@article{HolzschuhDaineseGonzalezVaroetal.2016,
  author    = {Holzschuh, Andrea and Dainese, Matteo and Gonzalez-Varo, Juan P. and Mudri-Stojnic, Sonja and Riedinger, Verena and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Scheper, Jeroen and Wickens, Jennifer B. and Wickens, Victoria J. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Kleijn, David and Potts, Simon G. and Roberts, Stuart P. M. and Smith, Henrik G. and Vil{\`a}, Montserrat and Vujic, Ante and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe},
  series = {Ecology Letters},
  volume    = {19},
  journal   = {Ecology Letters},
  number    = {10},
  doi       = {10.1111/ele.12657},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-187356},
  pages     = {1228-1236},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Mass-flowering crops (MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi-natural habitats (SNHs). Across six European regions and 2 years, we assessed how landscape-scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were generally unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator- dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator-supporting practices in agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolzschuhDormannTscharntkeetal.2013,
  author    = {Holzschuh, Andrea and Dormann, Carsten F. and Tscharntke, Teja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance},
  series = {Oecologia},
  volume    = {172},
  journal   = {Oecologia},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00442-012-2515-5},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-132149},
  pages     = {477-484},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Although agricultural habitats can provide enormous amounts of food resources for pollinator species, links between agricultural and (semi-)natural habitats through dispersal and foraging movements have hardly been studied. In 67 study sites, we assessed the interactions between mass-flowering oilseed rape fields and semi-natural grasslands at different spatial scales, and their effects on the number of brood cells of a solitary cavity-nesting bee. The probability that the bee Osmia bicornis colonized trap nests in oilseed rape fields increased from 12 to 59 \% when grassland was nearby, compared to fields isolated from grassland. In grasslands, the number of brood cells of O. bicornis in trap nests was 55 \% higher when adjacent to oilseed rape compared to isolated grasslands. The percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food was higher in oilseed rape fields and grasslands adjacent to oilseed rape than in isolated grasslands. In both oilseed rape fields and grasslands, the number of brood cells was positively correlated with the percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food. We show that mass-flowering agricultural habitats—even when they are intensively managed—can strongly enhance the abundance of a solitary bee species nesting in nearby semi-natural habitats. Our results suggest that positive effects of agricultural habitats have been underestimated and might be very common (at least) for generalist species in landscapes consisting of a mixture of agricultural and semi-natural habitats. These effects might also have—so far overlooked—implications for interspecific competition and mutualistic interactions in semi-natural habitats.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{HolzschuhDormannTscharntkeetal.2013,
  author    = {Holzschuh, Andrea and Dormann, Carsten F. and Tscharntke, Teja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance},
  series = {Oecologia},
  volume    = {172},
  journal   = {Oecologia},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2515-5},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-126852},
  pages     = {447-484},
  year      = {2013},
  abstract  = {Although agricultural habitats can provide enormous amounts of food resources for pollinator species, links between agricultural and (semi-)natural habitats through dispersal and foraging movements have hardly been studied. In 67 study sites, we assessed the interactions between mass-flowering oilseed rape fields and semi-natural grasslands at different spatial scales, and their effects on the number of brood cells of a solitary cavity-nesting bee. The probability that the bee Osmia bicornis colonized trap nests in oilseed rape fields increased from 12 to 59 \% when grassland was nearby, compared to fields isolated from grassland. In grasslands, the number of brood cells of O. bicornis in trap nests was 55 \% higher when adjacent to oilseed rape compared to isolated grasslands. The percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food was higher in oilseed rape fields and grasslands adjacent to oilseed rape than in isolated grasslands. In both oilseed rape fields and grasslands, the number of brood cells was positively correlated with the percentage of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food. We show that mass-flowering agricultural habitats—even when they are intensively managed—can strongly enhance the abundance of a solitary bee species nesting in nearby semi-natural habitats. Our results suggest that positive effects of agricultural habitats have been underestimated and might be very common (at least) for generalist species in landscapes consisting of a mixture of agricultural and semi-natural habitats. These effects might also have—so far overlooked—implications for interspecific competition and mutualistic interactions in semi-natural habitats.},
  language  = {en}
}