Bye Bye Bees 2

In 2011, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published a report entitled Global Honeybee disorders and other threats to insect pollinators. This assessed the extent of honeybee decline and its causes.

Causes of honeybee decline have been linked to:

Habitat Deterioration:

- Degradation

- Increased pathogens

- Invasive Species

- Pollution

Agricultural practices:

- Chemical drifts

- Systemic Insecticides

Bee Keeping exercises:

- Health

- Chemical Use

- Types of flowering plant available

- Transport and colony splitting

Climate Change

Yearly Average of Managed Honey Bee Losses to Varroa Mite

The  Varroa mite is a particularly brutal pest for bee colonies. Varroa females enter last stage worker or drone bee larvae and feeds off the hemolymph of the prepupae, the pupae, and adults. Approximately 60hours after the bee cell is capped (the bee cells are the location of development in the hive), the mite begins to lay up to ten eggs. Once hatched, the Varroa mites suck the hemolymph from female adults and developing pupae of honey bees, weakening them and shortening life spans. The disease is thought to have spread so rapidly as a result of hive swarming and migratory bee keeping practices (Shen, 2005)(Sammataro, 2000). 

The mites significantly weaken individual bees but the impact on whole colony health is not as well known. However, several of the 18 viral diseases known to impact bee colonies were frequently encountered in hives infected by varroa mites. Studies by ball and allen 1988 used serological tests and found higher ABPV titers  in mite-infested colonies , suggesting that mites potentially activated the latent viruses (Ball and Allen, 1988). Others support the role of mites as honeybee disease vectors or as a stress factor.  To study these relationships effectively, completely virus free hives and mites are required, which is quite a challenge even in laboratory conditions (Shen, 2005). Furthermore, in wild colonies it is difficult to differentiate between the impacts of mites and disease with the alternate factors linked to honeybee decline as highlighted above. 

However, despite public fears across Europe and North America there has been an overall global increase of hives by 45% over the past 50 years. This is as a result of large scale human bee management techniques as opposed to wild colonies. To ensure sustainability, pollination and bee colonies require study and stewardship, not just managed colonies but also native pollinators (UNEP. 2010) 

Post updated 13.01.2015

Sources:

Ball, B. Allen, M. 1988. The prevalence of pathogens in honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies infested with the parasitic mite Varroa jacobsoni. Annals of Applied Biology. Vol. 113 (1) . pp. 237–244

Sammataro, D. et al. 2000. Parasitic mites of honey bees: life history, implications, and impact. Annual Review of Entomology. Vol. 45 (1). pp 519-548. 

Shen, M. et al.  2005. The role of varroa mites in infections of Kashmir bee virus (KBV) and deformed wing virus (DWV) in honey bees. Virology. Vol. 342 (1). pp 141-149. 

UNEP. 2010. Global Bee Colony Disorder and Threats to Insect Pollinators. United Nations Environment Programme. [online]. Available at: http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/Global_Bee_Colony_Disorder_and_Threats_insect_pollinators.pdf. [Accessed: 31.10.2014]

Bye Bye Bees 1

Albert Einstein is supposed to have remarked that “Mankind will not survive the honeybees’ disappearance for more than five years.” Honeybees are a principle species of pollinators that work symbiotically with flowering plants transferring pollen resulting in fruit and seed production. The health and wellbeing of species such as the honeybee is therefore vital for sustaining habitats and human societies. 

70% of 124 main crops for human consumption are dependent on pollinators and studies by Gallai et al have attempted to assess the monetary value of pollinators using a bioeconomic approach. They used two main techniques;  assessing the total value of insect pollinated crops and a dependence ratio which calculates the production loss if there is complete loss of pollinators, the economic value of insect pollination service is equal to the corresponding loss of crop value. This is likely to vary among continents and regions due to the many crop species and heterogeneity in agricultural production.

They calculated the economic value of insect pollination for world agriculture at €135billion in 2005 which stands for about 10% of the world value of crops used directly for human food. This percentage is an indicator of the value of pollinator services relative to other factors contributing to agriculture production and therefore could be considered agriculture vulnerability.  They concluded that due to the nature of the agriculture industry (e.g. farmers adapting to pollinator loss by adopting new techniques) and the varied nature of pollinator decline it is difficult to assess the real significance of 10% vulnerability. When looking at this study alone, the fear of bee decline generated by the media seems to be a bit of an exaggeration (Gallai et al. 2008). 

However, global scale studies, particularly those looking to monetise ecosystem services, such as this will never be fully comprehensive.  This study failed to consider the value of pollinators  for seed production necessary for many vegetables grown for human consumption and seeds production for legumes often used to feed cattle. Furthermore, it failed to consider the pollination of plants that are not directly consumed; from wild plants vital to the overall health of ecosystems to biofuels.  In addition, the study principally focused on large scale agri-businesses, small scale farmers are already some of the most vulnerable people and often lack the ability to adapt. 

Sources: 

Gallai et al. 2008. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture
confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics. 68(1). pp 810-821. 

Big Losses

A shocking 2008 report as part of a larger global study entitled ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)’ estimated the annual loss in ecosystem services due to biodiversity loss will be worth 14 trillion euros by 2050 equivalent to 7% GDP if we do not act (Braat, L et al, 2008, p179). 

As a result, environment ministers from 200 countries met in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, to establish biodiversity targets and develop a strategic plan (Watts, J. 2010)

This included the Aichi targets to at least halve the loss of natural habitats and expand nature reserves to 17% of the world's land area by 2020 and the Nagoya protocol, to manage the world's genetic resources and share the multibillion-dollar benefits with developing nations and indigenous communities (CBD, 2010a)(CBD, 2010b).

Sources:

Braat, L et al. 2008. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. [pdf]. European Commission. Available at:< http://www.globio.info/downloads/85/Report%20-%20Braat%20&%20ten%20Brink%20eds%20(2008)%20The%20Cost%20of%20Policy%20Ina.pdf> [Accessed 24.10.2014]

CBD. 2010a. Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Convention on Biological Diversity. [online]. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ [Accessed: 24.10.2014] 

CBD. 2010b. About the Nagoya Protocol. Convention on Biological Diversity.  [online]. Available at:http://www.cbd.int/abs/about/ [Accessed: 24.10.2014]


Watts, J. 2010. Biodiversity talks: Ministers in Nagoya adopt new strategy. The Guardian. [online]. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/oct/29/biodiversity-talks-ministers-nagoya-strategy [Accessed: 24.10.2014] 

Ecological Economics

Since the 1960’s and 70’s drawing on neoliberal ideals many attempts have been made to provide a valuation of biodiversity and ecosystems. Here ecosystem functions are defined as ‘the capacity of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly’ and was estimated by the World Conservation Union to amount to US$33 trillion a year (Costanza et al, 1997). 

Ecosystem functions can be grouped into four primary categories: 

Regulation Functions- this relates to the capacity of ecosystems to regulate essential ecological processes and include the carbon cycle, water regulation and supply and waste treatment

Habitat Functions- natural ecosystems contribute to conservation of biological and genetic diversity and evolutionary processes

Production Functions- Photosynthesis and nutrient uptake by autotrophs creates carbohydrates which then produce a larger range of living biomass through secondary producers. This diversity provides many goods for humans including food to energy materials such as coal and gas to genetic material.

Information Functions- this is often harder to quantify but no less significant. Ecosystems provide opportunities for human cognitive development such as its aesthetic quality, cultural significance and scientific value (de Groot, 2003) . 

Economic valuation is commonly the primary focus in scenarios such as this although ecological and socio-cultural valuation are considered.

Economic valuation methods fall into four basic types, although in many cases for each ecosystem function several methods are applicable.

Direct market valuation is the exchange value in trade of ‘goods’, information and regulation functions.

Indirect market valuation is applied when their are no explicit markets and includes avoided costs, replacement costs, factor income, travel costs and hedonic pricing. 

Contingent Valuation can be defined as service demand elicited by considering alternatives.

Group Valuation draws on the principles of deliberative democracy and assumes public decision making should result from open public debate not individual preferences (de Groot, 2003). 

The table below from a study by Costanza et al. 1997 demonstrates economic valuation of a few ecosystem functions. 

Nitrogen fixing is a vital example of a bi-product of biodiversity that is vital to life through its regulatory functioning.  This is carried out by certain species of cyanobacteria that are either free living, the actinomycete Frankia that works in symbiosis with Legumes and rhizobia plants and heterotrophic fixation during the decomposition of plant litter. The plant bacteria symbiotic relationship is most efficient and can raise nitrogen fixing rates to as high as 100 kg N ha−1 y−1.  This demonstrates the need for maintaining soil health for maximum bacteria biodiversity and the importance of plant biodiversity  achieved through crop rotation. Alternatives involves the use of nitrogen fertiliser at greater cost to farmers. (Vitousek et al 2002)

Due to the nature of ecosystems, the processes involved as well as a degree of subjectivity, valuation is a complex if not impossible task as functions and valuation methods overlap and are interconnected.  Despite this complexity, I feel basic economic valuations are effective ways of influencing policy and management although more nuanced effects of ecosystems and biodiversity such as ecological and socio-cultural worth are equally important and should not be ignored. 

Updated 13.01.2015.

Sources: 

Costanza et al, 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. 387 (1). pp 253-260. 

de Groot, R. 2003. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics. 41 (3). pp 393-408

Vitousek, P. 2002.Towards an ecological understanding of biological
nitrogen fixation.Biogeochemistry. Vol. 57. pp 1-45.

What's Going On?

Although this blog is intended to discuss the impact of global biodiversity loss on humans, I want to begin by outlining the reverse, the impact we are having on the natural world. To assess this,  I will draw from data and discussions taken from the 2014 Living Planet Report I mentioned below, in particular the Living Planet Index (LPI).

The index is calculated using trends in 10,380 populations of over 3,038 vertebrates to estimate the number of species in different taxonomic groups and biogeographic realms over time. For the first time the data is then weighted as population trends for each group and realm in the database are not perfect representations of number and distribution worldwide. For example, without weighting the LPI over represents trends in Europe and under represents reptiles. This results in the LPI-D. 

Each population time series is then assigned to one of five biogeographic realms (Nearctic, Neotropical, Palearctic, Afrotropical and Indo-Pacific) and classified as to whether the population is predominantly terrestrial, freshwater or marine. As a result, it is possible to compare how different species are doing in different biomes and regions. 

Global LPI

Declining or Stable Populations

The global LPI can be separated into temperate and tropical regions. The results indicate a global decline f 52% vertebrate populations since the 1970s with the average decline greater in the tropics (56% decline in tropics, 36% decline in temperate regions). 

The main threats to each population are also recorded with the results displayed below. 

Threats

The LPI-D provides a fairly comprehensive overview of the state of vertebrate species worldwide, however I feel that in order to understand the true health of global ecosystems and the impact of human populations, plant and invertebrate biodiversity should be taken into account. Due to the inherent nature and sheer number of species this is obviously near impossible using the techniques developed by the LPI-D so particular proxies could be employed.

Despite this flaw, hopefully the shocking statistics should kickstart new dialogues and action to preserve what we have left.

Access to the PDF can be found here: http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/living_planet_report/

Hello!

Like many people, I have always had a passion for wildlife in all shapes and sizes and count global biodiversity loss among the greatest problems we face. I was shocked by new research from the WWF and the Zoological Society of London collated in the 2014 Living Planet Report  that found that since the 1970’s wildlife populations have declined by over 50% worldwide. 

However, when voicing my concerns, I am often met with the argument (although friends tend to be playing devils advocate):

Why should I care? 

What difference does the existence of Gorillas in the Virungas National Park make to me or to human species generally? 

Why should we spend millions protecting other species when we can’t even look after ourselves? 

I am frequently frustrated by my inability to generate an adequate response beyond simply stuttering “but they’re so nice??”. 

Source:  http://www.photovolcanica.com/VolcanoInfo/Nyiragongo/Nyiragongo.html

This blog as part of the module Global Environmental Change (GEOG3056) at UCL 

https://twitter.com/geog3057 will give me the platform to develop my argument. Over the next couple of months I will collate and consider a variety of articles, papers, books and more to explore the impact of biodiversity loss on humans. By the end I hope to have demonstrated why all life, no matter how small, is valuable and worth fighting for. 

Link to Living Planet Report 2014: http://www.wwf.org.uk/about_wwf/other_publications/living_planet_report_2014/#.VD0ujtR4rYg