Historical nectar assessment reveals the fall and rise of floral resources in Britain

  • Nature volume 530, pages 8588 (04 February 2016)
  • doi:10.1038/nature16532
  • Download Citation


There is considerable concern over declines in insect pollinator communities and potential impacts on the pollination of crops and wildflowers1,2,3,4. Among the multiple pressures facing pollinators2,3,4, decreasing floral resources due to habitat loss and degradation has been suggested as a key contributing factor2,3,4,5,6,7,8. However, a lack of quantitative data has hampered testing for historical changes in floral resources. Here we show that overall floral rewards can be estimated at a national scale by combining vegetation surveys and direct nectar measurements. We find evidence for substantial losses in nectar resources in England and Wales between the 1930s and 1970s; however, total nectar provision in Great Britain as a whole had stabilized by 1978, and increased from 1998 to 2007. These findings concur with trends in pollinator diversity, which declined in the mid-twentieth century9 but stabilized more recently10. The diversity of nectar sources declined from 1978 to 1990 and thereafter in some habitats, with four plant species accounting for over 50% of national nectar provision in 2007. Calcareous grassland, broadleaved woodland and neutral grassland are the habitats that produce the greatest amount of nectar per unit area from the most diverse sources, whereas arable land is the poorest with respect to amount of nectar per unit area and diversity of nectar sources. Although agri-environment schemes add resources to arable landscapes, their national contribution is low. Owing to their large area, improved grasslands could add substantially to national nectar provision if they were managed to increase floral resource provision. This national-scale assessment of floral resource provision affords new insights into the links between plant and pollinator declines, and offers considerable opportunities for conservation.

  • Subscribe to Nature for full access:



Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.


  1. 1.

    et al. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354 (2006)

  2. 2.

    et al. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 345–353 (2010)

  3. 3.

    & the Insect Pollinators Initiative. Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Front. Ecol. Environ 11, 251–259 (2013)

  4. 4.

    , , & Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347, 1255957 (2015)

  5. 5.

    et al. Declines in forage availability for bumblebees at a national scale. Biol. Conserv. 132, 481–489 (2006)

  6. 6.

    & The role of resources and risks in regulating wild bee populations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 56, 293–312 (2011)

  7. 7.

    et al. Museum specimens reveal loss of pollen host plants as key factor driving wild bee decline in The Netherlands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17552–17557 (2014)

  8. 8.

    & A retrospective analysis of pollen host plant use by stable and declining bumble bee species. Ecology 89, 1811–1823 (2008)

  9. 9.

    , , & Extinctions of aculeate pollinators in Britain and the role of large-scale agricultural changes. Science 346, 1360–1362 (2014)

  10. 10.

    et al. Species richness declines and biotic homogenisation have slowed down for NW-European pollinators and plants. Ecol. Lett. 16, 870–878 (2013)

  11. 11.

    & Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 39, 157–176 (2002)

  12. 12.

    , , & Field boundaries in Great Britain: stock and change between 1984, 1990 and 1998. J. Environ. Manage. 67, 229–238 (2003)

  13. 13.

    et al. The extent of semi-natural grassland communities in lowland England and Wales : a review of conservation surveys 1978–96. Grass Forage Sci. 54, 1–18 (1999)

  14. 14.

    Post-medieval and recent changes in British vegetation: the culmination of human influence. New Phytol. 98, 73–100 (1984)

  15. 15.

    The changing extent and conservation interest of lowland grasslands in England and Wales : A review of grassland surveys 1930–84. Biol. Conserv. 40, 281–300 (1987)

  16. 16.

    Natural England. Countryside Stewardship Manual (2015)

  17. 17.

    , , , & Comparing the efficiency of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 29–40 (2007)

  18. 18.

    Pollination and Floral Ecology 1–778 (Princeton Univ. Press, 2011)

  19. 19.

    et al. Countryside Survey: UK Results from 2007 . 1–105 (NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, 2008)

  20. 20.

    The Land of Britain: its Use and Misuse (Longmans, Green and Co., 1948)

  21. 21.

    , & Changes in soil pH across England and Wales in response to decreased acid deposition. Glob. Change Biol. 16, 3111–3119 (2006)

  22. 22.

    et al. Countryside Survey: National “Soil Change” 1978 – 2007 for Topsoils in Great Britain — Acidity, Carbon, and Total Nitrogen Status. Vadose Zone J. 12, (2013)

  23. 23.

    , , & Development of plant communities on set-aside in England. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 143, 8–19 (2011)

  24. 24.

    , , & Pollination services in the UK: How important are honeybees? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 137–143 (2011)

  25. 25.

    , , & Long-term global trends in crop yield and production reveal no current pollination shortage but increasing pollinator dependency. Curr. Biol. 18, 1572–1575 (2008)

  26. 26.

    et al. Changes in hedgerow floral diversity over 70 years in an English rural landscape, and the impacts of management. Biol. Conserv. 167, 97–105 (2013)

  27. 27.

    , & New Atlas of the British and Irish Flora: An Atlas of the Vascular Plants of Britain, Ireland, The Isle of Man and the Channel Island 910 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2002)

  28. 28.

    & The Ecological Flora Database. J. Ecol. 82, 415–425 (1994)

  29. 29.

    et al. Native or exotic? Double or single? Evaluating plants for pollinator-friendly gardens. Ann. Bot. 87, 219 (2001)

  30. 30.

    , & Pollinator networks, alien species and the conservation of rare plants: Trinia glauca as a case study. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 1419–1427 (2008)

  31. 31.

    Botanical Society of the British Isles. (2011)

  32. 32.

    & Plants for Bees: a Guide to the Plants that Benefit the Bees of the British Isles 1–311 (International Bee Res. Assoc., 2012)

  33. 33.

    , & BIOLFLOR - Eine Datenbank zu biologisch-ökologischen Merkmalen der Gefäßpflanzen in Deutschland. (2002)

  34. 34.

    , , & Countryside Survey: Measuring Habitat Change over 30 years 1978 Data Rescue - Final Report, 1–18 (2012)

  35. 35.

    Countryside Survey: England Results from 2007. NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Natural England, 1–119 (2009)

  36. 36.

    R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (2013)

  37. 37.

    et al. Final Report for LCM2007 - the new UK land cover map. Countryside Survey Technical Report No 11/07 NERC/Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH Project Number: C03259), 112 (2011)

  38. 38.

    Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Entry Level Stewardship Handbook Terms and conditions and how to apply PB10355. 116 (2005)

  39. 39.

    Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Higher Level Stewardship Handbook Terms and conditions and how to apply PB10382. 123 (2005)

  40. 40.

    & Nectar production rates of 75 bumblebee-visited flower species in a German flora (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus terrestris). Entomol. Gen. 30, 191–192 (2007)

Download references


This research was supported by the UK Insect Pollinators Initiative (IPI) ‘AgriLand: Linking agriculture and land use change to pollinator populations’ project, funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Wellcome Trust, Scottish Government, Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) under the auspices of the Living with Environmental Change partnership: grant BB/H014934/1 (http://www.agriland.leeds.ac.uk). Land Cover and Countryside Survey data are owned by NERC – Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (http://www.countrysidesurvey.org.uk).

Author information

Author notes

    • Mathilde Baude
    •  & Mark A. K. Gillespie

    Present address: Collegium Sciences et Techniques EA 1207 LBLGC, Université d’Orléans, F-45067, Orléans, France (M.B.); Department of Science and Engineering, Sogn og Fjordane University College, 6851 Sogndal, Norway (M.A.K.G.).


  1. School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Life Sciences Building, Bristol BS8 1TQ, UK

    • Mathilde Baude
    • , Nancy Davies
    •  & Jane Memmott
  2. Cabot Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UJ, UK

    • Mathilde Baude
    • , Nancy Davies
    •  & Jane Memmott
  3. School of Biology, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

    • William E. Kunin
    •  & Mark A. K. Gillespie
  4. Fera Science Ltd., Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK

    • Nigel D. Boatman
    •  & Simon Conyers
  5. NERC Center for Ecology & Hydrology, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK

    • R. Daniel Morton
    •  & Simon M. Smart


  1. Search for Mathilde Baude in:

  2. Search for William E. Kunin in:

  3. Search for Nigel D. Boatman in:

  4. Search for Simon Conyers in:

  5. Search for Nancy Davies in:

  6. Search for Mark A. K. Gillespie in:

  7. Search for R. Daniel Morton in:

  8. Search for Simon M. Smart in:

  9. Search for Jane Memmott in:


The study was conceived by W.E.K. and J.M. The field survey was carried out by M.B. and N.D. with the help of J.M. The data were compiled and analysed by M.B. with suggestions from W.E.K., J.M., S.M.S., R.D.M. and M.A.K.G. Vegetation data from the Countryside Survey database were extracted by S.M.S. Agri-environment scheme data were provided and analysed by N.D.B. and S.C. The national maps were generated by R.D.M. All authors discussed the results and contributed during manuscript writing.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mathilde Baude.

The floral resource database will be made available from the NERC Environmental Information Data Centre (http://dx.doi.org/10.5285/69402002-1676-4de9-a04e-d17e827db93c and http://dx.doi.org/10.5285/6c6d3844-e95a-4f84-a12e-65be4731e934).

Extended data

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    This file contains Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Results, a Supplementary Discussion, Supplementary Figure 1, Supplementary Tables 1-10 and Supplementary references - see contents page for further details.

Excel files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table 11

    This file contains Supplementary Table 11, which shows plant traits, flowering phenology, flower density, nectar productivity at the flower scale and nectar sugar productivity at the vegetative scale for the list of 260 species.

  2. 2.

    Supplementary Table 12

    This table contains a reference list for flower-visiting insects of the four main nectar providers nationally. It lists sources and data used to investigate the visiting insects of the main nectar providing plant species (Extended Data Table 2). This combines published and unpublished plant-pollinator interactions data from Memmott’s group and a review of literature of insect species visiting flowers of Trifolium repens, Calluna vulgaris, Cirsium palutre and Erica cinerea.

  3. 3.

    Supplementary Table 13

    This table contains a reference list for published sugar potential values in kg/ha /year. It lists sources and data used to compare our nectar values (in kg/ha cover/year) to those found in literature (Extended Data Figure 6g). Published values of sugar potential are available for 128 species at the time of writing. Where values were available from more than one source, an average was calculated. Where values were given only as honey potential in the literature, these values were multiplied by 0.8 to give sugar potential. This ratio has been reported in the majority of the published sources (References 1, 5-17).


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.