Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size

By Sarah S. Greenleaf, N. Williams, R. Winfree, C. Kremen. Oecologia, 2007

1,697 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Insect Science, Plant Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1b82b4359ef45d64305948b30b02b51107995dff

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Insect Science

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmland (2011, background): “Foraging ranges of bees are positively related to body size (Greenleaf et al., 2007).”
Short-term responses of native bees to livestock and implications for managing ecosystem services in grasslands (2012, background): “…et al. 2008). v www.esajournals.org 10 October 2012 v Volume 3(10) v Article 88 Because bumble bees can forage longer distances than smaller bees (Greenleaf et al. 2007) and are able to fly further to access better quality floral resources (Dramstad 1996), the decreased abundance and richness…”
Wild pollinator communities are negatively affected by invasion of alien goldenrods in grassland landscapes (2009, background): “All sites were 1268 ± 45 m (mean ± SE, range: 1020–1722 m) apart which was larger than the expected foraging distances of most species belonging to the investigated groups (e.g. Nowicki et al., 2005; Greenleaf et al., 2007).”
EDITOR'S CHOICE: Small‐scale restoration in intensive agricultural landscapes supports more specialized and less mobile pollinator species (2015, methodology): “We used intertegular distance for bees and wing length for flies as proxies for mobility (Greenleaf et al. 2007; Rotheray et al. 2014), measuring from one to five specimens under a dissecting microscope.”
Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances (2010, background): “Body size is correlated with foraging flight distance (Gathmann and Tscharntke, 2002; Greenleaf et al., 2007) and so would be expected to strongly influence the scale over which bees can access resources and their ability to recolonize disturbed sites.”
ECOLOGY OF ORGANISMS IN URBAN ENVIRONMENTS Urban drivers of plant-pollinator interactions (2015, background): “Bee body size, which is directly related to foraging range (Greenleaf et al. 2007), does not consistently respond to urban fragmentation, with some studies concluding that small-bodied bees are more sensitive (e.g. Cane et al. 2006) and other studies concluding that small-bodied bees respond…”
The winners and losers of land use intensification: pollinator community disassembly is non‐random and alters functional diversity (2014, positive): “…example, body size correlates with pollination efficiency (Larsen et al., 2005), foraging duration (Stone & Willmer, 1989; Stone, 1994), foraging distance in some bees (Greenleaf et al., 2007) and susceptibility to land use change (Larsen et al., 2005; Winfree et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2010).”
Pollination services for apple are dependent on diverse wild bee communities (2016, background): “medium, large, or extra-large were assigned based on inter-tegular distance (ITD) measurements made on representative male and female specimens collected at our farms over a three year period (Greenleaf et al., 2007; Hoehn et al., 2008).”
Nesting habitat of ground‐nesting bees: a review (2020, background): “, 1994; Gathmann & Tscharntke, 2002), with larger bees able to fly disproportionately further than smaller ones (Greenleaf et al., 2007).”
Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. (2011, background): “…by Bombus spp. decreased with isolation from natural areas, and this decline was weaker than that observed for flower-visitation by all insects (excluding A. mellifera), which include species of smaller size and flight capacity (Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002; Greenleaf et al. 2007; Klein et al. 2008).”
Protecting an ecosystem service: approaches to understanding and mitigating threats to wild insect pollinators (2016, background): “Wild insect pollinators 975 also differ in their mobility and foraging strategies (Greenleaf et al., 2007) and consequently 976 45 | P a g e the amount and spatial configuration of engineered habitats should determine their 977 effectiveness (Brosi et al., 2008).”
An examination of synchrony between insect emergence and flowering in Rocky Mountain meadows (2011, background): “…of a 100 m radius is somewhat arbitrary, and very likely underestimates resources available to newly emerged insects: typical natal dispersal distances are unknown, but Osmia-sized solitary bees can fly distances of several hundred meters (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002, Greenleaf et al. 2007).”
Trait matching of flower visitors and crops predicts fruit set better than trait diversity (2015, background): “Body size classes for bees were as follows: tiny (<1 5 mm ITD, typical foraging distance <50 m), small (1 5–2 0 mm ITD, typical foraging distance 50–300 m), medium (2–3 3 mm ITD, typical foraging distance 300–1100 m) and large (>3 3 mm ITD, typical foraging distance >1100 m) (Greenleaf et al. 2007).”
Abundance and diversity of wild bees along gradients of heavy metal pollution (2012, background): “Szentgyörgyi et al. (2011) showed that bumblebee diversity did not correlate with heavy metals in the soil, which may be a consequence of their ability to fly long distances (1–2 km; Greenleaf et al. 2007).”