Insect-Plant Interactions

Current Activity

Pollinator Monitoring Scheme

The Pollinator Monitoring Scheme has established two large-scale surveys; Flower-Insect Times Counts (FIT Counts) and 1km square surveys. The data from these are brought together for analysis, alongside that from recording schemes to deliver key metrics on pollinator population status and trends, including updates of the UK Pollinator Indicator at species and country-level resolution.

These activities will be coupled with ongoing links with the wider research community to facilitate use of the data in research, conservation and survey planning, and deliver a sustainable UK Pollinator Monitoring and Research Partnership (PMRP).

Key Outputs

Database of Insects and Their Food Plants

No species exists in isolation: species are interdependent with each other and their local environment. Many of the interactions between species have been recorded by naturalists and collated in species distribution atlases. The Phytophagous Insects Data Bank (PIDB), in the 1970s, broke new ground in creating a comprehensive inventory of phytophagous insect interactions.  PIDB was updated and made more accessible (as DBIF) in 2007. Gaining information on and understanding the impacts of ecological interactions has, as-yet, undeveloped potential.

The DBIF (formerly PIDB) is a collation of 47,000 feeding interactions of 9,300 invertebrate taxa with 5,700 plant taxa. This resource has been used to explain patterns of phytophagous insect richness (e.g. co-evolution and phytochemistry) and distribution patterns and trends of insects, by taking host plant into account. It has also been used in applied ecology to assess, for example,  arable weeds’ contribution to farmland biodiversity and the potential impact of ash dieback on invertebrate biodiversity.

Chalcidae parasitoid prospecting a Phytomyza ranunculi leaf mine on Ranunculus lingua

Picture of a chalcid parasitoid prospecting a leaf mine

Photo: Michael Pocock, CEH.

Capturing records of species interactions, such as plant-pollinator interactions, feeding relationships, fungal associations, habitat associations or even tri-trophic interactions (as above) is an
important step for the future of biological recording because such interactions are more informative than simply recording species presence.

A food web of the interactions of Lepidoptera (moths and butterflies: coloured circles) with woodland trees (white circles), as collated in DBIF

A food web diagram

Figure: Michael Pocock, CEH.

This shows the reliance of Lepidoptera species on ash: entirely (red), partially (orange) or not reliant (green), so illustrating potential impacts of the loss of ash. The individual plant species from DBIF (for oak and lime) have been aggregated for clarity.

Effect of plant traits on the trends of monophagous moths154

Graph showing effect of plant trait on moths

Figure: Tom Oliver, CEH.

Moths that feed on plants that prefer high soil fertility (i.e. have high Ellenberg Nitrogen values) tend to fare better than those feeding on plants that prefer low fertility sites, demonstrating the cascading impact of environmental change up food chains.

Future Challenges

Combining DBIF and biological records provides many opportunities for new research given the growing importance of food webs in ecology. A challenge is to quantify insect-plant interactions and thus avoid bias towards rare and atypical associations.  Many biological records of insects are accompanied by host plant associations which provide opportunities for research on the cascading impacts of environmental change on whole food webs.  Effectively monitoring insects eating non-native plants will enable us to track the colonisation of these species by new natural enemies.


Boyd Robin J., Powney Gary D., Burns Fiona, Danet Alain, Duchenne François, Grainger Matthew J., Jarvis Susan G., Martin Gabrielle, Nilsen Erlend B., Porcher Emmanuelle, Stewart Gavin B., Wilson Oliver J., Pescott Oliver L. (2022) ROBITT: A tool for assessing the risk-of-bias in studies of temporal trends in ecology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Carvell Claire, Mitschunas Nadine, McDonald Rachel, Hulmes Sarah, Hulmes Lucy, Connor Rory S. O, Garratt Michael P.D., Potts Simon G., Fountain Michelle T., Sadykova Dinara, Edwards Mike, Nowakowski Marek, Pywell Richard F., Redhead John W. (2022) Establishment and management of wildflower areas for insect pollinators in commercial orchards. ,
Padovani Roberto J., Salisbury Andrew, Bostock Helen, Roy David B., Thomas Chris D. (2020) Introduced plants as novel Anthropocene habitats for insects. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Padovani Roberto J., Salisbury Andrew, Bostock Helen, Roy David B., Thomas Chris D. (2020) Introduced plants as novel Anthropocene habitats for insects. ,
Garratt M.P.D., Potts S.G., Banks G., Hawes C., Breeze T.D., O'Connor R.S., Carvell C. (2019) Capacity and willingness of farmers and citizen scientists to monitor crop pollinators and pollination services. ,
RN343 Macgregor Callum J., Kitson James J. N., Fox Richard, Hahn Christoph, Lunt David H., Pocock Michael J. O., Evans Darren M. (2018) Construction, validation, and application of nocturnal pollen transport networks in an agro-ecosystem: a comparison using light microscopy and DNA metabarcoding. ,
RN355 Redhead John W., Woodcock Ben A., Pocock Michael J. O., Pywell Richard F., Vanbergen Adam J., Oliver T. H. (2018) Potential landscape-scale pollinator networks across Great Britain: structure, stability and influence of agricultural land cover. ,
RN372 Staley Joanna T., Botham M. S., Amy Sam R., Hulmes Sarah, Pywell Richard F. (2018) Experimental evidence for optimal hedgerow cutting regimes for Brown hairstreak butterflies. ,
733 Sutton Peter G., Beckmann B, Nelson Brian (2017) The current status of Orthopteroid insects in Britain and Ireland. ,
RN342 Woodcock B. A., Bullock J. M., Shore R. F., Heard M. S., Pereira M. G., Redhead J., Ridding L., Dean H., Sleep D., Henrys P., Peyton J., Hulmes S., Hulmes L., Sárospataki M., Saure C., Edwards M., Genersch E., Knäbe S., Pywell R. F. (2017) Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. ,