POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
water quality regulation with recreational and commercial
fisheries were found in Australia (Butler et al., 2013).
Using a spatially extensive data set of trade-offs
and synergies for Great Britain, Maskell et al. (2013)
demonstrated that nectar plants for bees were positively
correlated with other services or service providers, such
as plant species richness and soil invertebrate diversity.
Additionally, trade-offs and synergies between pollination,
indexed by the sampling of actual pollinators and/or the
pollination success of plants and other ecosystem services,
have been reported. A study conducted in the United
Kingdom that examined the effects of grazing management
showed that grazing intensity did not affect potential
pollinators or total carbon stock, but affected some groups
of pest-regulating invertebrates (Ford et al., 2012). Another
study in the United States, of perennial bioenergy crops that
provide an alternative to annual grains, found that pollination,
methane consumption, pest suppression and conservation
of grassland birds were higher, whereas biomass production
was lower in perennial grasslands (Werling et al., 2014).
6.7.2 Trade-offs between
pollination and food provisioning
services (crop yield and honey)
Among ecosystem services, provisioning services, especially
food production, are likely to be a priority for human
societies. Therefore, trade-offs between pollination and
provisioning services (e.g., crop yield and honey) warrant
special consideration.
There is potentially a direct trade-off between using land to
grow food and using land to provide pollinator habitat. To
illustrate, using farmland to provide flower strips or other
pollinator habitat (see section 6.4.1.1.1) takes land out of
production and so overall yields may be lower. However,
because there may be existing pollination deficits (see Chapter
3, section 3.8.3), and management for pollinators has been
shown to enhance crop yields (6.4.1.1.1), it is important
to calculate the net yield and economic outcomes of such
management at both farm and landscape scales. There is a
major knowledge gap about the net yield effects of managing
for pollinators in different farming systems. Elements of it have
been analysed for a few farming systems or contexts.
liming (no influence on pollination), or irrigation timed to
promote flowering when other coffee farms were not
flowering. Irrigation enhances the pollination without the light
and nutrient costs of shade plants, but it is a very contextdependent
solution. Another way to reduce the trade-off
between providing habitat for pollinators and net yield is to
provide pollinator habitat on low-yielding, sometimes called
‘marginal’ land, such as field edges or steep slopes.
Organic farming and diversified farming systems contribute
to maintaining pollinator habitats and effective crop
pollination, but many studies indicate that these farming
systems are often, not always, less productive than
conventional agricultural management (Badgely et al.,
2007; de Ponti et al., 2012; Seufert et al., 2012; Ponisio
et al., 2015) (see Chapter 2, 2.2.3). Here again there is
apparently a direct trade-off between management to
enhance pollination and yield. Yields on organic farms are on
average around 20-25% lower than on conventional farms
(Ponisio et al., 2015: 19.2%; Seufert et al. 2012: 5-34%,
depending on the system). We could not find any analysis
to indicate how observed increases in pollinator abundance,
diversity and pollination on organic or diversified farms (see
section 6.4.1.1.4 and 6.4.1.1.8) contribute to reducing this
trade-off. However, there is clear evidence that the tradeoff
can be reduced by practices that could be considered
diversification, or ecological intensification (see Chapter 1
for definitions) on organic farms, such as multi-cropping
and crop rotations (see section 6.4.1.1.8). These practices
reduced the yield gap between organic and conventional
farms to 9% and 8% respectively (Ponisio et al., 2015).
It has also been suggested that the trade-off could be
minimised by encouraging organic farming in landscapes
with low productivity due to soil or climate conditions,
where yield differences between organic and conventional
agriculture are lower (see section 6.4.1.1.4).
Elmqvist et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of incentives,
institutions and governance in effectively managing tradeoffs
between provisioning services and regulating services,
including pollination, in agricultural landscapes. For example,
they suggest payments for ecosystem services (see section
6.4.3.3), or compensation through incentive payments or
certification schemes (see section 6.4.1.3), can allow farmers
to retain equivalent income with lower yields, in return for
improvements to the landscape as a whole.
433
6. RESPONSES TO RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES ASSOCIATED
WITH POLLINATORS AND POLLINATION
A model-based study of a low intensity agricultural system
in northern Scotland examined the trade-off between the
conservation of bumble bees and agricultural income,
and showed that both agricultural profits and bumble bee
densities can be enhanced (Osgathorpe et al., 2011). A
study of coffee production systems in India (Boreux et al.,
2013) found that management to enhance pollination (use
of shade trees) slightly increased coffee yields, but much
greater increases in production could be achieved through
Honey bees are managed for honey production as well as
crop pollination, and there is a trade-off between these if
the best food sources or landscapes for honey production
are not the same as the landscapes where pollination are
needed (Champetier, 2010). For example, honey bees are
taken to almond orchards for pollination, but this reduces
production of honey. This trade-off is compensated
for in pollination markets by increased pollination fees
(Champetier, 2010).