@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{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}
}
@phdthesis{Riedinger2014,
  author    = {Riedinger, Verena},
  title     = {Landscape-scale spillover of pollinators from oil-seed rape to crop and semi-natural habitats on different temporal scales},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-96844},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2014},
  abstract  = {Organisms use different resources in different habitat types during their life cycle. Thereby, they connect habitats and provide ecosystem services or disservices in several habitat types. In agricultural landscapes, the spillover of organisms, i.e. movement of an organism and its function from one habitat to another, especially from semi-natural to managed habitats, is one of the most important processes that influence population dynamics and community composition. Importantly, spillover connects habitats not only spatially, but also on different temporal scales, because availability of resources changes over time in agricultural landscapes, e.g. by mass-flowering events of crops, harvesting or crop rotation. Most often, semi-natural habitats are seen as beneficial source of organisms, but also managed habitats can provide valuable resources, and thereby initiate spillover to other habitats. Mass-flowering crops, like oil-seed rape, are such valuable feeding resources for pollinators, and pollinators might spillover from oil-seed rape to other habitats which provide alternative foraging resources. The focus of this dissertation was to evaluate the influence of oil-seed rape on pollinators in agricultural landscapes by studying effects (1) on different temporal scales (from effects during the flowering period of oil-seed rape, Chapter II \& IV, to intermediate effects on a second mass-flowering crop, Chapter III, to spillover effects to the flowering period in the next year, Chapter IV), (2) semi-natural (Chapter II) and crop (Chapter III, IV) habitats, and (3) on various pollinator groups which differ in their life cycle (Chapter II, III, IV). In this dissertation effects from oil-seed rape on all temporal scales - in the short term during mass-flowering and in the long term on a late-flowering crop and even in the next year on oil-seed rape fields ─ were found. These effects might be important for crop and wild plant pollination, and pollinator conservation. Importantly, the effects on different temporal scales depend on the considered habitat (managed or different semi-natural habitats) and on the investigated pollinator group. The more pollinators match the flowering period of oil-seed rape in their activity period and the more dependent they are on flowering resources in their life cycle, the more pronounced are their responses. Effects were found for wild bees, but not for hoverflies and honey bees. Moreover, the availability of semi-natural habitats in the landscape is important and may modulate effects from oil-seed rape. The longevity of effects of oil-seed rape shows the importance of including several temporal scales into ecosystem-service studies, not only for pollinators, but also for other ecosystem-service providing species groups.},
  subject      = {Raps},
  language  = {en}
}