Contrasting resource-dependent responses of hoverfly richness and density to landscape structure

Meyer, Birgit; Jauker, Frank; Steffan‐Dewenter, Ingolf

doi:10.1016/j.baae.2008.01.001

Cited by 167 publications

(181 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

153

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, at least some hoverfly species appear to be less affected by changes in land use than bees, because many hoverfly species are able to use resources from highly modified habitats, including agricultural fields (44,46,66). The variability among life histories may explain why some non-bee pollinator populations are known to benefit from the same pollinator-enhancement practices as bees but others do not (54,70,71).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Rader

Bartomeus

Garibaldi

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

710

518

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25-50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.unmanaged pollinator | insect pollinator | fly | bee | beetle

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Rader

Bartomeus

Garibaldi

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

710

518

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Few empirical fragmentation studies include matrix quality at different spatial scales in addition to habitat area and connectivity in their analyses (Krauss et al 2003;Ö ckinger and Smith 2006;Meyer et al 2009). In addition to habitat area, landscape diversity also influenced the distribution of wild bee species in our study, even though explaining less variance than habitat area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linking life history traits to pollinator loss in fragmented calcareous grasslands

et al. 2012

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To gain insight into the drivers of pollinator loss, a holistic approach to land-use change including habitat size, isolation, habitat quality and the surrounding landscape matrix is necessary. Moreover, species' responses to land-use change may differ depending on their life history traits such as dispersal ability, trophic level, or sociality. We assessed species richness and life history traits of wild bees in 32 calcareous grasslands in central Germany that differ in size, connectivity, resource availability and landscape context. Declining habitat area and, to a lesser degree, reduced diversity of the surrounding landscape were the key factors negatively influencing species richness. In the community-wide analysis, small body size and solitary reproduction were traits that made species particularly vulnerable to habitat loss. Contrary to our expectations, cleptoparasitic species were not more affected by reduced habitat area and landscape diversity than nest-building species. We performed further detailed trait analyses within the family Halictidae to prevent possible confounding effects due to trait correlations across families. Here, social as opposed to solitary species were more affected by habitat loss. We conclude that the opposite pattern observed for all social bees was mainly caused by large-sized social bumblebee species with high mobility and large foraging distances. Our results demonstrate the risks of concealed trait interference when analyzing community-wide patterns of life history traits. As a consequence, conservation requirements of small social bee species might be overlooked by generalizations from community responses.

show abstract

“…It has been stated frequently that, within hover flies at least, poor mimics tend to occur at higher population densities than good mimics 2,4,10 . While this relationship is plausible, it remains entirely anecdotal.…”

Section: Mimetic Fidelity and Abundancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous measures of mimetic fidelity have used human rankings 13 , pigeon responses 10 , pixel mapping 10 , neural networks 13 and multivariate analyses 14 . We employed subjective human rankings of mimetic fidelity (hereafter "fidelity HR ", see Methods) across a range of species which were compared for consistency against a measure derived from a multivariate analysis of trait values MD M Overall, our morphological analysis of 38 syrphid species and 10 hymenopteran model species indicated that there was a clear statistical difference in appearance between the 2 taxa (Syrphidae vs. Hymenoptera) (nested MANOVA: taxon, F 1,427 =797.77, p<0.001; species, F 47,427 =11.03, p<0.001).…”

Section: Phenotypic Mappingmentioning

confidence: 99%