Search

Human-induced environmental impacts on wildlife are widespread, causing major biodiversity losses. One major threat is agricultural intensification, typically characterised by large areas of monoculture, mechanical tillage, and the use of agrochemicals. Intensification leads to the fragmentation and loss of natural habitats, native vegetation, and nesting and breeding sites. Understanding the adaptability of insects to these changing environmental conditions is critical to predicting their survival. Bumblebees, key pollinators of wild and cultivated plants, are used as model species to assess insect adaptation to anthropogenic stressors. We investigated the effects of agricultural pressures on two common European bumblebees, Bombus pascuorum and B. lapidarius. Restriction-site Associated DNA Sequencing was used to identify loci under selective pressure across agricultural-natural gradients over 97 locations in Europe. 191 unique loci in B. pascuorum and 260 in B. lapidarius were identified as under selective pressure, and associated with agricultural stressors. Further investigation suggested several candidate proteins including several neurodevelopment, muscle, and detoxification proteins, but these have yet to be validated. These results provide insights into agriculture as a stressor for bumblebees, and signal for conservation action in light of ongoing anthropogenic changes.

Diseases contribute to the decline of pollinator populations, which may be aggravated by the interspecific transmission of honey bee pests and pathogens. Flowers increase the risk of transmission, as they expose the pollinators to infections during the foraging activity. In this study, both the prevalence and abundance of 21 honey bee pathogens (11 viruses, 4 bacteria, 3 fungi, and 3 trypanosomatids) were assessed in the flower-visiting entomofauna sampled from March to September 2021 in seven sites in the two North-Italian regions, Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont. A total of 1,028 specimens were collected, identified, and analysed. Of the twenty-one pathogens that were searched for, only thirteen were detected. Altogether, the prevalence of the positive individuals reached 63.9%, with Nosema ceranae, deformed wing virus (DWV), and chronic bee paralysis virus (CBPV) as the most prevalent pathogens. In general, the pathogen abundance averaged 5.15 * 106 copies, with CBPV, N. ceranae, and black queen cell virus (BQCV) as the most abundant pathogens, with 8.63, 1.58, and 0.48 * 107 copies, respectively. All the detected viruses were found to be replicative. The sequence analysis indicated that the same genetic variant was circulating in a specific site or region, suggesting that interspecific transmission events among honey bees and wild pollinators are possible. Frequently, N. ceranae and DWV were found to co-infect the same individual. The circulation of honey bee pathogens in wild pollinators was never investigated before in Italy. Our study resulted in the unprecedented detection of 72 wild pollinator species as potential hosts of honey bee pathogens. Those results encourage the implementation of monitoring actions aiming to improve our understanding of the environmental implications of such interspecific transmission events, which is pivotal to embracing a One Health approach to pollinators’ welfare.

Diseases contribute to the decline of pollinator populations, which may be aggravated by the interspecific transmission of honey bee pests and pathogens. Flowers increase the risk of transmission, as they expose the pollinators to infections during the foraging activity. In this study, both the prevalence and abundance of 21 honey bee pathogens (11 viruses, 4 bacteria, 3 fungi, and 3 trypanosomatids) were assessed in the flower-visiting entomofauna sampled from March to September 2021 in seven sites in the two North-Italian regions, Emilia-Romagna and Piedmont. A total of 1,028 specimens were collected, identified, and analysed. Of the twenty-one pathogens that were searched for, only thirteen were detected. Altogether, the prevalence of the positive individuals reached 63.9%, with

In recent years molecular techniques have been used on museum material as integrative support for classic taxonomy. This cumulative systematics approach is especially for rare or extinct specimens, and genetic analysis may be useful to discern information that is not possible to glean from live materials or morphology. To date, the extraction of DNA required at least a partial destruction of the specimens, which is not possible for all individuals, especially the types. In this study, we described a novel method to extract mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from pinned museum bee individuals to avoid any external morphological damage. This method was able to amplify the mtDNA Cytochrome C oxidase subunit I (COI) gene in bee samples collected up to 27 years ago. We tested the efficacy of this method on 72 preserved be specimens belonging to nine species among four families, it could be used on many museums’ rare and/or extinct bee species because it does not provide external morphological damages. The method could be helpful for providing ecological, taxonomic, and phylogenetic information about specimens preserved in museum collections.

Biodiversity loss has been demonstrated to have direct impacts on human welfare. However, policymakers need to refer to commonly accepted standards to monitor biodiversity, especially to direct fund granting. With the aim of collating information for the creation of a reliable pollinators’ one, we screened available indicators. Our first criterion was selecting indicators applied in agricultural contexts and recognised by a governmental body. Further, we included indicators referring to any arthropod taxa and approved at least by national bodies. We focused on these two groups based on the concept that a new indicator should include both, approved standards and an ecological level of potential significance for insect pollinators. Among the environmental indicators considered in the last CAP (European Common Agriculture Policy 2014-2020), two are referred for measuring the success of RDPs (EU countries Rural Development Programmes) actions to sustain biodiversity: FBI (Farmland Bird Index) and HNV (High Nature Value) farming. On the other hand, many indicators using arthropods exist, and we considered those applied by the Italian national institute ISPRA (Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e Ricerca Ambientale). These indicators include butterflies, syrphid flies, ground beetles, or a combination of abiotic and biotic information (as for the soil or waterbodies). We compared survey scale, monitoring scheme, type of environment, sampling effort, expected arthropod population, taxonomic level of data. As a common approach, we identified the combination of a territorial analysis by remote tools (e.g. GIS) and animal taxa surveys. Both FBI and HNV farming, for different reasons, resulted poorly conclusive on evaluating the national measures aimed at environmental improvement. The first, because the landscape context that is considered is poorly related to that of a farm. The second, because it can be differently interpreted by each country. The strength of indicators including arthropods emerges in the simultaneous inclusion of biotic and abiotic components. However, most of them just refer to confined environments (e.g. grasslands, riversides). Pollinators’ sensitivity to changes at the micro-habitat level is widely recognised, even helping to distinguish different methods of agricultural management. To develop a biodiversity indicator based on pollinators, we suggest to improve knowledge on local pollinator species and their environmental requirements, coupled with wide (in time and space) national monitoring programs.

The pollination ecology in agroecosystems tackles a landscape in which plants and pollinators need to adjust, or be adjusted, to human intervention. A valid, widely applied approach is to regard pollination as a link between specific plants and their pollinators. However, recent evidence has added landscape features for a wider ecological perspective. Are we going in the right direction? Are existing methods providing pollinator monitoring tools suitable for understanding agroecosystems? In Italy, we needed to address these questions to respond to government pressure to implement pollinator monitoring in agroecosystems. We therefore surveyed the literature, grouped methods and findings, and evaluated approaches. We selected studies that may contain directions and tools directly linked to pollinators and agroecosystems. Our analysis revealed four main paths that must come together at some point: (i) the research question perspective, (ii) the advances of landscape analysis, (iii) the role of vegetation, and (iv) the gaps in our knowledge of pollinators taxonomy and behavior. An important conclusion is that the pollinator scale is alarmingly disregarded. Debate continues about what features to include in pollinator monitoring and the appropriate level of detail: we suggest that the pollinator scale should be the main driver.