Climate change alters the abiotic constraints faced by plants, including increasing temperature and water stress. These changes may affect flower development and production of flower rewards, thus altering plant–pollinator interactions. Here, we investigated the consequences of increased temperature and water stress on plant growth, floral biology, flower‐reward production, and insect visitation of a widespread bee‐visited species, Borago officinalis. Plants were grown for 5 weeks under three temperature regimes (21, 24, and 27°C) and two watering regimes (well‐watered and water‐stressed). Plant growth was more affected by temperature rise than water stress, and the reproductive growth was affected by both stresses. Vegetative traits were stimulated at 24°C, but impaired at 27°C. Flower development was mainly affected by water stress, which decreased flower number (15 ± 2 flowers/plant in well‐watered plants vs. 8 ± 1 flowers/plant under water stress). Flowers had a reduced corolla surface under temperature rise and water stress (3.8 ± 0.5 cm2 in well‐watered plants at 21°C vs. 2.2 ± 0.1 cm2 in water‐stressed plants at 27°C). Both constraints reduced flower‐reward production. Nectar sugar content decreased from 3.9 ± 0.3 mg/flower in the well‐watered plants at 21°C to 1.3 ± 0.4 mg/flower in the water‐stressed plants at 27°C. Total pollen quantity was not affected, but pollen viability decreased from 79 ± 4% in the well‐watered plants at 21°C to 25 ± 9% in the water‐stressed plants at 27°C. Flowers in the well‐watered plants at 21°C received at least twice as many bumblebee visits compared with the other treatments. In conclusion, floral modifications induced by abiotic stresses related to climate change affect insect behavior and alter plant–pollinator interactions.

-To investigate whether floral resource quality impacts on bumble bee floral choices, we determined the pollen foraging constancy and floral choices of four bumble bee species commonly occurring in peaty, wet meadows in South Belgium. We subsequently analyzed the chemical contents of pollen and nectar, as well as the nectar production of the major host plant species. Individuals of B. lapidarius and B. pascuorum collected high-quality pollen (i.e., having high essential amino acid and phytosterol content) on Comarum palustre and Trifolium pratense, whereas individuals of B. terrestris s.l. and B. hypnorum enlarged their diet breadth to less valuable pollen resources (Cirsium palustre and Valeriana repens). Since Persicaria bistorta and Comarum palustre offer abundant and concentrated nectar, these plant species might represent major nectar sources for bumble bee species in peaty, wet meadows. The present study demonstrated the role of pollen composition on differences in foraging strategies among bumble bee species.amino acids / floral rewards / nectar sugars / phytosterols / polylectism

Bumblebees are valuable pollinators of numerous wild and cultivated plants. They can forage on variable pollen resources. As some pollen species lack particular nutrients or have global low nutritional quality, it has been suggested that bumblebees mix their pollen incomes to ensure a global balanced diet. The hypothesis that a mixed pollen diet better supports bumblebee colony development than a single pollen diet has been poorly explored. We compared the impact of mono‐, di‐ and trifloral diets on microcolony development of Bombus terrestris using three pollen resources with different nutrient contents (Cytisus scoparius, Erica sp. and Sorbus aucuparia) as well as their mixes. Nine parameters (e.g. pollen efficacy: total weight of larvae/total weight of pollen collection) were used to compare the microcolony performances. Moreover, we measured the influence of the pollen diversity and nutritional composition on relevant parameters. We showed that microcolonies can potentially better develop on mixed pollen diets, but single pollen diet can also be as good as mixed pollen diet. Moreover, the sterol concentration appeared as a key factor to establish the impact of a pollen diet on the bumblebee colony development. This study reveals that diverse pollen diet does not necessary equate with good colony development and supports the importance of selecting floral resources by considering their nutrient contents for bee conservation management.

and {School of Landscape Architecture, Lauriston Place, Edinburgh, EH1 9DF, UK Slender tree up to 15(À20) m with narrow crown and usually erecto-patent branches; bark greyish and smooth (Hedlund 1901; Hegi Fl. 4, ed. 2; Fl. Eur. 2; Fl. Br. Isl.;Rameau et al. 1989;Guendels 1990

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Abstract. 1. Accumulating evidence shows that landscape fragmentation drives the observed worldwide decline in populations of pollinators, particularly in species of Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera. However, Little is known about the effects of landscape fragmentation on hoverfly (Diptera, Syrphidae) communities. Hoverflies provide varied ecosystem services: larvae contribute to waste decomposition (saprophagous species) and pest control (aphidophagous species), and adults pollinate a wide range of flowers.2. To determine how the diversity and quantity of resources for larvae and adults affect hoverfly abundance and species richness at three spatial scales, we recorded insect visitors of five target plant species in Belgian heathlands, habitats that have decreased considerably due to human activities.3. Hoverflies represented the most abundant visitors on two plant species, and the second most abundant visitors (after bumblebees) on the other target plant species. A large proportion of hoverflies observed were aphidophagous species associated with coniferous and deciduous forests. Resources for the larvae and floral resources for the adults influenced interactions among hoverflies and plants, but acted at different scales: larval habitat availability (distance to larval habitat) was relevant at the landscape scale, whereas adult resource availability (floral density) was relevant at the plot scale.4. Hoverfly abundance and species richness decreased with distance to larval habitat but increased with floral density. Moreover, landscape structure and composition had different effects according to hoverfly ecological traits. Landscape composition influenced aphidophagous but not saprophagous hoverflies, in that their abundance and species richness decreased with distance to forests. Maintenance of the interactions between plants and their hoverfly visitors requires complementary resources at both landscape and local scales.