Refined proposal for an EU pollinator monitoring scheme

Table of Contents

• Contents 3
• Abstract 9
• Acknowledgements 10
• Authors 11
• Executive summary 12
• Background and policy context 12
• Options for the EU PoMS design 13
• Options for pollinator indicators 20
• Options for EU PoMS data management 21
• Options for future scheme development 21
• 1 Introduction 23
• 1.1 Policy context and background 23
• 1.1.1 EU Pollinators Initiative and A New Deal for Pollinators 23
• 1.2 STING2: Science and Technology for Pollinating Insects 2 24
• 1.2.1 Objectives and approach 24
• 1.2.2 STING2 deliverables 26
• 1.3 Presentation of options for EU PoMS 27
• Annex 1. STING1: Science and Technology for Pollinating Insects 1 28
• 2 Options for the EU PoMS design 31
• 2.1 Summary of options 31
• 2.2 Choice of methods for the core scheme 33
• 2.2.1 Assessment of the potential impact of floral resources on abundance estimates from pan traps in comparison with transect walks 33
• 2.2.1.1 Conceptual framework 33
• 2.2.1.2 Data and analysis 34
• 2.2.1.3 Results 36
• 2.2.1.4 Discussion and conclusions 37
• 2.2.1.5 Advantages and disadvantages of pan traps 38
• 2.3 Detecting change 40
• 2.3.1 STING1 approach 40
• 2.3.2 STING2 approach 40
• 2.3.3 How to interpret outputs 41
• 2.4 Design options for a bee, hoverfly and butterfly module (reinforced transects) 42
• 2.4.1 Summary 42
• 2.4.2 Background and context 42
• 2.4.3 Overall approach 42
• 2.4.3.1 Basic design of reinforced transects 43
• 2.4.4 Models 44
• 2.4.5 Scenario building 44
• 2.4.5.1 Fixed parameters 44
• 2.4.6 General findings 50
• 2.4.7 Assumptions and next steps 52
• 2.5 Estimating the costs of EU PoMS options 53
• 2.5.1 Summary 53
• 2.5.2 Background and context 53
• 2.5.3 Approach and methodology 53
• 2.5.3.1 Material costs 53
• 2.5.3.2 Staff costs 54
• 2.5.3.3 Data collection 55
• 2.5.3.4 Identification costs 55
• 2.5.3.5 Training costs 56
• 2.5.3.6 Workflow costs 57
• 2.5.3.7 Coordination 57
• 2.5.3.8 Site numbers 58
• 2.5.3.9 Summary of Key assumptions 58
• 2.5.3.10 Summary of differences in cost estimates relative to the first expert report 59
• 2.5.4 Results 61
• 2.5.4.1 Distribution of overall costs 61
• 2.5.5 Discussion 62
• 2.5.5.1 Overall costs 62
• 2.5.5.2 Distribution of costs 62
• 2.5.5.3 Initial learning costs 62
• 2.5.5.4 Citizen science 62
• 2.5.5.5 Coordination 63
• 2.5.5.6 Other costs 63
• 2.5.5.7 Further development 63
• 2.5.6 Conclusions and recommendations 64
• 2.6 Taxonomic and human resource requirements 65
• 2.6.1 Summary 65
• 2.6.2 Context and premises 66
• 2.6.3 Mapping current taxonomic capacity in Europe 66
• 2.6.4 Addressing expertise requirements 72
• 2.6.4.1 Human resources 75
• Scope of the team’s work 76
• Distributed work 77
• Composition of the team 79
• Area covered by each team 80
• Number of teams 80
• Geographic distinctiveness 80
• 2.6.4.2 Supporting material 81
• 2.6.5 Bridging the gap 82
• 2.6.5.1 Requirements for short-term action 83
• 2.6.5.2 Model for long-term sustainability 86
• Actions for taxonomic expertise capacity, towards strengthening and consolidation 86
• Actions for volunteers, towards engagement and commitment 88
• 2.6.6 General recommendations 90
• 2.6.6.1 Social infrastructure 90
• 2.6.6.2 Technical infrastructure 91
• 2.6.6.3 Financial infrastructure 91
• 2.7 Options for building Citizen Science capacity for EU PoMS 93
• 2.7.1 Summary 93
• 2.7.2 Overview of current Citizen Science activities 94
• 2.7.3 Current state of Pollinator Citizen Science 96
• 2.7.4 Pollinator Citizen Science approaches 98
• 2.7.5 Developing EU pollinator Citizen Science 101
• 2.7.5.1 Target audiences 101
• 2.7.5.2 Involving farmers 102
• 2.7.5.3 Casting the net wide 103
• 2.7.6 Opportunities provided by Citizen Science in the EU PoMS proposed monitoring approaches 103
• 2.7.7 Conclusions and recommendations 106
• Annex 2.7. Thinking tools for future capacity building of Pollinator Citizen Science 108
• 2.8 Design options for a rare and threatened species (RaTS) module 110
• 2.8.1 Summary and recommendations 110
• 2.8.2 Introduction 111
• 2.8.3 Aim of a rare and threatened species module 112
• 2.8.4 Prioritisation of species for inclusion in the rare and threatened species module 113
• 2.8.4.1 Prioritisation formula 114
• 2.8.5 Monitoring methods 114
• 2.8.6 Data storage, analysis and indicators 116
• 2.8.6.1 Indicators 117
• 2.8.7 The rare and threatened species module monitoring framework 118
• 2.8.8 Budget and timelines 119
• 2.9 Design options for a moths module (light traps) 121
• 2.9.1 Summary and recommendations 121
• 2.9.2 Background and context 122
• 2.9.3 SPRING field trial 123
• 2.9.3.1 Protocols 124
• 2.9.3.2 Analysis and findings 125
• 2.9.4 Current status and development opportunities 127
• 2.9.4.1 Advantages and limitations 128
• 2.9.4.2 Estimated costs 128
• 2.9.5 Feasibility for inclusion of moth monitoring in EU PoMS 128
• 2.9.6 Future steps 131
• 2.10 Options for monitoring pressures and site co-location 132
• 2.10.1 Summary and recommendations 132
• 2.10.2 Introduction 132
• 2.10.3 Potential monitoring schemes for site co-location 133
• 2.10.3.1 LUCAS: Land Use and Cover Area frame Survey 133
• 2.10.3.2 EMBAL: European Monitoring of Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes 134
• 2.10.3.3 INSIGNIA: Monitoring of Environmental Pollution using honey bees 134
• 2.10.3.4 eLTER-RI: Integrated European Long-Term Ecosystem, critical zone and socio-ecological Research Infrastructure 134
• 2.10.3.5 FSDN: EU Farm Sustainability Data Network 135
• 2.10.4 Summary of suitability across initiatives 135
• 2.10.5 Assessment of opportunities and barriers to co-locating EU PoMS sites with other schemes 138
• 2.10.5.1 LUCAS 138
• 2.10.5.2 EMBAL 138
• 2.10.5.3 INSIGNIA 139
• 2.10.5.4 eLTER-RI 139
• 2.10.5.5 FSDN 140
• 2.10.6 Conclusions and recommendations 140
• 3 Options for pollinator indicators 142
• 3.1 Options for a General Pollinator Indicator 142
• 3.1.1 Summary 142
• 3.1.2 Background and context 142
• 3.1.3 Principles and assumptions 142
• 3.1.4 Metric options 143
• 3.1.4.1 Species Population: Species Abundance 143
• 3.1.4.2 Species Population: Species Distribution 144
• 3.1.4.3 Community Composition: Taxonomic diversity 144
• 3.1.4.4 Community Composition: Taxon-aggregated abundance 145
• 3.1.5 Models for pollinator indicators 145
• 3.1.5.1 The need for models 145
• 3.1.5.2 Generalised indicator workflow 146
• 3.1.5.3 Options for models 147
• 3.1.6 Assessing the target 151
• 3.1.6.1 Bayesian vs Classical; qualitative vs quantitative assessment 152
• 3.1.6.2 Risks and perverse outcomes associated with particular metrics 153
• 3.1.6.3 Options for assessing targets 155
• 3.1.7 Recommendations 156
• 3.2 Options for a Farmland Pollinator Indicator 157
• 3.2.1 Summary 157
• 3.2.2 Background and context 157
• 3.2.3 Why a Farmland Pollinator Indicator is useful and what can be learned from other existing farmland indicators 158
• 3.2.4 The DPSIR model 159
• 3.2.5 Learning from the farmland bird indicator and the grassland butterfly indicator 161
• 3.2.5.1 Farmland Bird Indicator 161
• 3.2.5.2 European Grassland Butterfly Indicator 163
• 3.2.6 Potential of existing CAP Indicators as pressure and benefit indicators for pollinators 165
• 3.2.6.1 CAP impact indicators potentially relevant for the development of a farmland pollinator indicator 168
• 3.2.6.2 Overview of selected impact indicators 169
• 3.2.7 Lessons learned from the existing indicators for a future farmland pollinator indicator 173
• 3.2.8 Conclusions based on existing farmland indicators 174
• 3.2.9 Policy context for developing a farmland pollinator monitoring and indicator(s) 174
• 3.2.10 Monitoring approaches and indicators - assessing state and trends of farmland pollinators and possible impacts of CAP policy. 175
• 3.2.10.1 Defining agricultural landscapes within Member States and describing agricultural diversity in the EU 176
• 3.2.10.2 An optional two-stage Farmland Pollinator Monitoring – the basis for state and impact indicators 176
• 3.2.11 Farmland pollinator monitoring: an optional two-stage approach 182
• 3.2.12 Recommendations 182
• 4 Options for EU PoMS data management 184
• 4.1 Summary 184
• 4.2 Data management workflow 185
• 4.3 Data standard 187
• 4.3.1 Standard data acquisition and submission 187
• 4.3.2 Standard metadata 188
• 4.3.3 Standard terms 189
• 4.3.4 Standard data versioning 189
• 4.3.5 Standard data publication rules 190
• 4.4 Data acquisition 190
• 4.4.1 App 190
• 4.4.2 Infrastructure 191
• 4.4.3 Target audience 192
• 4.4.4 New development or cooperation 192
• 4.4.5 Recommendations 195
• 4.4.6 Data sheet 197
• 4.5 Data preservation 198
• 4.5.1 Hardware infrastructure 198
• 4.5.2 Software options 199
• 4.6 Web interface 205
• 4.6.1 User management 205
• 4.6.2 Components 206
• 4.7 Database structure 208
• 4.7.1 Database modules 208
• 4.7.2 Species referencing table 209
• 4.7.3 Data validation workflow 210
• 4.7.3.1 First data validation 210
• 4.7.3.2 Second data validation 211
• 4.7.4 Data downscaling, anonymization, and publication 212
• 4.7.5 Next steps 212
• Annex 4. A. Glossary 214
• Annex 4. B. List of desired app components 219
• Annex 4. C. Identified apps 223
• 5 Options for future scheme development (complementary modules) 231
• 5.1 Options for pan traps 231
• 5.1.1 Potential opportunities of using pan traps 231
• 5.1.2 Recommendations 231
• 5.2 Emerging technologies and the opportunities for EU PoMS 232
• 5.2.1 Summary 232
• 5.2.2 Approach to assessing emerging technologies 232
• 5.2.3 Citizen science portals 234
• 5.2.4 Insect camera traps for in situ pollinator monitoring 235
• 5.2.4.1 Description 235
• 5.2.4.2 Potential scope 236
• 5.2.4.3 Current status and remaining development time 236
• 5.2.4.4 Requirements 237
• 5.2.4.5 Estimated costs 237
• 5.2.4.6 Advantages 237
• 5.2.4.7 Disadvantages 238
• 5.2.4.8 Possible future development 238
• 5.2.5 Image-based approaches for identification of dead specimens 239
• 5.2.5.1 Description 239
• 5.2.5.2 Potential scope 240
• 5.2.5.3 Current status and remaining development time 240
• 5.2.5.4 Requirements 240
• 5.2.5.5 Estimated costs 240
• 5.2.5.6 Advantages 241
• 5.2.5.7 Disadvantages 241
• 5.2.5.8 Possible future development 241
• 5.2.6 Acoustic approaches 241
• 5.2.6.1 Description 241
• 5.2.6.2 Potential scope 242
• 5.2.6.3 Current status and remaining development time 242
• 5.2.6.4 Requirements 242
• 5.2.6.5 Estimated costs 242
• 5.2.6.6 Advantages 243
• 5.2.6.7 Disadvantages 243
• 5.2.6.8 Possible future development 243
• 5.2.7 Mapping pollinator habitat extent and quality 244
• 5.2.7.1 Description 244
• 5.2.7.2 Potential scope 244
• 5.2.7.3 Current status and remaining development time 245
• 5.2.7.4 Requirements 246
• 5.2.7.5 Estimated costs 246
• 5.2.7.6 Advantages 247
• 5.2.7.7 Disadvantages 247
• 5.2.7.8 Possible future development 247
• 5.2.8 DNA barcoding 248
• 5.2.8.1 Description 248
• 5.2.8.2 Potential scope 248
• 5.2.8.3 Current status and remaining development time 249
• 5.2.8.4 Requirements 250
• 5.2.8.5 Estimated costs 250
• 5.2.8.6 Advantages 250
• 5.2.8.7 Disadvantages 250
• 5.2.8.8 Possible future development 250
• 5.2.9 DNA metabarcoding 251
• 5.2.9.1 Description 251
• 5.2.9.2 Potential scope 252
• 5.2.9.3 Current status and remaining development time 253
• 5.2.9.4 Requirements 253
• 5.2.10 Estimated costs 253
• 5.2.10.1 Advantages 253
• 5.2.10.2 Disadvantages 254
• 5.2.10.3 Possible future development 254
• 5.2.11 Conclusions and recommendations 254
• 5.3 Options to include genomic-level monitoring 259
• 5.3.1 Summary 259
• 5.3.2 Introduction 260
• 5.3.2.1 The importance of genetic diversity for adaptive potential 260
• 5.3.2.2 Pragmatic proxy-based indicators to monitor trends in genetic diversity 261
• 5.3.2.3 Genetic/genomic indicators including Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) for genetic diversity 262
• 5.3.2.4 Monitoring of genomic diversity of pollinators 262
• 5.3.2.5 Requirements for genomic level monitoring 263
• 5.3.2.6 Criteria to select target species for genomic level monitoring 263
• 5.3.3 Prioritization criteria 264
• 5.3.3.1 Applying criteria and experts’ consultation to select target species for the pilot studies 265
• 5.3.4 Sampling protocols and guidelines for proper storage of the collected organisms for genomic studies 266
• 5.3.4.1 Permits 266
• 5.3.4.2 Collection and storage 266
• 5.3.4.3 Specimen vouchers 267
• 5.3.5 Stocktake of potential methodologies useful to develop a program of DNA-based genetic diversity monitoring 268
• 5.3.5.1 Techniques that do not require a reference genome of the target species 270
• 5.3.5.2 Techniques requiring reference genome of the target species 271
• 5.3.6 SWOT analysis of the proposed strategies and methodologies to generate genomic level data 272
• 5.3.7 Estimated costs for a genomic level monitoring scheme 275
• 5.3.8 Recommendations and future directions 276
• Annex 5.3. A. Species for pilot studies and ongoing initiatives. 278
• Annex 5.3. B. Technical details on some of the potential methodologies useful to develop a program of genomic-level monitoring 285
• 5.4 Options for Malaise traps 287
• 5.4.1 Background 287
• 5.4.2 Methods 288
• 5.4.3 Results 290
• 5.4.3.1 Total insect richness 290
• 5.4.3.2 Pollinator richness 290
• 5.4.4 Discussion 292
• 6 Conclusions 295
• References 296
• List of abbreviations and definitions 319
• List of figures 322
• List of tables 325