text:
1126/science.136.3518.773.
   GARY NE, 1971, ANIM BEHAV, V19, P299, DOI 10.1016/S0003-3472(71)80010-6.
   GLOAG R, 2017, NATURE, V1, DOI DOI 10.1038/S41559-016-0011.
   Goulson D, 2003, ANNU REV ECOL EVOL S, V34, P1, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132355.
   Hadisoesilo S, 1996, APIDOLOGIE, V27, P361, DOI 10.1051/apido:19960504.
   Harpur BA, 2015, INSECT SOC, V62, P479, DOI 10.1007/s00040-015-0427-1.
   Hinson EM, 2015, APIDOLOGIE, V46, P403, DOI 10.1007/s13592-014-0334-x.
   Hudewenz A, 2013, J INSECT CONSERV, V17, P1275, DOI 10.1007/s10841-013-9609-1.
   Jacobson M, 1972, INSECT SEX PHEROMONE.
   Jaffe R, 2009, MOL ECOL, V18, P1511, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04143.x.
   Jaffe R, 2010, CONSERV BIOL, V24, P583, DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01331.x.
   Johnson K., 1992, UNIVARIATE DISCRETE.
   Jones AG, 2003, MOL ECOL, V12, P2511, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01928.x.
   Jones OR, 2010, MOL ECOL RESOUR, V10, P551, DOI 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02787.x.
   King R, 2014, ANNU REV STAT APPL, V1, P401, DOI 10.1146/annurev-statistics-022513-115633.
   KOENIGER N, 1988, APIDOLOGIE, V19, P103, DOI 10.1051/apido:19880108.
   KOENIGER N, 1976, Journal of Apicultural Research, V15, P67.
   Koeniger N, 2000, APIDOLOGIE, V31, P313, DOI 10.1051/apido:2000125.
   Koetz A., 2013, LITERARY REV, P59.
   Kolmogorov A., 1933, GIORN I ITAL DEGLI A, V4, P83, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.SAB.2008.10.045.
   Kraus FB, 2008, INSECT SOC, V55, P22, DOI 10.1007/s00040-007-0966-1.
   Kraus FB, 2005, NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, V92, P578, DOI 10.1007/s00114-005-0044-3.
   Kraus FB, 2005, APIDOLOGIE, V36, P223, DOI 10.1051/apido:2005010.
   Kraus FB, 2003, J EVOLUTION BIOL, V16, P914, DOI 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00593.x.
   Lindstrom SAM, 2016, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V283, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2016.1641.
   Lo N, 2010, SYST ENTOMOL, V35, P226, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-3113.2009.00504.x.
   LOPER GM, 1987, APIDOLOGIE, V18, P163, DOI 10.1051/apido:19870206.
   LOPER GM, 1992, J KANSAS ENTOMOL SOC, V65, P223.
   Ludwig J. A., 1988, STAT ECOLOGY PRIMER.
   McGregor SE, 1976, INSECT POLLINATION C.
   Moritz RFA, 2007, J INSECT CONSERV, V11, P391, DOI 10.1007/s10841-006-9054-5.
   Mueller MY, 2012, ECOL EVOL, V2, P1304, DOI 10.1002/ece3.203.
   Needham G.R., 1988, AFRICANIZED HONEY BE.
   Oldroyd BP, 2009, APIDOLOGIE, V40, P296, DOI 10.1051/apido/2009021.
   Oldroyd BP, 1998, AUST J ENTOMOL, V37, P97, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-6055.1998.tb01553.x.
   Oldroyd BP, 1997, OECOLOGIA, V111, P381, DOI 10.1007/s004420050249.
   OLDROYD BP, 1994, AUST J ECOL, V19, P444, DOI 10.1111/j.1442-9993.1994.tb00510.x.
   Oldroyd BP, 2006, ASIAN HONEY BEES BIO.
   Otis GW, 2000, P 7 INT C TROP BEES, P137.
   PAGE RE, 1988, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V23, P117, DOI 10.1007/BF00299895.
   Palmer KA, 2000, APIDOLOGIE, V31, P235, DOI 10.1051/apido:2000119.
   PATON DC, 1993, BIOSCIENCE, V43, P95, DOI 10.2307/1311970.
   Pearson K, 1900, PHILOS MAG, V50, P157, DOI 10.1080/14786440009463897.
   Plettner E, 1997, J CHEM ECOL, V23, P363, DOI 10.1023/B:JOEC.0000006365.20996.a2.
   QUELLER DC, 1993, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V8, P285, DOI 10.1016/0169-5347(93)90256-O.
   Rattanawannee A, 2013, INSECT CONSERV DIVER, V6, P38, DOI 10.1111/j.1752-4598.2012.00193.x.
   Remnant EJ, 2014, MOL ECOL, V23, P1096, DOI 10.1111/mec.12669.
   RINDERER TE, 1993, J APICULT RES, V32, P27, DOI 10.1080/00218839.1993.11101284.
   RINDERER TE, 1993, SCI AM, V269, P84, DOI 10.1038/scientificamerican1293-84.
   RINDERER TE, 1988, AFRICANIZED HONEY BE, P1.
   RUTTNER H, 1972, Apidologie, V3, P203, DOI 10.1051/apido:19720301.
   SAUNDERS DA, 1982, AUST WILDLIFE RES, V9, P541.
   Seber G. A. F., 1982, ESTIMATION ANIMAL AB.
   SEELEY TD, 1976, INSECT SOC, V23, P495, DOI 10.1007/BF02223477.
   Shaibi T, 2008, MOL ECOL RESOUR, V8, P1034, DOI 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02146.x.
   Simpson SR, 2005, PLANT BIOLOGY, V7, P541, DOI 10.1055/s-2005-865855.
   SMIRNOV N, 1948, ANN MATH STAT, V19, P279, DOI 10.1214/aoms/1177730256.
   Smith ML, 2014, NATURWISSENSCHAFTEN, V101, P783, DOI 10.1007/s00114-014-1215-x.
   SOMMEIJER MJ, 1995, INSECT SOC, V42, P123, DOI 10.1007/BF01242448.
   Soulsbury CD, 2007, CONSERV GENET, V8, P733, DOI 10.1007/s10592-006-9194-x.
   STRAUSS SY, 1991, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V6, P206, DOI 10.1016/0169-5347(91)90023-Q.
   Stute W., 1993, METRIKA, V40, P243, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02613687.
   Szucs G, 2008, METRIKA, V67, P63, DOI 10.1007/s00184-006-0122-3.
   TAYLOR G, 1988, Australian Zoologist, V24, P193.
   Taylor O.R. Jr, 1988, P173.
   Tewari S, 2014, INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT: CURRENT CONCEPTS AND ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE, P141, DOI 10.1016/B978-0-12-398529-3.00010-5.
   TILMAN D, 1987, AM NAT, V129, P769, DOI 10.1086/284672.
   Tobin PC, 2011, J ECON ENTOMOL, V104, P1265, DOI 10.1603/EC11063.
   VISSCHER PK, 1982, ECOLOGY, V63, P1790, DOI 10.2307/1940121.
   VISSCHER PK, 1989, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V25, P247, DOI 10.1007/BF00300050.
   von Frisch K., 1967, DANCE LANGUAGE ORIEN.
   Wang J, 2013, HEREDITY, V111, P165, DOI 10.1038/hdy.2013.34.
   Wang JL, 2016, MOL ECOL RESOUR, V16, P163, DOI 10.1111/1755-0998.12452.
   Wang JL, 2004, GENETICS, V166, P1963, DOI 10.1534/genetics.166.4.1963.
   Widemo F, 2006, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V273, P713, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2005.3379.
   WILLIAMS JL, 1987, J ECON ENTOMOL, V80, P532, DOI 10.1093/jee/80.2.532.
   Winston M. L., 1992, KILLER BEES AFRICANI.
   Wood Matthew S., 1998, Victorian Naturalist (Blackburn), V115, P78.
   Wood Matthew S., 1998, Australian Mammalogy, V20, P377.
   Young L.J., 1988, STAT ECOLOGY.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{123}},
Times-Cited = {{3}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{1}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{15}},
Journal-ISO = {{Ecol. Entomol.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{HX5GC}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000467427900001}},
OA = {{Bronze}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000466809300009,
Author = {Revainera, Pablo D. and Salvarrey, Sheena and Santos, Estela and Arbulo,
   Natalia and Invernizzi, Ciro and Plischuk, Santiago and Abrahamovich,
   Alberto and Maggi, Matias D.},
Title = {{Phoretic mites associated to Bombus pauloensis and Bombus bellicosus
   (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from Uruguay}},
Journal = {{JOURNAL OF APICULTURAL RESEARCH}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{58}},
Number = {{3}},
Pages = {{455-462}},
Month = {{MAY 27}},
Abstract = {{Bumble bees (Bombus spp.), considered as important angiosperm
   pollinators, harbor several mite species associated with their nests. In
   the present study, 403 bumble bees - B. pauloensis (n = 285) and B.
   bellicosus (n = 118) - were surveyed at five departments from Uruguay:
   Canelones, Colonia, Montevideo, Florida and Soriano. The mite species
   Kuzinia spp. Pneumolaelaps longanalis, P. longipilus, Scutacarus
   acarorum, and Tyrophagus putrescentiae were found associated with both
   bumble bee species. At least one mite was present on 30\% of the bumble
   bees. We compared the mite prevalence, abundance, intensity and
   Simpson's diversity index between bumble bee species and castes. Bumble
   bee caste was the most influential factor on mite presence, and also on
   the composition of the phoretic mite community. The assemblages
   described here could be relevant for future studies focusing on
   potential threatens for native bumble bees. In combination with a
   pathogen screening, this data could be proposed as a relevant approach
   for monitoring native pollinators, especially in areas where they are
   threatened. The establishment of descriptive indices for threatened and
   healthy populations would be then of great value for species
   conservation.}},
Publisher = {{TAYLOR \& FRANCIS LTD}},
Address = {{2-4 PARK SQUARE, MILTON PARK, ABINGDON OR14 4RN, OXON, ENGLAND}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Revainera, PD (Corresponding Author), Univ Nacl Mar del Plata, CIAS, CCT Mar del Plata CONICET, Mar Del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
   Revainera, Pablo D.; Maggi, Matias D., Univ Nacl Mar del Plata, CIAS, CCT Mar del Plata CONICET, Mar Del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
   Salvarrey, Sheena; Santos, Estela; Invernizzi, Ciro, Univ Republica, Fac Ciencias, Montevideo, Uruguay.
   Arbulo, Natalia, Ctr Univ Reg Este, Rocha, Uruguay.
   Plischuk, Santiago, UNLP, Ctr Estudios Parasitol \& Vectores CEPAVE, CCT La Plata CONICET, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
   Abrahamovich, Alberto, UNLP, Museo La Plata, Div Entomol, CCT La Plata CONICET, La Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina.}},
DOI = {{10.1080/00218839.2018.1521775}},
ISSN = {{0021-8839}},
EISSN = {{2078-6913}},
Keywords = {{bumble bees; phoresy; pollinator; mites; biodiversity; South America}},
Keywords-Plus = {{BUMBLEBEES HYMENOPTERA; BEES HYMENOPTERA; NATIVE BEES; DECLINE;
   CONSERVATION; ACARI; POLLINATION; LAELAPIDAE; PARASITES; BEHAVIOR}},
Research-Areas = {{Entomology}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Entomology}},
Author-Email = {{pablo\_re04@hotmail.com}},
ORCID-Numbers = {{Plischuk, Santiago/0000-0001-8135-3462}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y TecnologicaANPCyT {[}PICT
   2012-0594, PICT 2012-0851]}},
Funding-Text = {{This research was supported by Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica
   y Tecnologica {[}grant numbers PICT 2012-0594 and PICT 2012-0851].}},
Cited-References = {{Abrahamovich A.H., 2007, Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia Universidad Nacional de La Plata, V106, P165.
   Abrahamovich Alberto H., 2001, Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, V45, P23.
   Abrahamovich Alberto H., 2002, Biota Colombiana, V3, P199.
   Abrahamovich Alberto H., 2004, Acta Zool. Mex, V20, P99.
   ALFORD DV, 1975, BUMBLE BEES.
   Allendes J. L., 2012, B BIODIVERSIDAD CHIL, V5, P36.
   Arbulo N, 2011, NEOTROP ENTOMOL, V40, P72, DOI 10.1590/S1519-566X2011000100010.
   Athias-Binche F, 1994, PHORESIE CHEZ ACARIE.
   Behan-Pelletier VM, 1999, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V74, P411, DOI 10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00046-8.
   Bergman P, 1997, J CHEM ECOL, V23, P1235, DOI 10.1023/B:JOEC.0000006461.69512.33.
   BINNS ES, 1982, BIOL REV, V57, P571, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1982.tb00374.x.
   Bush AO, 1997, J PARASITOL, V83, P575, DOI 10.2307/3284227.
   Cameron SA, 2007, BIOL J LINN SOC, V91, P161, DOI 10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00784.x.
   Cameron SA, 2011, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V108, P662, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1014743108.
   Chmielewski W., 1971, Ekologia Polska, V19, P57.
   Chmielewski W., 1969, POL PISMO ENTOMOL, V39, P603.
   Clarke K.R., 2001, CHANGE MARINE COMMUN.
   Colla SR, 2008, BIODIVERS CONSERV, V17, P1379, DOI 10.1007/s10531-008-9340-5.
   DELFINADO MD, 1976, J NEW YORK ENTOMOL S, V84, P76.
   Dirilgen T, 2016, APPL SOIL ECOL, V97, P86, DOI 10.1016/j.apsoil.2015.06.008.
   EICKWORT GC, 1990, ANNU REV ENTOMOL, V35, P469, DOI 10.1146/annurev.en.35.010190.002345.
   Eickwort George C., 1994, P218.
   Fan QH, 2016, SYST APPL ACAROL-UK, V21, P119, DOI 10.11158/saa.21.1.8.
   Fitzpatrick U, 2007, BIOL CONSERV, V136, P185, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.012.
   Franklin HJ, 1912, T AM ENTOMOL SOC, V38, P177.
   Freitas BM, 2009, APIDOLOGIE, V40, P332, DOI 10.1051/apido/2009012.
   Garrido Claudia, 1995, Boletin de la Sociedad de Biologia de Concepcion, V66, P53.
   Gonzalez Victor H., 2004, Journal of Hymenoptera Research, V13, P234.
   Goulson D, 2008, ANNU REV ENTOMOL, V53, P191, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454.
   Goulson D, 2003, BUMBLE BEES THEIR BE.
   Goulson D, 2015, SCIENCE, V347, DOI 10.1126/science.1255957.
   Guerra TJ, 2012, INSECT SOC, V59, P11, DOI 10.1007/s00040-010-0091-4.
   Haq MA, 2010, TRENDS IN ACAROLOGY, P371, DOI 10.1007/978-90-481-9837-5\_60.
   Hines HM, 2007, J KANSAS ENTOMOL SOC, V80, P1, DOI 10.2317/0022-8567(2007)80{[}1:NAAFBI]2.0.CO;2.
   HOUCK MA, 1991, ANNU REV ENTOMOL, V36, P611, DOI 10.1146/annurev.en.36.010191.003143.
   Hubert J, 2003, EXP APPL ACAROL, V29, P69, DOI 10.1023/A:1024271107703.
   Huck K, 1998, OECOLOGIA, V115, P385, DOI 10.1007/s004420050532.
   Hughes A.M., 1976, USDA TECHNICAL B, V9, P400.
   HUNTER P E, 1973, Florida Entomologist, V56, P77, DOI 10.2307/3493231.
   HUNTER PRESTON E., 1966, J KANS ENTOMOL SOC, V39, P357.
   Jagersbacher-Baumann J, 2015, J NAT HIST, V49, P1173, DOI 10.1080/00222933.2014.974705.
   Kearns CA, 2017, J INSECT CONSERV, V21, P65, DOI 10.1007/s10841-017-9954-6.
   Khalil MA, 2016, EXP APPL ACAROL, V68, P183, DOI 10.1007/s10493-015-9979-z.
   Kosior A, 2007, ORYX, V41, P79, DOI 10.1017/S0030605307001597.
   Krantz G.W., 2009, MANUAL ACAROLOGY.
   Kraus FB, 2009, J ANIM ECOL, V78, P247, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2008.01479.x.
   Kremen C, 2002, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V99, P16812, DOI 10.1073/pnas.262413599.
   Maggi M, 2016, APIDOLOGIE, V47, P835, DOI 10.1007/s13592-016-0445-7.
   Maggi M, 2011, APIDOLOGIE, V42, P280, DOI 10.1007/s13592-011-0018-8.
   Martins AC, 2015, J INSECT CONSERV, V19, P33, DOI 10.1007/s10841-014-9740-7.
   Meeus I, 2011, CONSERV BIOL, V25, P662, DOI 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01707.x.
   Michael A. D., 1901, RAY SOC LONDON, V2, P1.
   MULLER CB, 1992, ECOL ENTOMOL, V17, P343, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2311.1992.tb01068.x.
   Ornosa C, 2017, ZOOTAXA, V4237, P41, DOI 10.11646/zootaxa.4237.1.3.
   Plischuk S, 2009, ENV MICROBIOL REP, V1, P131, DOI 10.1111/j.1758-2229.2009.00018.x.
   Potts SG, 2010, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V25, P345, DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007.
   R Core Team, 2016, R LANG ENV STAT COMP.
   Revainera P, 2014, APIDOLOGIE, V45, P579, DOI 10.1007/s13592-014-0275-4.
   RICHARDS L A, 1976, University of Kansas Science Bulletin, V51, P1.
   ROYCE LA, 1989, EXP APPL ACAROL, V7, P161, DOI 10.1007/BF01270436.
   Rozej E, 2012, EXP APPL ACAROL, V56, P271, DOI 10.1007/s10493-012-9510-8.
   Rozsa L, 2000, J PARASITOL, V86, P228, DOI 10.1645/0022-3395(2000)086{[}0228:QPISOH]2.0.CO;2.
   Santos E, 2017, REV SOC ENTOMOL ARGE, V76, P22, DOI 10.25085/rsea.761203.
   Scheucher R., 1957, BEITRAGE SYSTEMATIK, V1, P233.
   SCHOUSBOE C, 1986, ACAROLOGIA, V27, P151.
   Schwarz HH, 1997, INSECT SOC, V44, P303, DOI 10.1007/s000400050051.
   Schwarz HH, 1996, J KANSAS ENTOMOL SOC, V69, P35.
   Vereecken NJ, 2017, BIOL CONSERV, V206, P21, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.12.009.
   Wolf S, 2014, APIDOLOGIE, V45, P440, DOI 10.1007/s13592-013-0259-9.
   Zachvatkin A.A., 1941, FAUNA SSSR, V6, P475.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{70}},
Times-Cited = {{2}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{1}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{7}},
Journal-ISO = {{J. Apic. Res.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{HW6OK}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000466809300009}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000468775700011,
Author = {Dynes, Travis L. and Berry, Jennifer A. and Delaplane, Keith S. and
   Brosi, Berry J. and de Roode, Jacobus C.},
Title = {{Reduced density and visually complex apiaries reduce parasite load and
   promote honey production and overwintering survival in honey bees}},
Journal = {{PLOS ONE}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{14}},
Number = {{5}},
Month = {{MAY 23}},
Abstract = {{Managed honey bee (Apis mellifera) colonies are kept at much greater
   densities than naturally occurring feral or wild colonies, which may
   have detrimental effects on colony health and survival, disease spread,
   and drifting behavior (bee movement between natal and non-natal
   colonies). We assessed the effects of a straightforward apiary
   management intervention (altering the density and visual appearance of
   colonies) on colony health. Specifically, we established three ``high
   density / high drift{''} ({''}HD{''}) and three ``low density / low
   drift{''} ({''}LD{''}) apiary configurations, each consisting of eight
   bee colonies. Hives in the HD apiary configuration were of the same
   color and placed 1m apart in a single linear array, while hives in the
   LD apiary configuration were placed 10m apart at different heights,
   facing outwards in a circle, and made visually distinctive with colors
   and symbols to reduce accidental drift between colonies. We investigated
   disease transmission and dynamics between the apiary configurations by
   clearing all colonies of the parasitic mite Varroa destructor, and
   subsequently inoculating two randomly-chosen colonies per apiary with
   controlled mite doses. We monitored the colonies for two years and found
   that the LD apiary configuration had significantly greater honey
   production and reduced overwinter mortality. Inoculation and apiary
   management intervention interacted to affect brood mite levels, with the
   highest levels in the inoculated colonies in the HD configuration.
   Finally, foragers were more than three times more likely to drift in the
   HD apiary configurations. Our results suggest that a relatively
   straightforward management change-placing colonies in low-density
   visually complex circles rather than high-density visually similar
   linear arrays-can provide meaningful benefits to the health and
   productivity of managed honey bee colonies.}},
Publisher = {{PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE}},
Address = {{1160 BATTERY STREET, STE 100, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 USA}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Dynes, TL (Corresponding Author), Emory Univ, Dept Environm Sci, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA.
   Dynes, Travis L.; Brosi, Berry J., Emory Univ, Dept Environm Sci, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA.
   Berry, Jennifer A.; Delaplane, Keith S., Univ Georgia, Dept Entomol, Athens, GA 30602 USA.
   de Roode, Jacobus C., Emory Univ, Dept Biol, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA.}},
DOI = {{10.1371/journal.pone.0216286}},
Article-Number = {{e0216286}},
ISSN = {{1932-6203}},
Keywords-Plus = {{DEFORMED WING VIRUS; VARROA-DESTRUCTOR; STOCKING DENSITY; BROOD
   PRODUCTION; R-PACKAGE; POPULATION; COLONIES; JACOBSONI; HYMENOPTERA;
   THRESHOLD}},
Research-Areas = {{Science \& Technology - Other Topics}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Multidisciplinary Sciences}},
Author-Email = {{travis.dynes@gmail.com}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{National Institutes of HealthUnited States Department of Health \& Human
   ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA {[}R01-109501];
   National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation (NSF)
   {[}DGE-1444932]}},
Funding-Text = {{Research reported in this publication was supported by the National
   Institutes of Health, nih.gov (R01-109501, to JCdR, BJB, and KSD), and
   the National Science Foundation, nsf.gov (DGE-1444932, to TLD). The
   content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not
   necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of
   Health or National Science Foundation. The funders had no role in study
   design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
   preparation of the manuscript.; Research reported in this publication
   was supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01-109501, to JCdR,
   BJB, and KSD), and the National Science Foundation (DGE-1444932, to
   TLD). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does
   not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes
   of Health or National Science Foundation.}},
Cited-References = {{Aliano NP, 2005, J APICULT RES, V44, P54, DOI 10.1080/00218839.2005.11101148.
   ANDERSON R M, 1991.
   Bates D, 2015, J STAT SOFTW, V67, P1, DOI 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
   Bowers MA, 1997, J MAMMAL, V78, P999, DOI 10.2307/1383044.
   Branco MR, 2006, APIDOLOGIE, V37, P452, DOI 10.1051/apido:2006010.
   Brosi BJ, 2017, NAT ECOL EVOL, V1, P1250, DOI 10.1038/s41559-017-0246-z.
   Cao TT, 2008, BIOL LETTERS, V4, P613, DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0381.
   Dainat B, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0032151.
   Dainat B, 2012, APPL ENVIRON MICROB, V78, P981, DOI 10.1128/AEM.06537-11.
   Delaplane KS, 2013, J APICULT RES, V52, DOI {[}10.3896/IBRA.1.52.4.12, 10.3896/IBRA.1.52.1.03].
   Delaplane KS, 1999, APIDOLOGIE, V30, P383, DOI 10.1051/apido:19990504.
   Delaplane KS, 1997, J APICULT RES, V36, P125, DOI 10.1080/00218839.1997.11100938.
   DYNES TL, 2017, PARASITOLOGY, V48, P93, DOI DOI 10.1007/S13592-016-0453-7.
   Farrar CL, 1937, J AGRIC RES, V54, P0945.
   Fievet J, 2006, VIROL J, V3, DOI 10.1186/1743-422X-3-16.
   Fowler C.W., 1987, Current Mammalogy, V1, P401.
   FREE J. B., 1958, JOUR AGRIC SCI, V51, P294.
   FREE JB, 1968, ENTOMOL EXP APPL, V11, P241, DOI 10.1111/j.1570-7458.1968.tb02048.x.
   Frey E, 2014, J ECON ENTOMOL, V107, P1, DOI {[}10.1603/ec13362, DOI 10.1603/EC13362].
   FRIES I, 1991, EXP APPL ACAROL, V10, P279, DOI 10.1007/BF01198656.
   Gordon DM, 1996, ECOLOGY, V77, P2393, DOI 10.2307/2265741.
   Grace James B., 1999, Perspectives in Plant Ecology Evolution and Systematics, V2, P1, DOI 10.1078/1433-8319-00063.
   Halekoh U, 2006, J STAT SOFTW, V15, P1, DOI 10.18637/jss.v015.i02.
   Harbo JR, 1999, APIDOLOGIE, V30, P183, DOI 10.1051/apido:19990208.
   HARBO JR, 1993, J ECON ENTOMOL, V86, P1672, DOI 10.1093/jee/86.6.1672.
   Hudson PJ, 2002, ECOLOGY WILDLIFE DIS.
   Huzzey JM, 2006, J DAIRY SCI, V89, P126, DOI 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72075-6.
   JAY S C, 1966, Journal of Apicultural Research, V5, P137.
   Kralj J, 2006, APIDOLOGIE, V37, P577, DOI 10.1051/apido:2006040.
   Lau CW, 2010, APIDOLOGIE, V41, P87, DOI 10.1051/apido/2009052.
   Lively CM, 2006, ECOL LETT, V9, P1089, DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00969.x.
   Lizaso JLS, 2000, ENVIRON CONSERV, V27, P144, DOI 10.1017/S0376892900000187.
   Malthus T.R., 1798, ESSAY PRINCIPLE POPU.
   Milani N, 2001, APIDOLOGIE, V32, P127, DOI 10.1051/apido:2001118.
   Murilhas AM, 2002, APIDOLOGIE, V33, P271, DOI 10.1051/apido:2002013.
   Nazzi F, 2012, PLOS PATHOG, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.ppat.1002735.
   Neumann P, 1999, J APICULT RES, V38, P11, DOI 10.1080/00218839.1999.11100990.
   Neumann P, 2000, APIDOLOGIE, V31, P67, DOI 10.1051/apido:2000107.
   Nolan MP, 2017, APIDOLOGIE, V48, P8, DOI 10.1007/s13592-016-0443-9.
   OATEN A, 1975, AM NAT, V109, P289, DOI 10.1086/282998.
   Potts SG, 2017, ASSESSMENT REPORT PO, P556.
   R Core Team, 2017, R LANG ENV STAT COMP.
   Ramsey D, 2002, J APPL ECOL, V39, P806, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00760.x.
   RATNIEKS FLW, 1991, CAN ENTOMOL, V123, P353, DOI 10.4039/Ent123353-2.
   Rondeau V, 2012, J STAT SOFTW, V47, P1.
   Rosenkranz P, 2010, J INVERTEBR PATHOL, V103, pS96, DOI 10.1016/j.jip.2009.07.016.
   Rossetti BJ, 2017, METHODS ECOL EVOL, P1.
   Rueppell O, 2009, EXP GERONTOL, V44, P447, DOI 10.1016/j.exger.2009.04.003.
   Seeley TD, 2007, APIDOLOGIE, V38, P19, DOI 10.1051/apido:2006055.
   Seeley TD, 2015, APIDOLOGIE, V46, P716, DOI 10.1007/s13592-015-0361-2.
   STILING P, 1988, J ANIM ECOL, V57, P581, DOI 10.2307/4926.
   Thom C, 2003, J EXP BIOL, V206, P2111, DOI 10.1242/jeb.00398.
   Traynor KS, 2016, APIDOLOGIE, V47, P325, DOI 10.1007/s13592-016-0431-0.
   van Dooremalen C, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0036285.
   vanEngelsdorp D, 2010, J APICULT RES, V49, P7, DOI 10.3896/IBRA.1.49.1.03.
   vanEngelsdorp D, 2010, J INVERTEBR PATHOL, V103, pS80, DOI 10.1016/j.jip.2009.06.011.
   Yarahmadi P, 2016, FISH SHELLFISH IMMUN, V48, P43, DOI 10.1016/j.fsi.2015.11.007.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{57}},
Times-Cited = {{6}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{2}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{7}},
Journal-ISO = {{PLoS One}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{HZ3VE}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000468775700011}},
OA = {{DOAJ Gold, Green Published}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000483017200003,
Author = {Ison, Jennifer L. and Tuan, Elizabeth S. L. and Koski, Matthew H. and
   Whalen, Jack S. and Galloway, Laura F.},
Title = {{The role of pollinator preference in the maintenance of pollen colour
   variation}},
Journal = {{ANNALS OF BOTANY}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{123}},
Number = {{6}},
Pages = {{951-960}},
Month = {{MAY 8}},
Abstract = {{Background and Aims Pollinators often drive the evolution of floral
   traits, but their capacity to influence the evolution of pollen colour
   remains unclear. Pollen colour in Campanula americana is variable and
   displays a longitudinal cline from prevalence of deep purple in western
   populations to white and light-purple pollen in eastern populations.
   While selection for thermal tolerance probably underlies darker pollen
   in the west, factors contributing to the predominance of light pollen in
   eastern populations and the maintenance of colour variation within
   populations throughout the range are unknown. Here we examine whether
   pollinators contribute to the maintenance of pollen colour variation in
   C. americana.
   Methods In a flight cage experiment, we assessed whether Bombus
   impatiens foragers can use pollen colour as a reward cue. We then
   established floral arrays that varied in the frequency of white-and
   purple-pollen plants in two naturally occurring eastern populations. We
   observed foraging patterns of wild bees, totalling >1100 individual
   visits.
   Key Results We successfully trained B. impatiens to prefer one pollen
   colour morph. In natural populations, the specialist pollinator,
   Megachile campanulae, displayed a strong and consistent preference for
   purple-pollen plants regardless of morph frequency. Megachile also
   exhibited a bias toward pollen-bearing male-phase flowers, and this bias
   was more pronounced for purple pollen. The other main pollinators,
   Bombus spp. and small bees, did not display pollen colour preference.
   Conclusions Previous research found that Megachile removes twice as much
   pollen per visit as other bees and can deplete pollen from natural
   populations. Taken together, these results suggest that Megachile could
   reduce the reproductive success of plants with purple pollen, resulting
   in the prevalence of light-coloured pollen in eastern populations of C.
   americana. Our research demonstrates that pollinator preferences may
   play a role in the maintenance of pollen colour variation in natural
   populations.}},
Publisher = {{OXFORD UNIV PRESS}},
Address = {{GREAT CLARENDON ST, OXFORD OX2 6DP, ENGLAND}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Ison, JL (Corresponding Author), Coll Wooster, Dept Biol, 1189 Beall Ave, Wooster, OH 44691 USA.
   Ison, Jennifer L.; Tuan, Elizabeth S. L.; Whalen, Jack S., Coll Wooster, Dept Biol, 1189 Beall Ave, Wooster, OH 44691 USA.
   Koski, Matthew H.; Galloway, Laura F., Univ Virginia, Dept Biol, 485 McCormick Rd, Charlottesville, VA 22904 USA.}},
DOI = {{10.1093/aob/mcy211}},
ISSN = {{0305-7364}},
EISSN = {{1095-8290}},
Keywords = {{Bombus; Campanula americana; Campanulastrum americanum; floral traits;
   geographic cline; Megachile; plant-pollinator interaction; pollen
   colour; pollen depletion}},
Keywords-Plus = {{FLOWER COLOR; BOMBUS-TERRESTRIS; NIGELLA-DEGENII; EVOLUTION;
   POLYMORPHISM; SELECTION; POPULATIONS; BUMBLEBEES; FREQUENCY; CUES}},
Research-Areas = {{Plant Sciences}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Plant Sciences}},
Author-Email = {{jison@wooster.edu}},
ORCID-Numbers = {{Ison, Jennifer/0000-0003-3857-2859}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{NSFNational Science Foundation (NSF) {[}DEB 1457037]; College of
   Wooster's Wilson Award; College of Copeland Award}},
Funding-Text = {{We thank S. Garcia and A. Padilla for field assistance; W. Crannage for
   plant care; R. J. Mitchell for assistance locating populations, and J.
   R. K. Forrest for insight on maintaining the bumble-bee colonies. This
   work was supported by NSF DEB 1457037 to L.F.G. and a supplemental ROA
   award to L.F.G., M.H.K. and J.L.I. Additional funding was provided
   through The College of Wooster's Wilson and Copeland Awards.}},
Cited-References = {{Austen EJ, 2018, ECOLOGY, V99, P926, DOI 10.1002/ecy.2164.
   Barnard-Kubow KB, 2015, AM J BOT, V102, P1842, DOI 10.3732/ajb.1500267.
   Briscoe AD, 2001, ANNU REV ENTOMOL, V46, P471, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.471.
   BROWN BA, 1984, EVOLUTION, V38, P796, DOI 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1984.tb00352.x.
   Campbell DR, 2010, ECOLOGY, V91, P2638, DOI 10.1890/09-0941.1.
   Castellanos MC, 2003, EVOLUTION, V57, P2742, DOI 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2003.tb01516.x.
   CHITTKA L, 1992, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V171, P171, DOI 10.1007/BF00188925.
   Eckhart VM, 2006, OIKOS, V112, P412, DOI 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2006.14289.x.
   Evanhoe L, 2002, AM J BOT, V89, P587, DOI 10.3732/ajb.89.4.587.
   Fenster CB, 2004, ANNU REV ECOL EVOL S, V35, P375, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132347.
   Foster JJ, 2014, CURR BIOL, V24, P1415, DOI 10.1016/j.cub.2014.05.007.
   Frey FM, 2004, EVOLUTION, V58, P2426, DOI 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2004.tb00872.x.
   Gigord LDB, 2001, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V98, P6253, DOI 10.1073/pnas.111162598.
   Gumbert A, 2000, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V48, P36, DOI 10.1007/s002650000213.
   Jander U, 2002, ARTHROPOD STRUCT DEV, V30, P179, DOI 10.1016/S1467-8039(01)00035-4.
   JONES CE, 1974, ANIM BEHAV, V22, P481, DOI 10.1016/S0003-3472(74)80047-3.
   Jones KN, 2001, AM J BOT, V88, P447, DOI 10.2307/2657109.
   Jorgensen TH, 2005, NEW PHYTOL, V168, P487, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01525.x.
   Jorgensen TH, 2006, EVOL ECOL, V20, P291, DOI 10.1007/s10682-006-0008-x.
   Koski MH, 2018, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V285, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2018.0635.
   Koski MH, 2018, AM J BOT, V105, P241, DOI 10.1002/ajb2.1025.
   Koski MH, 2018, NEW PHYTOL, V218, P370, DOI 10.1111/nph.14961.
   Koski MH, 2017, ECOLOGY, V98, P2930, DOI 10.1002/ecy.2001.
   Lau JA, 2004, OECOLOGIA, V141, P577, DOI 10.1007/s00442-004-1677-1.
   LUNAU K, 1991, ETHOLOGY, V88, P203, DOI 10.1111/j.1439-0310.1991.tb00275.x.
   Maia R, 2013, METHODS ECOL EVOL, V4, P906, DOI 10.1111/2041-210X.12069.
   MO YY, 1992, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V89, P7213, DOI 10.1073/pnas.89.15.7213.
   Nicholls E, 2017, FUNCT ECOL, V31, P76, DOI 10.1111/1365-2435.12778.
   Nicholls E, 2014, J EXP BIOL, V217, P2783, DOI 10.1242/jeb.106120.
   Okinaka Y, 2003, BIOSCI BIOTECH BIOCH, V67, P161, DOI 10.1271/bbb.67.161.
   Olsen KM, 1997, OECOLOGIA, V109, P114, DOI 10.1007/PL00008811.
   Parker AJ, 2016, ECOL EVOL, V6, P5169, DOI 10.1002/ece3.2252.
   PEITSCH D, 1992, J COMP PHYSIOL A, V170, P23, DOI 10.1007/BF00190398.
   Pernal SF, 2002, ANIM BEHAV, V63, P369, DOI 10.1006/anbe.2001.1904.
   Rebelo AG, 1985, OECOLOGIA, V65, P584, DOI 10.1007/BF00379677.
   SCHEMSKE DW, 1984, SCIENCE, V225, P519, DOI 10.1126/science.225.4661.519.
   Schemske DW, 1999, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V96, P11910, DOI 10.1073/pnas.96.21.11910.
   Skorupski P, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0012049.
   STANTON ML, 1987, AM J BOT, V74, P178, DOI 10.2307/2444019.
   Tanaka Y, 2008, PLANT J, V54, P733, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03447.x.
   Thairu MW, 2015, ANN BOT-LONDON, V115, P971, DOI 10.1093/aob/mcv028.
   Twyford AD, 2018, AM NAT, V191, P135, DOI 10.1086/694853.
   Wang XY, 2018, EVOLUTION, V72, P785, DOI 10.1111/evo.13445.
   WIERMANN R, 1983, PROTOPLASMA, V118, P230, DOI 10.1007/BF01281807.
   Winkel-Shirley B, 2002, CURR OPIN PLANT BIOL, V5, P218, DOI 10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00256-X.
   Wright S, 1943, GENETICS, V28, P139.
   YLSTRA B, 1992, PLANT PHYSIOL, V100, P902, DOI 10.1104/pp.100.2.902.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{47}},
Times-Cited = {{3}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{2}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{24}},
Journal-ISO = {{Ann. Bot.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{IT6WO}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000483017200003}},
OA = {{Bronze, Green Published}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000482173400010,
Author = {Gilpin, Amy-Marie and Denham, Andrew J. and Ayre, David J.},
Title = {{Do mass flowering agricultural species affect the pollination of
   Australian native plants through localised depletion of pollinators or
   pollinator spillover effects?}},
Journal = {{AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS \& ENVIRONMENT}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{277}},
Pages = {{83-94}},
Month = {{MAY 1}},
Abstract = {{Australian agricultural landscapes are dominated by northern-hemisphere
   mass flowering species, with the potential to disrupt pollination of
   adjacent co-flowering plants. In northern-hemisphere systems, mass
   flowering plants can act as pollinator magnets. Magnets can reduce the
   pollination success of adjacent co-flowering neighbours by drawing
   pollinators from these plants. However, magnets can also produce
   pollination spillover-effects through increased pollinator movements to
   adjacent co-flowering taxa, potentially either increasing pollination or
   impacting it through transfer of mixed-species pollen. The impact of
   agricultural species on co-flowering plants in Australia is unknown.
   Native Australian plants evolved with unique pollinators and yet
   agricultural pollination is dominated by the exotic honeybee Apis
   mellifera. We tested how distance (to 250 m) from each of two
   populations of Lavender (Lavandula spp.) (2 years), Nectarines (Prunus
   persica var. nucipersica or var. nectarina) (1 year) and the pasture
   weed Patersons Curse (Echium plantagineum) (2 years) affected pollinator
   diversity and abundance within experimental arrays of native and
   northern-hemisphere plants. For Patersons Curse, we tested whether
   visitation varied when honeybee abundance was experimentally increased.
   As expected, we found magnets attracted significantly more honeybee
   visits in all possible comparisons across combinations of species, sites
   and years. However, contrary to expectation, in 10 of 18 comparisons,
   co-flowering species supported a slightly higher diversity of
   pollinators than magnets, with honeybees comprising a significantly
   lower proportion of flower visitors in 14 comparisons. The exceptions,
   which included populations of all three magnet species, were cases where
   honeybees were the only visitor (6 comparisons) or the magnet and
   co-flowering species were each visited by a single but different
   pollinator (2 compariosns). Most strikingly, our data provided no
   evidence of pollinator spillover. More than 95\% of all pollinators on
   co-flowering species carried only their pollen and overall pollinator
   abundance didn't vary significantly with distance from magnets at any
   site or time. Honeybee abundance did not vary significantly with
   distance from magnets. For Patersons Curse, the addition of managed
   hives increased honeybee abundance on co-flowering species in two of
   eight cases, but pollinator abundance didn't vary with distance from the
   magnet. Overall, we found few direct effects of mass flowering
   agricultural species on the pollination of either Australian native or
   exotic neighbours. The lack of spillover-effects may largely reflect the
   unusually high species fidelity of foraging A. mellifera. However, the
   numerical dominance of honeybees within Australian agricultural systems
   may impact pollination at the regional level.}},
Publisher = {{ELSEVIER}},
Address = {{RADARWEG 29, 1043 NX AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Gilpin, AM (Corresponding Author), Western Sydney Univ, Hawkesbury Inst Environm, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
   Gilpin, Amy-Marie; Denham, Andrew J.; Ayre, David J., Univ Wollongong, Ctr Sustainable Ecosyst Solut, Sch Biol Sci, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.
   Gilpin, Amy-Marie, Western Sydney Univ, Hawkesbury Inst Environm, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW 2751, Australia.
   Denham, Andrew J., NSW Off Environm \& Heritage, Hurstville, Australia.}},
DOI = {{10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.010}},
ISSN = {{0167-8809}},
EISSN = {{1873-2305}},
Keywords = {{Agroecosystems; Pollination; Apis mellifera; Honeybee abundance;
   Australian native plants; Southern-hemisphere}},
Keywords-Plus = {{OILSEED RAPE; CROPS; LANDSCAPE; HONEYBEES; ABUNDANCE; BEES}},
Research-Areas = {{Agriculture; Environmental Sciences \& Ecology}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Agriculture, Multidisciplinary; Ecology; Environmental Sciences}},
Author-Email = {{a.gilpin@westernsydney.edu.au
   andrew.denham@environment.nsw.gov.au
   dja@uow.edu.au}},
ResearcherID-Numbers = {{Ayre, David J/A-8761-2008
   Gilpin, Amy-Marie/AAV-6954-2020
   Denham, Andrew/E-3545-2012}},
ORCID-Numbers = {{Ayre, David J/0000-0002-3124-4417
   Gilpin, Amy-Marie/0000-0002-3143-5678
   Denham, Andrew/0000-0002-8375-2747}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{ARCAustralian Research Council {[}LP100100672]; Centre for Sustainable
   Ecosystem Solutions at the University of Wollongong; APA}},
Funding-Text = {{A-MG, AJD and DJA conceived the ideas and designed methodology; A-MG
   collected the data; A-MG analysed the data; A-MG, AJD and DJA wrote the
   manuscript. This work was supported by ARC linkage grant LP100100672 to
   DJA and AJD and by the Centre for Sustainable Ecosystem Solutions at the
   University of Wollongong. A-MG was supported by an APA.}},
Cited-References = {{Bates D, 2013, J STAT SOFTW, V52, P1, DOI 10.18637/jss.v052.i05.
   Beekman M, 2000, FUNCT ECOL, V14, P490, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2000.00443.x.
   Bolker BM, 2009, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V24, P127, DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.008.
   Chittka L, 2001, NATURE, V411, P653, DOI 10.1038/35079676.
   Cunningham SA, 2002, AUST J AGR RES, V53, P893, DOI 10.1071/AR01186.
   Cussans J, 2010, PLOS ONE, V5, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0011753.
   Diekotter T, 2010, J APPL ECOL, V47, P209, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01759.x.
   Donkersley P, 2019, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V270, P79, DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2018.10.024.
   Fox J, 2011, R COMPANION APPL REG.
   Gilpin AM, 2019, BASIC APPL ECOL, V35, P34, DOI 10.1016/j.baae.2018.12.003.
   Gilpin AM, 2017, ECOL ENTOMOL, V42, P383, DOI 10.1111/een.12394.
   Gilpin AM, 2014, ECOL RES, V29, P225, DOI 10.1007/s11284-013-1117-y.
   Gonzalez-Varo JP, 2017, BIOL CONSERV, V212, P376, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.06.018.
   Grab H, 2017, SCI REP-UK, V7, DOI 10.1038/srep45296.
   Grabas GP, 1999, ECOSCIENCE, V6, P230, DOI 10.1080/11956860.1999.11682524.
   Hagen M, 2010, BIOL CONSERV, V143, P1654, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.03.036.
   Hanley ME, 2011, OIKOS, V120, P1618, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0706.2011.19233.x.
   Klein AM, 2007, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V274, P303, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2006.3721.
   Kovacs-Hostyanszki A, 2013, ECOL APPL, V23, P1938, DOI 10.1890/12-2012.1.
   Larson DL, 2006, BIOL CONSERV, V130, P148, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.12.009.
   Lopezaraiza-Mikel ME, 2007, ECOL LETT, V10, P539, DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01055.x.
   McGregor S. E, 1976, AGR HDB USDA, V496, P93.
   Montero-Castano A, 2016, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V223, P22, DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.019.
   Paton D. C., 1906, OVERVIEW FERAL MANAG.
   PATON DC, 1993, BIOSCIENCE, V43, P95, DOI 10.2307/1311970.
   R Core Development Team, 2014, R LANG ENV STAT COMP.
   Raine NE, 2007, ENTOMOL GEN, V29, P179.
   Samnegard U, 2011, BIOL CONSERV, V144, P2602, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.07.008.
   Stanley DA, 2014, PLANT ECOL, V215, P315, DOI 10.1007/s11258-014-0301-7.
   Tscharmke T., 2011, P INT C E BUS ICE B, P1.
   VISSCHER PK, 1982, ECOLOGY, V63, P1790, DOI 10.2307/1940121.
   Westphal C, 2003, ECOL LETT, V6, P961, DOI 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00523.x.
   Whelan RJ, 2009, ANN BOT-LONDON, V103, P1395, DOI 10.1093/aob/mcp091.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{33}},
Times-Cited = {{0}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{7}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{17}},
Journal-ISO = {{Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{IS5DW}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000482173400010}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000472599200004,
Author = {Jones, Julia A. and Hutchinson, Rebecca and Moldenke, Andy and Pfeiffer,
   Vera and Helderop, Edward and Thomas, Elaina and Griffin, Josh and
   Reinholtz, Amanda},
Title = {{Landscape patterns and diversity of meadow plants and flower-visitors in
   a mountain landscape}},
Journal = {{LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{34}},
Number = {{5, SI}},
Pages = {{997-1014}},
Month = {{MAY}},
Abstract = {{ContextWild flowering plants and their wild insect visitors are of great
   importance for pollination. Montane meadows are biodiversity hotspots
   for flowering plants and pollinators, but they are contracting due to
   tree invasion.ObjectivesThis study quantified flowering plants and their
   flower-visitor species in montane meadows in the western Cascade Range
   of Oregon. Species diversity in small, isolated meadows was expected to
   be lower and nested relative to large meadows. Alternatively, landform
   features may influence richness and spatial turnover.MethodsFlowering
   plants and their visitors were sampled in summers of 2011-2017 in twelve
   montane meadows with varying soil moisture. All flowering plants and all
   flower-visitors were recorded during five to seven 15min watches in ten
   3x3m plots in each meadow and year.ResultsA total of 178 flowering plant
   species, 688 flower-visitor species and 137,916 interactions were
   identified. Richness of flower-visitors was related to meadow patch
   size, but neither plant nor flower-visitor richness was related to
   isolation measured as meadow area within 1000m. Species in small meadows
   were not nested subsets of those in large meadows. Species replacement
   accounted for more than 78\% of dissimilarity between meadows and was
   positively related to differences in soil moisture.ConclusionsAlthough
   larger meadows contained more species, landform features have influenced
   meadow configuration, persistence, and soil moisture, contributing to
   high plant and insect species diversity. Hence, conservation and
   restoration of a variety of meadow types may promote landscape diversity
   of wild plants and pollinators.}},
Publisher = {{SPRINGER}},
Address = {{VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Jones, JA (Corresponding Author), Oregon State Univ, CEOAS, Geog, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
   Jones, Julia A., Oregon State Univ, CEOAS, Geog, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
   Hutchinson, Rebecca, Oregon State Univ, Elect Engn \& Comp Sci, Fisheries \& Wildlife, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
   Moldenke, Andy, Oregon State Univ, Dept Bot, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
   Pfeiffer, Vera, Univ Wisconsin, Nelson Inst Environm Studies, Madison, WI USA.
   Helderop, Edward, Arizona State Univ, Sch Geog Sci \& Urban Planning, Phoenix, AZ USA.
   Thomas, Elaina, Carleton Coll, Dept Biol, Northfield, MN 55057 USA.
   Griffin, Josh, Oregon State Univ, Elect Engn \& Comp Sci, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA.
   Reinholtz, Amanda, Long Tom Watershed Council, Eugene, OR USA.}},
DOI = {{10.1007/s10980-018-0740-y}},
ISSN = {{0921-2973}},
EISSN = {{1572-9761}},
Keywords = {{Functional connectivity; Species replacement; Spatial turnover;
   Nestedness; Soil moisture; HJ Andrews Experimental Forest; Meadow
   restoration}},
Keywords-Plus = {{HABITAT FRAGMENTATION; TREE ESTABLISHMENT; FORAGING RANGES; CASCADE
   RANGE; CONNECTIVITY; INVASION; RESPONSES; BEES; SUSCEPTIBILITY;
   POLLINATORS}},
Research-Areas = {{Environmental Sciences \& Ecology; Physical Geography; Geology}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Ecology; Geography, Physical; Geosciences, Multidisciplinary}},
Author-Email = {{jonesj@geo.oregonstate.edu}},
ORCID-Numbers = {{Jones, Julia Allen/0000-0001-9429-8925}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{National Science FoundationNational Science Foundation (NSF) {[}1440409,
   1559933]}},
Funding-Text = {{This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grants 1440409 to
   the HJ Andrews Long-term Ecological Research (LTER) Program and 1559933
   to the EcoInformatics Summer Institute. We thank Katherine E. Jones,
   Stephanie Bianco, and the EcoInformatics Summer Institute field crews
   from 2011 through 2017. F.J. Swanson provided helpful review comments.}},
Cited-References = {{Aguilar R, 2006, ECOL LETT, V9, P968, DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00927.x.
   Aguirre-Gutierrez J, 2015, DIVERS DISTRIB, V21, P1129, DOI 10.1111/ddi.12350.
   AIZEN MA, 1994, ECOL APPL, V4, P378, DOI 10.2307/1941941.
   Alarcon R, 2008, OIKOS, V117, P1796, DOI 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2008.16987.x.
   Bascompte J, 2003, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V100, P9383, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1633576100.
   Baselga A, 2012, METHODS ECOL EVOL, V3, P808, DOI 10.1111/j.2041-210X.2012.00224.x.
   Baselga A, 2010, GLOBAL ECOL BIOGEOGR, V19, P134, DOI 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00490.x.
   Beekman M, 2000, FUNCT ECOL, V14, P490, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2435.2000.00443.x.
   Belisle M, 2005, ECOLOGY, V86, P1988, DOI 10.1890/04-0923.
   Burkle LA, 2013, SCIENCE, V339, P1611, DOI 10.1126/science.1232728.
   Burkle LA, 2011, AM J BOT, V98, P528, DOI 10.3732/ajb.1000391.
   CaraDonna PJ, 2017, ECOL LETT, V20, P385, DOI 10.1111/ele.12740.
   Carstensen DW, 2014, PLOS ONE, V9, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0112903.
   Chacoff NP, 2018, ECOLOGY, V99, P21, DOI 10.1002/ecy.2063.
   Chacoff NP, 2012, J ANIM ECOL, V81, P190, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01883.x.
   Chao A, 2005, ECOL LETT, V8, P148, DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00707.x.
   Coop JD, 2007, J BIOGEOGR, V34, P914, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2006.01660.x.
   Cristofoli S, 2010, LANDSCAPE URBAN PLAN, V98, P92, DOI 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.014.
   Dailey M. M., 2007, THESIS.
   Ekroos J, 2013, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V28, P1283, DOI 10.1007/s10980-013-9864-2.
   Fahrig L, 2003, ANNU REV ECOL EVOL S, V34, P487, DOI 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132419.
   Garibaldi LA, 2014, FRONT ECOL ENVIRON, V12, P439, DOI 10.1890/130330.
   Garibaldi LA, 2011, ECOL LETT, V14, P1062, DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x.
   Gathmann A, 2002, J ANIM ECOL, V71, P757, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x.
   Gilarranz LJ, 2015, J ANIM ECOL, V84, P407, DOI 10.1111/1365-2656.12304.
   GOTTESFELD A S, 1981, Northwest Science, V55, P157.
   Greenleaf SS, 2007, OECOLOGIA, V153, P589, DOI 10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9.
   Hadley AS, 2012, BIOL REV, V87, P526, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2011.00205.x.
   Halpern CB, 2010, J VEG SCI, V21, P717, DOI 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2010.01183.x.
   Helderop E, 2015, DIVERSITY GEN SPECIA.
   Herrera LP, 2017, BIODIVERS CONSERV, V26, P3465, DOI 10.1007/s10531-017-1416-7.
   Highland SA, 2011, THESIS.
   JAKUBOS B, 1993, ARCTIC ALPINE RES, V25, P382, DOI 10.2307/1551921.
   Jha S, 2013, P NATL ACAD SCI USA, V110, P555, DOI 10.1073/pnas.1208682110.
   Jones JA, 1996, WATER RESOUR RES, V32, P959, DOI 10.1029/95WR03493.
   Jones K.E., 2016, THESIS.
   Kindlmann P, 2008, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V23, P879, DOI 10.1007/s10980-008-9245-4.
   Legendre P, 2013, ECOL LETT, V16, P951, DOI 10.1111/ele.12141.
   Meyer B, 2009, BASIC APPL ECOL, V10, P178, DOI 10.1016/j.baae.2008.01.001.
   Millar CI, 2004, ARCT ANTARCT ALP RES, V36, P181, DOI 10.1657/1523-0430(2004)036{[}0181:ROSCIT]2.0.CO;2.
   Miller EA, 1998, J VEG SCI, V9, P265, DOI 10.2307/3237126.
   MOLDENKE A R, 1979, Phytologia, V42, P223.
   MOLDENKE AR, 1975, OECOLOGIA, V21, P219, DOI {[}10.1007/BF02404674, 10.1007/PL00020263].
   Montoya J. M., 2017, ADAPTIVE FOOD WEEBS, P289.
   Neumann JL, 2016, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V31, P301, DOI 10.1007/s10980-015-0244-y.
   Ogilvie JE, 2017, CURR OPIN INSECT SCI, V21, P75, DOI 10.1016/j.cois.2017.05.015.
   Olesen JM, 2008, ECOLOGY, V89, P1573, DOI 10.1890/07-0451.1.
   Osborne JL, 2008, J ANIM ECOL, V77, P406, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2007.01333.x.
   Parendes LA, 2000, CONSERV BIOL, V14, P64, DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99089.x.
   Petanidou T, 2008, ECOL LETT, V11, P564, DOI 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01170.x.
   Pfeiffer VW, 2012, THESIS.
   Piqueray J, 2011, BIOL CONSERV, V144, P1619, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.02.013.
   Ponisio LC, 2017, ECOL LETT, V20, P1261, DOI 10.1111/ele.12821.
   R Core Team, 2018, R LANG ENV STAT COMP.
   Rao S, 2012, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V41, P905, DOI 10.1603/EN11316.
   Rice J. M., 2009, THESIS.
   Rice JM, 2012, PLANT ECOL, V213, P555, DOI 10.1007/s11258-012-0021-9.
   Sabatino M, 2010, ECOL APPL, V20, P1491, DOI 10.1890/09-1626.1.
   Schweiger O, 2005, J APPL ECOL, V42, P1129, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01085.x.
   Senapathi D, 2017, FUNCT ECOL, V31, P26, DOI 10.1111/1365-2435.12809.
   Senapathi D, 2015, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V282, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2015.0294.
   Steckel J, 2014, BIOL CONSERV, V172, P56, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.015.
   SWANSON FJ, 1988, BIOSCIENCE, V38, P92, DOI 10.2307/1310614.
   Takaoka S, 2008, PROF GEOGR, V60, P527, DOI 10.1080/00330120802212099.
   TAYLOR PD, 1993, OIKOS, V68, P571, DOI 10.2307/3544927.
   Tischendorf L, 2000, OIKOS, V90, P7, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x.
   Traveset A, 2016, GLOBAL ECOL BIOGEOGR, V25, P880, DOI 10.1111/geb.12362.
   VALE TR, 1981, AM MIDL NAT, V105, P61, DOI 10.2307/2425010.
   Whittall JB, 2007, NATURE, V447, P706, DOI 10.1038/nature05857.
   Wilson P, 2004, OIKOS, V104, P345, DOI 10.1111/j.0030-1299.2004.12819.x.
   Winfree R, 2009, ECOLOGY, V90, P2068, DOI 10.1890/08-1245.1.
   Zurbuchen A, 2010, BIOL CONSERV, V143, P669, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.003.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{72}},
Times-Cited = {{3}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{7}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{26}},
Journal-ISO = {{Landsc. Ecol.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{IE8BP}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000472599200004}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000472599200006,
Author = {Proesmans, Willem and Smagghe, Guy and Meeus, Ivan and Bonte, Dries and
   Verheyen, Kris},
Title = {{The effect of mass-flowering orchards and semi-natural habitat on
   bumblebee colony performance}},
Journal = {{LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{34}},
Number = {{5, SI}},
Pages = {{1033-1044}},
Month = {{MAY}},
Abstract = {{ContextBumblebees are important pollinators for agricultural crops and
   wild plants. However, agricultural intensification and loss of
   semi-natural habitat may have adverse effects on colony performance.
   While mass-flowering crops may serve as food sources, landscapes
   dominated by intensive agriculture may be a poor bumblebee habitat
   compared to landscapes dominated by semi-natural habitat, such as
   forests and species-rich grasslands.ObjectivesWe investigated the effect
   of different land use classes on bumblebee colony performance at two
   periods of time during the flying season. We expected mass-flowering
   crops to have a positive influence on colony performance during
   flowering. After mass-flowering, presence of semi-natural habitat was
   hypothesized to be essential for colony development.MethodsWe placed
   artificial colonies of Bombus terrestris in 28 apple and pear orchards
   during and after mass-flowering. We measured colony growth and took
   pollen samples from foraging workers. Causal relationships between
   land-use, pollen quality, amount of pollen collected and colony
   performance were analyzed.ResultsContrary to our expectations, we found
   a negative correlation between orchard cover and amount of pollen
   collected in spring, during mass-flowering, resulting in a lower colony
   performance. During mass-flowering, colony performance and pollen
   diversity were positively correlated with cover of open semi-natural
   habitat, while after mass-flowering, colony performance was positively
   correlated with forest cover. After mass-flowering, pollen sources were
   more diverse and colony growth was related to land use classes at a
   larger spatial scale, indicating that bumblebees foraged further. We did
   not find a correlation between the performances of colonies at one
   specific site that were placed during and after
   mass-flowering.ConclusionsLandscapes dominated by mass-flowering
   orchards represent inferior habitats for bumblebees during flowering.
   Heterogenous landscapes, containing a mix of various types of
   semi-natural habitat increase the habitat quality for bumblebees. We
   advise to maintain these diverse patches of semi-natural habitat, as
   mass-flowering crops alone are insufficient to support bumblebee
   colonies.}},
Publisher = {{SPRINGER}},
Address = {{VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Proesmans, W (Corresponding Author), Univ Ghent, Dept Environm, Forest \& Nat Lab, Geraardsbergsesteenweg 267, B-9090 Melle Gontrode, Belgium.
   Proesmans, Willem; Verheyen, Kris, Univ Ghent, Dept Environm, Forest \& Nat Lab, Geraardsbergsesteenweg 267, B-9090 Melle Gontrode, Belgium.
   Proesmans, Willem; Smagghe, Guy; Meeus, Ivan, Univ Ghent, Fac Biosci Engn, Dept Plant \& Crop Sci, Coupure Links 653, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
   Proesmans, Willem; Bonte, Dries, Univ Ghent, Biol Dept, Terr Ecol Unit, KL Ledeganckstr 35, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.}},
DOI = {{10.1007/s10980-019-00836-5}},
ISSN = {{0921-2973}},
EISSN = {{1572-9761}},
Keywords = {{Bumblebee colonies; Mass-flowering crops; Landscape phenology;
   Pollinators; Apple orchards; Semi-natural habitat}},
Keywords-Plus = {{PROVIDING FORAGING RESOURCES; BOMBUS-TERRESTRIS; HONEY-BEE; POLLINATING
   INSECTS; SPECIES RICHNESS; LANDSCAPE-SCALE; SOLITARY BEES; POLLEN;
   HYMENOPTERA; CROPS}},
Research-Areas = {{Environmental Sciences \& Ecology; Physical Geography; Geology}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Ecology; Geography, Physical; Geosciences, Multidisciplinary}},
Author-Email = {{willem.proesmans@ugent.be}},
ResearcherID-Numbers = {{Smagghe, Guy/AAE-8914-2019
   }},
ORCID-Numbers = {{Smagghe, Guy/0000-0001-8334-3313
   Verheyen, Kris/0000-0002-2067-9108
   Proesmans, Willem/0000-0003-0358-6732}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{FWO-VlaanderenFWO {[}FWO14/ASP/195]}},
Funding-Text = {{We are very grateful to Tim Belien (pcfruit) for his help in finding
   suitable locations for the experiment and to the farmers that allowed
   the experiment to be carried out in their orchards. We thank Felix
   Wackers (Biobest) for providing artificial bumblebee colonies. The first
   author was supported by a grant by FWO-Vlaanderen (Grant No.
   FWO14/ASP/195).}},
Cited-References = {{Aleixo KP, 2017, APIDOLOGIE, V48, P117, DOI 10.1007/s13592-016-0456-4.
   ALV, 2016, LANDB.
   BENTLER PM, 1990, PSYCHOL BULL, V107, P238, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
   Beug H.-J., 2004, LEITFADEN POLLENBEST.
   Bukovinszky T, 2017, BIOL CONSERV, V214, P312, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.027.
   Carvell C, 2006, BIOL CONSERV, V132, P481, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.05.008.
   Chapman RE, 2003, MOL ECOL, V12, P2801, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2003.01957.x.
   Croxton PJ, 2002, BIOL CONSERV, V107, P365, DOI 10.1016/S0006-3207(02)00074-5.
   Danner N, 2016, ECOL APPL, V26, P1920, DOI 10.1890/15-1840.1.
   De Knijf G, 2010, WETENSCHAPPELIJKE ON.
   Decourtye A, 2010, APIDOLOGIE, V41, P264, DOI 10.1051/apido/2010024.
   Fitzpatrick U, 2007, BIOL CONSERV, V136, P185, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.012.
   Foldesi R, 2015, AGR FOREST ENTOMOL.
   Franzen M, 2008, ECOGRAPHY, V31, P698, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2008.05110.x.
   Furst MA, 2014, NATURE, V506, P364, DOI 10.1038/nature12977.
   Gabriel D, 2007, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V118, P43, DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.005.
   Geldmann J, 2018, SCIENCE, V80, P359.
   Genissel A, 2002, ENTOMOL EXP APPL, V104, P329, DOI 10.1023/A:1021279220995.
   Goulson D, 2005, BIOL CONSERV, V122, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.06.017.
   Goulson D, 2002, OECOLOGIA, V130, P267, DOI 10.1007/s004420100803.
   Goulson D, 2009, J INSECT CONSERV, V13, P177, DOI 10.1007/s10841-008-9140-y.
   Grace J. B, 2006, STRUCT EQ MOD NAT.
   Herbertsson L, 2016, BASIC APPL ECOL, V17, P609, DOI 10.1016/j.baae.2016.05.001.
   Hines HM, 2005, ENVIRON ENTOMOL, V34, P1477, DOI 10.1603/0046-225X-34.6.1477.
   Holland JD, 2004, BIOSCIENCE, V54, P227, DOI 10.1641/0006-3568(2004)054{[}0227:DTSSOS]2.0.CO;2.
   Holzschuh A, 2008, OIKOS, V117, P354, DOI 10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16303.x.
   Holzschuh A, 2013, OECOLOGIA, V172, P477, DOI 10.1007/s00442-012-2515-5.
   Kamper W, 2016, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V31, P2245, DOI 10.1007/s10980-016-0395-5.
   Kallioniemi E, 2017, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V239, P90, DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2016.12.039.
   Kim H, 2014, MULTIVAR BEHAV RES, V49, P581, DOI 10.1080/00273171.2014.947352.
   Knight ME, 2005, MOL ECOL, V14, P1811, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-294X.2005.02540.x.
   Kovacs-Hostyanszki A, 2013, ECOL APPL, V23, P1938, DOI 10.1890/12-2012.1.
   Lye GC, 2009, BIOL CONSERV, V142, P2023, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.032.
   Mandelik Y, 2012, ECOL APPL, V22, P1535, DOI 10.1890/11-1299.1.
   Mattila HR, 2006, J ECON ENTOMOL, V99, P604, DOI 10.1603/0022-0493-99.3.604.
   Moore PD, 1994, POLLEN ANAL.
   Muller A, 2006, BIOL CONSERV, V130, P604, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.023.
   Ockinger E, 2007, J APPL ECOL, V44, P50, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01250.x.
   Odoux JF, 2012, APIDOLOGIE, V43, P561, DOI 10.1007/s13592-012-0125-1.
   Osborne JL, 1999, J APPL ECOL, V36, P519, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2664.1999.00428.x.
   Parmentier L, 2013, ENVIRON MONIT ASSESS, V185, P1, DOI {[}10.1007/s10661-012-2527-y, DOI 10.1007/S10661-012-2527-Y].
   Peat J, 2005, BEHAV ECOL SOCIOBIOL, V58, P152, DOI 10.1007/s00265-005-0916-8.
   Pywell RF, 2005, BIOL CONSERV, V121, P479, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2004.05.020.
   QGIS Development Team, 2015, QGIS 2 16 GEOGR INF.
   R Core Team, 2018, R LANG ENV STAT COMP.
   Rasmont P, 2008, ANN SOC ENTOMOL FR, V44, P243, DOI 10.1080/00379271.2008.10697559.
   Requier F, 2015, ECOL APPL, V25, P881, DOI 10.1890/14-1011.1.
   Riedinger V, 2014, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V29, P425, DOI 10.1007/s10980-013-9973-y.
   Rosseel Y, 2012, J STAT SOFTW, V48, P1, DOI 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
   Rotheray EL, 2017, J APICULT RES, V56, P288, DOI 10.1080/00218839.2017.1307712.
   Rundlof M, 2014, BIOL CONSERV, V172, P138, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.027.
   Scheper J, 2014, P NATL ACAD SCI US.
   Shavit O, 2009, ISR J PLANT SCI, V57, P171, DOI 10.1560/IJPS.57.3.171.
   Stanley DA, 2014, PLANT ECOL, V215, P315, DOI 10.1007/s11258-014-0301-7.
   Steffan-Dewenter I, 1999, OECOLOGIA, V121, P432, DOI 10.1007/s004420050949.
   Steffan-Dewenter I, 2000, OECOLOGIA, V122, P288, DOI 10.1007/s004420050034.
   Tasei JN, 2008, APIDOLOGIE, V39, P397, DOI 10.1051/apido:2008017.
   Thomson D, 2004, ECOLOGY, V85, P458, DOI 10.1890/02-0626.
   Vanbergen AJ, 2013, FRONT ECOL ENVIRON, V11, P251, DOI 10.1890/120126.
   Walther-Hellwig K, 2000, J INSECT BEHAV, V13, P239, DOI 10.1023/A:1007740315207.
   Westphal C, 2003, ECOL LETT, V6, P961, DOI 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00523.x.
   Westphal C, 2006, ECOL ENTOMOL, V31, P389, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2311.2006.00801.x.
   Williams NM, 2012, ECOLOGY, V93, P1049, DOI 10.1890/11-1006.1.
   Williams PH, 2009, APIDOLOGIE, V40, P367, DOI 10.1051/apido/2009025.
   Wolf S, 2008, APIDOLOGIE, V39, P419, DOI 10.1051/apido:2008020.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{65}},
Times-Cited = {{4}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{4}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{32}},
Journal-ISO = {{Landsc. Ecol.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{IE8BP}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000472599200006}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000472599200008,
Author = {Scherber, Christoph and Beduschi, Tatiane and Tscharntke, Teja},
Title = {{Novel approaches to sampling pollinators in whole landscapes: a lesson
   for landscape-wide biodiversity monitoring}},
Journal = {{LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{34}},
Number = {{5, SI}},
Pages = {{1057-1067}},
Month = {{MAY}},
Abstract = {{ContextBiodiversity monitoring programs require fast, reliable and
   cost-effective methods for biodiversity assessment in landscapes.
   Sampling pollinators across entire landscapes is challenging, as
   trapping needs to cover many habitat types.ObjectivesWe developed and
   tested a landscape-wide sampling design for pollinators. We assessed the
   predictability and stability of pollinator biodiversity estimates in
   agricultural landscapes, and tested how estimates were affected by
   sampled habitat, landscape composition and spatial scale.MethodsWe
   sampled pollinators using pan traps at 250 locations in 10 replicated
   landscapes measuring 1x1km and calculated bee richness predictions based
   on different sample sizes. Traps were placed regularly in each
   landscape, sampling each habitat proportionally to its area. Landscapes
   contained semi-natural habitats, crop fields and forests and differed in
   the amount of a mass-flowering crop (oilseed rape).ResultsRegular
   sampling reflected local habitat amount. Compared with cereal fields,
   significantly more pollinators occurred in oilseed rape, and fewer in
   forests. Sampling in only one habitat type led to biased estimates of
   landscape-wide bee species richness, even when sample size was
   increased. The spatial scale of best predictions depended on the sampled
   habitat. Species richness was overestimated when sampling was limited to
   semi-natural habitats and underestimated in oilseed rape fields.
   Precision increased with the number of sampling points per
   landscape.ConclusionsTo study landscape-wide pollinator biodiversity, we
   suggest to sample multiple sites per landscape in a broad range of
   resource-providing habitat types, with sample sizes proportional to
   habitat amount. Our approach will also be useful for biodiversity
   monitoring programs in general.}},
Publisher = {{SPRINGER}},
Address = {{VAN GODEWIJCKSTRAAT 30, 3311 GZ DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Scherber, C (Corresponding Author), Univ Munster, Inst Landscape Ecol, Heisenbergstr 2, D-48149 Munster, Germany.
   Scherber, Christoph, Univ Munster, Inst Landscape Ecol, Heisenbergstr 2, D-48149 Munster, Germany.
   Beduschi, Tatiane; Tscharntke, Teja, Georg August Univ Gottingen, Dept Crop Sci, Agroecol, Grisebachstr 6, D-37077 Gottingen, Germany.}},
DOI = {{10.1007/s10980-018-0757-2}},
ISSN = {{0921-2973}},
EISSN = {{1572-9761}},
Keywords = {{Apidae; Bees; Bumblebees; Wild bee; Regular sampling design; Grid-based
   sampling; Biodiversity monitoring; Ecological indicators; Insect
   decline; Community ecology}},
Keywords-Plus = {{PLANT; MANAGEMENT; DIVERSITY; DESIGN; FIELD}},
Research-Areas = {{Environmental Sciences \& Ecology; Physical Geography; Geology}},
Web-of-Science-Categories  = {{Ecology; Geography, Physical; Geosciences, Multidisciplinary}},
Author-Email = {{Christoph.Scherber@uni-muenster.de}},
ORCID-Numbers = {{Scherber, Christoph/0000-0001-7924-8911}},
Funding-Acknowledgement = {{Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)German Research Foundation (DFG)
   {[}RESA 464]; German BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and
   Research)Federal Ministry of Education \& Research (BMBF) {[}RESA 464]}},
Funding-Text = {{We are grateful to the Landesamt fur Geoinformation und Landentwicklung
   Niedersachsen for providing information on land-use and to the farmers
   for allowing us to perform this study on their fields. Funding was
   provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the frame
   of the Research Training Group 1644 ``Scaling Problems in
   Statistics{''}. RapidEye satellite imagery was kindly provided by the
   RapidEye Science Archive (RESA), grant number RESA 464, funded by the
   German BMBF (Federal Ministry of Education and Research).}},
Cited-References = {{Albert CH, 2010, ECOGRAPHY, V33, P1028, DOI 10.1111/j.1600-0587.2010.06421.x.
   {[}Anonymous], 2010, 251 ATKIS DLM ARB VE.
   Beduschi T, 2018, BIOL CONSERV.
   Beduschi T, 2015, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V30, P1975, DOI 10.1007/s10980-015-0224-2.
   Benefer CM, 2016, FRONT ECOL EVOL, V4, DOI 10.3389/fevo.2016.00041.
   Biesmeijer JC, 2006, SCIENCE, V313, P351, DOI 10.1126/science.1127863.
   Burnham KP, 2004, MODEL SELECTION MULT.
   Diekotter T, 2010, J APPL ECOL, V47, P209, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01759.x.
   Dormann C. F., 2007, GLOBAL ECOL BIOGEOGR, V30, P609.
   Dormann CF, 2007, GLOBAL ECOL BIOGEOGR, V16, P774, DOI 10.1111/j.1466-8238.2007.00344.x.
   Edwards TC, 2006, ECOL MODEL, V199, P132, DOI 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.05.016.
   Everwand G, 2014, BMC ECOL, V14, DOI 10.1186/1472-6785-14-1.
   Fortin M.-J., 2005, SPAT ANAL GUID EC, DOI DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511542039.
   Gillespie MAK, 2017, METHODS ECOL EVOL.
   Hallmann CA, 2017, PLOS ONE, V12, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0185809.
   Hirzel A, 2002, ECOL MODEL, V157, P331, DOI 10.1016/S0304-3800(02)00203-X.
   Holzschuh A, 2016, ECOL LETT.
   Holzschuh A, 2011, P ROY SOC B-BIOL SCI, V278, P3444, DOI 10.1098/rspb.2011.0268.
   Kowalski E, 2011, ENTOMOL EXP APPL, V140, P35, DOI 10.1111/j.1570-7458.2011.01134.x.
   Krebs C.J., 1999, ECOLOGICAL METHODOLO.
   Le Feon V, 2010, AGR ECOSYST ENVIRON, V137, P143, DOI 10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.015.
   Maechler M., 2017, CLUSTER CLUSTER ANAL.
   Manley PN, 2004, ECOL APPL, V14, P296, DOI 10.1890/02-5249.
   Marsh CJ, 2013, METHODS ECOL EVOL, V4, P63, DOI 10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00256.x.
   Martin LJ, 2012, FRONT ECOL ENVIRON, V10, P195, DOI 10.1890/110154.
   MOHLER CL, 1983, VEGETATIO, V54, P97, DOI 10.1007/BF00035144.
   Pinheiro J, 2018, NLME LINEAR NONLINEA, V3, P1, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1654-1103.2009.05548.X.
   Potts SG, 2010, TRENDS ECOL EVOL, V25, P345, DOI 10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007.
   R Core Team, 2018, R LANG ENV STAT COMP.
   Ripley BD, 2005, SPATIAL STAT, P19.
   Rusch A, 2011, LANDSCAPE ECOL, V26, P473, DOI 10.1007/s10980-011-9573-7.
   Schneider C, 2011, AQUAT ECOL, V45, P351, DOI 10.1007/s10452-011-9358-8.
   Thuiller W, 2004, ECOGRAPHY, V27, P165, DOI 10.1111/j.0906-7590.2004.03673.x.
   Tylianakis JM, 2005, ECOLOGY, V86, P3296, DOI 10.1890/05-0371.
   Valantin-Morison M, 2007, CROP PROT, V26, P1108, DOI 10.1016/j.cropro.2006.10.005.
   Venables WN, 2002, MODERN APPL STAT S, P495.
   Vogel G, 2017, SCIENCE, V356, P576, DOI 10.1126/science.356.6338.576.
   Westphal C, 2003, ECOL LETT, V6, P961, DOI 10.1046/j.1461-0248.2003.00523.x.
   Westphal C, 2008, ECOL MONOGR, V78, P653, DOI 10.1890/07-1292.1.
   Willis KJ, 2012, BIOL CONSERV, V147, P3, DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.001.
   Zaller JG, 2008, BASIC APPL ECOL, V9, P682, DOI 10.1016/j.baae.2007.10.004.}},
Number-of-Cited-References = {{41}},
Times-Cited = {{3}},
Usage-Count-Last-180-days = {{5}},
Usage-Count-Since-2013 = {{15}},
Journal-ISO = {{Landsc. Ecol.}},
Doc-Delivery-Number = {{IE8BP}},
Unique-ID = {{ISI:000472599200008}},
OA = {{Other Gold}},
DA = {{2020-11-05}},
}

@article{ ISI:000471343200012,
Author = {Rollin, Orianne and Garibaldi, Lucas A.},
Title = {{Impacts of honeybee density on crop yield: A meta-analysis}},
Journal = {{JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY}},
Year = {{2019}},
Volume = {{56}},
Number = {{5}},
Pages = {{1152-1163}},
Month = {{MAY}},
Abstract = {{There is increasing recognition that pollination deficits are limiting
   crop yields world-wide. However, management strategies for optimal
   insect pollination are still unclear for most crops. Current management
   focuses on providing high densities of honeybees, but recommended
   densities are highly variable, even within single crops and cultivars.
   We performed an extensive literature search to record honeybee densities
   (colony density and/or flower visitation rates) and crop productivity
   (fruit set, seed set, fruit weight and/or yield). Effect sizes were
   represented as the difference in crop productivity between the two most
   extreme levels of honeybee densities. Out of 795 reviewed studies, only
   22 analysed the effect of at least two levels of honeybee densities on
   crop productivity (reporting 60 resulting effect sizes in total).
   Moreover, few recommendations for crop pollination management are based
   on results from controlled experimental designs, and with comparable
   methodology. We found that both colony density and visitation rates
   increased all the productivity variables. However, effects were
   nonlinear for visitation rates, suggesting that there is an optimum
   (mean of 8-10 visits per flower) beyond which more honeybees are not
   beneficial (and can even be detrimental) for crop productivity. Effect
   sizes for visitation rates were greater than that for colony densities,
   suggesting that visitation rates are a more direct measure of the
   pollination process. Data on the relation between colony density and
   visitation rates are lacking. Interestingly, effect sizes for visitation
   rates were greater for crops with separate sexes than those with
   hermaphroditic flowers; therefore, the benefits of honeybee pollination
   vary according to the crop biology.Synthesis and applications. Current
   practices for crop pollination assume that more honeybees are always
   better for crop yield, even if the effect of this management on crop
   production still unclear. In contrast, our analyses suggest that there
   is an optimum for honeybee densities. Despite the importance of
   honeybees and pollinator-dependent crops world-wide, there is a lack of
   studies designed for finding such an optimal level of crop pollination.
   Our analyses further suggest that visitation rates could be used as a
   proxy to guide management recommendations such as colony density and
   spatial arrangement.
   Foreign Language AbstractResumen
   Los deficits de polinizacion estan limitando la productividad de los
   cultivos en todo el mundo. Para sustentar el servicio de polinizacion en
   zonas de agricultura intensiva, el manejo actual consiste en saturar los
   cultivos de flores con abejas meliferas proveyendo altas densidades de
   colmenas. Sin embargo, se sabe muy poco sobre la eficiencia de este
   manejo para poder alcanzar una polinizacion optima y existe controversia
   respecto las densidades recomendadas. Realizamos una sintesis global de
   la literatura cientifica para registrar la densidad de abejas meliferas
   (tasa de visitas o densidad de colmenas) y la productividad de los
   cultivos (cantidad de frutos o de semillas por flor, peso del fruto, o
   rendimiento por hectarea o planta). Los tamanos de efecto se calcularon
   como la diferencia en la productividad entre los dos niveles mas
   extremos de densidades de abejas. De los 795 estudios revisados, solo 22
   analizaron el efecto de al menos dos niveles de densidad de abejas sobre
   la productividad de los cultivos (resultando en 60 tamanos de efecto en
   total). Ademas, pocos estudios se basan en los resultados de disenos
   experimentales controlados y con una metodologia comparable. Encontramos
   que tanto la tasa de visita como la densidad de colmenas aumentaron
   todas las variables de productividad. Sin embargo, el efecto de la tasa
   de visita fue curvilineo, lo que sugiere que hay un optimo (8-10 visitas
   por flor) mas alla del cual mas abejas no es beneficioso (o incluso
   perjudicial) para la productividad de los cultivos. Los tamanos de
   efecto para la tasa de visitas fueron mayores que para la densidad de
   colmenas, lo que sugiere que la tasa de visitas es una medida mas
   directa del proceso de polinizacion. Faltan datos sobre la relacion
   entre la tasa de visitas y la densidad de colmenas. De modo interesante,
   el tamano de efecto de la tasa de visitas fue mayor para cultivos con
   sexos separados que para aquellos con flores hermafroditas, lo que
   sugiere que los beneficios de la polinizacion por la abeja melifera
   dependen de la biologia floral. Sintesis y aplicaciones. El manejo
   actual para la polinizacion de los cultivos asume que mas abejas siempre
   aumenta la productividad de los cultivos. En cambio, nuestros analisis
   sugieren que existe un optimo para la tasa de visita de abejas y que esa
   variable podria usarse como un proxy para guiar las recomendaciones de
   manejo, como la densidad de colmenas y su disposicion espacial.
   Current practices for crop pollination assume that more honeybees are
   always better for crop yield, even if the effect of this management on
   crop production still unclear. In contrast, our analyses suggest that
   there is an optimum for honeybee densities. Despite the importance of
   honeybees and pollinator-dependent crops world-wide, there is a lack of
   studies designed for finding such an optimal level of crop pollination.
   Our analyses further suggest that visitation rates could be used as a
   proxy to guide management recommendations such as colony density and
   spatial arrangement.}},
Publisher = {{WILEY}},
Address = {{111 RIVER ST, HOBOKEN 07030-5774, NJ USA}},
Type = {{Article}},
Language = {{English}},
Affiliation = {{Rollin, O (Corresponding Author), UNRN, Sede Andina, Inst Invest Recursos Nat Agroecol \& Desarrollo Ru, San Carlos De Bariloche, Rio Negro, Argentina.
   Rollin, Orianne

license: MIT

license_type: permissive

branch_name: refs/heads/main

extension: bib