@article{HendriksmaHaertelSteffanDewenter2011,
  author    = {Hendriksma, Harmen P. and H{\"a}rtel, Stephan and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Testing Pollen of Single and Stacked Insect-Resistant Bt-Maize on In vitro Reared Honey Bee Larvae},
  series = {PLoS One},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {PLoS One},
  number    = {12},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0028174},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-137803},
  pages     = {e28174},
  year      = {2011},
  abstract  = {The ecologically and economic important honey bee (Apis mellifera) is a key non-target arthropod species in environmental risk assessment (ERA) of genetically modified (GM) crops. Honey bee larvae are directly exposed to transgenic products by the consumption of GM pollen. But most ERA studies only consider responses of adult bees, although Bt-proteins primarily affect the larval phases of target organisms. We adopted an in vitro larvae rearing system, to assess lethal and sublethal effects of Bt-pollen consumption in a standardized eco-toxicological bioassay. The effects of pollen from two Bt-maize cultivars, one expressing a single and the other a total of three Bt-proteins, on the survival and prepupae weight of honey bee larvae were analyzed. The control treatments included pollen from three non-transgenic maize varieties and of Heliconia rostrata. Three days old larvae were fed the realistic exposure dose of 2 mg pollen within the semi-artificial diet. The larvae were monitored over 120 h, until the prepupal stage, where larvae terminate feeding and growing. Neither single nor stacked Bt-maize pollen showed an adverse effect on larval survival and the prepupal weight. In contrast, feeding of H. rostrata pollen caused significant toxic effects. The results of this study indicate that pollen of the tested Bt-varieties does not harm the development of in vitro reared A. mellifera larvae. To sustain the ecosystem service of pollination, Bt-impact on A. mellifera should always be a crucial part of regulatory biosafety assessments. We suggest that our approach of feeding GM pollen on in vitro reared honey bee larvae is well suited of becoming a standard bioassay in regulatory risk assessments schemes of GM crops.},
  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}
}
@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{KleijnWinfreeBartomeusetal.2015,
  author    = {Kleijn, David and Winfree, Rachael and Bartomeus, Ignasi and Carvalheiro, Lu{\´i}sa G. and Henry, Mickael and Isaacs, Rufus and Klein, Alexandra-Maria and Kremen, Claire and M'Gonigle, Leithen K. and Rader, Romina and Ricketts, Taylor H. and Williams, Neal M. and Adamson, Nancy Lee and Ascher, John S. and B{\´a}ldi, Andr{\´a}s and Bat{\´a}ry, P{\´e}ter and Benjamin, Faye and Biesmeijer, Jacobus C. and Blitzer, Eleanor J. and Bommarco, Riccardo and Brand, Mariette R. and Bretagnolle, Vincent and Button, Lindsey and Cariveau, Daniel P. and Chifflet, R{\´e}my and Colville, Jonathan F. and Danforth, Bryan N. and Elle, Elizabeth and Garratt, Michael P. D. and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Howlett, Brad G. and Jauker, Frank and Jha, Shalene and Knop, Eva and Krewenka, Kristin M. and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Mandelik, Yael and May, Emily A. and Park, Mia G. and Pisanty, Gideon and Reemer, Menno and Riedinger, Verena and Rollin, Orianne and Rundl{\"o}f, Maj and Sardi{\~n}as, Hillary S. and Scheper, Jeroen and Sciligo, Amber R. and Smith, Henrik G. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Thorp, Robbin and Tscharntke, Teja and Verhulst, Jort and Viana, Blandina F. and Vaissi{\`e}re, Bernard E. and Veldtman, Ruan and Ward, Kimiora L. and Westphal, Catrin and Potts, Simon G.},
  title     = {Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation},
  series = {Nature Communications},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Nature Communications},
  number    = {7414},
  doi       = {10.1038/ncomms8414},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-151879},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost- effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost- effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DannerKellerHaerteletal.2017,
  author    = {Danner, Nadja and Keller, Alexander and H{\"a}rtel, Stephan and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Honey bee foraging ecology: Season but not landscape diversity shapes the amount and diversity of collected pollen},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {8},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0183716},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-170424},
  pages     = {e0183716},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {The availability of pollen in agricultural landscapes is essential for the successful growth and reproduction of honey bee colonies (Apis mellifera L.). The quantity and diversity of collected pollen can influence the growth and health of honey bee colonies, but little is known about the influence of landscape structure on pollen diet. In a field experiment, we rotated 16 honey bee colonies across 16 agricultural landscapes, used traps to collect samples of collected pollen and observed intra-colonial dance communication to gain information about foraging distances. DNA metabarcoding was applied to analyze mixed pollen samples. Neither the amount of collected pollen nor pollen diversity was related to landscape diversity. However, we found a strong seasonal variation in the amount and diversity of collected pollen in all sites independent of landscape diversity. The observed increase in foraging distances with decreasing landscape diversity suggests that honey bees compensated for lower landscape diversity by increasing their pollen foraging range in order to maintain pollen amount and diversity. Our results underscore the importance of a diverse pollen diet for honey bee colonies. Agri-environmental schemes aiming to support pollinators should focus on possible spatial and temporal gaps in pollen availability and diversity in agricultural landscapes.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RuedenauerWoehrleSpaetheetal.2018,
  author    = {Ruedenauer, Fabian A. and W{\"o}hrle, Christine and Spaethe, Johannes and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Do honeybees (Apis mellifera) differentiate between different pollen types?},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {11},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0205821},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-177537},
  pages     = {e0205821},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Bees receive nectar and pollen as reward for pollinating plants. Pollen of different plant species varies widely in nutritional composition. In order to select pollen of appropriate nutritional quality, bees would benefit if they could distinguish different pollen types. Whether they rely on visual, olfactory and/or chemotactile cues to distinguish between different pollen types, has however been little studied. In this study, we examined whether and how Apis mellifera workers differentiate between almond and apple pollen. We used differential proboscis extension response conditioning with olfactory and chemotactile stimulation, in light and darkness, and in summer and winter bees. We found that honeybees were only able to differentiate between different pollen types, when they could use both chemotactile and olfactory cues. Visual cues further improved learning performance. Summer bees learned faster than winter bees. Our results thus highlight the importance of multisensory information for pollen discrimination.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{GrundMuellerRuedenauerSpaetheetal.2020,
  author    = {Grund-Mueller, Nils and Ruedenauer, Fabian A. and Spaethe, Johannes and Leonhardt, Sara D.},
  title     = {Adding amino acids to a sucrose diet is not sufficient to support longevity of adult bumble bees},
  series = {Insects},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Insects},
  number    = {4},
  issn      = {2075-4450},
  doi       = {10.3390/insects11040247},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-203866},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Dietary macro-nutrients (i.e., carbohydrates, protein, and fat) are important for bee larval development and, thus, colony health and fitness. To which extent different diets (varying in macro-nutrient composition) affect adult bees and whether they can thrive on nectar as the sole amino acid source has, however, been little investigated. We investigated how diets varying in protein concentration and overall nutrient composition affected consumption, longevity, and breeding behavior of the buff-tailed bumble bee, Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Queenless micro-colonies were fed either natural nutrient sources (pollen), nearly pure protein (i.e., the milk protein casein), or sucrose solutions with low and with high essential amino acid content in concentrations as can be found in nectar. We observed micro-colonies for 110 days. We found that longevity was highest for pure pollen and lowest for pure sucrose solution and sucrose solution supplemented with amino acids in concentrations as found in the nectar of several plant species. Adding higher concentrations of amino acids to sucrose solution did only slightly increase longevity compared to sucrose alone. Consequently, sucrose solution with the applied concentrations and proportions of amino acids or other protein sources (e.g., casein) alone did not meet the nutritional needs of healthy adult bumble bees. In fact, longevity was highest and reproduction only successful in micro-colonies fed pollen. These results indicate that, in addition to carbohydrates and protein, adult bumble bees, like larvae, need further nutrients (e.g., lipids and micro-nutrients) for their well-being. An appropriate nutritional composition seemed to be best provided by floral pollen, suggesting that pollen is an essential dietary component not only for larvae but also for adult bees.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{VansynghelOcampoArizaMaasetal.2022,
  author    = {Vansynghel, Justine and Ocampo-Ariza, Carolina and Maas, Bea and Martin, Emily A. and Thomas, Evert and Hanf-Dressler, Tara and Schumacher, Nils-Christian and Ulloque-Samatelo, Carlos and Tscharntke, Teja and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf},
  title     = {Cacao flower visitation: Low pollen deposition, low fruit set and dominance of herbivores},
  series = {Ecological Solutions and Evidence},
  volume    = {3},
  journal   = {Ecological Solutions and Evidence},
  number    = {2},
  issn      = {2688-8319},
  doi       = {10.1002/2688-8319.12140},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-312722},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {1. Pollination services of cacao are crucial for global chocolate production, yet remain critically understudied, particularly in regions of origin of the species. Notably, uncertainties remain concerning the identity of cacao pollinators, the influence of landscape (forest distance) and management (shade cover) on flower visitation and the role of pollen deposition in limiting fruit set. 2. Here, we aimed to improve understanding of cacao pollination by studying limiting factors of fruit set in Peru, part of the centre of origin of cacao. Flower visitors were sampled with sticky insect glue in 20 cacao agroforests in two biogeographically distinct regions of Peru, across gradients of shade cover and forest distance. Further, we assessed pollen quantities and compared fruit set between naturally and manually pollinated flowers. 3. The most abundant flower visitors were aphids, ants and thrips in the north and thrips, midges and parasitoid wasps in the south of Peru. We present some evidence of increasing visitation rates from medium to high shade (40\%-95\% canopy closure) in the dry north, and opposite patterns in the semi-humid south, during the wet season. 4. Natural pollination resulted in remarkably low fruit set rates (2\%), and very low pollen deposition. After hand pollination, fruit set more than tripled (7\%), but was still low. 5. The diversity and high relative abundances of herbivore flower visitors limit our ability to draw conclusions on the functional role of different flower visitors. The remarkably low fruit set of naturally and even hand pollinated flowers indicates that other unaddressed factors limit cacao fruit production. Such factors could be, amongst others, a lack of effective pollinators, genetic incompatibility or resource limitation. Revealing efficient pollinator species and other causes of low fruit set rates is therefore key to establish location-specific management strategies and develop high yielding native cacao agroforestry systems in regions of origin of cacao},
  language  = {en}
}