Landscape composition and configuration differently affect trap-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists

By Juliane Steckel, C. Westphal, M. Peters, Michaela Bellach, Christoph Rothenwoehrer, Stefan Erasmi, C. Scherber, T. Tscharntke, I. Steffan‐Dewenter. 2014

138 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Intensification of agriculture reduces heterogeneity at local and landscape levels and thereby impact biodiversity and ecosystem processes. We studied a host-antagonist system of cavity-nesting bees, wasps and their antagonists and hypothesised that hosts and antagonists show different responses to local land-use intensity, the diversity of landscape in terms of composition and the spatial structure of landscape in terms of configuration. In a highly replicated study, we established nesting resources on 95 grasslands in three geographic regions across Germany and measured species richness and abundance of hosts (bees and wasps) and their antagonists, and rates of parasitism. For each site, we quantified local land-use intensity as well as landscape heterogeneity in terms of composition and configuration at spatial scales ranging from 250 m to 2000 m. Increasing landscape heterogeneity enhanced species richness, abundance and parasitism rate, whereas local land-use intensity only marginally negatively affected total abundance. Bee and wasp abundance as well as wasp species richness were enhanced by landscape composition at 250 m, whereas their antagonists were enhanced by landscape configuration at 1500 m. In conclusion, landscape composition and configuration affect trophic levels differently and are more relevant than local land-use intensity. Solitary bees and wasps, which offer important pollination and pest control services, could be supported by enhancing landscape diversity, while their antagonists could benefit from measures that promote landscape connectivity. Hence, scale-dependent and trophic group specific conservation management schemes are required, that address different components of landscape heterogeneity to enhance functional diversity and trophic interactions in agricultural landscapes.

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

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/51f52174ead5eb9f1ffeec58342f66dae9c60b25

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

Trap nests for bees and wasps to analyse trophic interactions in changing environments—A systematic overview and user guide (2018, background): “Differing flower availability also explains why bees usually numerically dominate trap- nesting communities in open landscapes (e.g., Osorio et al., 2015; Steckel et al., 2014), while in closed forests, wasps are more abundant (e.g., Staab et al., 2016; Stangler, Hanson, & Steffan- Dewenter, 2015).”
Landscape impacts on pollinator communities in temperate systems: evidence and knowledge gaps (2017, unknown): “…managed and wild pollinators within countries, including Germany (Meyer, Jauker & Steﬀan-Dewenter 2009; Hopfenmueller, Steﬀan-Dewenter & Holzschuh 2014; Steckel et al. 2014), Sweden (Andersson et al. 2013; Jonsson et al. 2015) and the UK (Baldock et al. 2015; Senapathi et al. 2015b) or regional…”
Relationships between wild bees, hoverflies and pollination success in apple orchards with different landscape contexts (2016, background): “The impact of landscape structure varies between pollinator groups according to their mobility and foraging behaviour (Steffan-Dewenter et al., 2002; Steckel et al., 2014).”
Cavity-nest boxes for solitary bees: a century of design and research (2017, background): “The degree of manipulation and flexibility in studies using nest boxes allows for simple, low-cost and data-rich sampling to address questions in community ecology (Steffan-Dewenter 2002; Sheffield et al. 2008a; Westphal et al. 2008; Schüepp et al. 2011; Steckel et al. 2014).”
Semi‐natural habitats mitigate the effects of temperature rise on wild bees (2017, background): “In any case, weak or no effect of landscape configuration on bees has been found in several studies testing different scales (e.g. Kennedy et al. 2013; Steckel et al. 2014).”