Recently, researchers from Harvard University, as well as businessmen from Walmart, both proposed a biomimicry solution (tiny robots) to address the global crisis regarding declining populations of pollinating insects. However, flowers convey sensory information of shape, color, scent, and visual nature; and flying robots will likely remain clumsy and too simplified compared to real pollinating insects such as bees. In fact, the neurological and behavioral mechanisms involved in identification and manipulation of different flowers, and subsequent collection of pollen and nectar, are still not understood.
Over 350,000 flowering plant species exist, each uniquely interacting with animals to bring about sexual reproduction, fruit and seed production, and adaptation. Technology has only taken a tiny step to address pollination, for example with sunflowers (Helianthus annuus), a species with large and easily-accessible inflorescence. Co-evolution on the other hand has always been, and will likely always remain, far ahead of our technological abilities.
Many billions of bees and other pollinators globally are already effectively pollinating crops. As some of them are declining, the most cost-efficient strategy to secure this ecosystem service is to protect the pollinators we have, and sustainably manage landscapes to increase their abundances and diversity. Protecting and restoring pollinator habitats, and promoting biodiversity-friendly cities and landscapes, would be financially a fraction of the cost of robot pollination, while encouraging nature rather than replacing it.
Implementing robotic pollinators for spreading pollen could be detrimental to the delicate ecological equilibrium that is already evolved. Furthermore, it would remove pollen forage, on which many of our pollinators are reliant, from agricultural ecosystems, simultaneously displacing pollinating insects from these agroecosystems, while neglecting to pollinate all the wild flowering plants reliant on insect pollination.
Replacing biodiversity with this recently suggested technology, and ignoring opportunities to protect and enhance biodiversity, is a failure to acknowledge the intrinsic, social, and cultural values associated with pollinator biodiversity. Other innovations, such as robotic weeding machines with precise spraying systems, can significantly reduce the amount herbicide used, thus helping to reduce biodiversity loss in agroecosystems. This is in clear contrast to pollinating robots aiming to replace biodiversity.
Risks to crop pollination must be addressed, and a range of options already exist, including managing habitats to support pollinators, or ecological enhancement of agroecosystems. Furthermore, this must coincide with a transformation of society's relationship with nature, together providing solutions to secure pollination of both agricultural- and wild flowering plants. Robotic pollination, however, is not a solution for securing crop pollination, and encouraging its development diverts time and other resources that could be used for biodiversity conservation and sustainable food production.
LINK to Potts et al's 2018 article in Science of the Total Environment.
