Conference PaperPDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Arable farming is facing increasing demand to improve productivity, but to do so in a sustainable manner, including mitigating declines in global biodiversity. Silvoarable agroforestry systems have the potential to be a 'win-win' solution. For example, these systems can enhance natural enemy and pollinator abundances whilst suppressing pests, compared to arable (Staton et al. 2019). The benefits of agroforestry systems are reasonably well understood for some taxonomic groups, such as ground beetles and aphids. However, bees, wasps (including parasitoids) and hoverflies are relatively poorly studied in agroforestry, despite their importance for the natural control of pests and pollination of crops. Furthermore, bees and wasps are amongst the taxa most affected by insect declines globally (Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). The aim of this study was therefore to assess whether agroforestry systems could help conserve these threatened beneficial insects. Our study sites comprised three working farms in England, all of which contained a silvoarable agroforestry field and a monocropped arable field under the same management and rotation. Two farms were organic, the third was conventional and minimum-till. Crop rotations were based around cereals, plus oilseed rape at the conventional farm. Agroforestry alleys were 24 m wide, tree rows were 3-4 m wide and principally comprised apple trees on MM106 rootstocks, planted between 2009 and 2015. Agroforestry field sizes were approximately 5.6, 3.8 and 12 ha respectively at the three sites (the latter field set within a 52 ha agroforestry system), while the corresponding arable field sizes were 6.1, 3.0 and 7.6 ha respectively. Sampling was undertaken in 2018 and 2019. At each site, two agroforestry alleys were selected for sampling. Within these, 16 sampling points (eight in each alley including its adjacent tree rows) were selected at set distances from the tree rows. This procedure was repeated in an arable field at each site, to act as a control. At each point, a set of three UV-bright pan traps was deployed to capture flying insects. Each trapping day lasted for at least five hours, and was repeated nine times over the two-year period. All bees, wasps and hoverflies captured in the traps were assigned to taxonomic groups (Fig. 1). Taxonomic richness and diversity (Shannon index) of bees, wasps and hoverflies collectively were significantly higher in agroforestry than arable fields (mixed models, t=3.007, p-value=0.003; t=3.414, p-value<0.001). Six of the taxonomic groups were significantly more abundant in agroforestry than arable fields (Fig. 1). The strongest effects were seen for the two predatory wasp taxa. We hypothesise that social wasps were attracted by apples in the tree rows, but could also aid biocontrol by hunting insect pests. Two of the three parasitoid wasp taxa were significantly more abundant in agroforestry than arable fields. However the braconid wasps were less abundant in the agroforestry fields. This effect was driven by an early-season influx of braconids into the arable field at one site, possibly attracted by a high prey resource. Two of the five pollinator groups, comprising bumblebees and the small halictid bees, were significantly more abundant in agroforestry than arable fields. This is consistent with a study in the UK showing higher solitary bee abundance in agroforestry than monocultures, although in contrast to that study, we found no significant difference for hoverfly abundance (Varah et al. 2020). Our findings of benefits to bees, wasps and hoverflies could be explained by the higher availability of flower and nesting resources in agroforestry tree rows compared to arable fields. Pan traps are less effective in flower-dense areas (O’Connor et al. 2019), therefore, our results may underestimate the benefits of agroforestry. In addition, field sizes were relatively small at two of the sites (3.8 and 5.6 ha), and set within relatively diverse landscapes (particularly within a 2 km radius), which could allow insects to rapidly colonise the arable fields from surrounding semi-natural habitat. Stronger effects could therefore be predicted at larger-scale farms. In conclusion, we find strong evidence for higher taxonomic richness and diversity of bees, wasps and hoverflies, and abundance of predatory wasps and pollinators, in agroforestry compared to arable fields. This suggests that agroforestry systems can play a role in the conservation of these threatened insects, while improving the sustainability of agriculture by providing natural pest control and pollination services.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Conserving threatened beneficial
insects: bees, wasps and hoverflies in
UK silvoarable systems
EURAF 2020
Agroforestry for the transition towards
sustainability and bioeconomy
Abstract
Corresponding Author:
t.staton@pgr.reading.ac.uk
Tom Staton1, Richard J. Walters2, Jo Smith3, Tom D. Breeze4, Sian K. Davies4, Robbie D. Girling4
1 University of Reading, School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, UK, t.staton@pgr.reading.ac.uk
2 Lund University, Centre for Environmental and Climate Research, Sweden
3 MV Agroecological Research Centre, Portugal
4 University of Reading, School of Agriculture, Policy & Development, UK
Theme: Agroforestry, biodiversity and wildlife management
Keywords: natural pest control, natural enemies, parasitoids, pollinators, pollination
Abstract
Arable farming is facing increasing demand to improve productivity, but to do so in a sustainable manner,
including mitigating declines in global biodiversity. Silvoarable agroforestry systems have the potential to
be a ‘win-win’ solution. For example, these systems can enhance natural enemy and pollinator
abundances whilst suppressing pests, compared to arable (Staton et al. 2019).
The benefits of agroforestry systems are reasonably well understood for some taxonomic groups, such as
ground beetles and aphids. However, bees, wasps (including parasitoids) and hoverflies are relatively
poorly studied in agroforestry, despite their importance for the natural control of pests and pollination of
crops. Furthermore, bees and wasps are amongst the taxa most affected by insect declines globally
(Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). The aim of this study was therefore to assess whether agroforestry
systems could help conserve these threatened beneficial insects.
Our study sites comprised three working farms in England, all of which contained a silvoarable agroforestry
field and a monocropped arable field under the same management and rotation. Two farms were
organic, the third was conventional and minimum-till. Crop rotations were based around cereals, plus
oilseed rape at the conventional farm. Agroforestry alleys were 24 m wide, tree rows were 3-4 m wide and
principally comprised apple trees on MM106 rootstocks, planted between 2009 and 2015. Agroforestry
field sizes were approximately 5.6, 3.8 and 12 ha respectively at the three sites (the latter field set within a
52 ha agroforestry system), while the corresponding arable field sizes were 6.1, 3.0 and 7.6 ha respectively.
Sampling was undertaken in 2018 and 2019. At each site, two agroforestry alleys were selected for
sampling. Within these, 16 sampling points (eight in each alley including its adjacent tree rows) were
selected at set distances from the tree rows. This procedure was repeated in an arable field at each site,
to act as a control. At each point, a set of three UV-bright pan traps was deployed to capture flying
insects. Each trapping day lasted for at least five hours, and was repeated nine times over the two-year
period. All bees, wasps and hoverflies captured in the traps were assigned to taxonomic groups (Fig. 1).
Taxonomic richness and diversity (Shannon index) of bees, wasps and hoverflies collectively were
significantly higher in agroforestry than arable fields (mixed models, t=3.007, p-value=0.003; t=3.414, p-
value<0.001). Six of the taxonomic groups were significantly more abundant in agroforestry than arable
fields (Fig. 1). The strongest effects were seen for the two predatory wasp taxa. We hypothesise that social
wasps were attracted by apples in the tree rows, but could also aid biocontrol by hunting insect pests.
Two of the three parasitoid wasp taxa were significantly more abundant in agroforestry than arable fields.
However the braconid wasps were less abundant in the agroforestry fields. This effect was driven by an
early-season influx of braconids into the arable field at one site, possibly attracted by a high prey resource.




01 00000000000
225
Tom Staton1, Richard J. Walters2, Jo Smith3, Tom D. Breeze4, Sian K. Davies4,
Robbie D. Girling4
O1.3_6_220
Two of the five pollinator groups, comprising bumblebees and the small halictid bees, were significantly
more abundant in agroforestry than arable fields. This is consistent with a study in the UK showing higher
solitary bee abundance in agroforestry than monocultures, although in contrast to that study, we found
no significant difference for hoverfly abundance (Varah et al. 2020).
Our findings of benefits to bees, wasps and hoverflies could be explained by the higher availability of
flower and nesting resources in agroforestry tree rows compared to arable fields. Pan traps are less
effective in flower-dense areas (O’Connor et al. 2019), therefore, our results may underestimate the
benefits of agroforestry. In addition, field sizes were relatively small at two of the sites (3.8 and 5.6 ha), and
set within relatively diverse landscapes (particularly within a 2 km radius), which could allow insects to
rapidly colonise the arable fields from surrounding semi-natural habitat. Stronger effects could therefore
be predicted at larger-scale farms.
In conclusion, we find strong evidence for higher taxonomic richness and diversity of bees, wasps and
hoverflies, and abundance of predatory wasps and pollinators, in agroforestry compared to arable fields.
This suggests that agroforestry systems can play a role in the conservation of these threatened insects,
while improving the sustainability of agriculture by providing natural pest control and pollination services.
Figure 1. Abundances of bees, wasps and hoverflies in silvoarable agroforestry compared to arable controls. The
area above the dashed line represents higher values in agroforestry. Analysis was undertaken using negative
binomial mixed models in R software.
Acknowledgements
The study was funded by the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council and University of Reading. Thank
you to the farmers of the field sites for enthusiastically permitting access.
References
O’Connor RS, Kunin WE, Garratt MPD, Potts SG, Roy HE, Andrews C, Jones CM, Peyton JM, Savage J,
Harvey MC, Morris RKA, Roberts SPM, Wright I, Vanbergen AJ & Carvell C (2019) Monitoring insect
pollinators and flower visitation: The effectiveness and feasibility of different survey methods. Methods
Ecol Evol 10:2129–2140. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13292
Sánchez-Bayo F & Wyckhuys KAG (2019) Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review of its drivers.
Biol Conserv 232:8–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.020
Staton T, Walters RJ, Smith J & Girling RD (2019) Evaluating the effects of integrating trees into temperate
arable systems on pest control and pollination. Agric Syst 176:102676.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102676
Varah A, Jones H, Smith J & Potts SG (2020) Temperate agroforestry systems provide greater pollination
service than monoculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 301:107031. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107031




01 00000000000
226
O1.3_6_220
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Agroforestry systems, which incorporate trees into agricultural land, could contribute to sustainable agricultural intensification as they have been shown to increase land productivity, biodiversity and some regulating ecosystem services. However, the effect of temperate agroforestry systems on pest control and pollination services has not been comprehensively reviewed, despite the importance of these services for sustainable intensification. We review and analyse the available evidence for silvoarable agroforestry systems, following which we propose a predictive framework for future research to explain the observed variation in results, based on ecological theory and evidence from analogous systems. Of the 12 studies included in our meta-analysis of natural enemies and pests, the observed increases in natural enemy abundance (+24%) and decreases in arthropod herbivore/pest abundance (-25%) in silvoarable systems were both significant, but molluscan pests were more abundant in silvoarable systems in the two available studies. Only three studies reported effects on pollinators, but all found higher abundance in silvoarable compared with arable systems. Measures of pest control or pollination service are scarce, but suggest stronger effect sizes. Our framework seeks to establish hypotheses for future research through an interpretation of our findings in the context of the wider literature, including landscape characteristics, silvoarable system design and management, system maturity, trophic interactions and experimental design. Our findings suggest that silvoarable systems can contribute to sustainable intensification by enhancing beneficial invertebrates and suppressing arthropod pests compared with arable, but future research should include measures of pest control and pollination and implications for productivity and economic value.
Article
1.The status of pollinating insects is of international concern, but knowledge of the magnitude and extent of declines is limited by a lack of systematic monitoring. Standardised protocols are urgently needed, alongside a better understanding of how different methods and recorders (data collectors) influence estimates of pollinator abundance and diversity. 2.We compared two common methods for sampling wild pollinating insects (solitary bees, bumblebees and hoverflies), pan traps and transects, in surveys of 1km countryside squares (agricultural and semi‐natural habitats) and flowering crop fields across Great Britain, including the influence of local floral resources (nectar sugar availability or crop flower density) on the insects sampled. Further, we compared the performance of recorders with differing expertise (non‐specialist research staff, taxonomic experts and non‐expert volunteers) in applying methods. 3.Pan traps and transects produced compositionally distinct samples of pollinator communities. In the wider countryside, pan traps sampled more species of solitary bee and hoverfly. In flowering crops, transects recorded greater numbers of individual bumblebees, but fewer species. 4.Across all taxonomic groups and countryside and crop samples, transects generally had lower rates of species accumulation per individual collected than pan traps. This demonstrates that differences between methods in estimating richness are not due to sampling effort alone. However, recorders possessing greater taxonomic expertise can produce species accumulation data from transects that is almost commensurate with pan trapping. 5.The abundance and species richness of pollinators (except solitary bees) on transects in the wider countryside was positively related to the availability of estimated nectar sugar. In crops, pollinator abundance responses to flower densities were idiosyncratic according to crop type, but overall the response was positive and negative for transects and pan traps, respectively. 6.Given these taxonomic and context‐specific differences in method performance, we assess their suitability for monitoring pollinating insect communities and pollination services. We discuss the relevance of these findings within the context of achieving standardised, large‐scale monitoring of pollinating insects. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Article
Biodiversity of insects is threatened worldwide. Here, we present a comprehensive review of 73 historical reports of insect declines from across the globe, and systematically assess the underlying drivers. Our work reveals dramatic rates of decline that may lead to the extinction of 40% of the world's insect species over the next few decades. In terrestrial ecosystems, Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera and dung beetles (Coleoptera) appear to be the taxa most affected, whereas four major aquatic taxa (Odonata, Plecoptera, Trichoptera and Ephemeroptera) have already lost a considerable proportion of species. Affected insect groups not only include specialists that occupy particular ecological niches, but also many common and generalist species. Concurrently, the abundance of a small number of species is increasing; these are all adaptable, generalist species that are occupying the vacant niches left by the ones declining. Among aquatic insects, habitat and dietary generalists, and pollutant-tolerant species are replacing the large biodiversity losses experienced in waters within agricultural and urban settings. The main drivers of species declines appear to be in order of importance: i) habitat loss and conversion to intensive agriculture and urbanisation; ii) pollution, mainly that by synthetic pesticides and fertilisers; iii) biological factors, including pathogens and introduced species; and iv) climate change. The latter factor is particularly important in tropical regions, but only affects a minority of species in colder climes and mountain settings of temperate zones. A rethinking of current agricultural practices, in particular a serious reduction in pesticide usage and its substitution with more sustainable, ecologically-based practices, is urgently needed to slow or reverse current trends, allow the recovery of declining insect populations and safeguard the vital ecosystem services they provide. In addition, effective remediation technologies should be applied to clean polluted waters in both agricultural and urban environments.