Abstract
Most terrestrial ecosystems are shaped by the pollination service provided by insects, foremost bees. As bees are also important pollinators of crop plants, they are key for both the pollination of wild plants and for agricultural production. Meadows and semi-natural habitats (SNHs) are important habitats for bees. However, there is limited knowledge on how land-use intensity of meadows affects wild bees and managed Western honey bees. Further, it is unknown whether SNHs adjacent to meadows affect bees in meadows. Here, we examined in a landscape dominated by grasslands, the effects of land-use intensity (nitrogen input, grazing intensity, mowing frequency), flower availability and adjacent SNHs on bee communities in meadows. We recorded more than 5000 individuals of 87 species of bees and found no effect of land-use intensity on wild and honey bees. Flowering plant species richness had a positive effect on bee species richness in one study year. Though we recorded more bee species in SNHs than meadows, overall and specifically in ecologically specialized bee species (e.g. parasitic bees, oligoleges), the availability of adjacent SNHs did not affect bee abundance and richness in meadows. We discuss why land-use intensity and SNHs adjacent to meadows did not affect bees in meadows and conclude that SNHs are important in sustaining functionally diverse bee communities in landscapes dominated by grasslands.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Most angiosperms are pollinated by insects (Ollerton et al. 2011), and insect pollination is a main factor shaping terrestrial ecosystems. Given that insects also pollinate various crop plants (Klein et al. 2007), insect pollination additionally has an enormous economic value, estimated to €153 billion per year (Gallai et al. 2009). Bees are the most dominant pollinators of both crop (Klein et al. 2007) and non-crop (Ollerton 2017) plants. There is evidence of regional mass losses in managed Apis mellifera (Western honey bee) and declines in wild bee abundance and species richness (Potts et al. 2010), with negative implications for agricultural production (Bartomeus et al. 2014; Blaauw and Isaacs 2014; Stein et al. 2017) and the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems (Biesmeijer et al. 2006).
Bees need appropriate nesting sites and host plants in close proximity (Gathmann and Tscharntke 2002; Kreyer et al. 2004; Zurbuchen and Müller 2012). In the temperate zone, semi-natural habitats (SNH) and agricultural areas (Mandelik et al. 2012; Westrich 2018; Zurbuchen and Müller 2012) fulfilled these criteria and harboured a high number of species until mid of the twentieth century. Traditional extensive and manifold land use by subsistence farmers produced a small-scale and diverse landscape over most countries of Central Europe, offering suitable habitats with continuous flower supply and nesting sites for many bee species. For more than 100 years, but increasingly in the last 50 years, specialization, intensification and industrialisation of agriculture have taken place (Dallimer et al. 2009). As a result, field sizes and the amounts of applied agrochemicals (e.g. pesticides, inorganic fertiliser) have increased. Additionally, semi-natural habitats such as field margins, waysides, hedgerows and structured forest edges have been destroyed to a large extent, as machines grew bigger and land-use diversity and crop diversity declined (D’Aquino et al. 2002; Matson et al. 1997). This finally resulted in parallel declines of plants (Wesche et al. 2012) and bee species richness and abundance (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Le Féon et al. 2010; Zattara and Aizen 2021).
Agricultural intensification not only affected arable land but also grassland, an important habitat of bees (Westrich 2018). The intensified management of grassland was mostly associated with the introduction of silage production or artificial hay drying and took place in many areas that were not suitable for intensive crop production (Oenema et al. 2014). In grassland areas of Central Europe, intensification resulted in an increase in mowing frequency, from mostly two cuttings per year to four to six or even more cuttings, and an increase in nitrogen fertilisation (Isselstein et al. 2005), both mainly with the aim to harvest protein-rich young grass for maximizing milk production (Kuoppala et al. 2008). Also, wet soils were drained, and stocking rates were increased (Isselstein et al. 2005). This intensification in grassland management shifted species-rich grassland to highly productive meadows and pastures (Isselstein et al. 2005), accompanied by large losses in plant species richness (Isselstein et al. 2005; Wesche et al. 2012). Interestingly, losses were especially evident in insect-pollinated herbs (Wesche et al. 2012), many of which are used as food sources by bees.
Intensification in grassland management can be expected to also affect bee communities (especially flower specialists, i.e. oligoleges; Westrich 2018). Indeed, bee species richness was shown to be higher in less intensively managed meadows (Meyer et al. 2017; Weiner et al. 2011), though such effects were sometimes only evident at regional and not at site-specific scales (Ekroos et al. 2020; van Klink et al. 2019), and only for some but not other bee groups (Kimoto et al. 2012). Similarly, bee abundance and alpha diversity were sometimes shown to be independent of land-use intensity (Weiner et al. 2011), but other studies found them to be affected by management intensity (Kimoto et al. 2012). Some of these variations in the research outcomes might be due to methodological differences among the studies, such as whether to include the Western honey bee (Weiner et al. 2011), which has other ecological requirements than wild bees (Sørensen et al. 2020), or to exclude it (Ekroos et al. 2020; Kimoto et al. 2012). Another reason may be that the different studies considered different management factors (e.g. nitrogen input by Ekroos et al. 2020; grazing intensity by Kimoto et al. 2012). Mowing frequency, grazing intensity and nitrogen input are the most important management factors in grasslands (Blüthgen et al. 2012); however, the combined effects of these factors on bees (e.g. community composition) in grasslands are not well understood (Allan et al. 2014; De Palma et al. 2015).
Though it is known (based on studies in arable crops) that SNHs have positive effects on bee abundance and diversity (e.g. Millard et al. 2021; Raderschall et al. 2021; Aguilera et al. 2020), there is limited knowledge about the effect of adjacent SNHs on bees in grasslands at local scale (Papanikolaou et al. 2017). Though grasslands provide, at least temporarily, food sources for bees (e.g. in meadows before moving events), bees might rely on semi-natural habitats (SNHs) for foraging, especially after mowing and grazing when no or only a small number of plant species with flowers are available on meadows and pastures, respectively. Also, given that highly productive grasslands do typically not provide nesting sites for both below and above-ground nesting bees (Westrich 2018), including parasitic species, bees foraging in grasslands might depend on SNHs for nesting.
Here, we tested in a landscape dominated by grasslands the effects of land-use intensity, flower supply and flower species richness, as well as availability of SNHs on abundance, species richness and composition of bee communities in grasslands, and whether wild and honey bees respond differently to these factors. We hypothesize that (i) an increase in land-use intensity has a negative impact on bee abundance and species richness, while (ii) flower density, flower species richness and adjacent semi-natural habitats have a positive influence on bee abundance and species richness in grasslands; (iii) different bee species (wild bees, honey bee) respond differently to management intensity and flower supply; thus, management intensity also affects bee community composition, and (iv) grasslands harbour only a subset of the species found at semi-natural habitats.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Study sites
The study was conducted in the alpine foothills of Austria, the Mondseerland in Upper Austria, in 2017 and 2018. In this region, precipitation is between 1100 and 1600 mm per year (DORIS 2023; Pils 1994), clayey soils are widespread (BFW 2019), and with very few exceptions, meadows have been drained several decades ago. In the last 50 years, mixed production systems of arable fields (cereals) and grasslands were replaced by increasingly intensive grassland farming. We sampled 23 meadows, of which six (Online Resource I) had an adjacent semi-natural habitat (SNH), whereas the others were embedded in other meadows. The SNHs were three sun-exposed shrubby forest edges, a sparsely overgrown site with about 60% plant coverage, a ruderal area and an unpaved road with areas free of vegetation, thus, habitats known to be of high value (as foraging and/or nesting sites) to bees (Westrich 2018). The six SNHs and their adjacent meadows were sampled only in 2018. From the remaining 17 meadows, six were sampled in both years and eleven were sampled only in 2017 (Online Resource I).
3 Sampling and identification of bees
Each meadow/SNH was visited three times per year, the meadows before mowing events, from April to September. The SNHs were sampled on the same days as the adjacent meadows. The protocol of sampling varied among years and/or habitat types (Online Resource II). In 2017, bees were sampled (independent of the size of the meadow) at each survey for 2 h following a targeted netting approach. In 2018, bees were collected in the meadows along transects of a length of 90 m, for 1 h per survey. Bees within 1.5 m to each side of a transect were considered. In meadows with adjacent SNH, bees were not surveyed in a 30-m-wide buffer zone between the meadow and SNH, and the transects were placed at a 90° angle to the border of the meadows, from the SNHs in the direction of the centres of the meadows. In meadows without SNH, a similar buffer zone to neighbouring grasslands was established, also to avoid possible border effects. Similar to the meadows in 2018, the SNHs were also sampled for 1 h. Given that most of the SNHs had a size of just a few square meters to 30 m2, it was not possible to fit a transect of 90 m; thus, the SNHs were sampled for 1 h per survey by the targeted netting approach.
Independent of the approach used, bees were collected via sweep netting or identified to species level in the field (primarily Bombus spp and Apis mellifera). Collected bees were identified in the lab using various identification keys (Amiet 1996; Amiet et al. 1999, 2001a, b, 2007, 2010; Bogusch and Straka 2012; Ebmer 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973; Gokcezade et al. 2015; Mauss 1987; Scheuchl 1995, 2006; Schmid-Egger and Scheuchl 1997; Straka and Bogusch 2011). Information on the biology and ecology of bees (see Results) is based on Scheuchl and Willner (2016) and Westrich (2018).
4 Plant diversity measure
In addition to the bee surveys, we recorded the flowering of non-grass plant species and estimated flower coverage in the meadows three times per year, at the same time as the bee surveys. In 2017, these data were recorded as a measure for a whole meadow, and in 2018, for the sampled transects only. Plant species were determined using established determination literature (Schmeil and Fitschen 2011).
5 Calculation of land use intensity index
For all 23 meadows, we gathered information about mowing, grazing and fertilisation (for meadows used both in 2017 and 2018, land use did not change between), and calculated the land-use intensity index developed by Blüthgen et al. (2012) for grasslands as \({L}_{i}\)‘ = √ \(\frac{{F}_{i}}{{F}_{r}}\) \(+\) \(\frac{{M}_{i}}{{M}_{r}}\) \(+\) \(\frac{{G}_{i}}{{G}_{r}}\). Meadows were mown (\({M}_{i}\)) between one and five times per year (mean, 3), and eleven of the 23 meadows were additionally grazed by cattle. Grazing intensity (\({G}_{i}\)) ranged from 108 to 1080 livestock unit days/(ha × year) (mean, 423) (Online Resource I). Ungrazed meadows were on average mown three times and grazed meadows two times. With two exceptions, all meadows were fertilised (\({F}_{i}\)), by an application of 16 kg nitrogen/ (ha × year) to 340 kg nitrogen/(ha × year) (mean, 114).
6 Statistics
For each sampling year separately (because of the difference in sampling methods between years), we used linear mixed models (function lme in library nlme) in R version 4.3.1 (R Core team 2023), with meadow identity as a random effect, to test for effects of SNH presence (only 2018), Li’, mean flower coverage and flowering plant species richness on species richness of bees, abundance of honey bees and on abundance of wild bees. All variables were log-transformed except flowering plant species richness, which was square root-transformed. Fitting bee abundance as a covariate in the species richness models did not change the results, and this variable was not further used in the models. To test for effects of SNH presence (only 2018), Li’, mean flower coverage and flowering plant species richness on bee community composition we ran, again separately for the 2 study years but pooled across sampling dates within 1 year, PermANOVAs (permutational analysis of variance, based on pairwise Bray–Curtis dissimilarities on abundances of bees, 9999 permutations) using R, and graphically displayed the results in non-metric multidimensional scaling plots using PRIMER (Clarke and Gorley 2006).
7 Results
During the 2 study years, 5374 bee individuals of 87 species were recorded, from which 66% of the individuals were honey bees, 17% were bumblebees and 17% were other wild bees of 17 genera. The most species-rich genera were Andrena (19 species), followed by Bombus (14), Lasioglossum (13), Nomada (10) and Sphecodes (6) (Online Resource III). Overall, 75% of the recorded bee species were nest-building bees and 25% were parasitic bees. Among the 65 nest-building bee species were 11 (17%) oligoleges (Online Resource III).
8 Effect of land-use intensity and adjacent semi-natural habitats on bees in meadows
In neither of the study years, land-use intensity, the presence of an SNH next to the meadow and mean flower coverage had effects on bee species richness and abundance of wild and honey bees in meadows (Online Resource IV, Figure 1). The species richness of flowering plants had positive effects on the species richness of bees in one of the study years (Online Resource IV), but neither on honey nor wild bee abundances in any of the years (Online Resource IV). We found no effects of land-use intensity (Figure 2), the presence of SNHs (data only for 2018), flower coverage or flowering plant species richness on bee community composition in meadows (Online Resource V).
9 Bees in meadows and semi-natural habitats (SNHs)
In total, we observed 739 and 1034 individuals of honey and wild bees in the six SNHs and the adjacent meadows, respectively. In the SNHs, 40% (293) of the observed bees were wild bees, whereas in the meadows, only 19% (200) of the observed bees were wild bees.
In the six SNHs and their adjacent meadows, we recorded overall 57 bee species, thereof 49 in the SNHs and 27 in the meadows (Figure 3, Online Resource III). Thirty species were exclusively detected in the SNHs, eight species were exclusively recorded in the meadows adjacent to the SNHs, and 19 species occurred overall both in the six SNHs and the six meadows adjacent to the SNHs (Figure 3, Online Resource III). The SNHs hosted in the median 15 species, the meadows 10. On average, about two-thirds (62%) of the bee species observed in a specific meadow were also found in the adjacent SNH, whereas only 39% of the bees recorded in a specific SNH were also found in the adjacent meadow.
Of the nest-building bees, 18 species were found in both SNHs and adjacent meadows, 17 only in SNHs, and seven only in meadows (Online Resource III). Among the parasitic bee species, only one each was found in meadows only (Nomada sexfasciata) and in both, SNHs and meadows (Sphecodes monilicornis), whereas most species (13; e.g. Nomada bifasciata, N. flava, N. moeschleri, Sphecodes puncticeps, Stelis minuta) were exclusively recorded in SNHs.
Oligoleges were all only recorded in SNHs (Online Resource III): Anthophora furcata (specialized on Lamiaceae), Chelostoma rapunculi (specialized on Campanula), and Trachusa byssina (specialized on Fabaceae).
10 Discussion
In our study, we recorded more than 5000 individuals of 87 species of bees and did not find effects of land-use intensity, the presence/absence of adjacent semi-natural habitats (SNHs) and flower coverage on wild and honey bee abundances, bee community composition, and species richness of wild bees in meadows. Similarly, the species richness of flowering plants had no effects on wild and honey bee abundances and bee community composition. However, species richness of flowering plants had a positive effect on bee species richness. We found relatively more wild bees than honey bees in SNHs than in meadows adjacent to SNHs and recorded more bee species in SNHs than in meadows. Most pronounced differences were observed in parasitic bees and oligoleges: most parasites and all oligoleges were SNH-specific.
Our finding that wild bees in grasslands were not affected by an increasing land-use intensity was surprising, given that other studies found that wild bees are more species rich in extensively managed meadows (Ekroos et al. 2020; Weiner et al. 2011) and in less intensively mown urban lawns (Lerman et al. 2018) than in intensively managed grasslands. In grasslands, wild bee species richness mainly depends on flowering plant species richness and flower supply (Blaauw and Isaacs 2014; Blüthgen et al. 2012; Ollerton 2017; Sutter et al. 2017), which, in our study showed no relationships with land-use intensity (Schlager et al., unpubl. Data). We did not find a relationship between flower supply and bees but detected a positive influence of flowering plant species richness on bee species richness in 1 year. Anyhow, due to the missing relationship between land-use intensity and flower supply, it seems plausible that wild bees were largely independent of land-use intensity in our study. Kruse et al. (2016) studied plant communities of meadows and pastures on drained clayey soils in Central Europe, similar to the soils in our study (BFW 2019), and also found that management is not a major driver of plant species richness. Instead, plant species richness was mainly explained by soil properties, with most species-rich sites having dry sandy or wet soils. In our study region, dry meadows are rare because of high precipitation and soil conditions, whereas wet meadows are rare due to drainage and mainly persisted in protected grasslands around bogs and lakes (Pils 1994). In the long term, the rarity of plant species-rich habitats is suspected to result in species-poor seedbanks (Kruse et al. 2016), and in consequence, management extensification does not necessarily have positive effects on plant communities, as also suggested in our study. A second reason why meadows and pastures with low Li’ were not more plant species rich than more intensely used grasslands might be nitrogen import via the atmosphere (Engardt et al. 2017; Fowler et al. 2015), that is ca. 20 kg/h/a in our study region (Zechmeister et al. 2016). This input influences the nitrogen balance especially in nutrient-poor habitats. Another reason, why bees did not profit from low land-use intensity, besides the species richness of food resources, might be that grasslands do not provide appropriate nesting sites for many bee species. Indeed, nesting sites are often found in SNHs (Kennedy et al. 2013; Rivers-Moore et al. 2020, see also below), which is also suggested by our data. Except for two species, we recorded all parasitic bee species in SNHs only, likely because they were looking for host bee species that built their nests in these habitats.
We were surprised that the meadows with adjacent SNHs did not have a higher species richness and abundance of bees or a different bee community composition than meadows without adjacent meadows. One reason why the SNHs did not influence bees in meadows might have been their size. The SNHs were very small (maximum 30 m2) and probably too small to have measurable effects on the large meadows. While almost two-thirds of the bee species recorded in meadows were also recorded in adjacent semi-natural habitats, the majority of the SNH bees could not be found in adjacent meadows. For many bees that occur in SNHs, meadows likely do not provide appropriate resources, and the species-rich bee communities in SNHs thus seem to have only limited effects on bee communities in adjacent meadows. In contrast, bees in meadows are dependent on the SNHs as food sources. Especially after mowing, meadows are practically devoid of resources for bees, and in cases in which meadows in specific regions are mown simultaneously, bees cannot use other meadows. Thus, in a landscape dominated by grasslands, as in our study area, bees using meadows as foraging sites will then depend on nearby semi-natural habitats for foraging. When the first flowers are showing up again after mowing, bees might remigrate into the meadows. Overall, the management of meadows likely results in a push-and-pull effect driving bee distribution in meadows and adjacent SNHs, but further studies in this direction are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Our finding that SNHs are more species rich than grasslands is consistent with other studies (Duelli and Obrist 2003; Rivers-Moore et al. 2020). In agreement with literature (Westrich 2018) is also that especially generalist species were recorded at both the six SNHs and their adjacent meadows (e.g. Apis melifera, all non-parasitic Bombus species, Halictus tumulorum, Lasioglossum calceatum) or only at the adjacent meadows (e.g. Andrena haemorrhoa, Lasioglossum laticeps). In contrast, the vast majority of parasitic bee species (e.g. Nomada spp., Sphecodes spp., Stelis minuta), that depend on nests of specific host bees, and oligolectic species, that depend on a specific subset of flowering plants (e.g. Campanula, Lamiaceae), were only found at the SNHs. Meadows rarely provide appropriate nesting sites for bees, given that they are densely covered with vegetation and do not provide, e.g. sparsely overgrown areas, (cavities in) dead wood, appropriate plant shoots or empty shells of snails, making SNHs, which often have such structures, important nesting sites for nest-building bees, and in consequence also for parasitic bees (Bihaly et al. 2021). Similarly, as meadows typically have fewer flowering plant species than SNHs (Cranmer et al. 2012; Lindborg and Eriksson 2004; Pykäkä et al. 2005), oligolectic bees are dependent on SNHs as foraging sites (Forrest et al. 2015; Westrich 2018).
The few flowering plant species occurring in meadows, such as Taraxacum officinale or Trifolium repens, are often characterized by mass flowering, making these habitats highly attractive to honey bees and possibly contributing to a lower proportion of wild bees in meadows than SNHs. Wild bees might avoid foraging in such meadows to avoid competition for nectar and pollen with honey bees (Angelella et al. 2021; Herbertsson et al. 2016). Overall, SNHs are highly important habitats for bees in landscapes dominated by agriculturally used grasslands from an ecological point of view, and also for conservation purposes, given that oligolectic and parasitic bees are among the most threatened bee species (e.g. Voith et al. 2021).
11 Conclusions
To conclude, we found only minor effects of changes in land-use intensity on bee communities, which might have to do with the landscape dominated by grassland and edaphic factors in the study area, both of which possibly limit the potential positive effects of extensification on flowering plant communities. In addition, the magnitude of change in land-use intensity might have been too small to result in measurable effects on bee communities. Indeed, preliminary data of an ongoing study suggest that a strong reduction in land-use intensity (abandonment of fertilisation; mowing only once per year) has positive effects on bee species richness and abundance in our study region (Neumayer, Schlager et al., unpubl. data; see also Meyer et al. 2017; Weiner et al. 2011). Semi-natural habitats, which have become rare in the last few decades in the study region, as is generally true across most of Europe (European Environmental Agency 2021; Krauss et al. 2010; Mihók et al. 2017), were overall more species rich than meadows and, thus, may be playing a highly important role in sustaining diverse bee communities even though our design could not detect it statistically. A further loss of SNHs in the landscape could still result in a loss of bee diversity, given that they provide habitats for various species (e.g. parasitic bees and oligoleges) that do not find appropriate resources in meadows. On the contrary, if SNHs are abundantly available, land-use extensification in meadows is expected to have positive effects on wild bee communities, given the higher availability of wild bees and seeds in the landscape, likely increasing plant and bee species richness in meadows in the long term (Carrié et al. 2017; Duelli and Obrist 2003).
Data availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Aguilera G, Roslin T, Miller K, Tamburini G, Birkhofer K et al (2020) Crop diversity benefits carabid and pollinator communities in landscapes with semi-natural habitats. J Appl Ecol 57(11):2170–2179
Allan E, Bossdorf O, Dormann CF, Prati D, Gossner, et al (2014) Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(1):308–313. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312213111
Amiet F (1996) Hymenoptera Apidae, 1. Teil Allgemeiner Teil, Gattungsschlüssel, Die Gattungen Apis, Bombus und Psithyrus (12th ed). Fauna Helvetica, Neuchâtel
Amiet F, Hermann M, Müller A, Neumeyer R (1999) Apidae 2. Colletes, Dufourea, Hylaeus, Nomia, Nomioides, Rhophitoides, Rophites, Sphecodes, Systropha (4th ed). Fauna Helvetica, Neuchâtel
Amiet F, Hermann M, Müller A, Neumeyer R (2001a) Apidae 4. Anthidium, Chelostoma, Coelioxys, Dioxys, Heriades, Lithurgus, Megachile, Osmia, Stelis (9th ed). Fauna Helvetica, Neuchâtel
Amiet F, Hermann M, Müller A, Neumeyer R (2007) Apidae 5. Ammobates, Ammobatoides, Anthophora, Biastes, Ceratina, Dasypoda, Epeoloides, Epeolus, Eucera, Macropis, Melecta, Melitta, Nomada, Pasites, Tetralonia, Thyreus, Xylocopa (20th ed). Fauna Helvetica, Neuchâtel
Amiet F, Hermann M, Müller A, Neumeyer R (2010) Apidae 6. Andrena, Melitturga, Panurginus, Panurgus (26th ed). Fauna Helvetica, Neuchâtel
Amiet F, Müller A, Neumeyer M (2001b) Apidae 3. Halictus, Lasioglossum (6th ed). Fauna Helvetica, Neuchâtel
Angelella GM, McCullough CT, O’Rourke ME (2021) Honey bee hives decrease wild bee abundance, species richness, and fruit count on farms regardless of wildflower strips. Sci Rep 11(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81967-1
Bartomeus I, Potts SG, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vaissière BE, Woyciechowski et al (2014) Contribution of insect pollinators to crop yield and quality varies with agricultural intensification. PeerJ 2014/1. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.328
BFW (2019) eBOD–digitale Bodenkarte. Bundesforschungs- und Ausbildungszentrum für Wald, Naturgefahren und Landschaft [online]. Accessed on 10 August 22
Biesmeijer JC, Roberts SPM, Reemer M, Ohlemüller R, Edwards M et al (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313(5785):351–354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1127863
Bihaly ÁD, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Szalai M, Sárospataki M (2021) Nesting activity of cavity-nesting bees and wasps is lower in small-scale apple orchards compared to nearby semi-natural habitats. Agric for Entomol 23(1):49–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/afe.12403
Blaauw BR, Isaacs R (2014) Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop. J Appl Ecol 51(4):890–898. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12257
Blüthgen N, Dormann CF, Prati D, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T et al (2012) A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization. Basic Appl Ecol 13(3):207–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.04.001
Bogusch P, Straka J (2012) Review and identification of the cuckoo bees of central Europe (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Sphecodes). Zootaxa 3311(1):1–41
Carrié R, Andrieu E, Cunningham SA, Lentini PE, Loreau M et al (2017) Relationships among ecological traits of wild bee communities along gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation. Ecography 40(1):85–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.02632
Clarke KR, Gorley R (2006) Perimer v6: User Manual/Tutorial (6.1.15). PRIMER-E
Cranmer L, McCollin D, Ollerton J (2012) Landscape structure influences pollinator movements and directly affects plant reproductive success. Oikos 121(4):562–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19704.x
D’Aquino P, August P, Balmann A, Berger T, Bousquet F et al (2002) Agent-based models of land-use and land-cover change. Proc Int Workshop 4–7
Dallimer M, Tinch D, Acs S, Hanley N, Southall HRR et al (2009) 100 years of change: examining agricultural trends, habitat change and stakeholder perceptions through the 20th century. J Appl Ecol 46(2):334–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01619.x
De Palma A, Kuhlmann M, Roberts SPM, Potts SG, Börger L et al (2015) Ecological traits affect the sensitivity of bees to land-use pressures in European agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 52(6):1567–1577. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12524
DORIS (2023) Digitales Oberösterreichisches Raum-Informations-System, available at https://www.doris.at. Accessed: 4 September 2023
Duelli P, Obrist MK (2003) Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: the contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl Ecol 4(2):129–138. https://doi.org/10.1078/1439-1791-00140
Ebmer A (1969) Die Bienen des Genus Halictus im Großraum von Linz Teil 1. Naturkundlisches Jahrbuch Der Stadt Linz 12:133–183
Ebmer A (1970) Die Bienen des Genus Halictus im Großraum von Linz Teil 2. Naturkundlisches Jahrbuch Der Stadt Linz 20:19–64
Ebmer A (1971) Die Bienen des Genus Halictus im Großraum von Linz Teil 3. Naturkundlisches Jahrbuch Der Stadt Linz 21:63–156
Ebmer A (1973) Die Bienen des Genus Halictus Latr.s.l. im Großraum von Linz. Nachtrag und zweiter Anhang. Naturkundlisches Jahrbuch Der Stadt Linz 23:123–158
Ekroos J, Kleijn D, Batáry P, Albrecht M, Báldi A et al (2020) High land-use intensity in grasslands constrains wild bee species richness in Europe. Biol Cons 241:108255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108255
Engardt M, Simpson D, Schwikowski M, Granat L (2017) Deposition of sulphur and nitrogen in Europe 1900–2050. Model calculations and comparison to historical observations. Tellus B Chem Phys Meteorol 69(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/16000889.2017.1328945
European Environmental Agency (2021) Rethinking Agriculture. https://doi.org/10.1215/08879982-3140308
Forrest JRK, Thorp RW, Kremen C, Williams NM (2015) Contrasting patterns in species and functional-trait diversity of bees in an agricultural landscape. J Appl Ecol 52(3):706–715. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12433
Fowler D, Steadman CE, Stevenson D, Coyle M, Rees RM et al (2015) Effects of global change during the 21st century on the nitrogen cycle. Atmos Chem Phys 15(24):13849–13893. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-13849-2015
Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissière BE (2009) Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ 68(3):810–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014
Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71(5):757–764. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x
Gokcezade J, Gereben-Krenn BA, Neumayer J, Krenn H (2015) Feldbestimmungsschlüssel für die Hummeln Österreichs, Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Linzer Biologische Beiträge 47/1(5–42)
Herbertsson L, Lindström SAM, Rundlöf M, Bommarco R, Smith HG (2016) Competition between managed honeybees and wild bumblebees depends on landscape context. Basic Appl Ecol 17(7):609–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.05.001
Isselstein J, Jeangros B, Pavlu V (2005) Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted management of temperate grasslands in Europe: a review. Agron Res 3(2):139–151
Kennedy CM, Lonsdorf E, Neel MC, Williams NM, Ricketts et al (2013) A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol Lett 16(5):584–599. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12082
Kimoto C, Debano SJ, Thorp RW, Taylor RV, Schmalz H et al (2012) Short-term responses of native bees to livestock and implications for managing ecosystem services in grasslands. Ecosphere 3(10). https://doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00118.1
Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 274(1608):303–313. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2006.3721
Krauss J, Bommarco R, Guardiola M, Heikkinen RK, Helm et al (2010) Habitat fragmentation causes immediate and time-delayed biodiversity loss at different trophic levels. Ecol Lett 13(5):597–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01457.x
Kreyer D, Oed A, Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2004) No title. Biological Conservation, 116(1):111–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00182-4
Kruse M, Stein-Bachinger K, Gottwald F, Schmidt E, Heinken T (2016) Influence of grassland management on the biodiversity of plants and butterflies on organic suckler cow farms. Tuexenia 36:97–119. https://doi.org/10.14471/2016.36.006
Kuoppala K, Rinne M, Nousiainen J, Huhtanen P (2008) The effect of cutting time of grass silage in primary growth and regrowth and the interactions between silage quality and concentrate level on milk production of dairy cows. Livest Sci 116(1–3):171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2007.10.002
Le Féon V, Schermann-Legionnet A, Delettre Y, Aviron S, Billeter R, Bugter R, Hendrickx F, Burel F (2010) Intensification of agriculture, landscape composition and wild bee communities: a large scale study in four European countries. Agr Ecosyst Environ 137(1–2):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.015
Lerman SB, Contosta AR, Milam J, Bang C (2018) To mow or to mow less: lawn mowing frequency affects bee abundance and diversity in suburban yards. Biol Cons 221:160–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.01.025
Lindborg R, Eriksson O (2004) Effects of restoration on plant species richness and composition in Scandinavian semi-natural grasslands. Restor Ecol 12(3):318–326
Mandelik Y, Winfree R, Neeson T, Kremen C (2012) Complementary habitat use by wild bees in agro-natural landscapes. Ecol Appl 22(5):1535–1546. https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1299.1
Matson P, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 277(July):504–509. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvdjrr1w.13
Mauss V (1987) Bestimmungsschlüssel für Hummeln. In Deutscher Jugendbund für Naturbeobachtung (Vol. 2)
Meyer S, Unternährer D, Arlettaz R, Humbert JY, Menz MHM (2017) Promoting diverse communities of wild bees and hoverflies requires a landscape approach to managing meadows. Agr Ecosyst Environ 239:376–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.01.037
Mihók B, Biró M, Molnár Z, Kovács E, Bölöni, et al (2017) Biodiversity on the waves of history: conservation in a changing social and institutional environment in Hungary, a post-soviet EU member state. Biol Cons 211:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.05.005
Millard J, Outhwaite CL, Kinnersley R, Freeman R, Gregory R et al (2021) Global effects of land-use intensity on local pollinator biodiversity. Nat Commun 12:2902. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23228-3
Oenema O, De Klein C, Alfaro M (2014) Intensification of grassland and forage use: driving forces and constraints. Crop Pasture Sci 65(6):524–537. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP14001
Ollerton J (2017) Pollinator diversity: distribution, ecological function, and conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 48:353–376. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110316-022919
Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120(3):321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x
Papanikolaou AD, Kühn I, Frenzel M, Schweiger O (2017) Semi-natural habitats mitigate the effects of temperature rise on wild bees. J Appl Ecol 54(2):527–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12763
Pils G (1994) Die Wiesen Oberösterreichs. Forschungsinstitut für Umweltinformatik Linz
Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007
Pykäkä J, Luoto M, Heikkinen RK, Kontula T (2005) Plant species richness and persistence of rare plants in abandoned semi-natural grasslands in northern Europe plants in abandoned semi-natural grasslands in. Basic Appl Ecol 6:25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2004.10.002
Raderschall CA, Bommarco R, Lindström SA, Lundin O (2021) Landscape crop diversity and semi-natural habitat affect crop pollinators, pollination benefit and yield. Agr Ecosyst Environ 306:107189
R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org
Rivers-Moore J, Andrieu E, Vialatte A, Ouin A (2020) Wooded semi-natural habitats complement permanent grasslands in supporting wild bee diversity in agricultural landscapes. InSects 11(11):1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11110812
Scheuchl E (1995) Illustrierte Bestimmungsschlüssel der Wildbienen Deutschlands und Österreichs, Band I:Anthophoridae (2nd ed). Eigenverlag
Scheuchl E (2006) Illustrierte Bestimmungsschlüssel der Wildbienen Deutschlands und Österreichs, Band II:Megachilidae - Melittidae (2nd ed). Eigenverlag
Scheuchl E, Willner W (2016) Taschenlexikon der wildbienen mitteleuropas (p. 920). Wiebelsheim: Quelle & Meyer
Schmeil O, Fitschen J (2011) Die Flora Deutschlands und der angrenzenden Länder 95. Auflage
Schmid-Egger C, Scheuchl E (1997) Illustrierte Bestimmungsschlüssel der Wildbienen Deutschlands und Österreichs, Band III:Andrenidae. Eigenverlag
Sørensen PB, Strandberg B, Bruus M, Kjær C, Larsen S, Hansen RR, Damgaard CF, Strandberg M (2020) Modelling risk of competitive effects from honeybees on wild bees. Ecol Ind 118:106749. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106749
Stein K, Coulibaly D, Stenchly K, Goetze D, Porembski S, Lindner A, Konaté S, Linsenmair EK (2017) Bee pollination increases yield quantity and quality of cash crops in Burkina Faso. West Africa Scientific Reports 7(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-17970-2
Straka J, Bogusch P (2011) Contributions to the taxonomy of the Hylaeus gibbus species group in Europe (Hymenoptera, Apoidea and Colletidae). Zootaxa 2932:51–67
Sutter L, Jeanneret P, Bartual AM, Bocci G, Albrecht M (2017) Enhancing plant diversity in agricultural landscapes promotes both rare bees and dominant crop-pollinating bees through complementary increase in key floral resources. J Appl Ecol 54(6):1856–1864. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12907
van Klink R, Menz MHM, Baur H, Dosch O, Kühne I et al (2019) Larval and phenological traits predict insect community response to mowing regime manipulations. Ecol Appl 29(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1900
Voith J, Doczkal D, Dubitzky A, Hopfenmüller S, Mandery K, Scheuchl E, Schuberth J, Weber K (2021) Rote Liste und Gesamtartenliste Bayern - Bienen - Hymenoptera, Anthopila
Weiner CN, Werner M, Linsenmair KE, Blüthgen N (2011) Land use intensity in grasslands: changes in biodiversity, species composition and specialisation in flower visitor networks. Basic Appl Ecol 12(4):292–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2010.08.006
Wesche K, Krause B, Culmsee H, Leuschner C (2012) Fifty years of change in Central European grassland vegetation: large losses in species richness and animal-pollinated plants. Biol Cons 150(1):76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.02.015
Westrich P (2018) Die Wildbienen Deutschlands. Verlag Eugen Ulmer
Zattara EE, Aizen MA (2021) Worldwide occurrence records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth 4(1):114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.005
Zechmeister HG, Kropik M, Moser D, Denner M, Hohenwallner D, Hanus-Illnar A, Scharf S, Alarich R, Mirtl M (2016) Moos-Monitoring in Österreich - Aufsammlung 2015
Zurbuchen A, Müller A (2012) Wildbienenschutz-von der Wissenschaft zur Praxis (Vol. 33). Hauptverlag AG, Berne
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the farmers involved in the study and the helpful comments of a reviewer on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Paris Lodron University of Salzburg. This study was supported by Gebrüder WOERLE Ges.m.b.H., Henndorf, Austria.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
SD and JN conceived and conceptualized the study. MS collected the data, analysed them together with JP and SD, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript and approved the submitted version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Manuscript editor Sara Diana Leonhardt
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Schlager, M., Neumayer, J., Petermann, J. et al. Effect of land-use intensity and adjacent semi-natural habitats on wild and honey bees of meadows. Apidologie 55, 17 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-024-01056-w
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-024-01056-w