Contrasting responses of bee communities to coffee flowering at different spatial scales

By D. Veddeler, Alexandra-Maria Klein, T. Tscharntke. 2006

119 citations recorded by the source corpus.

While investigating biodiversity patterns on different spatial scales, ecological processes determining these patterns have been rarely analysed. Flower visitation by bees is an important ecological process that is related to floral resource availability. However, little is known about whether responses of bee communities to floral resource availability change at different spatial scales. We studied density and species richness of flower-visiting bees in relation to floral resource availability, provided by coffee, in traditional agroforestry systems on a field, shrub, and branch scale. On a field scale, mean bee density per shrub increased with decreasing proportion of flowering coffee shrubs per site, showing a dilution effect. Conversely, on shrub and branch scales bee density per shrub, or shrub part, increased with increasing number of inflorescences, showing a concentration effect. Additionally, bee density per shrub was higher on those that were only partly, rather than totally surrounded by other flowering coffee shrubs. Species richness of flower-visiting bees was positively affected by high resource availability on a shrub and a branch scale, expressed by a high number of inflorescences, but at the field scale the proportion of flowering shrubs per site did not have any effect on species richness. Our results show contrasting responses of the community of flower-visiting bees to floral resource availability, depending on the spatial scale considered. We conclude that patterns of flower-visiting bee communities of only one spatial scale can not be generalized, since the number of pollinators may be limited on a field scale, but not on smaller scales.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/428f7909be7847f5a0a8a2bc55ef07ea7ab81c97

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

  1. T. Tscharntke
  2. Alexandra-Maria Klein
  3. I. Steffan‐Dewenter
  4. C. Kremen
  5. J. Tylianakis
  6. D. Kleijn
  7. Carsten F. Dormann
  8. P. Batáry

In Insect Science

  1. T. Tscharntke
  2. Alexandra-Maria Klein
  3. C. Kremen
  4. I. Steffan‐Dewenter
  5. J. Tylianakis
  6. D. Kleijn
  7. Carsten F. Dormann
  8. A. Holzschuh

In Plant Science

  1. T. Tscharntke
  2. Alexandra-Maria Klein
  3. C. Kremen
  4. I. Steffan‐Dewenter
  5. J. Tylianakis
  6. Carsten F. Dormann
  7. A. Holzschuh
  8. D. Kleijn

Citations in the corpus