Wild bee responses to cropland landscape complexity are temporally-variable and taxon-specific: Evidence from a highly replicated pseudo-experiment

Galpern, Paul; Best, Lincoln; Devries, James H.; Johnson, Sarah A.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2021.107652

Cited by 8 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Site selection and sampling location were based on criteria developed for each study, each of which investigates how land cover, landscape composition or distance from certain covers might influence pollinators. Across all years, 583 traps were placed in canola fields, 1738 were in vegetated ditch/verge areas alongside low‐traffic roads in agricultural areas (Galpern et al, 2017, 2021), 274 were in native vegetation (Purvis, Vickruck, et al, 2020), 228 were alongside or within 100 m of pothole wetlands and 162 were in wheat fields (Vickruck et al, 2019) (Figure 1).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The pollinator dataset was collected between 2015 and 2018. Analyses of subsets of these data have appeared in four publications that address different research questions at smaller geographic extents (Galpern et al, 2017(Galpern et al, , 2021Purvis, Vickruck, et al, 2020;Vickruck et al, 2019), whereas other data within this dataset have not been published before. Bees were trapped using blue vanes and coloured cups (12 oz.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pond habitat and surrounding vegetation are associated with an increased abundance of bees and hoverflies and higher pollination services compared with monocrop fields (Stewart et al, 2017). Studies in Southern Alberta have found that bee diversity and abundance in crops are related to the distance from a crop‐embedded wetland margin (Vickruck et al, 2019) and that the relationship between wild bee abundance and cropland varies over the growing season (Galpern et al, 2021). While this suggests that wetlands may support wild pollinators and that pollinators spill over into fields where they can provide service, we do not yet understand how pollinators relate to wetlands and how these relationships may vary across the growing season and between species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wetland cover in agricultural landscapes is positively associated with bumblebee abundance

Cohen,

Devries,

Galpern

2023

Insect Conserv Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conversion of land for agricultural use is a leading driver of global biodiversity loss. Natural and semi‐natural lands within agricultural landscapes are targeted for protection because they provide habitat for many organisms. Pothole (or kettle) wetlands occur across the Northern Hemisphere and are a focus for conservation both because of their location within agriculturally intensive landscapes and their importance to vertebrates, especially migratory birds. Recent evidence suggests that wetlands may also be an important habitat for arthropods, including insects that provide ecosystem services. To understand how insects associate with wetlands and landscape features, we examine the relationship between bumblebees (Bombus), and wetland area, cropland area and wetland perimeter‐area ratio. We found that wetland area is significantly positively associated with the occurrence and abundance of the species studied. We also found that the relationship between bumblebees and wetland perimeter‐area ratio varied across the growing season. This suggests that the importance of wetland edge as a foraging habitat varies across the season. These results show the utility of wetlands to bees, though their resources are likely not being used uniformly by all bumblebee species or across the entire growing season. Our results also suggest that pothole wetlands in agricultural landscapes are likely to support biodiversity, and their conservation contributes to overall ecosystem health and function.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wetland cover in agricultural landscapes is positively associated with bumblebee abundance

Cohen,

Devries,

Galpern

2023

Insect Conserv Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, to our knowledge, no studies have examined seasonal variation in dependence of bees on local vs. landscape resources. Moreover, habitats vary widely in the magnitude and timing of floral and nesting resources that they provide for bees (Ogilvie and Forrest 2017), which can lead to temporally variable relationships between wild-bee communities and land use (Cole et al 2017;Galpern et al 2021) 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. But due to the complexity of measuring flowers, nesting, or pesticide risk at the landscape-scale, these factors have been understudied (but see Guezen and Forrest 2021;Smart et al 2021;Bloom et al 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Kammerer

Iverson

et al. 2022

Preprint

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 varied by season. Spring bees depended on landscape resources, but summer bees responded more to local quality, implying that site-level management is most likely to be successful in supporting summer bees. Semi-natural habitats, including forests, wetlands, and other aquatic habitats, were particularly important for spring bees. Conclusions By considering spatial and temporal variation in resources, we developed season-specific recommendations to improve habitat quality for wild bees and offset manifold stressors threatening these essential pollinators.

show abstract

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

Wild bee responses to cropland landscape complexity are temporally-variable and taxon-specific: Evidence from a highly replicated pseudo-experiment

Cited by 8 publications

References 32 publications

Wetland cover in agricultural landscapes is positively associated with bumblebee abundance

Wetland cover in agricultural landscapes is positively associated with bumblebee abundance

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About