ALBERT

Description: Context Landscape and local habitat traits moderate wild bee communities. However, whether landscape effects differ between local habitat types is largely unknown. Objectives We explored the way that wild bee communities in three distinct habitats are shaped by landscape composition and the availability of flowering plants by evaluating divergences in response patterns between habitats. Methods In a large-scale monitoring project across 20 research areas, wild bee data were collected on three habitats: near-natural grassland, established flower plantings and residual habitats (e.g. field margins). Additionally, landscape composition was mapped around the research areas. Results Our monitoring produced a dataset of 27,650 bees belonging to 324 species. Bee communities on all three habitats reacted similarly to local flower availability. Intensively managed grassland in the surrounding landscape had an overall negative effect on the studied habitats. Other landscape variables produced diverging response patterns that were particularly pronounced during early and late season. Bee communities in near-natural grassland showed a strong positive response to ruderal areas. Flower plantings and residual habitats such as field margins showed a pronounced positive response to extensively managed grassland and woodland edges. Response patterns regarding bee abundance were consistent with those found for species richness. Conclusion We advise the consideration of local habitat type and seasonality when assessing the effect of landscape context on bee communities. A reduction in the intensity of grassland management enhances bee diversity in a broad range of habitats. Moreover, wild bee communities are promoted by habitat types such as ruderal areas or woodland edges.

Description: Background In flowering communities, plant species commonly share pollinators and therefore plant individuals receive heterospecific pollen (HP). However, the patterns of HP transfers can deviate from patterns of plant-pollinator visitations. Although flower-visitor interactions are known to be mediated by floral traits, e.g. floral size or nectar tube depth, the explanatory power of these traits for HP transfer patterns remains elusive. Here, we have explored pollen transfer patterns at three sites in Southern Germany on three dates (early, mid and late summer). At the plant level, we tested whether flower abundance and floral traits are correlated with HP reception and donation. At the community level, we determined whether flower and bee diversity are correlated with network modularity and whether floral traits explain the module affiliation of plant species. We collected the stigmas of flowering plant species, analysed HP and conspecific pollen (CP) loads and measured floral traits, flower and bee diversity. Results Our results show that the degree and intensity of HP reception or donation at the plant level do not correlate with floral traits, whereas at the community level, the module affiliation of who is sharing pollen with whom is well-explained by floral traits. Additionally, variation in network modularity between communities is better explained by plant diversity and abundance than by bee diversity and abundance. Conclusions Overall, our results indicate that floral traits that are known to mediate flower-visitor interactions can improve our understanding of qualitative HP transfer but only provide limited information about the quantity of HP transfer, which more probably depends on other floral traits, flower-visitor identity or community properties.