Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground- versus above-ground nesting bees

1. Agricultural intensification and abandonment of traditional agricultural practices are main drivers of current insect declines. The resulting loss of feeding and nesting opportunities has led to a decrease in pollinator populations like wild bees. While the restoration of floral resources has bee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Wersebeckmann, Vera, Warzecha, Daniela, Entling, Martin H., Ilona, Leyer
Format: Dataset
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Wersebeckmann, Vera
Warzecha, Daniela
Entling, Martin H.
Ilona, Leyer
description 1. Agricultural intensification and abandonment of traditional agricultural practices are main drivers of current insect declines. The resulting loss of feeding and nesting opportunities has led to a decrease in pollinator populations like wild bees. While the restoration of floral resources has been widely implemented in wild bee conservation, nesting resources, particularly for ground-nesting species, are barely considered. 2. We assessed wild bee diversity in a wine-growing area in Germany in 15 study sites along a soil gradient and evaluated whether wild bees were distinctly affected by different vineyard types (vertically oriented, terraced, abandoned), local conditions (e.g. shrub and flower cover), and landscape factors in response to divergent nesting needs (above-ground vs. ground-nesting). 3. We found that wild bees responded more strongly to the availability of nesting sites than to flower resources. While ground-nesting bees were determined by the suitability of soil aspects for nesting irrespective of vineyard management types, above-ground nesting bees profited from vineyard abandonment and shrub encroachment in vineyard fallows and were enhanced by the availability of seminatural habitats (SNH) in the surrounding landscape. In contrast, floral resource availability in managed vineyards had only marginal effects on above-ground-nesting bees. 4. Synthesis and applications:  Life history traits like nesting strategies have long been neglected in wild bee conservation approaches, but proved to be highly relevant, especially for ground-nesting bees. For this, agri-environmental schemes can no longer solely focus on the restoration of floral resources, but should equally address nesting resources. Therefore, management efforts for enhancing wild bees in vineyard landscapes should aim at complementing nesting resources for ground-nesting bees (e.g. exposed bare ground patches) and above-ground-nesting bees (e.g. woody elements, hedges) in addition to floral resources. At the landscape level, conserving heterogeneous landscapes at a mixture of actively managed vineyards and semi-natural and woody elements is significant to maintain diverse bee communities.
doi_str_mv 10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpq0
format Dataset
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>datacite_PQ8</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_h44j0zpq0</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>10_5061_dryad_h44j0zpq0</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_h44j0zpq03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqVjjEOwjAUQ7MwIGBm_QegbSoKF6hAHIA9-k1-IKgkIUkrldNTKGJnsSXLth5j65LnO74vCxUGVPm1qm786R98ztra2RQwJmMvQFqTTBGcht5YGjAoSIOnDURnWkCroB0lSvQEGmVyYSxbuATXWZVBTyF2EbBxPWVTCJam74YoLtlMYxtp9fUFK46Hc33KFCaUJpHwwdwxDKLk4s0rPrzix7v9f_EC1xtUsA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>dataset</recordtype></control><display><type>dataset</type><title>Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground- versus above-ground nesting bees</title><source>DataCite</source><creator>Wersebeckmann, Vera ; Warzecha, Daniela ; Entling, Martin H. ; Ilona, Leyer</creator><creatorcontrib>Wersebeckmann, Vera ; Warzecha, Daniela ; Entling, Martin H. ; Ilona, Leyer</creatorcontrib><description>1. Agricultural intensification and abandonment of traditional agricultural practices are main drivers of current insect declines. The resulting loss of feeding and nesting opportunities has led to a decrease in pollinator populations like wild bees. While the restoration of floral resources has been widely implemented in wild bee conservation, nesting resources, particularly for ground-nesting species, are barely considered. 2. We assessed wild bee diversity in a wine-growing area in Germany in 15 study sites along a soil gradient and evaluated whether wild bees were distinctly affected by different vineyard types (vertically oriented, terraced, abandoned), local conditions (e.g. shrub and flower cover), and landscape factors in response to divergent nesting needs (above-ground vs. ground-nesting). 3. We found that wild bees responded more strongly to the availability of nesting sites than to flower resources. While ground-nesting bees were determined by the suitability of soil aspects for nesting irrespective of vineyard management types, above-ground nesting bees profited from vineyard abandonment and shrub encroachment in vineyard fallows and were enhanced by the availability of seminatural habitats (SNH) in the surrounding landscape. In contrast, floral resource availability in managed vineyards had only marginal effects on above-ground-nesting bees. 4. Synthesis and applications:  Life history traits like nesting strategies have long been neglected in wild bee conservation approaches, but proved to be highly relevant, especially for ground-nesting bees. For this, agri-environmental schemes can no longer solely focus on the restoration of floral resources, but should equally address nesting resources. Therefore, management efforts for enhancing wild bees in vineyard landscapes should aim at complementing nesting resources for ground-nesting bees (e.g. exposed bare ground patches) and above-ground-nesting bees (e.g. woody elements, hedges) in addition to floral resources. At the landscape level, conserving heterogeneous landscapes at a mixture of actively managed vineyards and semi-natural and woody elements is significant to maintain diverse bee communities.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpq0</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dryad</publisher><subject>agri-environmental schemes ; Biodiversity ; conservation ecology ; conservation management ; FOS: Agricultural sciences ; management practices ; nesting behavior ; traits ; wild bee</subject><creationdate>2022</creationdate><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0002-1729-4880</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>780,1892</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://commons.datacite.org/doi.org/10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpq0$$EView_record_in_DataCite.org$$FView_record_in_$$GDataCite.org$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wersebeckmann, Vera</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warzecha, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entling, Martin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilona, Leyer</creatorcontrib><title>Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground- versus above-ground nesting bees</title><description>1. Agricultural intensification and abandonment of traditional agricultural practices are main drivers of current insect declines. The resulting loss of feeding and nesting opportunities has led to a decrease in pollinator populations like wild bees. While the restoration of floral resources has been widely implemented in wild bee conservation, nesting resources, particularly for ground-nesting species, are barely considered. 2. We assessed wild bee diversity in a wine-growing area in Germany in 15 study sites along a soil gradient and evaluated whether wild bees were distinctly affected by different vineyard types (vertically oriented, terraced, abandoned), local conditions (e.g. shrub and flower cover), and landscape factors in response to divergent nesting needs (above-ground vs. ground-nesting). 3. We found that wild bees responded more strongly to the availability of nesting sites than to flower resources. While ground-nesting bees were determined by the suitability of soil aspects for nesting irrespective of vineyard management types, above-ground nesting bees profited from vineyard abandonment and shrub encroachment in vineyard fallows and were enhanced by the availability of seminatural habitats (SNH) in the surrounding landscape. In contrast, floral resource availability in managed vineyards had only marginal effects on above-ground-nesting bees. 4. Synthesis and applications:  Life history traits like nesting strategies have long been neglected in wild bee conservation approaches, but proved to be highly relevant, especially for ground-nesting bees. For this, agri-environmental schemes can no longer solely focus on the restoration of floral resources, but should equally address nesting resources. Therefore, management efforts for enhancing wild bees in vineyard landscapes should aim at complementing nesting resources for ground-nesting bees (e.g. exposed bare ground patches) and above-ground-nesting bees (e.g. woody elements, hedges) in addition to floral resources. At the landscape level, conserving heterogeneous landscapes at a mixture of actively managed vineyards and semi-natural and woody elements is significant to maintain diverse bee communities.</description><subject>agri-environmental schemes</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>conservation ecology</subject><subject>conservation management</subject><subject>FOS: Agricultural sciences</subject><subject>management practices</subject><subject>nesting behavior</subject><subject>traits</subject><subject>wild bee</subject><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>dataset</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>dataset</recordtype><sourceid>PQ8</sourceid><recordid>eNqVjjEOwjAUQ7MwIGBm_QegbSoKF6hAHIA9-k1-IKgkIUkrldNTKGJnsSXLth5j65LnO74vCxUGVPm1qm786R98ztra2RQwJmMvQFqTTBGcht5YGjAoSIOnDURnWkCroB0lSvQEGmVyYSxbuATXWZVBTyF2EbBxPWVTCJam74YoLtlMYxtp9fUFK46Hc33KFCaUJpHwwdwxDKLk4s0rPrzix7v9f_EC1xtUsA</recordid><startdate>20221222</startdate><enddate>20221222</enddate><creator>Wersebeckmann, Vera</creator><creator>Warzecha, Daniela</creator><creator>Entling, Martin H.</creator><creator>Ilona, Leyer</creator><general>Dryad</general><scope>DYCCY</scope><scope>PQ8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1729-4880</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221222</creationdate><title>Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground- versus above-ground nesting bees</title><author>Wersebeckmann, Vera ; Warzecha, Daniela ; Entling, Martin H. ; Ilona, Leyer</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_h44j0zpq03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>datasets</rsrctype><prefilter>datasets</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>agri-environmental schemes</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>conservation ecology</topic><topic>conservation management</topic><topic>FOS: Agricultural sciences</topic><topic>management practices</topic><topic>nesting behavior</topic><topic>traits</topic><topic>wild bee</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wersebeckmann, Vera</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warzecha, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Entling, Martin H.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ilona, Leyer</creatorcontrib><collection>DataCite (Open Access)</collection><collection>DataCite</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wersebeckmann, Vera</au><au>Warzecha, Daniela</au><au>Entling, Martin H.</au><au>Ilona, Leyer</au><format>book</format><genre>unknown</genre><ristype>DATA</ristype><title>Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground- versus above-ground nesting bees</title><date>2022-12-22</date><risdate>2022</risdate><abstract>1. Agricultural intensification and abandonment of traditional agricultural practices are main drivers of current insect declines. The resulting loss of feeding and nesting opportunities has led to a decrease in pollinator populations like wild bees. While the restoration of floral resources has been widely implemented in wild bee conservation, nesting resources, particularly for ground-nesting species, are barely considered. 2. We assessed wild bee diversity in a wine-growing area in Germany in 15 study sites along a soil gradient and evaluated whether wild bees were distinctly affected by different vineyard types (vertically oriented, terraced, abandoned), local conditions (e.g. shrub and flower cover), and landscape factors in response to divergent nesting needs (above-ground vs. ground-nesting). 3. We found that wild bees responded more strongly to the availability of nesting sites than to flower resources. While ground-nesting bees were determined by the suitability of soil aspects for nesting irrespective of vineyard management types, above-ground nesting bees profited from vineyard abandonment and shrub encroachment in vineyard fallows and were enhanced by the availability of seminatural habitats (SNH) in the surrounding landscape. In contrast, floral resource availability in managed vineyards had only marginal effects on above-ground-nesting bees. 4. Synthesis and applications:  Life history traits like nesting strategies have long been neglected in wild bee conservation approaches, but proved to be highly relevant, especially for ground-nesting bees. For this, agri-environmental schemes can no longer solely focus on the restoration of floral resources, but should equally address nesting resources. Therefore, management efforts for enhancing wild bees in vineyard landscapes should aim at complementing nesting resources for ground-nesting bees (e.g. exposed bare ground patches) and above-ground-nesting bees (e.g. woody elements, hedges) in addition to floral resources. At the landscape level, conserving heterogeneous landscapes at a mixture of actively managed vineyards and semi-natural and woody elements is significant to maintain diverse bee communities.</abstract><pub>Dryad</pub><doi>10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpq0</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1729-4880</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier DOI: 10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpq0
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_datacite_primary_10_5061_dryad_h44j0zpq0
source DataCite
subjects agri-environmental schemes
Biodiversity
conservation ecology
conservation management
FOS: Agricultural sciences
management practices
nesting behavior
traits
wild bee
title Contrasting effects of vineyard type, soil and landscape factors on ground- versus above-ground nesting bees
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T02%3A47%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-datacite_PQ8&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=unknown&rft.au=Wersebeckmann,%20Vera&rft.date=2022-12-22&rft_id=info:doi/10.5061/dryad.h44j0zpq0&rft_dat=%3Cdatacite_PQ8%3E10_5061_dryad_h44j0zpq0%3C/datacite_PQ8%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true