Biodiversity benefits pollination, pest control, and crop productivity but suffers from land-use intensification.

Significance: Many of the world’s crops are pollinated by insects, and bees are often assumed to be the most important pollinators. To our knowledge, our study is the first quantitative evaluation of the relative contribution of non-bee pollinators to global pollinator-dependent crops. Across 39 studies we show that insects other than bees are efficient pollinators providing 39% of visits to crop flowers. A shift in perspective from a bee-only focus is needed for assessments of crop pollinator biodiversity and the economic value of pollination. These studies should also consider the services provided by other types of insects, such as flies, wasps, beetles, and butterflies—important pollinators that are currently overlooked.

It has been suggested that the negative effects on bees of neonicotinoid pesticides could be averted in field conditions if they chose not to forage on treated nectar; here field-level neonicotinoid doses are used in laboratory experiments to show that honeybees and bumblebees do not avoid neonicotinoid-treated food and instead actually prefer it. Reports that neonicotinoid insecticides have adverse effects on bee populations remain controversial. Some studies have been criticized as using unrealistically high insecticide dosages or conditions far removed from those in the field, and it has been suggested that bees might be able to detect the insecticides and avoid treated crops. Two papers in this issue of Nature present results that fill some of the gaps in our knowledge. In laboratory experiments Sébastien Kessler et al. use field-level doses of three commonly used neonicotinoids — clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam — to show that both honeybees and bumblebees are able to detect their presence. However, the bees do not avoid neonicotinoid-treated food and may even prefer it. Maj Rundlöf et al. sowed oilseed rape with and without a clothianidin seed coating in matched and replicated agricultural landscapes. They found the seed coating to be associated with reduced density of wild bees, as well as reduced nesting of solitary bees and reduced colony growth of bumblebees, but they did not detect an effect on honeybees. The impact of neonicotinoid insecticides on insect pollinators is highly controversial. Sublethal concentrations alter the behaviour of social bees and reduce survival of entire colonies1,2,3. However, critics argue that the reported negative effects only arise from neonicotinoid concentrations that are greater than those found in the nectar and pollen of pesticide-treated plants4. Furthermore, it has been suggested that bees could choose to forage on other available flowers and hence avoid or dilute exposure4,5. Here, using a two-choice feeding assay, we show that the honeybee, Apis mellifera, and the buff-tailed bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, do not avoid nectar-relevant concentrations of three of the most commonly used neonicotinoids, imidacloprid (IMD), thiamethoxam (TMX), and clothianidin (CLO), in food. Moreover, bees of both species prefer to eat more of sucrose solutions laced with IMD or TMX than sucrose alone. Stimulation with IMD, TMX and CLO neither elicited spiking responses from gustatory neurons in the bees’ mouthparts, nor inhibited the responses of sucrose-sensitive neurons. Our data indicate that bees cannot taste neonicotinoids and are not repelled by them. Instead, bees preferred solutions containing IMD or TMX, even though the consumption of these pesticides caused them to eat less food overall. This work shows that bees cannot control their exposure to neonicotinoids in food and implies that treating flowering crops with IMD and TMX presents a sizeable hazard to foraging bees.

Insects play a key role in the regulation and dynamics of many ecosystem services (ES). However, this role is often assumed, with limited or no experimental quantification of its real value. We examined publication trends in the research on ES provided by insects, ascertaining which ES and taxa have been more intensively investigated, and which methodologies have been used, with particular emphasis on experimental approaches. We first performed a systematic literature search to identify which ES have been attributed to insects. Then we classified the references retrieved according to the ES, taxonomic group and ecosystem studied, as well as to the method applied to quantify each ES (in four categories: no quantification, proxies, direct quantification and experiments). Pollination, biological control, food provisioning, and recycling organic matter are the most studied ES. However, the majority of papers do not specify the ES under consideration, and from those that do, most do not quantify the ES provided. From the rest, a large number of publications use proxies as indicators for ES, assuming or inferring their provision through indirect measurements such as species abundances, species density, species richness, diversity indices, or the number of functional groups. Pollinators, predators, parasitoids, herbivores, and decomposers are the most commonly studied functional groups, while Hymenoptera, Coleoptera, and Diptera are the most studied taxa. Experimental studies are relatively scarce and they mainly focus on biological control, pollination, and decomposition performed in agroecosystems. These results suggest that our current knowledge on the ES provided by insects is relatively scarce and biased, and show gaps in the least-studied functional and taxonomic groups. An ambitious research agenda to improve the empirical and experimental evidence of the role played by insects in ES provision is essential to fully assess synergies between functional ecology, community ecology, and biodiversity conservation under current global changes

The PREDICTS project—Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/our-work/biodiversity/predicts.html)—has collated from published studies a large, reasonably representative database of comparable samples of biodiversity from multiple sites that differ in the nature or intensity of human impacts relating to land use. We have used this evidence base to develop global and regional statistical models of how local biodiversity responds to these measures. We describe and make freely available this 2016 release of the database, containing more than 3.2 million records sampled at over 26,000 locations and representing over 47,000 species. We outline how the database can help in answering a range of questions in ecology and conservation biology. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most geographically and taxonomically representative database of spatial comparisons of biodiversity that has been collated to date; it will be useful to researchers and international efforts wishing to model and understand the global status of biodiversity.