Refine
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Wildbienen (2) (remove)
Institute
- Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (2) (remove)
Within the last decades, land use intensification reduced the heterogeneity of habitats and landscapes. The resulting pauperization led to habitats and landscapes that are spatially or temporally limited in food and nesting resources for solitary bees and wasps. Hence, biodiversity and ecosystem processes are seriously threatened. The impacts of changing resource conditions for valuable pollinators and (pest) predators remain poorly studied as well as their top-down regulation by natural enemies. Further, the reproductive success of solitary bees as response to changed resource distribution within foraging ranges is rarely examined. We considered trap-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists as suitable model organisms to fill these gaps of knowledge, since trap nests provide insight into otherwise hidden trophic interactions, like parasitism and predation, as well as ecological processes, like pollination and reproduction. Moreover, trap-nesting species are established as essential biodiversity indicator taxa. Thus, we first asked in Chapter II how the reproduction of cavity-nesting bees and wasps in grasslands depends on local management Moreover, we tested land use effects on the effectiveness of two groups of antagonists in regulating bee and wasp populations by excluding ground-dwelling antagonists. We characterized nest closure type to determine their protective function against antagonist attacks. In a highly replicated, large-scaled study, we provided 95 grassland sites in three geographic regions in Germany with 760 trap-nests. The full factorial design comprised mown and unmown plots as well as plots with and without access of ground-dwelling predators to the trap nests. The colonization of bees and wasps was unaffected by ground-dwelling antagonists. However, excluding ground-dwellers enhanced the attack rate of flying antagonists. Experimental mowing marginally affected the colonization of wasps but not attack rates. Nevertheless, both treatments – mowing and predator exclusion – significantly interacted. The exclusion of ground-dwellers on mown plots resulted in higher attack rates of flying antagonists, whereas on unmown plots this effect of ground-dweller-exclusion on the attack rate of flying antagonists was not visible. Further, attack rates were determined by nest closure material, local abundance of different nest closure types as well as closure-associated antagonist species. In Chapter III, we studied the relative impact of local land use intensity, landscape composition and configuration on the species richness and abundance of bees, wasps and their antagonists. We analysed abundances and species numbers of hosts and their antagonists as well as parasitism rate and conducted a comprehensive landscape mapping. The digitized landscape data were the basis for further calculations of landscape metrics, like landscape composition and configuration within eight spatial scales ranging from 250 to 2,000 m radii. We used a compound, additive index of local land use intensity. Host abundance was only marginally negatively affected by local land use intensity. However, landscape composition at small spatial scales enhanced the species richness and abundance of hosts, while species richness and abundance of antagonists was positively related to landscape configuration at larger spatial scales. In the last study, presented in Chapter IV, we observed nesting bees on a selection of 18 grassland sites in two of the three research regions. We estimated the importance of resource distribution for pollen-nectar trips and consequences for the reproductive success of the solitary Red Mason Bee (Osmia bicornis). Local land use intensity, local flower cover as well as landscape composition and configuration were considered as critical factors of influence. We equipped each grassland site with eight trap nests and 50 female bees. Different nest building activities, like foraging trips for pollen and nectar, were measured. After the nesting season, we calculated measures of reproductive success. Foraging trips for pollen and nectar were significantly shorter in spatially complex landscapes but were neither affected by local metrics nor landscape composition. We found no evidence that the duration of pollen-nectar trips determines the reproductive success. Thus, to maintain trophic interactions and biodiversity, local land use as well as landscape diversity and spatial complexity should be accounted for to create spatial and temporal stability of food and nesting resources within small spatial scales. Concrete steps to support pollinator populations include hedges, sown field margins or other linear elements. These measures that enhance the connectivity of landscapes can also support flying antagonists.
My dissertation comprises three studies: (1) an assessment of honey bee colony losses in the USA between 2014 and 2015, (2) an exploration of the potential of reclaimed sand mines as bee habitat, and (3) an evaluation of native and non-native pollinator friendly plants in regard to their attraction to bees. While the first study focuses on honey bees, the latter two studies primarily take wild bees or entire bee communities in focus.
The study on honey bee colony losses was conducted within the framework of the Bee Informed Partnership (BIP, beeinformed.org) and aligns with the annual colony loss surveys which have been conducted in the USA since the winter of 2006/2007. It was the fourth year for which summer and annual losses were calculated in addition to winter losses. Among participants, backyard beekeepers were the largest group (n = 5690), although sideline (n = 169) and commercial (n = 78) beekeepers managed the majority (91.7 %) of the 414 267 surveyed colonies. Overall, 15.1 % of the estimated 2.74 million managed colonies in the USA were included in the study. Total honey bee colony losses (based on the entirety of included colonies) were higher in summer (25.3 %) than in winter (22.3 %) and amounted to 40.6 % for the entire 2014/2015 beekeeping year. Average colony losses per beekeeper or operation were higher in winter (43.7 %) than in summer (14.7 %) and amounted to 49 % for the entire 2014/2015 beekeeping year. Due to the dominance of backyard beekeepers among participants, average losses per operation (or unweighted loss) stronger reflected this smaller type of beekeeper. Backyard beekeepers mainly named colony management issues (e.g., starvation, weak colony in the fall) as causes for mortality, while sideline and commercial beekeepers stronger emphasized parasites or factors outside their control (e.g., varroa, nosema, queen failure).
The second study took place at reclaimed sand mines. Sand mines represent anthropogenically impacted habitats found worldwide, which bear potential for bee conservation. Although floral resources can be limited at these habitats, vegetation free patches of open sandy soils and embankments may offer good nesting possibilities for sand restricted and other bees. We compared bee communities as found in three reclaimed sand mines and at adjacent roadside meadows in Maryland, USA, over two years. Both sand mines and roadsides hosted diverse bee communities with 111 and 88 bee species, respectively. Bee abundances as well as richness and Shannon diversity of bee species were higher in sand mines than at roadsides and negatively correlated with the percentage of vegetational ground cover. Species composition also differed significantly between habitats. Sand mines hosted a higher proportion of ground nesters, more uncommon and more ‘sand loving’ bees similar to natural sandy areas of Maryland. Despite the destruction of the original pre-mining habitat, sand mines thus appear to represent a unique habitat for wild bees, particularly when natural vegetation and open sand spots are encouraged. Considering habitat loss, the lack of natural disturbance regimes, and ongoing declines of wild bees, sand mines could add promising opportunities for bee conservation which has hitherto mainly focused on agricultural and urban habitats.
The third study was an experimental field study on pollinator friendly plants. Bees rely on the pollen and nectar of plants as their food source. Therefore, pollinator friendly plantings are often used for habitat enhancements in bee conservation. Non-native pollinator friendly plants may aid in bee conservation efforts, but have not been tested and compared with native pollinator friendly plants in a common garden experiment. In this study, we seeded mixes of 20 native and 20 non-native pollinator friendly plants in two separate plots at three sites in Maryland, USA. For two years, we recorded flower visitors to the plants throughout the blooming period and additionally sampled bees with pan traps. A total of 3744 bees (120 species) were sampled in the study. Of these, 1708 bees (72 species) were hand netted directly from flowers for comparisons between native and non-native plants. Depending on the season, bee abundance and species richness was either similar or lower (early season and for richness also late season) at native plots compared to non-native plots. Additionally, the overall bee community composition differed significantly between native and non-native plots. Furthermore, native plants were associated with more specialized plant-bee visitation networks compared to non-native plants. In general, visitation networks were more specialized in the early season than the later seasons. Four species (Bombus impatiens, Halictus poeyi/ligatus, Lasioglossum pilosum, and Xylocopa virginica) out of the five most abundant bee species (also including Apis mellifera) foraged more specialized on native than non-native plants. Our study showed that non-native plants were well accepted by a diverse bee community and had a similar to higher attraction for bees compared to native plants. However, we also demonstrated alterations in foraging behavior, bee community assemblage, and visitation networks. As long as used with caution, non-native plants can be a useful addition to native pollinator friendly plantings. This study gives a first example of a direct comparison between native and non-native pollinator friendly plants.