Literature DB >> 27411246

Effects of habitat composition and landscape structure on worker foraging distances of five bumble bee species.

John W Redhead, Stephanie Dreier, Andrew F G Bourke, Matthew S Heard, William C Jordan, Seirian Sumner, Jinliang Wang, Claire Carvell.   

Abstract

Bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are important pollinators of both crops and wildflowers. Their contribution to this essential ecosystem service has been threatened over recent decades by changes in land use, which have led to declines in their populations. In order to design effective conservation measures, it is important to understand the effects of variation in landscape composition and structure on the foraging activities of worker bumble bees. This is because the viability of individual colonies is likely to be affected by the trade-off between the energetic costs of foraging over greater distances and the potential gains from access to additional resources. We used field surveys, molecular genetics, and fine resolution remote sensing to estimate the locations of wild bumble bee nests and to infer foraging distances across a 20-km² agricultural landscape in southern England, UK. We investigated five species, including the rare B. ruderatus and ecologically similar but widespread B. hortorum. We compared worker foraging distances between species and examined how variation in landscape composition and structure affected foraging distances at the colony level. Mean worker foraging distances differed significantly between species. Bombus terrestris, B. lapidarius, and B. ruderatus exhibited significantly greater mean foraging distances (551, 536, and 501 m, respectively) than B. hortorum and B. pascuorum (336 and 272 m, respectively). There was wide variation in worker foraging distances between colonies of the same species, which was in turn strongly influenced by the amount and spatial configuration of available foraging habitats. Shorter foraging distances were found for colonies where the local landscape had high coverage and low fragmentation of semi-natural vegetation, including managed agri-environmental field margins. The strength of relationships between different landscape variables and foraging distance varied between species, for example the strongest relationship for B. ruderatus being with floral cover of preferred forage plants. Our findings suggest that management of landscape composition and configuration has the potential to reduce foraging distances across a range of bumble bee species. There is thus potential for improvements in the design and implementation of landscape management options, such as agri-environment schemes, aimed at providing foraging habitat for bumble bees and enhancing crop pollination services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27411246     DOI: 10.1890/15-0546

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  15 in total

1.  Scale-Dependent Waylaying Effect of Pollinators and Pollination of Mass-Flowering Plants.

Authors:  Z X Lu; Z H Xie; J W Zhao; Y Q Chen
Journal:  Neotrop Entomol       Date:  2019-05-06       Impact factor: 1.434

2.  Landscape predictors of pathogen prevalence and range contractions in US bumblebees.

Authors:  Scott H McArt; Christine Urbanowicz; Shaun McCoshum; Rebecca E Irwin; Lynn S Adler
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2017-11-29       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Context matters: the landscape matrix determines the population genetic structure of temperate forest herbs across Europe.

Authors:  Tobias Naaf; Jannis Till Feigs; Siyu Huang; Jörg Brunet; Sara A O Cousins; Guillaume Decocq; Pieter De Frenne; Martin Diekmann; Sanne Govaert; Per-Ola Hedwall; Jonathan Lenoir; Jaan Liira; Camille Meeussen; Jan Plue; Pieter Vangansbeke; Thomas Vanneste; Kris Verheyen; Stephanie I J Holzhauer; Katja Kramp
Journal:  Landsc Ecol       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Proximity of breeding and foraging areas affects foraging effort of a crepuscular, insectivorous bird.

Authors:  Ruben Evens; Natalie Beenaerts; Thomas Neyens; Nele Witters; Karen Smeets; Tom Artois
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  Landscape composition and local floral resources influence foraging behavior but not the size of Bombus impatiens Cresson (Hymenoptera: Apidae) workers.

Authors:  Amélie Gervais; Ève Courtois; Valérie Fournier; Marc Bélisle
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination.

Authors:  Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki; Anahí Espíndola; Adam J Vanbergen; Josef Settele; Claire Kremen; Lynn V Dicks
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2017-03-27       Impact factor: 9.492

7.  Florally rich habitats reduce insect pollination and the reproductive success of isolated plants.

Authors:  Tracie M Evans; Stephen Cavers; Richard Ennos; Adam J Vanbergen; Matthew S Heard
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Bumblebee olfactory learning affected by task allocation but not by a trypanosome parasite.

Authors:  Callum D Martin; Michelle T Fountain; Mark J F Brown
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  When beggars are choosers-How nesting of a solitary bee is affected by temporal dynamics of pollen plants in the landscape.

Authors:  Anna S Persson; Florence Mazier; Henrik G Smith
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-05-15       Impact factor: 2.912

10.  Predicting changes in bee assemblages following state transitions at North American dryland ecotones.

Authors:  Melanie R Kazenel; Karen W Wright; Julieta Bettinelli; Terry L Griswold; Kenneth D Whitney; Jennifer A Rudgers
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.