At Minnesota Public Radio, Dan Gunderson reports in Report: Minnesota is improving pollinator protections, but more work to be done:
A new state report on Minnesota’s efforts to protect pollinators like bees and butterflies says the state is making some progress, but there's a lot of room for improvement.
The Interagency Pollinator Protection Team’s draft report to the state Environmental Quality Board measures Minnesota’s progress in three areas: improving pollinator habitat, reducing pesticide use and engaging state residents.
The new report isn't on the Interagency Pollinator Protection Team webpage yet, but we found a copy for our readers.
Here's the draft of the Minnesota State Agency Pollinator 2019 Annual Report; Protecting pollinators in Minnesota: how are we doing. We extracted it from the November 2019 Board Packet, as we were not able to find a stand-alone copy of the document.
Draft Pollinator Report by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
Gunderson reports:
It is the state’s the third annual pollinator report, but the first to actually measure progress toward specific goals:
1) Lands throughout Minnesota support healthy, diverse and abundant pollinator populations.
2) Minnesotans use pesticides judiciously and only when necessary in order to reduce harm to pollinators while retaining economic strength.
3) Minnesotans understand, value and actively support pollinators.
The state is making the most progress in improving pollinator habitat.
Check out Gunderson's entire article at Minnesota Public Radio.
A couple of passages in the draft caught our attention:
Responding to pollinator declines can be challenging because each species has different biology and habitat requirements and can respond differently to stressors. For example, the only remaining wild Dakota skipper population is in a remnant prairie (a fragment of undisturbed, pre-settlement landscape), while reports of the federally-endangered rusty-patched bumble bee are often documented in urban areas.
Unfortunately, we do not have the information needed for many species that could help us understand the declines, but recent investments will help. The Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota’s Resources funded the Department of Natural Resources to complete the statewide bee survey, which could serve as a baseline for future monitoring. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently created a bumble bee database to aid bumble bee species recovery, which will yield information on both common and imperiled pollinators. More long-term monitoring and research is needed to provide critical information on the state of pollinators and the most effective ways to help them. (page 6)
And this:
Use of an IPM [Integrated Pest Management] approach can prevent ineffective and unnecessary pesticide applications when pest levels are below an economic threshold, when no pest threat is present, or when alternative pest control methods are effective. For example, IPM encourages using treated seed only in higher risk situations. nfortunately, there are gaps in IPM methods and guidance. Improving IPM through research and promoting IPM through coordinated outreach and education are important ways to increase IPM adoption and reduce adverse impacts to pollinators.
The Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the University of Minnesota have focused on the development of IPM-related materials for many years. Recently, the MDA increased efforts toward promoting judicious pesticide use in the state in order to reduce harm to pollinators, including the development of IPM guidance on neonicotinoids, a widely-used class of insecticides that are highly toxic to bees and other beneficial insects. These IPM resources cover stewardship guidelines and BMPs for use of treated seed, soil and foliar applications in agriculture, and home and residential applications.
Widespread IPM adoption in Minnesota is the end goal of these efforts. Significant challenges remain, including the lack of clear and consistent surveys to measure IPM adoption.
The stress on habitat in MPR's report is someone cheery news (and we grow fodder plants and abstain from 1950s-style lawn care, much to the horror of some of our old-school neighbors here in Summit, so we're not against habitat), but the paucity of population data and a voluntary approach to IPM give us cause for concern.
The voluntary approach to groundwater quality has left the state's well water at peril for ag pollution. See our recent post: Well water facts run deep underground in Forum news report on farmer, environmentalist clash. Can pollinators survive long enough for toothless education campaigns to reach a critical mass of pesticide users?
Screenshot: One chart from the Minnesota State Agency Pollinator 2019 Annual Report.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
Comments