Foraging trip duration and density of megachilid bees, eumenid wasps and pompilid wasps in tropical agroforestry systems

By Alexandra-Maria Klein, I. Steffan‐Dewenter, T. Tscharntke. 2004

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Summary 1. Most animals have to bridge some distances in space and time to provide all resources necessary for survival. Little is known about how the local and regional management of tropical agroforestry systems, differing in the availability of food resources and suitable nesting sites, determine foraging trip duration and density of bees and wasps (Hymenoptera Aculeata). 2. In this study, foraging trip duration and brood-cell density (in trap nests exposed for a 15-month period) were analysed for three species, which represent three guilds in 24 agroforestry systems in Central Sulawesi (Indonesia): the pollinator Heriades sp. aff. fulvescens (Apidae), the cacao caterpillar-hunting predator Rhynchium haemorrhoidale umeroatrum (Eumenidae) and the spider-hunting predator Auplopus levicarinatus (Pompilidae). The agroforestry systems were characterized by plant species richness, blossom cover of herbs, light intensity and distance from the nearest natural forest. 3. The correlation of foraging time to bee and wasp density showed the relative importance of food and nest-site availability for the pollinator and the spider-hunting predator, because both parameters are correlated with light intensity in the agroforestry systems. In contrast, foraging time and nest density of the eumenid predator were not correlated because of the distance between high quantities of food resources (in sites with dense cacao plants) and nesting sites (in adjacent natural forests). 4. The eumenid response to local and regional agroforestry management illustrates that species may survive only in landscapes that permit access to a multiple set of resources. Accordingly, habitat evaluations using only foraging time may lead to wrong conclusions, as key drivers of population dynamics may not be inside but outside the local systems, emphasizing the need for a landscape approach.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/45655655f78f96abc88df2a72a842837221d9644

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 Genetics

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

BIODIVERSITY INDICATOR GROUPS OF TROPICAL LAND‐USE SYSTEMS: COMPARING PLANTS, BIRDS, AND INSECTS (2004, background): “It can be expected that species richness of all studied groups may further decline with increasing isolation from remaining areas of old-grown forest (as shown for bees and wasps in the study area, Klein et al. 2003, 2004).”
Contrasting responses of bee communities to coffee flowering at different spatial scales (2006, background): “In particular, floral resource availability, the quantity of flowers but also floral reward structure (nectar and pollen) affects the foraging behaviour of flower visitors (Stone 1994, Steffan-Dewenter and Tscharntke 2000, Klein et al. 2004, Potts et al. 2004).”
Spatial scale of observation affects α, β and γ diversity of cavity‐nesting bees and wasps across a tropical land‐use gradient (2006, background): “Moreover, many predacious or parasitic trap-nesting species may act as biological control agents (Klein et al., 2004).”
Edge effects on flower-visiting insects in grapefruit plantations bordering premontane subtropical forest. (2005, background): “Distances between plantations range from 5 to 50 km, which exceeded the expected flight distances of most foraging bees and other invertebrate flower-visiting taxa (Osborne et al . 1999; Walther-Hellwig & Frankl 2000; Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002; Steffan-Dewenter & Kuhn 2003; Klein, Steffan-Dewenter”
What do we know about the effects of landscape changes on plant–pollinator interaction networks? (2013, unknown): “…complexity usually lead to the reduction of ﬂoral resources and nesting areas in the remaining available habitat patches, impairing population survival and reducing their overall diversity (Potts et al., 2003; Klein et al., 2004; Brosi et al., 2008; Jha and Vandermeer, 2009; Goulson et al., 2010).”
Landscape composition and configuration differently affect trap-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists (2014, background): “Hosts in this system are solitary bees, serving as pollinators of wild plants and insect-pollinated crops and predatory wasps that fulfil a crucial role as predators of pest insects (Klein et al., 2004).”
Nearby rainforest promotes coffee pollination by increasing spatio-temporal stability in bee species richness (2009, background): “Some bee species may strongly depend on resources that are only available in natural rainforests like cavity-nesting opportunities of tall or dead trees or nesting materials like resin of rainforest trees (Klein et al., 2004).”