Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:28:07.585Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of landscape context on the abundance and diversity of bees in Mediterranean olive groves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2011

T. Tscheulin ,
L. Neokosmidis ,
T. Petanidou  and
J. Settele
T. Tscheulin*
Affiliation:
University of the Aegean, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece
L. Neokosmidis
Affiliation:
University of the Aegean, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece
T. Petanidou
Affiliation:
University of the Aegean, Department of Geography, University of the Aegean, University Hill, 81100 Mytilene, Greece
J. Settele
Affiliation:
Department of Community Ecology, UFZ, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Theodor-Lieser-Straße 4, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany
*
*Author for correspondence Fax: +30 22510 36423 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The diversity and abundance of wild bees ensures the delivery of pollination services and the maintenance of ecosystem diversity. As previous studies carried out in Central Europe and the US have shown, bee diversity and abundance is influenced by the structure and the composition of the surrounding landscape. Comparable studies have so far not been carried out in the Mediterranean region. The present study examines the influence of Mediterranean landscape context on the diversity and abundance of wild bees. To do this, we sampled bees in 13 sites in olive groves on Lesvos Island, Greece. Bees were assigned to five categories consisting of three body size groups (small, medium and large bees), the single most abundant bee species (Lasioglossum marginatum) and all species combined. The influence of the landscape context on bee abundance and species richness was assessed at five radii (250, 500, 750, 1000 and 1250 m) from the centre of each site. We found that the abundance within bee groups was influenced differently by different landscape parameters and land covers, whereas species richness was unaffected. Generally, smaller bees’ abundance was impacted by landscape parameters at smaller scales and larger bees at larger scales. The land cover that influenced bee abundance positively was olive grove, while phrygana, conifer forest, broad-leaved forest, cultivated land, rock, urban areas and sea had mostly negative or no impact. We stress the need for a holistic approach, including all land covers, when assessing the effects of landscape context on bee diversity and abundance in the Mediterranean.

Keywords

pollinatorsbody sizeflight rangeland coverremote sensing
Type
Research Paper
Information
Bulletin of Entomological Research , Volume 101 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 557 - 564
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biesmeijer, J.C., Roberts, S.P.M., Reemer, M., Ohlemüller, R., Edwards, M., Peeters, T., Schaffers, A.P., Potts, S.G., Kleukers, R., Thomas, C.D., Settele, J. & Kunin, W.E. (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313, 351–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blondel, J. & Aronson, J. (1999) Biology and Wildlife of the Mediterranean Region. Oxford and New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bommarco, R., Biesmeijer, J.C., Meyer, B., Potts, S.G., Poyry, J., Roberts, S.P.M., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Öckinger, E. (2010) Dispersal capacity and diet breadth modify the response of wild bees to habitat loss. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: Biological Sciences 277, 2075–2082.Google ScholarPubMed
Carré, G., Roche, P., Chifflet, R., Morison, N., Bommarco, R., Harrison-Cripps, J., Krewenka, K., Potts, S.G., Roberts, S.P.M., Rodet, G., Settele, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Szentgyörgyi, H., Tscheulin, T., Westphal, C., Woyciechowski, M. & Vaissière, B.E. (2009) Landscape context and habitat type as drivers of bee diversity in European annual crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 133, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaston, K.J. (1988) Patterns in local and regional dynamics of moth populations. Oikos 53, 49–57.Google Scholar
Gathmann, A. & Tscharntke, T. (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. Journal of Animal Ecology 71, 757–764.Google Scholar
Gonzales, A., Lawton, J.H., Gilbert, F.S., Blackburn, T.M. & Evans-Freke, I. (1998) Metapopulation dynamics, abundance, and distribution in a microecosystem. Science 281, 2045–2047.Google Scholar
Greenleaf, S.S., Williams, N.M., Winfree, R. & Kremen, C. (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153, 589–596.Google Scholar
Hanski, I. & Ovaskainen, O. (2000) The metapopulation capacity of a fragmented landscape. Nature 404, 755–758.Google Scholar
Herrmann, F., Westphal, C., Moritz, R.F.A. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2007) Genetic diversity and mass resources promote colony size and forager densities of a social bee (Bombus pascuorum) in agricultural landscapes. Molecular Ecology 16, 1167–1178.Google Scholar
Kizos, T., Dalaka, A. & Petanidou, T. (2010) Farmers’ attitudes and landscape change: Evidence from the abandonment of terraced cultivations on Lesvos, Greece. Agriculture and Human Values 27, 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, A.M., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Buchori, D. & Tscharntke, T. (2002) Effects of land-use intensity in tropical agroforestry systems on coffee flower-visiting and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conservation Biology 16, 1003–1014.Google Scholar
Klein, A.M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A. & Kremen, C. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 274, 303–313.Google ScholarPubMed
Kotiaho, J.S., Kaitala, V., Komonen, A. & Päivinen, J. (2005) Predicting the risk of extinction from shared ecological characteristics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 102, 1963–1967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M. & Thorp, R.W. (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 16812–16816.Google Scholar
Kremen, C., Williams, N.M., Aizen, M.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., LeBuhn, G., Minckley, R., Packer, L., Potts, S.G., Roulston, T., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Vazquez, D.P., Winfree, R., Adams, L., Crone, E.E., Greenleaf, S.S., Keitt, T.H., Klein, A.M., Regetz, J. & Ricketts, T.H. (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: A conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecology Letters 10, 299–314.Google Scholar
Le Féon, V., Schermann-Legionnet, A., Delettre, Y., Aviron, S., Billeter, R., Bugter, R., Hendrickx, F. & Burel, F. (2010) Intensification of agriculture, landscape composition and wild bee communities: A large scale study in four European countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 137, 143–150.Google Scholar
McGarigal, K., Cushman, S.A., Neel, M.C. & Ene, E. (2002) FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. Available online at http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html (accessed 5 March 2011).Google Scholar
Michener, C.D. (2000) The Bees of the World. Baltimore, MD, USA, Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Öckinger, E., Schweiger, O., Crist, T.O., Debinski, D.M., Krauss, J., Kuussaari, M., Petersen, J.D., Poyry, J., Settele, J., Summerville, K.S. & Bommarco, R. (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: a cross-continental synthesis. Ecology Letters 13, 969–979.Google Scholar
Öckinger, E. & Smith, H.G. (2007) Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology 44, 50–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, C. & Raw, A. (1991) Bees of the World. London, UK, Blanford.Google Scholar
Petanidou, T. & Lamborn, E. (2005) A land for flowers and bees: Studying pollination ecology in Mediterranean communities. Plant Biosystems 139, 279–294.Google Scholar
Potts, S.G., Vulliamy, B., Roberts, S., O'Toole, C., Dafni, A., Ne'Eman, G. & Willmer, P. (2005) Role of nesting resources in organising diverse bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape. Ecological Entomology 30, 78–85.Google Scholar
Potts, S.G., Petanidou, T., Roberts, S., O'Toole, C., Hulbert, A. & Willmer, P. (2006) Plant-pollinator biodiversity and pollination services in a complex Mediterranean landscape. Biological Conservation 129, 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O. & Kunin, W.E. (2010a) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25, 345–353.Google Scholar
Potts, S.G., Roberts, S.P.M., Dean, R., Marris, G., Brown, M.A., Jones, R., Neumann, P. & Settele, J. (2010b) Declines of managed honey bees and beekeepers in Europe. Journal of Apicultural Research 49, 15–22.Google Scholar
Proctor, M., Yeo, P. & Lack, A. (1996) The Natural History of Pollination. London, UK, Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Ricketts, T.H. (2001) The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. American Naturalist 158, 87–99.Google Scholar
Roubik, T.H. (2000) Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops. Conservation Biology 14, 1234–1244.Google Scholar
Roy, D.B., Quinn, R.M. & Gaston, K.J. (1998) Coincidence in the distribution of butterflies and their food plants. Ecography 21, 279–289.Google Scholar
Settele, J., Hammen, V., Hulme, P.E., Karlson, U., Klotz, S., Kotarac, M., Kunin, W.E., Marion, G., O'Connor, M., Petanidou, T., Peterson, K., Potts, S.G., Pritchard, H., Pysek, P., Rounsevell, M., Spangenberg, J., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Sykes, M., Vighi, M., Zobel, M. & Kühn, I. (2005) ALARM – Assessing LArge-scale environmental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods. GAIA – Ecological Perspectives in Science, Humanities, and Economics 14, 69–72.Google Scholar
Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2003) Importance of habitat area and landscape context for species richness of bees and wasps in fragmented orchard meadows. Conservation Biology 17, 1036–1044.Google Scholar
Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83, 1421–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swihart, R.K., Gehring, T.M., Kolozsvary, M.B. & Nupp, T.E. (2003) Responses of ‘resistant’ vertebrates to habitat loss and fragmentation: the importance of niche breadth and range boundaries. Diversity and Distributions 9, 1–18.Google Scholar
Van Nieuwstadt, M.G.L. & Iraheta, C.E.R. (1996) Relation between size and foraging range in stingless bees (Apidae, Meliponinae). Apidologie 27, 219–228.Google Scholar
Westphal, C., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecology Letters 6, 961–965.Google Scholar
Westphal, C., Bommarco, R., Carré, G., Lamborn, E., Morison, N., Petanidou, T., Potts, S.G., Roberts, S.P.M., Szentgyörgyi, H., Tscheulin, T., Vaissière, B.E., Woyciechowski, M., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kunin, W.E., Settele, J. & Steffan-Dewenter, I. (2008) Measuring bee biodiversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monographs 78, 653–671.Google Scholar
Westrich, P. (1989) Die Wildbienen Baden-Wuerttembergs, Spezieller Teil: Die Gattungen und Arten. Stuttgart, Germany, Verlag Eugen Ulmer.Google Scholar
Westrich, P. (1996). Habitat requirements of central European bees and the problems of partial habitats, pp. 1–16 in Matheson, A., Buchmann, S.L., O'Toole, C., Westrich, P. & Williams, I.H. (Eds) The Conservation of Bees. London, UK, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Winfree, R., Aguilar, R., Vazquez, D.P., LeBuhn, G. & Aizen, M.A. (2009) A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 90, 2068–2076.Google Scholar