Neonicotinoid pesticides were first introduced in the mid-1990s, and since then, their use has grown rapidly. They are now the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, with the majority of applications coming from seed dressings. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble, and so can be taken up by a developing plant and can be found inside vascular tissues and foliage, providing protection against herbivorous insects. However, only approximately 5% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient is taken up by crop plants and most instead disperses into the wider environment. Since the mid-2000s, several studies raised concerns that neonicotinoids may be having a negative effect on non-target organisms, in particular on honeybees and bumblebees. In response to these studies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to produce risk assessments for the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam and their impact on bees. These risk assessments concluded that the use of these compounds on certain flowering crops poses a high risk to bees. On the basis of these findings, the European Union adopted a partial ban on these substances in May 2013. The purpose of the present paper is to collate and summarise scientific evidence published since 2013 that investigates the impact of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms. Whilst much of the recent work has focused on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that persistent, low levels of neonicotinoids can have negative impacts on a wide range of free-living organisms.

Neonicotinoid pesticides were first introduced in the mid-1990s and since then their use has grown rapidly so that they have become the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, with the majority being used as seed coatings. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble, and so a small quantity applied to a seed will dissolve when in contact with water in the soil and be taken up by the roots of the developing plant. Once inside the plant it becomes systemic and is found in vascular tissues and foliage, providing protection against herbivorous insects. This prophylactic use of neonicotinoids has become extremely widespread on a wide range of arable crops across much of the developed world.However, only approximately 5% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient is taken up by crop plants and most instead disperses into the wider environment. Since the mid-2000s numerous studies have raised concerns that neonicotinoids may be having a negative effect on non-target organisms. In particular, neonicotinoids were associated with mass poisoning events of honeybees and were shown to have serious negative effects on honeybee and bumblebee fitness when consumed. In response to this growing body of evidence, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to produce risk assessments for the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam and their impact on bees. These risk assessments, published in January 2013, conclude that the use of these compounds on certain flowering crops poses a high risk to bees. On the basis of these findings, the European Union adopted a partial ban on these substances in May 2013 which came into force on 1 st December 2013.The purpose of this review is to collate and summarise scientific evidence published since 2013 that investigates the impact of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms and to bring it into one place to aid informed decision making. Due to international concern over the unintended impacts of neonicotinoids on wildlife, this topic has received a great deal of scientific attention in this three year period. As the restrictions were put in place because of the risk neonicotinoids pose to bees, much of the recent research work has naturally focussed on this group. Risks to beesBroadly, the EFSA risk assessments addressed risks of exposure to bees from neonicotinoids through various routes and the direct lethal and sublethal impact of neonicotinoid exposure. New scientific evidence is available in all of these areas, and it is possible to comment on the change in the scientific evidence since 2013 compared to the EFSA reports. This process is not meant to be a formal assessment of the risk posed by neonicotinoids in the manner of that conducted by EFSA.Instead it aims to summarise how the new evidence has changed our understanding of the likely risks to bees; is it lower, similar or greater than the risk perceived in 2013. With reference to the EFSA 2013 risk assessments baseline, advances in each considered area and their impact on the original assessment can be summarise...

Summary Changes in agricultural practice across Europe and North America have been associated with range contractions and a decline in the abundance of wild bees. Concerns at these declines have led to the development of flower‐rich agri‐environment schemes as a way to enhance bee diversity and abundance. Whilst the effect of these schemes on bumblebee species (Bombus spp.) has been well studied, their impact on the wider bee community is poorly understood. We used direct observations of foraging bees and pollen load analysis to quantify the relative contribution that sown flowers (i.e. those included in agri‐environment scheme seed mixes) make to the pollen diets of wild solitary bees on Higher Level Stewardship farms (HLS) implementing pollinator‐focused schemes and on Entry Level Stewardship farms (ELS) without such schemes in southern England, UK. HLS management significantly increased floral abundance, and as the abundance of sown flowers increased, these sown plants were utilized for pollen by a greater proportion of the solitary bee species present. However, the overall proportion of pollen collected from sown plants was low for both direct observations (27·0%) and pollen load analysis (23·3%). At most only 25 of the 72 observed species of solitary bee (34·7%) were recorded utilizing sown plants to a meaningful degree. The majority of solitary bee species did not collect pollen from flower species sown for pollinators. Total bee species richness was significantly associated with plant species richness, but there was no difference in the total species richness of either bee or flowering plant species between HLS and ELS farms. Synthesis and applications. Our results show that the majority of solitary bee species present on farmland in the south‐east of England collect most of their pollen from plants that persist unaided in the wider environment, and not from those included in agri‐environment schemes focused on pollinators. If diverse bee communities are to be maintained on farmland, existing schemes should contain an increased number of flowering plant species and additional schemes that increase the diversity of flowering plants in complementary habitats should be studied and trialled.

The mutualism between plants and their pollinators provides globally important ecosystem services, but it is likely to be disrupted by global warming that can cause mismatches between both halves of this interaction. In this review, we summarise the available evidence on (i) spatial or (ii) phenological shifts of one or both of the actors of this mutualism. While the occurrence of future spatial mismatches is predominantly theoretical and based on predictive models, there is growing empirical evidence of phenological mismatches occurring at the present day. Mismatches may also occur when pollinators and their host plants are still found together. These mismatches can arise due to (iii) morphological modifications and (iv) disruptions to host attraction and foraging behaviours, and it is expected that these mismatches will lead to novel community assemblages. Overall plant–pollinator interactions seem to be resilient biological networks, particularly because generalist species can buffer these changes due to their plastic behaviour. However, we currently lack information on where and why spatial mismatches do occur and how they impact the fitness of plants and pollinators, in order to fully assess if adaptive evolutionary changes can keep pace with global warming predictions.

Many species of bumble bee (Bombus) have declined in range and abundance across Europe, the Americas, and Asia, whereas other species have persisted and remain common and widespread. One explanation as to why some species have declined, based primarily on studies of the European bumble bee fauna, is that declining species have relatively narrow pollen‐foraging niches and are less able to use alternative host plants in the absence of their preferred hosts. Though extensively explored in Europe, this hypothesis has not been investigated in North America, in part due to incomplete information on the foraging niche of many species. We selected 12 bumble bee species found in Michigan and quantified their pollen diets using museum specimens. We also extensively resurveyed the state to understand their contemporary status and distribution. Compared to a pre‐2000 baseline, six species remain relatively common and widespread, whereas six species show range contractions of over 50%. There was a significant relationship between dietary breadth and distributional range change, with declined or declining species collecting around one‐third fewer pollen types than stable species. Though there were significant compositional differences, we found no differences in the number of pollen types collected by species with differing tongue lengths. Overall, these results support the hypothesis that species with narrower dietary niches are at greater risk of decline. However, it is not clear if narrow dietary niches are a cause of declines, or if both are driven by an underlying factor such as proximity to the edge of climatic niches. Further research is needed to improve our understanding of dietary niche in bumble bees, and how it interacts with other factors to influence population trajectories of stable and at‐risk species.