Tag: nature

Natural Capital Accounting | Accounting for the Crossroads of Human Nature

stoutj123

Written by Owen Small, researcher on the For-ES project in the School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin

Dramatisation of the headline aside, Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) is a trending framework for ascribing value to ecosystems, that – in the eyes of this particular researcher – has a wide disparity in the potential outcomes it may lead to.

On one hand, we have a means to reshape our current economic systems in a manner that prioritises nature like the essential driving force of life it is. On the other, we have a streamlined methodology for powerful private interests to further commodify the natural world, widening existing wealth gaps and propagating the exploitation of developing countries. Standing at this crossroads, the scientists, economists, conservationists and humanists that recognise the powerful tool NCA might be, must face it for what it could be bastardised into.

“Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors… in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.”
                                                                                    – Albert Einstein.

Einstein uttered these words at a speech at the California Institute of Technology on 16 February 1931. Despite Einstein’s words, there still sometimes seems to exist a lack of consideration for externalities during the rigors of research. It’s of course a folly of a system that demands constant advancement and output, otherwise experts face redundancy, but still a flaw in the process none the less. The point I’m overexplaining is we must move cautiously and deliberately with frameworks connecting the living, natural world to monetary values.

Three paragraphs in, perhaps it’s a decent time to define NCA, and the specific ecological-based aspects I’m referring to. Natural capital is simply all that comes from nature; soil, water, animals, plants, etc. The accounting bit refers to measuring the change in extent and condition of this natural capital, the stock as it’s called. In a more particular context, we have ‘Ecosystem Accounting’ which measures and tracks this stock over time, as well as how humans use it, or the flow of ‘ecosystem services.’ These services again are how humans use the ecosystems they exist in or adjacent to. Generally, they’re divided into four types: provisioning (food, timber), regulating (flood control, carbon sequestration), cultural (recreation areas, sacred sites), and supporting (photosynthesis, the water cycle). Fundamentally, human life and society do not exist without ecosystem services.

Figure from SEEA EA, conceptualising Ecosystem Accounting

At face value, this all sounds great. A system that seeks to monitor and track where ecosystems are, how they’re doing, and what they provide us. The issue lies not in the means or purported ends, but the potential perversion of its goals. Under the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA), there is an intention to reach a level where monetary values are calculated for ecosystem services and stock, albeit these monetary valuations are not ratified by the UN. The SEEA Implementation Strategy explicitly mentions intended uses for ecosystem accounting (EA) being to drive private and public investment for nature restoration, inform policy, and support current reporting requirements.

Figures from Mascolo et al. (2025) showing Natural Capital Accounts for Italy in 2021. (left) Net carbon sequestered by ecosystems. (right) Wood provisioning provided by forested areas.

This all sounds excellent, and there have been successful pilot projects and ongoing uses of SEEA EA. At a national scale in Italy, spatially explicit valuation of ecosystem services has improved the allocation of EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies, directing restoration funding to areas indicated for high returns (European Union, 2024; Mascolo et al., 2025). A multi-national SEEA EA pilot initiative helped quantify where forest degradation was avoided in Central and South America, as well as Southeast Asia, and even saw reform of forest repayment schemes in Mexico through the Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services Project (NCAVES) (United Nations Statistics Division & United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.). Some studies even claim that the principles of NCA adopted in green accounting with private corporations have demonstrated improved financial performance (Tjandrakirana et al., 2024). It’s that last example, however, where the cause for concern can arise.

Accusations of politicising a discussion can be brought up when critiques of capitalism, and its impacts on the environment, are contended. Personally – as an independent individual whose views are my own and not any group or institution’s – I see enough categorical and empirical evidence supporting the statement that traditional capitalist systems, and the inherent growth dependency and profit maximization, are contradictory to current climate and biodiversity goals. While it’s encouraging to see organisations willfully partaking in more sustainable practices, it begs the question of whether these goals and practices are maintainable for profit-driven sectors.

Now, credit where credit’s due, that is in a sense the point of NCA and ecosystem accounting. Realign the priorities of financial systems so that profit is not the sole goal, but overall environmental health and human equity is an aim. In a vacuum, monetary systems are not destructive to ecology. Just as there’s exchanges of energy in a rich and dynamic trophic web, humans exchange currency in equally complex economies. That said, I’d safely assume most researchers in the field of NCA would all agree that the relationship between humanity, our economy, and nature needs to be overhauled in order to meet critical ecological goals. Where my previous sentiment was drawing alarms are the various stakeholders that would not view ecosystem accounting as means to change a system, but rather to further perpetuate their own economic power.

Image of common ‘Greenwashing’ terms from How to tell if a company is greenwashing – spunout

‘Greenwashing’ as it’s called is the new buzzword that really captures where a lot of my worries would lie. Thanks in part to ineffectual policy, or enforcement of existing legislation, countless companies in the developed world sell products labelled as “green” or “sustainable” with no true data to support it. Often the products are actually significantly damaging the environment. The easiest example, which the veil has been pulled back a little, is plastics and recycling. It’s very well documented that only a fraction of plastic products are truly recycled, and even the process of recycling them has its impacts, yet many companies still push “100% recyclable container” or “packaged made of 50% recycled plastic.” It’s predatory marketing practices harvesting a premium from environmentally conscious consumers.

Lets imagine greenwashing, but on a systemic scale rather than just the marketing and retail level. Weaponising NCA methods, companies whose industrial practice, regardless of any adjustments they can make, damage the environment (fossil fuels, strip-mining) could use ecosystem accounting to minimise and mask their impacts. One objective critique of NCA is, while there are standards in place, the operationalising of SEEA EA is largely site/stakeholder dependent. Accounts must be developed with goals in mind and vary region by region. Now, if a fossil-fuel company wipes out a protected habitat, there is not much data manipulation to be done to mask that, but what could be done is active minimisation of the wider impact. Ensuring condition and ecosystem service accounts downplay what this ecosystem provided, and perhaps even upscaling what other land the company may own has.

Yes, I’m jumping several steps ahead and making very large and brash assumptions, but that was precisely my point with the Einstein quote. His work, however indirect, contributed to the atomic bomb, and he even signed a letter with others warning the U.S. government of Germany’s atomic potential, a decision he would later voice regrets on learning more about how far they were. Despite that, America’s advancements in the 1930s/40s led the world to a nuclear era with unforeseen risks and consequences. Could physicists have treaded more carefully and brought us instead into an age of safe, nuclear energy? Similar questions, not quite as heavy questions could be asked when developing valuations for ecosystems. How do we, as NCA researchers, avoid a similar mistake and prevent for-profit private enterprises from misusing the principles of ecosystem accounting?

I’ve worked in the field for less than a year, so obviously have no answers myself. Moreover, there are countless distinguished experts in the NCA landscape who have had these same worries and asked the same questions. This is just the outward reflections of someone that has dove in and been inundated with a fascinating new perspective on quantifying and understanding humanity and our relationship with nature. Frankly, I worry it is too anthropocentric, plain and simple. It takes something that should be inherent, care for nature, and frames it in a transactional manner: nature good = humans good. If used as intended and responsibly, could NCA still contribute to our separation from nature? We frame it as capital – nature is an asset. I disagree; nature is us. We are innately part of the formula, not one side of an equation: nature good + humans good = Earth good.

Science Communication cartoon by Tom Dunne

But, as a realist rather than idealist, ecosystem accounting is a practical solution regarding an already degraded relationship. Perhaps as it becomes mainstream, develops and improves, that inherent sense of caring for nature will be restored. In many ways, natural capital serves to speak on protecting biodiversity and improving sustainability in terms the people with significant impact understand. It’s the language of policymakers that fret about GDP, and the vernacular of corporations that cause the larger scale impacts. An ecologist’s understanding of something means little if it can’t be communicated to people making decisions. Creating ecosystem accounts is a form of communicating info many experts already know. On a macro-scale, it’s “laymen’s terms” for describing ecosystems, how they’re doing, and how important they are.

As we continue advancing Natural Capital Accounting, especially those of us developing new methods to quantify ecosystem services and their valuations, the responsibility is not abstract. I work on experimental recreation-related services accounts using relatively novel methods and a dataset with inherent bias. They offer an interesting perspective into understanding how people feel about and use an ecosystem. In the wrong hands, the accounts could easily be used to misrepresent the true sentiment of a community for a natural area. That’s a powerful tool that should be handled properly.

“The creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind,” Einstein said. It’s not the ecosystem accounts alone that determine which contrivance of humanity it shall be; it’s the structures and systems that use it that decide. We can communicate nature as an asset but must make it clear that nature’s value is irrespective of its ability to serve people. Nature is valuable to humans. When we restore those last two words, we turn our relationship with nature into a transaction.

A photo of something ‘valuable’, from a walk in Co. Wicklow, Ireland

References

European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/3024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 as regards introducing new environmental economic account modules (SEEA EA). Official Journal of the European Union, L 3024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3024/oj/ 

Mascolo, R. A., et al. (2025). Towards National Ecosystem Accounts: A First Application of EU Regulation 2024/3024 in Italy. One Ecosystem. https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/161992/

United Nations Statistics Division & United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.). Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services Project (NCAVES). SEEA UN Project Portal. https://seea.un.org/home/Natural-Capital-Accounting-Project

Tjandrakirana, R. D. P., Ermadiani, E., & Aspahani, A. (2024). The impact of environmental performance, green accounting, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) on financial performance. International Journal of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (IJHESS), 4(3). https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v4i3.1335

Tired of the winter blues? Read about our summer of farmland pollinator surveys!

stoutj123

Written by Dr Sarah Larragy, Postdoctoral researcher in Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, working on the EU-funded RestPoll project, and Moya Owens, Research Assistant in Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, working on the ANTENNA project.

As we trudge our way through the dark and grey wintertime, it is no wonder we are reminiscing over sunny, insect-filled days. The People and Nature group saw a very busy season last summer, which brought us to and from farms all around the Co. Kildare area to conduct pollinator research! Our travelling troupe of bug catchers this summer included:
• Dr Sarah Larragy (post-doc, RestPoll)
• Fernanda Azevedo (PhD student, RestPoll)
• Moya Owens (Research Assistant, ANTENNA)
• Michalis Cristou (Biodiversity and Conservation MSc student)
• Sarah Browne (Research Assistant)
• Katie Gahan (Research Assistant)
• Daan Mathijssen (Summer intern)
• Sirus Rasti (Erasmus plus student)

Figure 1 The TCD RestPoll fieldwork team (a lovely bunch 😊 – thanks for all your help!)


This work contributed to two pollinator-related EU projects being conducted by members of the lab:
• RestPoll: Restoring pollinator habitats across European agricultural landscapes (see Sarah’s blog here)
• ANTENNA: Making technology work for monitoring pollinators (see Moya’s blog here)

RestPoll field work

As part of RestPoll, we are collecting field data to see if restoration measures for pollinators are effective. Many of our farms were previously involved in Protecting Farmland Pollinators and carry out many practices that are likely to benefit our busy bees and other pollinators. These biodiversity friendly actions include reduced hedgerow cutting, reducing or eliminating insecticide use, increasing the area of field margins and letting ‘weeds’ grow in unfarmed areas.
To conduct our RestPoll field work, it was clear we were in for an intense season of insect counting (tough work but someone’s got to do it!). The traditional methods for surveying pollinators generally involve a transect walk – this is where one walks at a slow pace while keeping their eyes peeled for any bees, hoverflies or butterflies that pass through their path. Once we spot a pollinator, we note down the species and – should we spot them enjoying a floral treat – the plant species it visits. Over the summer, we conducted three rounds of pollinator transects and floral coverage surveys across 21 beef and tillage farms in the Co. Kildare region – and have the farmers’ tans to prove it!
Antenna field work

Overlapping with the RestPoll fieldwork was the much more technologically-advanced project, ANTENNA, conducted by Moya Owens (supervised by TCD alumni Dr Jessica Knapp, now based in Lund University!). Pollinator surveys have been conducted across 6 different countries in Europe, which included four rounds of surveys on five different sites in Co. Kildare.
ANTENNA is investigating the feasibility of using fancy, solar-powered cameras to conduct pollinator monitoring. It aims to compare these high-tech approaches to traditional methods, like transecting and pan trapping. While transects are the traditional and usually the core methodology for any pollinator monitoring project, there are limitations such as not being able to see, or identify, everything you spot in the field. Oftentimes, you need to catch an insect to find out what species it is, and sometimes this requires careful examination under microscopes. Also, insects can often be difficult to catch. You may not think it, but chasing a butterfly down in a field full of boisterous cattle or waist-high wheat is a surprisingly humbling experience. Indeed, Sarah L. faced an unusually specific conundrum one day when a cow made off with her butterfly net, presumably for its own scientific pursuits.
Other traditional methods, such as pan-trapping (multi-coloured buckets of soapy solution to catch insects) have the downfall of being a form of attractant, lethal sampling – an approach we are trying to reduce to mitigate negative effects on pollinator populations. Considering these limitations, technological approaches may be a solution to gathering much needed data on pollinator richness and abundance trends, as traditional methods are time-consuming and often require some level of lethal sampling.
The cameras being tested in ANTENNA were a DIOPSIS 2.0 Insect Camera (Fig. 2A, Fig. 3) and a MiniMon camera (Fig. 2B).

Figure 2 Cameras being used in ANTENNA project include a DIOPSIS 2.0 Insect Camera (A) and a MiniMon camera (B).

The DIOPSIS camera is a fully automated system designed to detect, monitor and document insect populations, produced by Faunabit in The Netherlands. When an insect lands on the yellow screen, the camera captures high resolution images which are then uploaded to a server via Wi-Fi. Images are then processed using the image recognition model developed by Naturalis.
In terms of the MiniMon camera, this was developed by the ANTENNA team, with the aim of being a user-friendly, cost-effective camera. Unlike the DIOPSIS camera, which monitors continuously, the MiniMon camera takes a burst of five pictures every minute. As shown in Fig. 1, there is a custom-made flower plate containing 3-D printed artificial flowers which attract insects. As well as recording insects we found, we also took note of floral coverage around each stake (2m radius).

Figure 3 Katie, Sarah B. and Moya did trojan work bringing these cameras around to different sites to conduct 6-hour bouts of surveying! Here they are on day one of successfully setting up the DIOPSIS camera.

Fun finds
Over the course of the summer, we found some amazing insects, from painted lady butterflies (Vanessa cardui) to orange-tailed mining bees (Andrena haemorrhoa). Below we share with you our catches of the season!
Research Assistant Sarah B.’s main memories from this season include finding the Common Tiger hoverfly (Helophilus pendulus; Fig 4 A) and peacock butterfly (Aglais io). Another stand out moment from the summer was finding 5 small tortoise shell (Aglais urticae) butterflies on field scabious (Knautia arvensis). Katie Gahan, another Research Assistant working with us this summer, enjoyed the field full of common spotted orchids (Dactylorhiza fuchsii).

Figure 4 Some of our fun finds during field work season! A. Common tiger hoverfly (Helophilus pendulus). B. Common spotted orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsia). C. The large carder bumblebee (Bombus muscorum). D. Many tortoiseshell butterflies (Aglais urticae) foraging on field scabius (Knautia arvensis). E. Peacock butterfly (Aglais io). F. A new buff-tailed bumblebee (Bombus terrestris) queen.

“My catch of the season was finally seeing a Large Carder Bee (Bombus muscorum) for the first time! I caught a male on one of the last days of surveying, which was even more exciting as it meant I got to hold him since males don’t sting! After I caught this one, we saw a couple more flying along the transect which was super exciting. This was probably the best day in the field for me!” – Moya

Figure 5 Moya only delighted with the male Bombus muscorum she found!

“My fun find is not exactly rare, but it is very beautiful – it is the buff-tailed bumblebee queen. In this picture we see a new queen who is likely preparing for her upcoming winter diapause by stocking up on nectar and pollen. I studied buff-tailed bumblebees during my PhD, so I always enjoy seeing these beautiful (and huge!) queens during such a vital part of their lifecycle. I also really loved seeing so many butterflies out after several mild seasons – a particular favourite was the painted lady butterfly (Fig. 6)” – Sarah L.
“I remember a day during our third round of surveys on Kepak farm where there were so many butterflies of different species out – it was really beautiful!” – Fernanda

Figure 6 A painted lady butterfly (Vanessa cardui).

A big thank you to the field work team for all their hard work this summer, it is so appreciated! And a sincere thank you to the farmers who let us come and count insects on their farms (and sometimes treated us to cups of tea!) – we couldn’t do this work without your support!

PhD opportunity: Ponds for pollinators

stoutj123

Teagasc PhD Walsh Scholars Opportunity: “Ponds for Pollinators”
Walsh Scholars Ref Number: 2025033

The Teagasc Farmland Biodiversity Group led by Dr Saorla Kavanagh, (Department of Environment, Soils and Land Use, Johnstown Castle) invites applications for a fully funded 4-year PhD. The PhD candidate will be registered at Trinity College Dublin and co-supervised by Professor Jane Stout, Professor of Ecology, School of Natural Sciences.

Project Background and Description
Pollinator decline is a key threat to biodiversity conservation and the provision of ecosystem services. One third of Ireland’s bee species are under threat, with intensification and homogenisation of agricultural landscapes considered the principal driver. Diversifying habitats and understanding farmer attitudes towards biodiversity are key to halting further pollinator decline. Semi-natural habitats on the farm, for example, hedgerows, woodlands and trees, and wetland areas including ponds can provide valuable food and nesting resources for pollinators. In Ireland, there is little data on just how valuable ponds are for pollinators. Restoring biodiversity-friendly habitats and designing evidence-based actions that benefit biodiversity on the farm are crucial to meet the requirements of the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy and Nature Restoration Regulation, and to inform Policy for Agri-Environment measures.
The aim of this PhD is to identify the benefits of ponds for pollinators, and gain an understanding of farmers’ knowledge of farmland biodiversity. Barriers around implementing biodiversity measures on the farm and solutions to these barriers will be identified.


Candidate Profile
The ideal candidate will:

  • Hold at least an upper second class honours (or equivalent) Bachelor or Masters degree in,
    entomology, plant science, zoology, environmental science, or another related discipline
  • Have demonstrable analytical skills in the field and/or laboratory, and in data handling, analysis
    and presentation
  • Have the capacity/willingness to think critically and creatively, and apply multidisciplinary
    techniques to address hypothesis-driven questions
  • Work well in a multi-disciplinary team, and be able to work independently
  • Have excellent oral and written communication skills
  • Be willing to travel to field sites to conduct fieldwork and interact with landowners/farmers
  • Hold a full clean driving licence and able to drive in Ireland
  • Meet Trinity postgraduate entry requirements. See English language requirements here.

Funding
This is a 4-year PhD project funded by the Teagasc Walsh Scholar Programme and covers an annual stipend of €25,000, and student fees of up to a maximum of €6,000. Project costs will be covered.


Application procedure
Please send a CV and a 1-2 page personal statement detailing your interest in the project Tuesday, June 24th 2025 via email to Dr Saorla Kavanagh saorla.kavanagh@teagasc.ie quoting the reference number (2025037) in the subject field. Your CV should include the name and contact details of two references. In your personal statement, please explain both why you are specifically interested in this PhD project and why you are a strong candidate to undertake it. Interviews will take place (online) Friday, July 4th 2025.


Project start date: September 2025
Please send all inquiries to Dr Saorla Kavanagh Saorla.kavanagh@teagasc.ie

New Research – Ask a Farmer

stoutj123

Pollinators are an important part of the world’s biodiversity, responsible for pollinating crops and wild plants, providing a valuable ecosystem service (Potts, 2010). Despite its importance, it is evident the global decline of the wild and domesticated species of pollinators (Potts, 2010). In Ireland, 30% of pollinator species are classified as threatened with extinction (Fitzpatrick et al., 2007), which jeopardises the country’s food production since the decline of pollinators means the decline of pollinator-dependent plant species (Potts, 2010).

78% of Europe’s flowering plants benefit from animal pollination, as do 71% of the crops that supply 90% of the world’s food.  However, modern agriculture contributes to the decline of pollinator species through the application of agrochemicals and the conversion to highly productive monocultures (Russo et al., 2022). In a country like Ireland, where nearly 70% of land is managed for agriculture, and the agri-food sector is one of the country’s biggest industries, contributing in 2020 with 7% of the country’s gross income, plus 10% of exports (Government of Ireland, 2021), this is a pertinent issue.

Figure 1: Hedgerow managed for pollinators in an arable farm in Kildare.

The decline of bees not only impacts human life with agriculture and food security, but also the entire ecosystem, as without their action, there is a decline in ecosystem services. It means that, for example, wildlife does not have access to fruits and seeds, which interferes with nutrient cycling, seed dispersal and adaptation to climate change (All-Ireland Pollinator Plan, 2021). Furthermore, pollinator conservation has beneficial effects on pest control, soil erosion and microclimate regulation, which helps to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis and biodiversity loss (All-Ireland Pollinator Plan, 2021).

Figure 2: A green-veined butterfly (Pieris napi) on hedgerow Hawthorn (Crateagus monogyna).

According to Russo et al. (2022), it is extremely important to take conservation actions that protect the remaining high-quality habitats and improve the quality of degraded systems by identifying central organisms in the plant-pollinator network that can support the pair’s diversity and abundance.

A key challenge facing biodiversity conservation is human behaviour and the factors that govern its change (Marselle et al., 2020; Schultz, 2011; Knapp et al., 2020). However, Knapp et al. (2020) identified that when developing conservation strategies, natural scientists often disregard social factors affecting the human decision-making process to favour ecological evidence. This is particularly interesting because the implementation of conservation practices is majorly voluntary (Witzling et al., 2021) and, therefore, relies on a human decision.

Ignoring the social aspect of the conservation problem creates a gap between the ecological solutions and the implementation of these solutions by individuals, communities and society in general. This gap demands interdisciplinary approaches combining the understanding of the social pressures and norms that shape behaviour, the psychological reasons behind such behaviours, and the ecological solutions that can improve conservation behaviours.

Farms cover 67.6% of the Ireland’s area (EPA, 2022); therefore, taking into consideration farmers’ experience and knowledge of the land to adapt the already in place actions to a more comprehensive and user-friendly action plan is extremely important for a real impact in not only conserving the pollinators but also reversing the trend and restore pollinators in the country. 

Figure 3: A bumblebee foraging on a Yellow Oxeye (Telekia speciosa).

Ask a Farmer is a PhD research project that will contribute to closing the gap between farmers’ actions and the ecological solutions to reverse pollinator decline using the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan (AIPP) as a case study, expanding the traditional, evidence-based conservation research and increasing the uptake and perpetuation of the AIPP. Adopting a holistic perspective that acknowledges the diverse and plural values individuals and societies attribute to nature (IPBES, 2022), and understanding the wide range of social factors (beyond finance). These social factors shape farmer motivation, capabilities and opportunities, influencing their behaviour around pollinator interventions and policies.

This will be possible by first developing a socio-psychological model to identify and quantify the social factors, including historical context, well-being, finance, social norms and identity, influencing the behaviour of the farmers. Then, the social effectiveness of the pollinator-friendly actions proposed by the AIPP (figure 4) will be tested by evaluating what is being done in real-life farms, integrating the recommendations and the experience of a lifetime in the field. Finally, developing a strategy that integrates social and ecological perspectives to increase the number of farmers adopters of the AIPP, ensuring a continuation of the program and enhancing pollinator conservation in Ireland and beyond.

Figure 4: Five pollinator-friendly actions proposed by the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan.

            This May marks the beginning of the 2025 field season, during which the team started visiting the partner farms to collect ecological data on pollinators and interview the farmers about their perspectives on conservation actions, particularly pollinator conservation. A very ‘beezy’ summer ahead!

Figure 5:  The team on our first day of the field season 2025. Dr. Sarah Larragy (front), Moya Owens (standing), and Fernanda Azevedo (sitting).

About the author:

Fernanda ‘Fern’ Azevedo is a first-year PhD researcher funded by the Trinity Research Doctorate Award, supervised by Professor Jane Stout, Dr. Jessica Knapp and Dr. Sarah Larragy. Her doctoral research builds on the themes she explored during her MSc in Biodiversity and Conservation at Trinity College Dublin, supervised by Dr. Jessica Knapp.

References:

All-Ireland Pollinator Plan (2021) All-Ireland Pollinator Plan 2021-2025. National Biodiversity Data Centre, Waterford. Available at pollinators.ie (Last accessed on 07/05/2025).

EPA (2022) Ireland’s Environment: Maps and Charts – Key Message 13: Land use.Available at:  epa.ie (Last accessed on 07/05/2025).

Fitzpatrick, U., Murray, T.E., Paxton, R.J., Breen, J., Cotton, D., Santorum, V., Brown, M.J.F. (2007) Rarity and decline in bumblebees – A test of causes and correlates in the Irish fauna. Biological Conservation, 136(2): 185-194. DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.012

Government of Ireland (2021) Climate Action Plan 2021: Securing our Future. Dublin. Available at: gov.ie/pdf (Last accessed on 07/05/2025).

IPBES. (2022) Summary for Policymakers of the Methodological Assessment of the Diverse Values and Valuation of Nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6522392

Knapp, J.L., Phillips, B.B., Clements, J., Shaw, R.F., Osborne, J.L. (2020) Socio-psychological factors, beyond knowledge, predict people’s engagement in pollinator conservation. People and Nature, pp. 204–220. DOI: 10.1002/pan3.10168

Marselle, M.R., Turbe, A., Shwartz, A., Bonn, A., Colléony, A. (2020) Addressing behaviour in pollinator conservation policies to combat the implementation gap. Conservation Biology. Vol 35 (2), 610-622. DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13581

Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., Kunin, W.E. (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Vol.25, 6, 345-353. DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007

Russo, L., Fitzpatrick, Ú., Larkin, M., Mullen, S., Power, E., Stanley, D., White, C., O’Rourke, A., & Stout, J. C. (2022).  Conserving diversity in Irish plant–pollinator networks. Ecology and Evolution, 12, e9347. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.9347

Schultz, P.W. (2011) Conservation means behavior. Conservation Biology, 25 (6), 1080–1083. DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01766.x

Witzling, L., Wald, D., Williams, E. (2021) Communicating with farmers about conservation practices: lessons learned from a systematic review of survey studies. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol. 76(5), 00145. DOI: 10.2489/jswc.2021.00145

Bees in the Trees

stoutj123

by Kate Harrington, PhD student, FOREST project, Trinity College Dublin

The pollinator community of young woodland sites, planted in farmlands under the Native Woodland Scheme (DAFM, 2024), was explored in the summer of 2023. We used pan trap and transect surveys to record and capture bees and hoverflies , looking at both the edges and centres of the woodlands, and we also looked at pollinator activity and floral resources. 

Pollinators, as might be expected,  forage mainly on the edges of the woodlands. The Native Woodland Scheme prescribes the planting of flowering species around the edges which support our native pollinator species, and seem to be particularly important for solitary bees in the spring.  The grassy edges, released from agriculture pressure, and unmanaged hedgerows, also contribute to the floral resources available for pollinators.    

Bombus pratorum resting on a hazel leaf

With a range of sites of different ages, we were able to look at how the pollinator fauna changed across the development of a woodland from an open habitat to one with a closed-tree canopy. 

A young native woodland plantation

With a range of sites of different ages, we were able to look at how the pollinator fauna changed across the development of a woodland from an open habitat to one with a closed-tree canopy. 

Native woodland spring plant-pollinator network

It has been suggested that functional groups such as pollinators may be particularly useful as ecological indicators.  With the rush to plant native trees as a solution to the biodiversity and climate crises, monitoring the success of these restoration initiatives is crucial, and we may need to look beyond simple habitat metrics (Marshall, 2024).  Our findings suggest that if we were to use pollinators as a monitoring metric for woodland sites, that bees may be a better indicator than hoverflies, as the latter respond more to landscape-level changes, while bees may better reflect any site-level changes. 

DAFM. (2024). Afforestation Scheme 2023-2027 Document. April 2024. Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/6e997-afforestation-scheme/

Marshall, C. A. M., Wade, K., Kendall, I. S., Porcher, H., Poffley, J., Bladon, A. J., Dicks, L. V., & Treweek, J. (2024). England’s statutory biodiversity metric enhances plant, but not bird nor butterfly, biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 1365-2664.14697. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14697

Mola, J. M., Hemberger, J., Kochanski, J., Richardson, L. L., & Pearse, I. S. (2021). The Importance of Forests in Bumble Bee Biology and Conservation. BioScience, 71(12), 1234–1248. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab121