POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

Recommendations

Info

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION 56 2. DRIVERS OF CHANGE OF POLLINATORS, POLLINATION NETWORKS AND POLLINATION pollinators from pesticide use. Beyond agricultural uses, data are also lacking for use in residential properties with limited data from amenity use (e.g., Goulds, 2012). 2.3.1.2 Potential impacts of pesticides on pollinators The use of insecticides is of particular concern due to their potential for effects on non-target insect pollinators due to their inherent toxicity (UNEP, 2010; EASAC, 2015). Although there is also evidence that some pesticide co-formulants such as adjuvants (used to enhance application and uptake of the pesticide) or synergists may also show toxicity at high doses (Donovan and Elliott, 2001; Ciarlo et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2014; Mullin et al., 2015). Insecticides vary widely in their mode of action from molecules interacting with nerve receptors (see examples in Table 2.3.1) to those affecting energy metabolism and development (e.g. insect growth regulators). Novel pesticides and modes of action are continually sought to address rapid development of resistance in target pests (Ohta and Ozoe, 2014). There are very limited data available globally on actual usage of insecticides (as opposed to sales data) by farmers on crops attractive to pollinators from which to base a global assessment of potential risk. However, data from Kenya, Brazil and the Netherlands demonstrate the differences among countries in the availability of pesticides that are BOX 2.3.4 Case Study: Africa In Africa, there is a high demand for pollination for many crops (Gemmill-Herren et al., 2014). At the same time, pollinators are exposed to similar environmental pressures that have been associated with declines elsewhere in the world, e.g., habitat transformation or fragmentation (Ricketts et al., 2008; Kennedy et al., 2013), loss of diversity and abundance of floral resources (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Carvell et al. 2006; Kremen et al., 2007), inappropriate use of pesticides (Pettis et al., 2013), spread of pests and diseases (Aebi and Neumann, 2011; Cameron et al., 2011b), and climate change (Schweiger et al., 2010). Despite the economic importance of insectpollinated crops (Garibaldi et al., 2013) data on the pattern and amount of pesticide use in Africa are also very difficult to obtain and almost impossible to estimate for any single African country due to a lack of detailed lists of imports into these countries (Youm et al., 1990). The environmental impact of pesticides on pollinators has been reported by local farmers through the observation of the abundance of bees that populate their hives or through fluctuations in honey production. Efforts to evaluate pesticide impacts on pollinators are needed throughout the African inherently toxic to bees (Figure 2.3.2; van der Valk et al., 2013). Risk assessment (which considers both toxicity and exposure, Box 2.3.2) is considered more relevant in defining the potential impact of pesticides than hazard (toxicity) identification alone (van der Valk et al., 2013). Pollinator exposure to insecticides, their impact and the potential for population response is affected by a wide range of factors including crop type, the timing, rate and method of pesticide application and the ecological traits (e.g. diurnal activity, foraging specialisation, life history) of managed and wild pollinators (Defra, 2008). The direct exposure of pollinators to pesticides may occur through a number of routes including ingestion of contaminated pollen, nectar, aphid honeydew or water (e.g. from contaminated puddles within fields), contact with drift or overspray during foliar applications, and contact with residues on foliage and flowers (e.g. Figure 2.3.3 for bees (EFSA, 2012)). Solitary bees may also be exposed via residues in soil and on plant nesting material (EFSA, 2012). In flowering crops, systemic pesticide residues may be transferred into pollen and nectar collected and consumed by pollinators with the potential for adverse effects from chronic low-level exposure (Goulson, 2013; Pilling et al., 2013; Cutler and Scott-Dupree, 2014); although there is some evidence that systemicity is not a property limited continent, as existing studies are limited and geographically widely spread, and some of these raise great concerns. For example, traditional beekeepers in Burkina Faso have noted that their hives situated near cotton fields treated with pesticides had lower numbers of adult bees and were less productive than those which were kept farther away (Gomgnimbou et al., 2010). Similarly Otieno et al. (2011) found pesticide use was negatively related to pollinator abundance in fields in Eastern Kenya. However, another study (Muli et al., 2014) suggested impacts may not be severe in all cases; relatively low levels of residues of up to four pesticides were detected in 14 out of 15 honey bee hives sampled across Kenya. In South Africa, pesticide use and isolation from natural habitat were associated with declines in flying pollinators and in mango production (Carvalheiro et al., 2012), although this effect was not consistent between years (Carvalheiro et al., 2010). There is a clear need for more studies of impacts of pesticides on pollinators and pollination given the economic importance of insect-pollinated crops throughout the African continent (Archer et al., 2014; Steward et al., 2014) and indeed across many developing countries.
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION to the new classes of insecticide, with similar properties reported for dimethoate, an organophosphorus pesticide (Davis and Shuel, 1988). Pesticide residues (parent molecule and any toxic metabolites) in nectar and pollen vary considerably depending on the mode of application. For example, a collation of studies on oilseed rape found average maximum values vary from around 1.9 µg/kg in nectar and 6.1 µg/kg in pollen following neonicotinoid seed treatment, but that residues are 10-20 fold greater when the same compounds are applied as foliar sprays at a similar rate per hectare (10 g a.i./Ha) (EFSA, 2013; Godfray et al., 2014) or as soil drenches (Dively and Kamel, 2012; Stoner and Eitzer, 2012). Pollinators may be exposed to residues is via guttation fluid (plant xylem fluid exuded through specialised pores onto the leaf surface during periods of high root pressure), where neonicotinoid residues can be extremely high in the early stages of crop growth (Bonmatin et al., 2015). Other sources of contaminated water include puddles in fields (Samson-Robert et al., 2014). However, this is not currently considered a significant route of % of pesticides FIGURE registered 2.3.2 or used 47% Hazard (LD 50 ) of pesticides used on bee-attractive focal crops in Brazil (melon and tomato), Kenya (coffee, curcurbits, French bean and tomato) and the Netherlands (apple and tomato) (% pesticides refers to number registered or used) (data from van der Valk et al., 2013) 15% 33% 9.5% 46% Practically non-toxic (LD50 >11 µq/bee) Moderately toxic (LD50 2-11 µq/bee) Highly toxic (LD50 11 µq/bee) Moderately toxic (LD50 2-11 µq/bee) 2. DRIVERS OF CHANGE OF POLLINATORS, POLLINATION NETWORKS AND POLLINATION Highly toxic (LD50
Page 1 and 2:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 3:
The assessment report on POLLINATOR
Page 6 and 7:
FOREWORD The objective of the Inter
Page 8 and 9:
THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
L THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINAT
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59: THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATOR
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
150 THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLIN
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
Page 232 and 233:
Page 234 and 235:
Page 236 and 237:
Page 238 and 239:
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
Page 352 and 353:
Page 354 and 355:
Page 356 and 357:
Page 358 and 359:
Page 360 and 361:
Page 362 and 363:
Page 364 and 365:
Page 366 and 367:
Page 368 and 369:
Page 370 and 371:
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 396 and 397:
THE METHODOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF SC
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
Page 406 and 407:
Page 408 and 409:
Page 410 and 411:
Page 412 and 413:
Page 414 and 415:
Page 416 and 417:
Page 418 and 419:
Page 420 and 421:
Page 422 and 423:
Page 424 and 425:
Page 426 and 427:
Page 428 and 429:
Page 430 and 431:
Page 432 and 433:
Page 434 and 435:
Page 436 and 437:
Page 438 and 439:
Page 440 and 441:
Page 442 and 443:
Page 444 and 445:
Page 446 and 447:
Page 448 and 449:
Page 450 and 451:
Page 452 and 453:
Page 454 and 455:
Page 456 and 457:
Page 458 and 459:
Page 460 and 461:
Page 462 and 463:
Page 464 and 465:
Page 466 and 467:
Page 468 and 469:
Page 470 and 471:
Page 472 and 473:
Page 474 and 475:
Page 476 and 477:
Page 478 and 479:
Page 480 and 481:
Page 482 and 483:
Page 484 and 485:
Page 486 and 487:
Page 488 and 489:
Page 490 and 491:
Page 492 and 493:
Page 494 and 495:
Page 496 and 497:
Page 498 and 499:
Page 500 and 501:
Page 502 and 503:
Page 504 and 505:
Page 506 and 507:
Page 508 and 509:
Page 510 and 511:
Page 512 and 513:
Page 514 and 515:
Page 516 and 517:
Page 518 and 519:
Page 520 and 521:
Page 522 and 523:
Page 524 and 525:
Page 526 and 527:
Page 528 and 529:
Page 530 and 531:
478 ANNEXES
Page 532 and 533:
Page 534 and 535:
Page 536 and 537:
Page 538 and 539:
Page 540 and 541:
Page 542 and 543:
Page 544 and 545:
Page 546 and 547:
Page 548 and 549:
Page 550 and 551:
Page 552 and 553:
Page 554:
show all

POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?