Apple Pollination: Demand Depends on Variety and Supply Depends on Pollinator Identity.

Insect pollination underpins apple production but the extent to which different pollinator guilds supply this service, particularly across different apple varieties, is unknown. Such information is essential if appropriate orchard management practices are to be targeted and proportional to the potential benefits pollinator species may provide. Here we use a novel combination of pollinator effectiveness assays (floral visit effectiveness), orchard field surveys (flower visitation rate) and pollinator dependence manipulations (pollinator exclusion experiments) to quantify the supply of pollination services provided by four different pollinator guilds to the production of four commercial varieties of apple. We show that not all pollinators are equally effective at pollinating apples, with hoverflies being less effective than solitary bees and bumblebees, and the relative abundance of different pollinator guilds visiting apple flowers of different varieties varies significantly. Based on this, the taxa specific economic benefits to UK apple production have been established. The contribution of insect pollinators to the economic output in all varieties was estimated to be £92.1M across the UK, with contributions varying widely across taxa: solitary bees (£51.4M), honeybees (£21.4M), bumblebees (£18.6M) and hoverflies (£0.7M). This research highlights the differences in the economic benefits of four insect pollinator guilds to four major apple varieties in the UK. This information is essential to underpin appropriate investment in pollination services management and provides a model that can be used in other entomolophilous crops to improve our understanding of crop pollination ecology.

Assessing the environmental performance of English arable and livestock holdings using data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN).

Agri-environment schemes (AESs) have been implemented across EU member states in an attempt to reconcile agricultural production methods with protection of the environment and maintenance of the countryside. To determine the extent to which such policy objectives are being fulfilled, participating countries are obliged to monitor and evaluate the environmental, agricultural and socio-economic impacts of their AESs. However, few evaluations measure precise environmental outcomes and critically, there are no agreed methodologies to evaluate the benefits of particular agri-environmental measures, or to track the environmental consequences of changing agricultural practices. In response to these issues, the Agri-Environmental Footprint project developed a common methodology for assessing the environmental impact of European AES. The Agri-Environmental Footprint Index (AFI) is a farm-level, adaptable methodology that aggregates measurements of agri-environmental indicators based on Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) techniques. The method was developed specifically to allow assessment of differences in the environmental performance of farms according to participation in agri-environment schemes. The AFI methodology is constructed so that high values represent good environmental performance. This paper explores the use of the AFI methodology in combination with Farm Business Survey data collected in England for the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), to test whether its use could be extended for the routine surveillance of environmental performance of farming systems using established data sources. Overall, the aim was to measure the environmental impact of three different types of agriculture (arable, lowland livestock and upland livestock) in England and to identify differences in AFI due to participation in agri-environment schemes. However, because farm size, farmer age, level of education and region are also likely to influence the environmental performance of a holding, these factors were also considered. Application of the methodology revealed that only arable holdings participating in agri-environment schemes had a greater environmental performance, although responses differed between regions. Of the other explanatory variables explored, the key factors determining the environmental performance for lowland livestock holdings were farm size, farmer age and level of education. In contrast, the AFI value of upland livestock holdings differed only between regions. The paper demonstrates that the AFI methodology can be used readily with English FADN data and therefore has the potential to be applied more widely to similar data sources routinely collected across the EU-27 in a standardised manner.

Contrasting success in the restoration of plant and phytophagous beetle assemblages of species-rich mesotrophic grasslands.

Over the last 60 years changes to the management of species-rich mesotrophic grasslands have resulted in the large-scale loss and degradation of this habitat across Europe. Restoration of such grasslands on agriculturally improved pastures provides a potentially valuable approach to the conservation of these threatened areas. Over a four-year period a replicated block design was used to test the effects of seed addition (green hay spreading and brush harvest collection) and soil disturbance on the restoration of phytophagous beetle and plant communities. Patterns of increasing restoration success, particularly where hay spreading and soil disturbance were used in combination, were identified for the phytophagous beetles. In the case of the plants, however, initial differences in restoration success in response to these same treatments were not followed by subsequent temporal changes in plant community similarity to target mesotrophic grassland. It is possible that the long-term consequences of the management treatments would not be the establishment of beetle and plant communities characteristic of the targets for restoration. Restoration management to enhance plant establishment using hay spreading and soil disturbance techniques would, however, still increase community similarity in both taxa to that of species-rich mesotrophic grasslands, and so raise their conservation value.