• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

to land-use

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "to land-use "

Copied!
17
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

Jeroen Everaars, Mark Frenzel, Oliver Schweiger

Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ Dept. Community Ecology

TERENO International Conference, Bonn (29 Sept - 2 Oct 2014)

Trait-dependent responses of bee communities

to land-use

and weather

(2)

Starting points

Declining biodiversity in agricultural landscapes (intensification, crops grown)

Global decline of pollinators: Important pollinator group  wild bees decline with land-use intensity

Pollination is affected by species traits. Land use may filter for specific traits in bee communities

Biodiversity monitoring within the long-term project TERENO

 investigation of local bee communities in “normal“(=

agricultural) landscapes ... still analysis in progress

(3)

What we wanted to know

Q1: What are the main drivers for bee occurrence? Weather conditions or land use intensity?

Q2: Do intensively used areas have fewer bees (species;

individuals)?

Q3: Do responses of bees to land use depend on bee traits

(e.g. body size, nesting behaviour, sociality)?

(4)

Site locations in Saxony-Anhalt

Halle

Leipzig Magdeburg

CORINE land cover map

Arable land

Broad-leaved forest

Coniferous forest

(5)

Site characteristics

WAN HAR SIP GFH FBG SST

Crop fields (%) 78 65 45 74 71 97

Forest (%) 3 14 35 11 4 0.4

Grassland (%) 4 1 10 8 10 0.4

Elevation (ASL) 100-120 120-160 360-460 220-300 65-150 160-190 Annual mean

temp. (ºC) 8.8 8.8 6.9 7.9 8.6 8.7

(6)

Site characteristics

WAN HAR SIP GFH FBG SST

Crop fields (%) 78 65 45 74 71 97

Forest (%) 3 14 35 11 4 0.4

Grassland (%) 4 1 10 8 10 0.4

Elevation (ASL) 100-120 120-160 360-460 220-300 65-150 160-190 Annual mean

temp. (ºC) 8.8 8.8 6.9 7.9 8.6 8.7

(7)

Bee sampling and additional data

SAMPLES

yellow flight interception traps

2010, 2011, 2012 (ongoing)

Collection: 3x spring, 3x summer

6 sites (4x4 km)

16 traps per site (Σ 96 traps)

Σ 576 samples per year

ADDITIONAL DATA

Bee trait database (STEP, University of Reading)

local land use (200 m radius)

regional weather (DWD, daily)

(8)

Bee numbers & proportions

(without honey bees)

All WAN HAR SIP GFH FBG SST

Individuals 28528 4163 (4669) (2348) 2635 8482 6231

Richness 254 148 179 103 152 175 140

Diversity (H') 3.94 3.48 3.75 3.55 3.97 3.70 3.34

% Small bees 41 36 35 32 34 56 36

% Eusocial 42 42 54 38 43 49 20

Central Germany: Hot spot for species richness of bees!

(9)

Sites: Shared and unique species

WAN

HAR

SIP FBG GFH

SST

67 4

20

4 10

9

7

(10)

Seasons: Shared and unique species

Spring shared Summer

WAN 77 54 18

HAR 85 68 27

SIP 47 40 17

GFH 70 60 23

FBG 83 77 16

SST 78 53 10

(11)

Bee community response to arable land size

 Spring and  Summer communities Local scale (200 m radius)

*

*

* = p<0.05

(12)

Bee community response to semi-natural habitat size

Page 12

* = p<0.05

*

*

 Spring and  Summer communities

Local scale (200 m radius)

(13)

Bee community response to elevation

Page 13

* = p<0.05

* * *

* *

 Spring and  Summer communities

Local scale (200 m radius)

(14)

Bee community response to ground temperature

Page 14

* = p<0.05

* * *

* * *

 Spring and  Summer communities

Regional scale (4x4 km)

(15)

Answers to questions

Q1: What are the main drivers for bee occurrence? Weather conditions or land use intensity?

Abiotic conditions produce more significant patterns

Q2: Do intensively used areas have fewer bees (species;

individuals)?

No significant patterns in local communities

Q3: Do responses of bees to land use depend on bee traits (e.g. body size, nesting behaviour, sociality)?

Only the traits cavity nesting ( semi-natural habitats) and eusociality ( arable land) responded significantly

Page 15

(16)

Conclusions

Data at local (200 m radius) and regional (4x4 km) scale are surprising: even high intensively used agricultural

landscapes (97% crop fields) host diverse bee communities!

Spring (more species & individuals) and summer (less species and individuals) bee communities are clearly separated 

difference in pollination services

Weather conditions seem to be the most important driver shaping bee communities

Responses to land use seem to be complex … still some work to do!

Page 16

(17)

Acknowledgements

Frank Creutzburg (Jena) – Determination of bees

STEP Project - Status and trends of European pollinators;

http://www.step-project.net; Bee Trait Database compiled by University of Reading, Stuart Roberts & Simon Potts

Page 17

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

We considered four groups of predictors, spanning a range of spatial scales, in our linear model containing the following terms: (i) environmental factors: soil pH, soil clay

Informal local au- thorities like clans and Njuri Ncheke council of elders (and in- deed elders at the household level) continue to exercise some control over land use, mostly

Today there are several microsimulation models of urban land use and transport under development in North America: the California Urban Futures (CUF) Model at the University of

In this work, we evaluated the conformance of stated spatial planning goals and the outcomes in terms of urban compactness, basic services and housing provision,

The Table contains the allocation of land (hectares) for each macro sector (across the Table) in each macro region (down the Table). The rows and columns are labelled with

This chapter outlines an automated methodology for creating LULC maps using the nomenclature of two European LULC products: the Urban Atlas (UA) and CORINE Land Cover (CLC)..

The use of Volunteer Geographic Information for land cover validation studies seems even more relevant as Google Earth has been used for the recent validation of remote sensing

In the primary model, three criteria will be considered: minimizing the energy consumption for transportation and construction of buildings, maximizing the area of open spaces in