The potential consequences of 'bee washing' on wild bee health and conservation

Pollination crisis Down-Under: Has Australasia dodged the bullet?

Since mid-1990s, concerns have increased about a human-induced "pollination crisis." Threats have been identified to animals that act as plant pollinators, plants pollinated by these animals, and consequently human well-being. Threatening processes include loss of natural habitat, climate change, pesticide use, pathogen spread, and introduced species. However, concern has mostly been during last 10-15 years and from Europe and North America, with Australasia, known as Down-Under, receiving little attention. So perhaps Australasia has "dodged the bullet"? We systematically reviewed the published literature relating to the "pollination crisis" via Web of Science, focusing on issues amenable to this approach. Across these issues, we found a steep increase in publications over the last few decades and a major geographic bias towards Europe and North America, with relatively little attention in Australasia. While publications from Australasia are underrepresented, factors responsible elsewhere for causing the "pollination crisis" commonly occur in Australasia, so this lack of coverage probably reflects a lack of awareness rather than the absence of a problem. In other words, Australasia has not "dodged the bullet" and should take immediate action to address and mitigate its own "pollination crisis." Sensible steps would include increased taxonomic work on suspected plant pollinators, protection for pollinator populations threatened with extinction, establishing long-term monitoring of plant-pollinator relationships, incorporating pollination into sustainable agriculture, restricting the use of various pesticides, adopting an Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management approach, and developing partnerships with First Nations peoples for research, conservation and management of plants and their pollinators. Appropriate Government policy, funding and regulation could help.

Weak evidence base for bee protective pesticide mitigation measures

Pesticides help produce food for humanity's growing population, yet they have negative impacts on the environment. Limiting these impacts, while maintaining food supply, is a crucial challenge for modern agriculture. Mitigation measures are actions taken by pesticide users, which modify the risk of the application to nontarget organisms, such as bees. Through these, the impacts of pesticides can be reduced, with minimal impacts on the efficacy of the pesticide. Here we collate the scientific evidence behind mitigation measures designed to reduce pesticide impacts on bees using a systematic review methodology. We included all publications which tested the effects of any pesticide mitigation measure (using a very loose definition) on bees, at any scale (from individual through to population level), so long as they presented evidence on the efficacy of the measure. We found 34 publications with direct evidence on the topic, covering a range of available mitigation measures. No currently used mitigation measures were thoroughly tested, and some entirely lacked empirical support, showing a weak evidence base for current recommendations and policy. We found mitigation measure research predominantly focuses on managed bees, potentially failing to protect wild bees. We also found that label-recommended mitigation measures, which are the mitigation measures most often applied, specifically are seldom tested empirically. Ultimately, we recommend that more, and stronger, scientific evidence is required to justify existing mitigation measures to help reduce the impacts of pesticides on bees while maintaining crop protection.

Mounting evidence that managed and introduced bees have negative impacts on wild bees: an updated review

Worldwide, the use of managed bees for crop pollination and honey production has increased dramatically. Concerns about the pressures of these increases on native ecosystems has resulted in a recent expansion in the literature on this subject. To collate and update current knowledge, we performed a systematic review of the literature on the effects of managed and introduced bees on native ecosystems, focusing on the effects on wild bees. To enable comparison over time, we used the same search terms and focused on the same impacts as earlier reviews. This review covers: (a) interference and resource competition between introduced or managed bees and native bees; (b) effects of introduced or managed bees on pollination of native plants and weeds; and (c) transmission and infectivity of pathogens; and classifies effects into positive, negative, or neutral. Compared to a 2017 review, we found that the number of papers on this issue has increased by 47%. The highest increase was seen in papers on pathogen spill-over, but in the last five years considerable additional information about competition between managed and wild bees has also become available. Records of negative effects have increased from 53% of papers reporting negative effects in 2017 to 66% at present. The majority of these studies investigated effects on visitation and foraging behaviour. While only a few studies experimentally assessed impacts on wild bee reproductive output, 78% of these demonstrated negative effects. Plant composition and pollination was negatively affected in 7% of studies, and 79% of studies on pathogens reported potential negative effects of managed or introduced bees on wild bees. Taken together, the evidence increasingly suggests that managed and introduced bees negatively affect wild bees, and this knowledge should inform actions to prevent further harm to native ecosystems.