We assessed the state of knowledge regarding the effects of large-scale pollution with neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on non-target invertebrate species of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ...environments. A large section of the assessment is dedicated to the state of knowledge on sublethal effects on honeybees (Apis mellifera) because this important pollinator is the most studied non-target invertebrate species. Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths), Lumbricidae (earthworms), Apoidae sensu lato (bumblebees, solitary bees) and the section “other invertebrates” review available studies on the other terrestrial species. The sections on freshwater and marine species are rather short as little is known so far about the impact of neonicotinoid insecticides and fipronil on the diverse invertebrate fauna of these widely exposed habitats. For terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species, the known effects of neonicotinoid pesticides and fipronil are described ranging from organismal toxicology and behavioural effects to population-level effects. For earthworms, freshwater and marine species, the relation of findings to regulatory risk assessment is described. Neonicotinoid insecticides exhibit very high toxicity to a wide range of invertebrates, particularly insects, and field-realistic exposure is likely to result in both lethal and a broad range of important sublethal impacts. There is a major knowledge gap regarding impacts on the grand majority of invertebrates, many of which perform essential roles enabling healthy ecosystem functioning. The data on the few non-target species on which field tests have been performed are limited by major flaws in the outdated test protocols. Despite large knowledge gaps and uncertainties, enough knowledge exists to conclude that existing levels of pollution with neonicotinoids and fipronil resulting from presently authorized uses frequently exceed the lowest observed adverse effect concentrations and are thus likely to have large-scale and wide ranging negative biological and ecological impacts on a wide range of non-target invertebrates in terrestrial, aquatic, marine and benthic habitats.
Despite widespread concern about declines in pollination services, little is known about the patterns of change in most pollinator assemblages. By studying bee and hoverfly assemblages in Britain and ...the Netherlands, we found evidence of declines (preversus post-1980) in local bee diversity in both countries; however, divergent trends were observed in hoverflies. Depending on the assemblage and location, pollinator declines were most frequent in habitat and flower specialists, in univoltine species, and/or in nonmigrants. In conjunction with this evidence, outcrossing plant species that are reliant on the declining pollinators have themselves declined relative to other plant species. Taken together, these findings strongly suggest a causal connection between local extinctions of functionally linked plant and pollinator species.
Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, ...vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time—depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In doing so, they continuously stimulate neurons leading ultimately to death of target invertebrates. Like virtually all insecticides, they can also have lethal and sublethal impacts on non-target organisms, including insect predators and vertebrates. Furthermore, a range of synergistic effects with other stressors have been documented. Here, we review extensively their metabolic pathways, showing how they form both compound-specific and common metabolites which can themselves be toxic. These may result in prolonged toxicity. Considering their wide commercial expansion, mode of action, the systemic properties in plants, persistence and environmental fate, coupled with limited information about the toxicity profiles of these compounds and their metabolites, neonicotinoids and fipronil may entail significant risks to the environment. A global evaluation of the potential collateral effects of their use is therefore timely. The present paper and subsequent chapters in this review of the global literature explore these risks and show a growing body of evidence that persistent, low concentrations of these insecticides pose serious risks of undesirable environmental impacts.
•We provide a comprehensive overview on earth observation (EO) indicators for biodiversity (BD).•We focus on taxonomic, structural and functional biodiversity.•EO is not able to record BD according ...to taxonomical classifications of in-situ species.•Spectral traits (ST) and spectral trait variations (STV) are the basis concept of EO to quantify BD.•Coupling different approaches, developing sensor networks and new concepts, tools and models in handling complex and big data are important.
Impacts of human civilization on ecosystems threaten global biodiversity. In a changing environment, traditional in situ approaches to biodiversity monitoring have made significant steps forward to quantify and evaluate BD at many scales but still, these methods are limited to comparatively small areas. Earth observation (EO) techniques may provide a solution to overcome this shortcoming by measuring entities of interest at different spatial and temporal scales.
This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the role of EO to detect, describe, explain, predict and assess biodiversity. Here, we focus on three main aspects related to biodiversity − taxonomic diversity, functional diversity and structural diversity, which integrate different levels of organization − molecular, genetic, individual, species, populations, communities, biomes, ecosystems and landscapes. In particular, we discuss the recording of taxonomic elements of biodiversity through the identification of animal and plant species. We highlight the importance of the spectral traits (ST) and spectral trait variations (STV) concept for EO-based biodiversity research. Furthermore we provide examples of spectral traits/spectral trait variations used in EO applications for quantifying taxonomic diversity, functional diversity and structural diversity. We discuss the use of EO to monitor biodiversity and habitat quality using different remote-sensing techniques. Finally, we suggest specifically important steps for a better integration of EO in biodiversity research.
EO methods represent an affordable, repeatable and comparable method for measuring, describing, explaining and modelling taxonomic, functional and structural diversity. Upcoming sensor developments will provide opportunities to quantify spectral traits, currently not detectable with EO, and will surely help to describe biodiversity in more detail. Therefore, new concepts are needed to tightly integrate EO sensor networks with the identification of biodiversity. This will mean taking completely new directions in the future to link complex, large data, different approaches and models.
Pesticides are an important potential cause of biodiversity and pollinator decline. Little is known about the impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators in the field. Insect pollinators were sampled ...in an agricultural system in Italy with the aim of detecting the impacts of pesticide use. The insecticide fenitrothion was over 150 times greater in toxicity than other pesticides used in the area, so sampling was set up around its application. Species richness of wild bees, bumblebees and butterflies were sampled at three spatial scales to assess responses to pesticide application: (i) the ‘field’ scale along pesticide drift gradients; (ii) the ‘landscape’ scale sampling in different crops within the area and (iii) the ‘regional’ scale comparing two river basins with contrasting agricultural intensity. At the field scale, the interaction between the application regime of the insecticide and the point in the season was important for species richness. Wild bee species richness appeared to be unaffected by one insecticide application, but declined after two and three applications. At the landscape scale, the species richness of wild bees declined in vine fields where the insecticide was applied, but did not decline in maize or uncultivated fields. At the regional scale, lower bumblebee and butterfly species richness was found in the more intensively farmed basin with higher pesticide loads. Our results suggest that wild bees are an insect pollinator group at particular risk from pesticide use. Further investigation is needed on how the type, quantity and timing of pesticide application impacts pollinators.
Pestizide stellen einen möglichen Grund für die Diversitäts- und Bestäuberabnahme dar. Es ist jedoch wenig über die Wirkung von Pestiziden auf wildlebende Bestäuber im Freiland bekannt. Mit dem Ziel die Auswirkungen von Pestizideinsätzen festzustellen wurden Bestäuberinsekten in einem landwirtschaflichen Systemen in Italien gesammelt. Das Insektizid Fenitrothion ist etwa 150 mal toxischer als die anderen Pestizide, die in der Gegend genutzt werden, und so wurde die Untersuchung rund um seine Nutzung angelegt. Um die Reaktionen auf die Pestizidanwendung abzuschätzen wurde der Artenreichtum der Wildbienen, Hummeln und Schmetterlinge auf drei räumlichen Skalen untersucht: (i) auf der Feldskala entlang von Gradienten der Pestiziddrift, (ii) auf der Landschaftsskala indem verschiedene Feldfrüchte in dem Gebiet beprobt wurden und (iii) auf der regionalen Skala indem zwei Flusstäler mit unterschiedlicher landwirtschaftlicher Intensität verglichen wurden. Auf der Feldskala war die Interaktion zwischen dem Anwendungsregime des Insektizids und dem Zeitpunkt der Saison für den Artenreichtum wichtig. Der Artenreichtum der Wildbienen schien von einer Insektizidanwendung unbeeinflusst, nahm aber nach zwei- oder dreifacher Anwendung ab. Auf der Landschaftsskala nahm der Artenreichtum der Wildbienen in Weinbergen ab in denen die Insektizide angewendet wurden, aber nicht auf Maisfeldern oder auf nichtkultivierten Flächen. Auf der regionalen Skala wurden geringere Hummel- und Schmetterlingsartenzahlen in dem intensiver bewirtschafteten Flusstal mit den höheren Pestizidbelastungen gefunden. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass Wildbienen zu einer Bestäuberinsektengruppe gehören, die dem Risiko der Pestizidbelastung besonders ausgesetzt ist. Es sind weitere Untersuchungen darüber notwendig, wie der Typ, die Menge und der Zeitrahmen der Pestizidanwendung die Bestäuber beeinflusst.
The European Union's Natura 2000 (N2000) is among the largest international networks of protected areas. One of its aims is to secure the status of a predetermined set of (targeted) bird and ...butterfly species. However, nontarget species may also benefit from N2000. We evaluated how the terrestrial component of this network affects the abundance of nontargeted, more common bird and butterfly species based on data from long‐term volunteer‐based monitoring programs in 9602 sites for birds and 2001 sites for butterflies. In almost half of the 155 bird species assessed, and particularly among woodland specialists, abundance increased (slope estimates ranged from 0.101 SD 0.042 to 3.51 SD 1.30) as the proportion of landscape covered by N2000 sites increased. This positive relationship existed for 27 of the 104 butterfly species (estimates ranged from 0.382 SD 0.163 to 4.28 SD 0.768), although most butterflies were generalists. For most species, when land‐cover covariates were accounted for these positive relationships were not evident, meaning land cover may be a determinant of positive effects of the N2000 network. The increase in abundance as N2000 coverage increased correlated with the specialization index for birds, but not for butterflies. Although the N2000 network supports high abundance of a large spectrum of species, the low number of specialist butterflies with a positive association with the N2000 network shows the need to improve the habitat quality of N2000 sites that could harbor open‐land butterfly specialists. For a better understanding of the processes involved, we advocate for standardized collection of data at N2000 sites.
Efectos de Natura 2000 sobre las Especies No Focales de Aves y Mariposas con Base en Datos de Ciencia Ciudadana
Resumen
La red Natura 2000 (N2000) de la Unión Europea está entre las redes internacionales más grandes de áreas protegidas. Uno de sus objetivos es asegurar el estado de un conjunto predeterminado de especies de aves y mariposas (focales). Sin embargo, las especies no focales también pueden beneficiarse con la N2000. Evaluamos cómo el componente terrestre de esta red afecta la abundancia de las especies de aves y mariposas no focales más comunes con base en los datos de programas de monitoreo voluntario a largo plazo en 9,602 sitios para aves y en 2,001 sitios para mariposas. En casi la mitad de las 155 especies de aves evaluadas, particularmente entre aquellas especies especialistas en zonas boscosas, la abundancia incrementó (los estimaciones de la pendiente variaron desde 0.101 DS 0.042 hasta 3.51 DS 1.30) conforme incrementó la proporción del paisaje cubierto por sitios de la N2000. Esta relación positiva existió en 27 de las 104 especies de mariposas (con una variación de estimaciones desde 0.382 DS 0.163 hasta 4.28 DS 0.768), aunque la mayoría de las especies de mariposas fueron generalistas. Cuando se consideraron las covarianzas de cobertura de suelo estas relaciones positivas no fueron evidentes para la mayoría de las especies, lo que significa que la cobertura de suelo puede ser una determinante de los efectos positivos de la red N2000. El incremento en la abundancia conforme aumentó la cobertura de la N2000 estuvo correlacionado con el índice de especialización de las aves, pero no el de las mariposas. Aunque la red N2000 sostiene la abundancia alta de un espectro amplio de especies, el bajo número de mariposas especialistas con una asociación positiva a la red N2000 demuestra la necesidad de mejorar la calidad del hábitat de los sitios N2000 que podrían albergar a mariposas especialistas de campo abierto. Para un mejor entendimiento de los procesos involucrados, promovemos una recolección estandarizada de datos en los sitios de la red N2000.
摘要
欧盟的 Natura 2000(N2000) 是全球最大的保护地网络之一, 它的目标之一是保护一批目标鸟类和蝴蝶物种的现状。不过, 非目标物种也可能从 N2000 中获益。本研究评估了该网络陆地保护区如何影响更为常见的非目标鸟类和蝴蝶的丰度, 所用数据来自长期的志愿者监测项目, 包括了 9602 个鸟类监测点和 2001 个蝴蝶监测点。在评估的 155 种鸟类中, 几乎一半的鸟类, 特别是林地专性种, 在 N2000 位点覆盖的景观比例上升时数量增加 (斜率估计值在 0.101 SD 0.042 到3.51 SD 1.30 之间) 。虽然大多数蝴蝶都是广幅种, 但 104 种蝴蝶中也有 27 种存在这种正相关关系 (斜率估计值在 0.382 SD 0.163 到 4.28 SD 0.768) 。对于大多数物种来说, 当考虑土地覆盖协变量时, 这样的正相关关系并不明显, 这意味着土地覆盖可能是 N2000 网络能否对物种产生积极影响的关键因素。物种的丰度随着 N2000 覆盖度增加而增加的现象与鸟类的生境特化指数相关, 而在蝴蝶中则无关。虽然 N2000 网络使许多物种得以维持较高丰度, 但获得其积极影响的蝴蝶专性种数量仍较少, 这说明需要在 N2000 网络中提高专性生活在开阔地的蝴蝶的生境质量。为了更好地理解其中的过程, 我们建议收集更多标准化的 N2000 位点数据。 【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校: 聂永刚】
Article impact statement: Across Europe the abundance of a majority of nontarget birds and a quarter of nontarget butterflies increased with Natura 2000 coverage.
•Massive harvests loss to planthopper infestations occurs after insecticide spraying.•The DPSIR mental model recommending spraying ignores ecological feedback mechanisms.•Feedbacks can be described ...as a second, complementary DPSIR cycle.•Integrating both, the Responses of one are the Drivers of the other, and vice versa.•The “double DPSIR” may be able to illustrate current deficits to land managers.
A narrow perception of causality chains can be counterproductive and self-defeating, as the case of pesticide use in Asian rice production shows. Using the Driving Forces – Pressures – State – Impact – Response (DPSIR) scheme developed by EEA and Eurostat we analyse the logic inherent to the application of insecticides. Its underlying biology-to-society perspective considers insects as the initial Pressure, spraying insecticides as adequate Response and yield protection as result.
This view is apparently supported by positive results in the early growth phase, but this short term success is paid for by increased system sensitivity, possibly leading to severe damages in the later stages when a seemingly similar situation is indeed very different. This is due to the complementary but ignored society-to-biology loop: insecticide spraying leads to biocontrol loss enhancing vulnerability.
Once the system has gone through both loops, the State of the system has changed, enhancing its sensitivity to planthopper infestations. The changed State leads to unexpected Impacts – in particular, the standard Response is no longer capable of reducing the Drivers (the numbers of planthoppers) as expected. This does not become obvious, however, before a new pressure arises and cannot be understood inside the standard management loop but requires combining it with the society-to-biology loop.
A double-DPSIR scheme is suggested as a heuristic device, and as a communication tool conveying the message in a simplified way. It shows that the Responses of one loop are the Drivers of the other, leading to different conclusions based on different pre-analytical visions.
The diversity and abundance of wild bees ensures the delivery of pollination services and the maintenance of ecosystem diversity. As previous studies carried out in Central Europe and the US have ...shown, bee diversity and abundance is influenced by the structure and the composition of the surrounding landscape. Comparable studies have so far not been carried out in the Mediterranean region. The present study examines the influence of Mediterranean landscape context on the diversity and abundance of wild bees. To do this, we sampled bees in 13 sites in olive groves on Lesvos Island, Greece. Bees were assigned to five categories consisting of three body size groups (small, medium and large bees), the single most abundant bee species (Lasioglossum marginatum) and all species combined. The influence of the landscape context on bee abundance and species richness was assessed at five radii (250, 500, 750, 1000 and 1250 m) from the centre of each site. We found that the abundance within bee groups was influenced differently by different landscape parameters and land covers, whereas species richness was unaffected. Generally, smaller bees’ abundance was impacted by landscape parameters at smaller scales and larger bees at larger scales. The land cover that influenced bee abundance positively was olive grove, while phrygana, conifer forest, broad-leaved forest, cultivated land, rock, urban areas and sea had mostly negative or no impact. We stress the need for a holistic approach, including all land covers, when assessing the effects of landscape context on bee diversity and abundance in the Mediterranean.
To better understand the dynamics of bee populations in crops, we assessed the effect of landscape context and habitat type on bee communities in annual entomophilous crops in Europe. We quantified ...bee communities in five pairs of crop-country: buckwheat in Poland, cantaloupe in France, field beans in the UK, spring oilseed rape in Sweden, and strawberries in Germany. For each country, 7–10 study fields were sampled over a gradient of increasing proportion of semi-natural habitats in the surrounding landscape. The CORINE land cover classification was used to characterize the landscape over a 3
km radius around each study field and we used multivariate and regression analyses to quantify the impact of landscape features on bee abundance and diversity at the sub-generic taxonomic level. Neither overall wild bee abundance nor diversity, taken as the number of sub-genera, was significantly affected by the proportion of semi-natural habitat. Therefore, we used the most precise level of the CORINE classification to examine the possible links between specific landscape features and wild bee communities. Bee community composition fell into three distinct groups across Europe: group 1 included Poland, Germany, and Sweden, group 2 the UK, and group 3 France. Among all three groups, wild bee abundance and sub-generic diversity were affected by 17 landscape elements including some semi-natural habitats (e.g., transitional woodland-shrub), some urban habitats (e.g., sport and leisure facilities) and some crop habitats (e.g., non-irrigated arable land). Some bee taxa were positively affected by urban habitats only, others by semi-natural habitats only, and others by a combination of semi-natural, urban and crop habitats. Bee sub-genera favoured by urban and crop habitats were more resistant to landscape change than those favoured only by semi-natural habitats. In agroecosystems, the agricultural intensification defined as the loss of semi-natural habitats does not necessarily cause a decline in evenness at the local level, but can change community composition towards a bee fauna dominated by common taxa.
PDF
