Floral resource distribution and fitness consequences for two solitary bee species in agricultural landscapes

Eckerter, Philipp W.; Albrecht, Matthias; Herzog, Félix; Entling, Martin H.

doi:10.1016/j.baae.2022.09.005

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…21 and Peters et al 22 . Nevertheless, even on sites highly dominated by oilseed rape, bees collected pollen from noncrop herbaceous plants (e.g., Ranunculus) and trees (mainly Quercus and Acer), as con rmed also by other studies [29][30][31][32] .Similarly, studies by Coudrain et al 17 conducted in agricultural areas with a high share of forest, showed a large proportion of Ranunculus (58.6%) and Quercus (23.4%) among 41 pollen types found in provisions. In our study, Quercus pollen was collected at relatively high proportion (1.2-19.4%) even by bees whose nests were adjacent to a eld of oilseed rape.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Floral resources, energetic value and pesticide residues in larval provisions collected by Osmia bicornis in oilseed rape dominated landscape

Misiewicz

Mikołajczyk

Bednarska

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollinators in agricultural landscapes are facing global decline and the main pressures include food scarcity and pesticide usage. Although intensive agricultural landscapes are poor habitats for wild pollinators, the mass flowering crops may provide important food resources, albeit monofloral and short-term, which in addition may contain pesticide residues. We explored how the landscape composition with a different proportion of oilseed rape (6%-65%) around Osmia bicornis nests affects floral diversity, contamination with pesticides, and energetic value of provisions collected by bees as food for their offspring. The bees collected pollen from 28 floral taxa (6-15 per nest) and provisions were dominated by Brassica napus (6.0-54.2%), Quercus (1.2-19.4%) and Ranunculus (0.4-42.7%) found in all 12 nests, but also by Poaceae (1.2-59.9%, 11 nests) and Acer (0.6-42%, 8 nests). Residues of 12 pesticides were found in provisions, with acetamiprid, azoxystrobine, boscalid, and dimethoate being the most frequently detected at concentrations up to 1.2, 198.4, 16.9 and 17.8 ng/g, respectively. Floral diversity and energetic value of provisions, but not the Pesticide Risk Index depended on landscape structure. Moreover, pollen diversity decreased, and energetic value increased with landscape diversity. Thus, even a structurally simple landscape may provide diverse food for O. bicornis if the nest is located close to a single but resource-diverse patch. Both B. napus and non-crop pollen were correlated with pesticide concentrations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Floral resources, energetic value and pesticide residues in larval provisions collected by Osmia bicornis in oilseed rape dominated landscape

Misiewicz

Mikołajczyk

Bednarska

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study, most above‐ground‐nesting bees were cavity‐nesters favouring dead wood or hollow plant stems for nesting and profited from pithy stems of Rubus species that provide suitable nesting sites for threatened species such as Ceratina chalybea (Westrich, 2019). SNH such as hedges and other woody habitat structures further provide diversified, natural nesting resources, significant for cavity‐nesting bee survival (Drossart & Gérard, 2020) alongside high availability of floral resources (Eckerter et al, 2022). As such, colonization rates (Bihaly et al, 2021) and community diversity Sheffield et al (2008) of cavity‐nesting bees are higher in adjacent SNHs compared to those in apple orchards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground‐ versus above‐ground‐nesting bees

Wersebeckmann

Warzecha

Entling

et al. 2023

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural intensification and abandonment of traditional agricultural practices are main drivers of current insect declines. The resulting loss of feeding and nesting opportunities has led to a decrease in pollinator populations like wild bees. While the restoration of floral resources has been widely implemented in wild bee conservation, nesting resources, particularly for ground‐nesting species, are barely considered. We assessed wild bee diversity in a wine‐growing area in Germany in 15 study sites along a soil gradient and evaluated whether wild bees were distinctly affected by different vineyard types (vertically oriented, terraced, abandoned), local conditions (e.g. shrub and flower cover) and landscape factors in response to divergent nesting needs (above‐ground vs. ground‐nesting). We found that wild bees responded more strongly to the availability of nesting sites than to flower resources. While ground‐nesting bees were determined by the suitability of soil aspects for nesting irrespective of vineyard management types, above‐ground‐nesting bees profited from vineyard abandonment and shrub encroachment in vineyard fallows and were enhanced by the availability of semi‐natural habitats (SNHs) in the surrounding landscape. In contrast, floral resource availability in managed vineyards had only marginal effects on above‐ground‐nesting bees. Synthesis and applications: Life‐history traits like nesting strategies have long been neglected in wild bee conservation approaches, but proved to be highly relevant, especially for ground‐nesting bees. For this, agri‐environmental schemes can no longer solely focus on the restoration of floral resources, but should equally address nesting resources. Therefore, management efforts for enhancing wild bees in vineyard landscapes should aim at complementing nesting resources for ground‐nesting bees (e.g. exposed bare ground patches) and above‐ground‐nesting bees (e.g. woody elements, hedges) in addition to floral resources. At the landscape level, conserving heterogeneous landscapes at a mixture of actively managed vineyards and semi‐natural and woody elements is significant to maintain diverse bee communities.

show abstract

“…At each of our 33 sites, in 2018 and 2019, we measured bee species richness and abundance using bee bowls according to the protocol of a long-term bee monitoring program in our region (Droege et al 2016). In each year, we sampled early-season bees in late April/early May and late-season bees in mid-July; dates were selected to correspond to peak floral abundance in forest, wetland, and successional habitats (Iverson et al unpublished data).…”

Section: Wild-bee Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite monthly turnover in early-season bees (Turley et al 2022), due to logistical constraints, we were limited to one sampling round for early-season bees. To partially compensate for fewer sampling rounds, in early season, we deployed bee bowls for 14 d rather than more commonly used sampling periods that are shorter, e.g., one or seven days (Kammerer et al 2016b;Droege et al 2016). In July, trap liquid evaporated more quickly, which limited our sampling to 7 d. We filled fluorescent blue, fluorescent yellow, and white, 355 mL Solo polystyrene plastic cups with 50:50 mix of propylene glycol and water.…”

Section: Wild-bee Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To facilitate translating results of landscape-scale studies to applied management and conservation, pollination ecologists should quantify landscape quality based on specific, seasonal resources and risks. Most studies have described landscape quality using broad landscape metrics, such as percent semi-natural habitat (Ricketts et al 2008;Kennedy et al 2013) (but see Guezen and Forrest 2021;Smart et al 2021;Bloom et al 2021;Eckerter et al 2022). However, these metrics are less useful for applied conservation decisions, as land use is an indirect, rather than direct, driver of bee abundance and diversity (Roulston & Goodell 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seasonal bee communities vary in their responses to resources at local and landscape scales: implication for land managers

Kammerer,

Iverson,

et al. 2024

Landsc Ecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context There is great interest in land management practices for pollinators; however, a quantitative comparison of landscape and local effects on bee communities is necessary to determine if adding small habitat patches can increase bee abundance or species richness. The value of increasing floral abundance at a site is undoubtedly influenced by the phenology and magnitude of floral resources in the landscape, but due to the complexity of measuring landscape-scale resources, these factors have been understudied. Objectives To address this knowledge gap, we quantified the relative importance of local versus landscape scale resources for bee communities, identified the most important metrics of local and landscape quality, and evaluated how these relationships vary with season. Methods We studied season-specific relationships between local and landscape quality and wild-bee communities at 33 sites in the Finger Lakes region of New York, USA. We paired site surveys of wild bees, plants, and soil characteristics with a multi-dimensional assessment of landscape composition, configuration, insecticide toxic load, and a spatio-temporal evaluation of floral resources at local and landscape scales. Results We found that the most relevant spatial scale and landscape factor varied by season. Early-season bee communities responded primarily to landscape resources, including the presence of flowering trees and wetland habitats. In contrast, mid to late-season bee communities were more influenced by local conditions, though bee diversity was negatively impacted when sites were embedded in highly agricultural landscapes. Soil composition had complex impacts on bee communities, and likely reflects effects on plant community flowering. Conclusions Early-season bees can be supported by adding flowering trees and wetlands, while mid to late-season bees can be supported by local addition of summer and fall flowering plants. Sites embedded in landscapes with a greater proportion of natural areas will host a greater bee species diversity.

show abstract

Floral resource distribution and fitness consequences for two solitary bee species in agricultural landscapes

Cited by 14 publications

References 78 publications

Floral resources, energetic value and pesticide residues in larval provisions collected by Osmia bicornis in oilseed rape dominated landscape

Floral resources, energetic value and pesticide residues in larval provisions collected by Osmia bicornis in oilseed rape dominated landscape

Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground‐ versus above‐ground‐nesting bees

Seasonal bee communities vary in their responses to resources at local and landscape scales: implication for land managers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About