Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

dc.contributor.author
Cavigliasso, Pablo  
dc.contributor.author
Phifer, Colin C.  
dc.contributor.author
Knowlton, Jessie L.  
dc.contributor.author
Licata, Julian Andres  
dc.contributor.author
Flaspohler, David J.  
dc.contributor.author
Webster, Christopher R.  
dc.contributor.author
Chacoff, Natacha Paola  
dc.date.available
2023-09-19T15:08:38Z  
dc.date.issued
2022-12  
dc.identifier.citation
Cavigliasso, Pablo; Phifer, Colin C.; Knowlton, Jessie L.; Licata, Julian Andres; Flaspohler, David J.; et al.; Influence of landscape composition on wild bee communities: Effects of functional landscape heterogeneity; Elsevier Science; Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment; 340; 12-2022; 1-10  
dc.identifier.issn
0167-8809  
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/11336/212079  
dc.description.abstract
Landscapes dominated by conventional agriculture reduce and simplify natural habitats, with negative consequences for ecosystem regulating services. We examined differences in structure and composition of bee communities across biotic and abiotic gradients to investigate how these communities respond to land-use changes associated with agriculture. Studies like ours which evaluates the relative effect of different components of spatial heterogeneity remain uncommon and are important to conserve pollinator fauna. The diversity of floral resources and habitat richness including the configuration and composition of landscape heterogeneity have been shown to influence the diversity of wild bees on a landscape scale. In this study, we examined how wild bee communities respond to landscape heterogeneity in a semi-arid productive region of Entre Ríos Argentina. We modeled the effect of landscape heterogeneity on wild bee community abundance, species richness, and Chao-1 diversity. We sampled bees using pan traps in four common land-uses in the region (forest plantations, pasture/croplands, mixed use areas and native espinal savanna) for five months in the spring-summer of 2014–2015. We identified 96 bee species among 3407 bees collected in the four habitat types. Pasture/croplands along with native espinal savanna supported the highest abundance, richness, and diversity of bees. Species composition of wild bee communities differed between land uses, with numerous species unique to each land use. Across all land use types, diversity of flower resources consistently supported more abundant and diverse wild bee communities. The richness of habitats along with the diversity of floral resources acted synergistically over wild bee communities. Our findings further clarify the relationship between land-use and wild bee communities, which provide valuable pollination services to crops and native plants. Continued expansion of large-scale monoculture forest plantations will likely come at the expense of the native floral resources, which are a key component to support regional bee species richness. Promoting landscapes with a diversity of crops and flower resources are important for the conservation of pollinators that are key for the functioning of ecosystems.  
dc.format
application/pdf  
dc.language.iso
eng  
dc.publisher
Elsevier Science  
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess  
dc.rights.uri
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/  
dc.subject
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES  
dc.subject
FLORAL RESOURCES  
dc.subject
LAND USES  
dc.subject
LANDSCAPE HETEROGENEITY  
dc.subject
WILD BEE COMMUNITIES  
dc.subject.classification
Ecología  
dc.subject.classification
Ciencias Biológicas  
dc.subject.classification
CIENCIAS NATURALES Y EXACTAS  
dc.title
Influence of landscape composition on wild bee communities: Effects of functional landscape heterogeneity  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article  
dc.type
info:ar-repo/semantics/artículo  
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion  
dc.date.updated
2023-07-06T12:17:14Z  
dc.journal.volume
340  
dc.journal.pagination
1-10  
dc.journal.pais
Países Bajos  
dc.journal.ciudad
Amsterdam  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Cavigliasso, Pablo. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional Entre Ríos. Estación Experimental Agropecuaria Concordia; Argentina  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Phifer, Colin C.. Michigan Technological University; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Knowlton, Jessie L.. Michigan Technological University; Estados Unidos. Wheaton College; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Licata, Julian Andres. Bemidji State University; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Flaspohler, David J.. Michigan Technological University; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Webster, Christopher R.. Michigan Technological University; Estados Unidos  
dc.description.fil
Fil: Chacoff, Natacha Paola. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Tucumán. Instituto de Ecología Regional; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Tucumán. Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto Miguel Lillo; Argentina  
dc.journal.title
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880922002997  
dc.relation.alternativeid
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108150