzon, Alan Matthews, Rainer Oppermann, and Stephan Von Cramon-Taubadel. Commissioned by Stichting BirdLife Europe and the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and further supported and funded by Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU), German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, the University of Göttingen, The Greens / The European Free Alliance in the European Parliament, and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists & Democrats in the European Parliament 1 This document should be cited as: G. Pe’er, S. Lakner, R. Müller, G. Passoni, V. Bontzorlos, D. Clough, F. Moreira, C. Azam, J. Berger, P. Bezak, A. Bonn, B. Hansjürgens, L. Hartmann, J. Kleemann, A. Lomba, A. Sahrbacher, S. Schindler, C. Schleyer, J. Schmidt, S. Schüler, C. Sirami, M. von Meyer-Höfer, and Y. Zinngrebe (2017). Is the CAP fit for purpose? An evidence-based fitness check assessment. Leipzig, German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Halle-Jena-Leipzig. Disclaimer This report is the outcome of an independent scientific process and its contents represent the knowledge, experience and opinions of its authors alone.
    [Show full text]
  • A Horizon Scan of Global Conservation Issues for 2010
    TREE-1198; No of Pages 7 Update Forum A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010 William J. Sutherland1, Mick Clout2, Isabelle M. Coˆ te´ 3, Peter Daszak4, Michael H. Depledge5, Liz Fellman6, Erica Fleishman7, Rachel Garthwaite8, David W. Gibbons9, Jennifer De Lurio10, Andrew J. Impey6, Fiona Lickorish11, David Lindenmayer12, Jane Madgwick13, Ceri Margerison14, Trevor Maynard15, Lloyd S. Peck16, Jules Pretty17, Stephanie Prior1, Kent H. Redford18,Jo¨ rn P.W. Scharlemann19, Mark Spalding20 and Andrew R. Watkinson21 1 Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Downing Street Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK 2 Centre for Biodiversity and Biosecurity, School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, PB 92019, Auckland, New Zealand 3 Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada 4 Wildlife Trust, 460 West 34th Street, 17th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA 5 Peninsula Medical School, Research Way, Plymouth, PL6 8BU, UK 6 Natural Environment Research Council, Polaris House, North Star Avenue, Swindon, SN2 1EU 7 Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, 2400 Bren Hall, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5131, USA 8 The Royal Society, 6-9 Carlton House Terrace, SW1Y 5AG, UK 9 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK 10 Environment Agency, Rivers House, Lower Bristol Road, Bath, BA2 9ES, UK 11 Defra, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR, UK 12 Fenner School of Environment and Society, Building 48, The Australian National
    [Show full text]
  • British Ecological Society/Cambridge Conservation Initiative Annual Symposium
    British Ecological Society/Cambridge Conservation Initiative Annual Symposium Making a Difference in Conservation: Improving the Links between Ecological Research, Policy and Practice Conference report: impressions of the spoken and unspoken word. Clive Mitchell1 and Juliette Young2 This sell-out event brought over 250 delegates together from all over the world to explore the relationships between evidence, policy and practice. The constant ‘buzz’, swapping of contact details, excellent talks, workshops, panel discussions, question-answer sessions and social media chatter all testify to a hugely successful event. The plenary sessions were recorded and presentations will be available on the BES website. This report is in two parts. The first aims to present an overview based on what was said, drawing out the main themes that emerged across the presentations. The second aims to sketch out what was not said: picking up points that there was little time to explore or expand upon, including assumptions and the importance of world-views in filtering the evidence that is used to support policy and practice. To use an analogy from photography, we aim to present both the positive and negative photographic prints as a basis to progress the discourse about policy and practice to shape ecology and society. In his opening remarks, Bill Sutherland reminded us why the subject of this conference is so important. There are conservation successes. Land is protected, sometimes it is well managed. We have legislation and sometimes it works. But we are still often amateurish in linking policy and evidence effectively, relying more on expert opinion than global experience of what works.
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Are the Drivers of Geographic Variation of Floral Scents in a Highly Specialized Pollination Mutualism: a Study of Ficus Hirta in China
    Plants Are the Drivers of Geographic Variation of Floral Scents in a Highly Specialized Pollination Mutualism: a Study of Ficus Hirta in China Deng Xiaoxia CEFE: Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive Buatois Bruno CEFE: Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive Peng Yan-Qiong XTBG: Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden Hui Yu ( [email protected] ) South China Botanical Garden Chinese Academy of Sciences https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0074-9153 Cheng Yufen South China Botanical Garden Kjellberg Finn CEFE: Centre d'Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive Prot Magali CEFE Research article Keywords: Geographic variation, mutualism, coevolution, volatile organic compounds, Ficus Posted Date: February 5th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-192226/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/12 Abstract Background Floral volatiles play an important role in pollinator attraction. This is particularly true in obligate brood site pollination mutualisms. The plants generally produce inconspicuous owers and depend on odours to attract to their inorescences specialised pollinators that breed in their oral structures. Little is known about the processes shaping the micro-evolution of these oral odours. Here, we investigate geographic variation of oral odour in an obligate host- specic brood site pollination mutualism where plant and pollinator genetic structures are different, Ficus hirta and its specialised pollinators. Results We evidence progressive geographic divergence of oral odours. The pattern of variation ts plant genetic structure but differs from pollinating insect structuring into species and populations. In our study system, the evolution of receptive oral odour presents a pattern that is not distinguishable from neutral drift that is not canalised by the insects.
    [Show full text]