@article{KendallRaderGagicetal.2019,
  author    = {Kendall, Liam K. and Rader, Romina and Gagic, Vesna and Cariveau, Daniel P. and Albrecht, Matthias and Baldock, Katherine C. R. and Freitas, Breno M. and Hall, Mark and Holzschuh, Andrea and Molina, Francisco P. and Morten, Joanne M. and Pereira, Janaely S. and Portman, Zachary M. and Roberts, Stuart P. M. and Rodriguez, Juanita and Russo, Laura and Sutter, Louis and Vereecken, Nicolas J. and Bartomeus, Ignasi},
  title     = {Pollinator size and its consequences: Robust estimates of body size in pollinating insects},
  series = {Ecology and Evolution},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Ecology and Evolution},
  doi       = {10.1002/ece3.4835},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-325705},
  pages     = {1702-1714},
  year      = {2019},
  abstract  = {Body size is an integral functional trait that underlies pollination-related ecological processes, yet it is often impractical to measure directly. Allometric scaling laws have been used to overcome this problem. However, most existing models rely upon small sample sizes, geographically restricted sampling and have limited applicability for non-bee taxa. Allometric models that consider biogeography, phylogenetic relatedness, and intraspecific variation are urgently required to ensure greater accuracy. We measured body size as dry weight and intertegular distance (ITD) of 391 bee species (4,035 specimens) and 103 hoverfly species (399 specimens) across four biogeographic regions: Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. We updated existing models within a Bayesian mixed-model framework to test the power of ITD to predict interspecific variation in pollinator dry weight in interaction with different co-variates: phylogeny or taxonomy, sexual dimorphism, and biogeographic region. In addition, we used ordinary least squares regression to assess intraspecific dry weight ~ ITD relationships for ten bees and five hoverfly species. Including co-variates led to more robust interspecific body size predictions for both bees and hoverflies relative to models with the ITD alone. In contrast, at the intraspecific level, our results demonstrate that the ITD is an inconsistent predictor of body size for bees and hoverflies. The use of allometric scaling laws to estimate body size is more suitable for interspecific comparative analyses than assessing intraspecific variation. Collectively, these models form the basis of the dynamic R package, "pollimetry," which provides a comprehensive resource for allometric pollination research worldwide.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{DePalmaAbrahamczykAizenetal.2016,
  author    = {De Palma, Adriana and Abrahamczyk, Stefan and Aizen, Marcelo A. and Albrecht, Matthias and Basset, Yves and Bates, Adam and Blake, Robin J. and Boutin, C{\´e}line and Bugter, Rob and Connop, Stuart and Cruz-L{\´o}pez, Leopoldo and Cunningham, Saul A. and Darvill, Ben and Diek{\"o}tter, Tim and Dorn, Silvia and Downing, Nicola and Entling, Martin H. and Farwig, Nina and Felicioli, Antonio and Fonte, Steven J. and Fowler, Robert and Franzen, Markus Franz{\´e}n and Goulson, Dave and Grass, Ingo and Hanley, Mick E. and Hendrix, Stephen D. and Herrmann, Farina and Herzog, Felix and Holzschuh, Andrea and Jauker, Birgit and Kessler, Michael and Knight, M. E. and Kruess, Andreas and Lavelle, Patrick and Le F{\´e}on, Violette and Lentini, Pia and Malone, Louise A. and Marshall, Jon and Mart{\´i}nez Pach{\´o}n, Eliana and McFrederick, Quinn S. and Morales, Carolina L. and Mudri-Stojnic, Sonja and Nates-Parra, Guiomar and Nilsson, Sven G. and {\"O}ckinger, Erik and Osgathorpe, Lynne and Parra-H, Alejandro and Peres, Carlos A. and Persson, Anna S. and Petanidou, Theodora and Poveda, Katja and Power, Eileen F. and Quaranta, Marino and Quintero, Carolina and Rader, Romina and Richards, Miriam H. and Roulston, T'ai and Rousseau, Laurent and Sadler, Jonathan P. and Samneg{\aa}rd, Ulrika and Schellhorn, Nancy A. and Sch{\"u}epp, Christof and Schweiger, Oliver and Smith-Pardo, Allan H. and Steffan-Dewenter, Ingolf and Stout, Jane C. and Tonietto, Rebecca K. and Tscharntke, Teja and Tylianakis, Jason M. and Verboven, Hans A. F. and Vergara, Carlos H. and Verhulst, Jort and Westphal, Catrin and Yoon, Hyung Joo and Purvis, Andy},
  title     = {Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: Effects of geographic and taxonomic biases},
  series = {Scientific Reports},
  volume    = {6},
  journal   = {Scientific Reports},
  doi       = {10.1038/srep31153},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-167642},
  pages     = {31153},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises.},
  language  = {en}
}