# Current and previous spatial distributions of oilseed rape fields influence the abundance and the body size of a solitary wild bee, Andrena cineraria, in permanent grasslands

Colin van Reeth, Gaël Caro, Christian Bockstaller, Nadia Michel

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Colin van Reeth, Gaël Caro, Christian Bockstaller, Nadia Michel. Current and previous spatial distributions of oilseed rape fields influence the abundance and the body size of a solitary wild bee, Andrena cineraria, in permanent grasslands. PLoS ONE, 2018, 13 (5), pp.e0197684. 10.1371/journal.pone.0197684. hal-02628544

HAL Id: hal-02628544

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02628544

Submitted on 26 May 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
RESEARCH ARTICLE

# Current and previous spatial distributions of oilseed rape fields influence the abundance and the body size of a solitary wild bee, *Andrena cineraria*, in permanent grasslands

Colin Van Reeth¹*, Gaël Caro¹, Christian Bockstaller², Nadia Michel¹

¹ Laboratoire Agronomie Environnement (UMR 1121), Université de Lorraine, INRA, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France, ² Laboratoire Agronomie Environnement (UMR 1121), INRA, Université de Lorraine, Colmar, France

* c.v.reeth@gmail.com

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

## Abstract

Wild bees are essential pollinators whose survival partly depends on the capacity of their environment to offer a sufficient amount of nectar and pollen. Semi-natural habitats and mass-flowering crops such as oilseed rape provide abundant floristic resources for bees. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influences of the spatial distribution of semi-natural habitats and oilseed rape fields on the abundance and the mean body size of a solitary bee in grasslands. We focused on a generalist mining bee, *Andrena cineraria*, that forages and reproduces during oilseed rape flowering. In 21 permanent grasslands of Eastern France, we captured 1 287 individuals (1205 males and 82 females) and measured the body size of male individuals. The flower density in grasslands was quantified during bee captures (2016) and the landscape surrounding grasslands was characterized during two consecutive years (2015 and 2016). The influence of oilseed rape was tested through its distribution in the landscape during both the current year of bee sampling and the previous year. Bee abundance was positively influenced by the flower density in grasslands and by the area covered by oilseed rape around grasslands in the previous year. The mean body size of *A. cineraria* was explained by the interaction between flower density in the grassland and the distance to the nearest oilseed rape field in the current year: the flower density positively influenced the mean body size only in grasslands distant from oilseed rape. *A. cineraria* abundance and body size distribution were not affected by the area of semi-natural habitats in the landscape. The spatial distribution of oilseed rape fields (during both the current and the previous year) as well as the local density of grassland flowers drive both bee abundance and the mean value of an intraspecific trait (body size) in permanent grasslands. Space-time variations of bee abundance and mean body size in grasslands may have important ecological implications on plant pollination and on interspecific interactions between pollinators. Specifically, a competition between bee species for nesting sites might occur in oilseed rape rich landscapes, thus raising important conservation issues for bee species that do not benefit from oilseed rape resources.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

### OPEN ACCESS

**Citation:** Van Reeth C, Caro G, Bockstaller C, Michel N (2018) Current and previous spatial distributions of oilseed rape fields influence the abundance and the body size of a solitary wild bee, *Andrena cineraria*, in permanent grasslands. PLoS ONE 13(5): e0197684. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197684

**Editor:** Wolfgang Blenau, Philipps-Universität Marburg Fachbereich Biologie, GERMANY

**Received:** July 24, 2017

**Accepted:** May 7, 2018

**Published:** May 22, 2018

**Copyright:** © 2018 Van Reeth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

**Data Availability Statement:** All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

**Funding:** The authors received no specific funding for this work.

**Competing interests:** The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction

Bees represent approximately 20 000 species worldwide that participate to the pollination of 87.5% of angiosperm species [1,2]. This monophyletic group is characterized by a large variety of morphological, phenological and behavioural traits. These functional traits not only differ from one species to another, but can vary at the intraspecific level [3,4]. For instance, foraging range is known to be highly variable at both the interspecific level [5,6] and at the intraspecific level [7]. Foraging range was related to body size in bees at the interspecific level [5,6], but may also vary with intraspecific body size variation as was shown for pollination efficiency [8,9]. Since bee individuals within species can have various foraging ranges, they differ in the way they respond to the resources located in the surrounding landscape [7].

The distribution of floristic and nesting resources in the landscape are major drivers of bee diversity and abundance in agro-ecosystems [10–12]. Semi-natural habitats (hereafter referred to as “SNH”) are essential habitats for bees providing both resources [1,13]. For instance, permanent grasslands with floristically dense or diverse vegetation are known to support abundant and diverse bee communities [14,15]. Oilseed rape (Brassica napus, hereafter referred to as “OSR”) is a mass-flowering crop that represents an alternative foraging habitat usable by some species emerging in early spring. Although the effects of habitat fragmentation on wild bee diversity have been intensively studied (e.g. [11]), the effects of OSR expansion in Europe (e.g. OSR surfaces in France quadrupled from 1970 to 2010 (FAOSTAT)) on wild bees and especially solitary bees are currently being assessed [16–18]. At the community level, Holzschuh et al. [16] found no influence of OSR area in the landscape on solitary bee abundance and diversity in SNH. Yet, it is known that some solitary generalist species are attracted by OSR massive nectar resources [17,19–21]. The effects of OSR on bees in SNH may be modulated by the quality of floral resources in SNH: OSR fields may be less attractive to bees when surrounding SNH contain a high flower density and diversity.

At the landscape scale, OSR expansion and SNH loss partly determine the spatial distribu-
tion of bees but their influence on intraspecific trait distribution of bees in agro-ecosystems is
less documented. Warzecha et al. [22] found that the mean body size of two solitary bees
*Andrena flavipes* (Panzer, 1799) and *Andrena haemorrhoa* (Fabricius, 1781) increased with
SNH loss, suggesting a selection of larger individuals to reach remaining resourceful habitats.
To our knowledge, OSR effects on intraspecific body size has not been studied yet. If we con-
sider that all individuals in one species are attracted by OSR, we should expect that reaching a
distant OSR field from the nest may be easier for larger individuals (i.e. with a large foraging
range) than for smaller individuals. In addition to the effects of OSR in the current year, OSR
fields in the previous year may also influence species distribution in the following year. Some
species attracted by flowering OSR such as *Osmia bicornis* (Linnaeus, 1758) collect a larger
amount of resources in OSR rich landscapes which in turn influences the production of off-
spring active in the following year [19,20]. This effect is known as the “productivity effect”
[23].

In this context, the aim of our study was to assess the influence of both SNH area (current
year) and OSR area (previous and current year) on a solitary bee in permanent grasslands. To
achieve this, we considered both the abundance and the body size distribution of *Andrena cin-
eraria* (Linnaeus, 1758), a large solitary bee species that forages both on SNH and OSR flowers.
We hypothesized that (i) Grasslands with high flower density attract more individuals than
flower-poor grasslands; (ii) SNH loss in the landscape decreases the abundance of *A. cineraria*
in permanent grasslands; (iii) *A. cineraria* abundance in permanent grasslands is positively
influenced by the surrounding area covered OSR in the previous year (i.e. “productivity effect”
at the landscape scale); (iv) Proximity to flowering OSR fields positively affects bee abundance
in grasslands (i.e. "attractiveness effect"); (v) Abundance loss with increasing distance to flow-
ering OSR fields or decreasing area covered by SNH is driven by the loss of small individuals
with lower flight capacity, so that mean body size increases in grasslands with a low
accessibility.

**Materials and methods**

Study area and study sites

The study was carried out in 2016 in the “Parc Naturel Régional de Lorraine”, Lorraine, France (48°48’46” N, 6°43’14” E). This region covers a heterogeneous area of about 58 000 ha mainly composed of forests (33.7%), agricultural lands (annual crops (28.7%) and permanent grasslands (21.9%)). A total of 21 permanent grasslands were selected as study sites. Grasslands were chosen so that they were similar in size (mean ± standard deviation = 4.4 ± 1.2 ha), had extensive management with late mowing (June) and low nitrogen input (< 40 kg of nitrogen per year), and were highly heterogeneous regarding their surrounding landscape. The study sites represent a gradient in the area of SNH (4.4 to 58.4%) and OSR (2015: 0 to 19.6%; 2016: 0 to 18.0%) in a 900 m radius. The mean distance between study sites was 4 213 ± 1 730 m (min: 2 132 m; max: 8 214 m).

This study was carried out in private lands. Owners gave us permission to access their land.

Study species: *Andrena cineraria*

*Andrena cineraria* (Linnaeus, 1758), known as the ashy mining bee, is a common species in Europe. Early individuals of the species emerge in late March and the peak activity occurs between April and May, during OSR flowering. At this time, females build nests in the soil and collect nectar and pollen for larval provisioning. After larvae pupate, they hibernate until the next spring. *A. cineraria* is known to be highly polylectic foraging on a wide range of plant family such as Apiaceae, Asteraceae, Brassicaceae, Ranunculaceae, Rosaceae, Salicaceae [24]. OSR flowers are known to be visited by both females and males of *A. cineraria* [17,25,26].

Bee sampling and floristic characterization

During OSR flowering, we sampled bees during 14 days between mid-April and early-May
2016. We used pan traps (ProPac, Vechta, Germany) painted with UV bright (blue, white and
yellow) colours (Sparvar Leuchtfarbe, Spray-Color GmbH, Merzenich, Germany) to maximize
captures [27]. Traps were emptied three times in each grassland. Samplings were carried out
during suitable conditions: sunny weather, no rain, and little wind (< 3 Beaufort). All captured
*A. cineraria* were identified and counted. No specific authorization was required for this study
that did not involve a protected species.

In each grassland, we quantified the mean flower density by counting the number of flower
units in ten 1 m² quadrats randomly placed around the pan traps, in the centre of the grass-
land. Mean flower density was highly correlated with the number of flowering plant species
assessed in the same quadrats (Pearson correlation (r) = 0.84, *P* < 0.001).

Bee functional characterization

To assess the foraging capacity of bee individuals, we measured the Inter Tegular Distance (ITD) on at least 10 male individuals in each grassland where possible. We chose to measure ITD only on male individuals because males were substantially more abundant than females, they are known to actively visit flowers [28] and they might have a greater body size heritability than females [29]. On average, ITD was measured for 41 individuals per site. Only three
grasslands had less than 10 measures with 4, 4 and 6 individuals. These grasslands were kept in the analysis. For each grassland, we calculated the male mean body size of *A. cineraria* (ITD).

## Landscape characterisation

Gebhardt and Röhr [30] estimated the foraging distance of *A. cineraria* at 300 m. This value obtained by observation on host plants presumably underestimates the typical foraging distance, which according to Greenleaf et al. [6] equation is about 600 meters [31]. Moreover, the maximum foraging range (i.e. maximum feeder training distance) is likely to substantially exceed 600 m. Consequently, we assessed the landscape composition at three radii around each site (300, 600 and 900 m buffers) in 2015 and 2016. Hedgerows, woodlots and forests surfaces were extracted from BD TOPO® (IGN) whereas agricultural lands (crops, OSR, temporary grassland, orchard meadows, and permanent grasslands) were characterized yearly by field inspection. We calculated three landscape descriptors: (i) the SNH area in the landscape (hereafter referred to as “%SNH”), which included permanent grasslands, orchard meadows, hedgerows, woodlots and forest margins (10 meters wide); (ii) the OSR area in the landscape (hereafter referred to as “%OSR”). We focused on %OSR in 2015 (the year previous to the sampling) to test the “productivity effect” of OSR on bee abundance in the following year [23]; (iii) the distance between the centroid of each studied grassland (location of bee sampling) and the nearest OSR field edge (hereafter referred to as “distance to OSR”). We calculated this distance in 2016 (current year of bee sampling) to evaluate the “attractiveness effect” of OSR in relation to the foraging range of the species under consideration.

## Data analysis

The abundance of *A. cineraria* (males and females pooled together) and the male Inter Tegular Distance (ITD) were modelled separately as the response variables. Our modelling procedure was divided into three steps.

We first aimed to select the spatial scale that had the strongest influence on the response variables. Therefore, we correlated each response variable with %OSR in the previous year and %SNH at the three spatial scales (300, 600 and 900 m) as suggested in previous studies [19,32]. For each response variable, landscape variables were selected at the scale which yielded the highest spearman correlation (S1 Table).

During the second step, a general linear model with a negative binomial distribution was used to account for the overdispersed data of *A. cineraria* abundance. ITD was analysed with a linear model. Each of the two models contained: flower density, %OSR in the previous year (N-1), %SNH, and distance to OSR in the current year. We also added the interaction between flower density and distance to OSR to test whether proximity to OSR modulates the attractiveness of flower dense grasslands. Pearson correlation (r) between %OSR in the previous year and distance to OSR in the current year was relatively high whatever the spatial scale considered (r = -0.43, -0.49 and -0.50 respectively at 300m, 600m and 900m) but was below 0.7, the threshold value to test collinearity proposed by Dormann et al. [33]. All other correlations between predictors included in models gave $|r| < 0.43$. We tested the multi-collinearity between predictors in each model with Variance Inflation Factor (VIF; [34]) and found no variance inflation pattern since VIF < 1.82. Considering VIF = 3 as a threshold value [34], multi-collinearity was not an issue.

In the final step, full models were simplified by excluding one by one non-significant variables (P > 0.1 from F test or Likelihood Ratio test) in backward stepwise selection [16,35–37]. We visually controlled the homogeneity of the variance and the normal distribution of the
residuals for each model. The goodness-of-fit of each model was checked with adjusted-R² (R²<sub>adj</sub>) for linear models and with Nagelkerke's pseudo-R² for the general linear model [38].

Across all sites, we tested and found no spatial autocorrelation among sites with respect to bee abundance (Moran's I = -0.091, *P* = 0.29) and ITD (Moran's I = -0.058, *P* = 0.83) [39]. To illustrate the effects of the interaction between the flower density and distance to OSR, we split our data set in two groups according to the mean value of the distance to OSR (mean = 501 m). We thus formed two groups of grasslands: one with a distance to the nearest OSR field shorter than 501 meters (N = 11, mean ± SD = 205.8 ± 135.5), and another with a distance larger than 501 meters (N = 10, mean ± SD = 826.6 ± 188.3).

## Results

We captured 1 287 *A. cineraria* individuals: 1 205 males and 82 females. The ITD for males ranged from 1.66 mm to 2.71 mm while the mean ITD per grassland ranged from 2.05 mm to 2.22 mm (2.12 ± 0.04 mm, N = 21 grasslands).

The goodness-of-fit of models yielded pseudo-R² = 0.38 and R²<sub>adj</sub> = 0.43 respectively for the abundance of *A. cineraria* and ITD models. These values indicated a reasonable model fit.

The abundance of *A. cineraria* was positively influenced by the %OSR in the previous year and by the flower density in permanent grasslands (Table 1). The abundance of *A. cineraria* increased by 125% when the %OSR in the previous year increased from 0 to 15% (Fig 1A). Moreover, the abundance of *A. cineraria* increased by 107% when the flower density increased from 0 to 50 flowers m⁻² (Fig 1B). %SNH only marginally affected abundance while the distance to OSR in the current year was not retained in the final model.

ITD was significantly affected by the interaction between the flower density and the distance to OSR in the current year: flower density positively influenced ITD in grasslands distant to OSR fields (r = 0.71, *P* = 0.022) whereas flower density had no significant effect on ITD in grasslands close to OSR fields (r = -0.05, *P* = 0.875) (Table 1; Fig 2). %SNH and %OSR in the previous year did not influence ITD.

## Discussion

In this study, we demonstrated that the mean body size of a solitary bee species (*Andrena cineraria*) in grasslands was related to the grassland flower density and the proximity to oilseed rape. In addition, we highlighted that grassland flower density and the surrounding oilseed rape fields influenced the abundance of *A. cineraria*. More specifically, we showed that the area

<table><caption>Table 1. Results of *A. cineraria* abundance and ITD models.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>df</th><th>Estimate</th><th>t or z value</th><th>P</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>A. cineraria abundance</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>%OSR (N-1)– 900m</td><td>1</td><td>1.07e-01</td><td>2.955</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>%SNH– 900m</td><td>1</td><td>2.49e-02</td><td>1.695</td><td>0.090</td></tr><tr><td>Flower density</td><td>1</td><td>4.75e-02</td><td>2.871</td><td>0.004</td></tr><tr><td><strong>ITD</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Distance to OSR</td><td>1</td><td>-5.88e-05</td><td>-2.350</td><td>0.031</td></tr><tr><td>Flower density</td><td>1</td><td>-1.23e-03</td><td>-1.744</td><td>0.099</td></tr><tr><td>Interaction(Flower density: Distance to OSR)</td><td>1</td><td>4.71e-06</td><td>3.646</td><td>0.002</td></tr></tbody></table>

t-value are presented for linear models whereas z-value are presented for the general linear model. ITD: Inter Tegular Distance; Distance to OSR: Distance between the studied grassland and the nearest OSR field in the current year (N); %OSR (N-1): Oilseed rape area in the previous year (N-1); %SNH: Semi-natural habitats area in the current year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197684.t001
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** Responses of the predicted abundance of *Andrena cineraria* in each grassland to (a) %OSR (900m radius) in the previous year (N-1) and (b) the flower density in grasslands. Predictions returned by the abundance model are shown with the blue line. The grey band around the line represents the 95% confidence interval. (a) y = 43.611 + 3.620 * %OSR in the previous year (R²adj = 0.261); (b) y = 45.762 + 0.979 * flower density (R²adj = 0.078). Other statistical details are presented in Table 1. OSR = Oilseed rape.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197684.g001

covered by oilseed rape in the previous year (i.e. productivity effect of oilseed rape at the landscape scale) was more important to explain *A. cineraria* abundance in grasslands than the proximity to oilseed rape in the current year (i.e. attractiveness effect).

Grasslands with high flower density attracted large *A. cineraria* individuals when grasslands were distant from the nearest oilseed rape field in the current year (Fig 2). Explanation for this observation is likely to rely on different flight capacity of small and large individuals. Only

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 2.** Interactive effect of the flower density and the distance to OSR on the mean ITD of *A. cineraria* in grasslands. To illustrate the interaction effect, data are presented for distance to OSR shorter than the mean = 501m (N = 11, mean ± SD = 205.8 ± 135.5, red colour) and for distance to OSR larger than 501m (N = 10, mean ± SD = 826.6 ± 188.3, blue colour). The grey band around the line represents the 95% confidence interval. y = 2.115-6.562e-05 * flower density (Pearson correlation (r) = -0.05, P = 0.875), y = 2.085 + 2.648e-03 * flower density (r = 0.71, P = 0.022). Other statistical details are presented in Table 1. ITD = Inter Tegular Distance; OSR = Oilseed rape.</figcaption></figure>

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197684.g002
large individuals of this species can forage on both floristically dense grasslands and oilseed rape fields. When grasslands were close to an oilseed rape field, the flower density did not influence *A. cineraria* body size distribution probably because small and large individuals had the appropriate foraging ranges to reach oilseed rape fields and preferably foraged into these fields. Following this reasoning, the distance to the nearest oilseed rape field in the current year should have a negative effect on the abundance of *Andrena cineraria*. However, we did not observe such effect in our study. One possible explanation is that nearly all captured individuals were males. *Andrena* males not only forage but also spend a lot of time in mating and patrolling tasks [1,40]. Consequently, the influence of oilseed rape proximity may be more evident for females, which spend their time foraging for nectar and pollen to provision their off-spring, than for males. The correlation between the distance to the nearest oilseed rape field and the female abundance seems to confirm this hypothesis (r (spearman) = -0.46; p = 0.04; N = 82). Unfortunately, because only 6% (N = 82) of our captured individuals were females, body size analyses were not possible. This local and landscape effects on the body size distribution may have important consequences on the pollination in grasslands because (i) large individuals visit more flowers per unit of time compared to small ones [41]; (ii) small and large individuals can visit different plant species [42]; (iii) large individuals carry larger pollen amounts than small individuals [8,43], but visit a significantly smaller plant spectrum [22]. Consequently, an optimal pollination service in grasslands may be reached not only when large individuals are present but also when a wide distribution of the body size occurs [8,42]. Pollinator-dependent crops such as oilseed rape also need large bee individuals: Jauker et al. [9] implemented a caged experiment and showed that oilseed rape yield was positively related to the body size distribution of *Osmia bicornis* individuals. Future studies are required to determine the optimal spatial organisation of habitats to maximize the pollination service in both semi-natural habitats and pollinator-dependent crops.

Long term effects of oilseed rape introduction in cropping systems on bee communities [23] and populations [18–20] have recently been taken into consideration. In this study, we focused on a solitary bee species foraging on oilseed rape flowers and whose reproduction occurs during oilseed rape flowering. We found that the abundance of *A. cineraria* was higher in grasslands surrounded by large areas covered by oilseed rape in the previous year than in grasslands surrounded by small areas of oilseed rape. This result is consistent with Holzschuh et al. [20] who showed that the number of brood cells constructed by *Osmia bicornis* during oilseed rape flowering was higher in grasslands adjacent to an oilseed rape field than in isolated grasslands (similar findings in Jauker et al. [19] and Dainese et al. [44]). In parallel, they found that the number of brood cells was positively correlated to the proportion of oilseed rape pollen in the larval food. These results indicate that the availability of oilseed rape resources may allow generalist species such as *O. bicornis* and *A. cineraria* to collect a larger quantity of resources and thus produce a larger number of larvae [19,20]. This effect at the population level might affect the bee community because the resulting high abundance in the following year could exacerbate the competition for resources with other species that are not attracted by oilseed rape [45]. Such competition might also occur after the period of oilseed rape flowering and affect wild plant pollination [46] when bee species benefitting from oilseed rape flower resources have a long foraging season or have several generations in one year (i.e. multivoltine species).

Even though body size is influenced by the resource availability at the larval stage [47–49], we did not find significant effect of oilseed rape area in the previous year on the mean body size of *A. cineraria*. This can be explained by the fact that body size not only depends on the quantity of resources provided during the larval stage but is likely to be also influenced by the resource quality [47,50]. In particular, Roulston and Cane [47] observed small bee individuals
when fed with protein poor pollen during the larval stage and large bee individuals when fed
with protein rich pollen. In the case of *Andrena cineraria*, oilseed rape pollen may not be opti-
mal for larval development.

Habitat loss has been hypothesized to drive the intraspecific body size distribution of bees
in agro-ecosystems. Warzecha et al. [22] found that the mean body size of two medium sized
*Andrena* species (smaller than *A. cineraria*) increased with habitat loss, suggesting a selection
for larger foraging ranges. However, *Andrena nigroaenea* (Kirby, 1802), a bee species whose
size is similar to that of *A. cineraria*, was not influenced by habitat loss possibly because large
species have the capacity to fly long distance between their nest and the remaining foraging
sites [22]. Our results corroborate this assumption since no effect of habitat loss on the mean
body size of the large species *A. cineraria* was found.

Conclusions

This study contributes to the understanding of the ecological consequences of the expansion
of oilseed rape areas across European landscapes on wild pollinators. Focusing on one solitary
bee species, we showed that oilseed rape fields in the landscape influence both the abundance
of *A. cineraria* in the following year (productivity effect of oilseed rape) and its body size distri-
bution in the current year. Long-term consequences of an increasing abundance of bee species
feeding on oilseed rape grasslands may have important ecological implications on wild plant
pollination and on interspecific interactions between pollinators. Competition between bee
species especially for nesting resources might occur in oilseed rape rich landscapes, thus rais-
ing important bee conservation issues.

**Supporting information**

S1 Table. Spearman correlations between response variables (Abundance of *Andrena cineraria* and ITD) and two landscape variables (%OSR in the previous year and %SNH) at three different spatial scales (300, 600 and 900m).

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Dataset.

(DOCX)

**Acknowledgments**

We are grateful to the farmers who kindly provided us access to their land. We would like to
thank Chloé Fournier and Claude Gallois for their active participation to the field work. We
are also grateful to Eric Van Reeth, Ben Woodcock and 3 anonymous reviewers whose com-
ments greatly improved the manuscript.

**Author Contributions**

Conceptualization: Colin Van Reeth, Gaël Caro, Christian Bockstaller, Nadia Michel.

Data curation: Colin Van Reeth.

Funding acquisition: Christian Bockstaller, Nadia Michel.

Investigation: Colin Van Reeth, Gaël Caro, Christian Bockstaller, Nadia Michel.

Methodology: Colin Van Reeth, Gaël Caro, Nadia Michel.

Supervision: Nadia Michel.
**Validation:** Colin Van Reeth, Gaël Caro.

**Visualization:** Colin Van Reeth.

**Writing – original draft:** Colin Van Reeth, Gaël Caro, Christian Bockstaller, Nadia Michel.

## References

1. Michener CD. The Bees of the World. 2nd Revised Edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2007.

2. Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos. 2011; 120: 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x

3. Eickwort GC, Eickwort JM, Gordon J, Eickwort MA. Solitary behavior in a high altitude population of the social sweat bee Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1996; 38: 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050236

4. Peat J, Darvill B, Ellis J, Goulson D. Effects of climate on intra- and interspecific size variation in bumble-bees. Funct Ecol. 2005; 19: 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2005.00946.x

5. Gathmann A, Tscharntke T. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol. 2002; 71: 757–764. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x

6. Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia. 2007; 153: 589–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-007-0752-9 PMID: 17483965

7. Zurbuchen A, Landert L, Klaiber J, Mueller A, Hein S, Dorn S. Maximum foraging ranges in solitary bees: only few individuals have the capability to cover long foraging distances. Biol Conserv. 2010; 143: 669–676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.003

8. Renauld M, Hutchinson A, Loeb G, Poveda K, Connelly H. Landscape Simplification Constrains Adult Size in a Native Ground-Nesting Bee. Plos One. 2016; 11: e0150946. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150946 PMID: 26943127

9. Jauker F, Speckmann M, Wolters V. Intra-specific body size determines pollination effectiveness. Basic Appl Ecol. 2016; 17: 714–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.004

10. Steffan-Dewenter I, Schiele S. Do resources or natural enemies drive bee population dynamics in fragmented habitats. Ecology. 2008; 89: 1375–1387. PMID: 18543630

11. Winfree R, Aguilar R, Vazquez DP, LeBuhn G, Aizen MA. A meta-analysis of bees' responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology. 2009; 90: 2068–2076. https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1245.1 PMID: 19739369

12. Westrich P. Habitat requirements of central European bees and the problems of partial habitats. Linnean Society Symposium Series. Academic Press Limited; 1996. pp. 1–16. Available: http://wildbienen.info/downloads/westrich_40.pdf

13. Öckinger E, Smith HG. Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol. 2007; 44: 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01250.x

14. Albrecht M, Duelli P, Mueller C, Kleijn D, Schmid B. The Swiss agri-environment scheme enhances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in nearby intensively managed farmland. J Appl Ecol. 2007; 44: 813–822. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01306.x

15. Holzschuh A, Dormann CF, Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I. Expansion of mass-flowering crops leads to transient pollinator dilution and reduced wild plant pollination. Proc R Soc B-Biol Sci. 2011; 278: 3444–3451. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0268 PMID: 21471115

16. Holzschuh A, Dainese M, Gonzalez-Varo JP, Mudri-Stojnic S, Riedinger V, Rundlof M, et al. Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe. Ecol Lett. 2016; 19: 1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12657 PMID: 27531385

17. Magrach A, Holzschuh A, Bartomeus I, Riedinger V, Roberts SP, Rundlöf M, et al. Plant-pollinator networks in semi-natural grasslands are resistant to the loss of pollinators during blooming of mass-flowering crops. Ecography. 2017; 40: 1–13.

18. Woodcock BA, Isaac NJB, Bullock JM, Roy DB, Garthwaite DG, Crowe A, et al. Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England. Nat Commun. 2016; 7: 12459. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12459 PMID: 27529661

19. Jauker F, Peter F, Wolters V, Diekötter T. Early reproductive benefits of mass-flowering crops to the solitary bee Osmia rufa outbalance post-flowering disadvantages. Basic Appl Ecol. 2012; 13: 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2012.03.010
20. Holzschuh A, Dormann CF, Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I. Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance. Oecologia. 2013; 172: 477-484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-012-2515-5 PMID: 23114428

21. Diekötter T, Peter F, Jauker B, Wolters V, Jauker F. Mass-flowering crops increase richness of cavity-nesting bees and wasps in modern agro-ecosystems. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy. 2014; 6: 219-226. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12080

22. Warzecha D, Diekoetter T, Wolters V, Jauker F. Intraspecific body size increases with habitat fragmentation in wild bee pollinators. Landsc Ecol. 2016; 31: 1449-1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-016-0349-y

23. Riedinger V, Mitesser O, Hovestadt T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Holzschuh A. Annual dynamics of wild bee densities: attractiveness and productivity effects of oilseed rape. Ecology. 2015; 96: 1351-1360. https://doi.org/10.1890/14-1124.1 PMID: 26236848

24. Westrich P. Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs: die Gattungen und Arten. Spezieller Teil. Spezieller Teil. Stuttgart: E. Ulmer; 1989.

25. Le Féon V, Burel F, Chifflet R, Henry M, Ricroch A, Vaissiere BE, et al. Solitary bee abundance and species richness in dynamic agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2013; 166: 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.06.020

26. Rollin O, Bretagnolle V, Fortel L, Guilbaud L, Henry M. Habitat, spatial and temporal drivers of diversity patterns in a wild bee assemblage. Biodivers Conserv. 2015; 24: 1195-1214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0852-x

27. Westphal C, Bommarco R, Carre G, Lamborn E, Morison N, Petanidou T, et al. Measuring Bee Diversity in Different European Habitats and Biogeographical Regions. Ecol Monogr. 2008; 78: 653-671. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-1292.1

28. Ne'eman G, Shavit O, Shaltiel L, Shmida A. Foraging by male and female solitary bees with implications for pollination. J Insect Behav. 2006; 19: 383-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10905-006-9030-7

29. Tepedino V, Thompson R, Torchio P. Heritability for Size in the Megachilid Bee Osmia-Lignaria-Propinqua Cresson. Apidologie. 1984; 15: 83-87. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:19840108

30. Gebhardt M, Röhr G. Zur Bionomie der Sandbiene Andrena clarkella (Kirby), A. cineraria (L.), A. fuscipes (Kirby) und ihrer Kuckucksbienen (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Drosera. 1987; 87: 89-114.

31. Fortel L, Henry M, Guilbaud L, Guirao AL, Kuhlmann M, Mouret H, et al. Decreasing Abundance, Increasing Diversity and Changing Structure of the Wild Bee Community (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) along an Urbanization Gradient. Plos One. 2014; 9: e104679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0104679 PMID: 25118722

32. Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T. Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology. 2002; 83: 1421-1432. https://doi.org/10.2307/3071954

33. Dormann CF, Elith J, Bacher S, Buchmann C, Carl G, Carre G, et al. Collinearity: a review of methods to deal with it and a simulation study evaluating their performance. Ecography. 2013; 36: 27-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x

34. Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Walker N, Saveliev AA, Smith GM. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer; 2009.

35. Parsche S, Fruend J, Tscharntke T. Experimental environmental change and mutualistic vs. antagonistic plant flower-visitor interactions. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst. 2011; 13: 27-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2010.12.001

36. Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Batary P, Baldi A. Local and landscape effects on bee communities of Hungarian winter cereal fields. Agric For Entomol. 2011; 13: 59-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2010.00498.x

37. Marrec R, Badenhausser I, Bretagnolle V, Börger L, Roncoroni M, Guillon N, et al. Crop succession and habitat preferences drive the distribution and abundance of carabid beetles in an agricultural landscape. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2015; 199: 282-289.

38. Lüdecke D. sjstats: Statistical Functions for Regression Models. 2017; Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjstats

39. Paradis E, Claude J, Strimmer K. APE: Analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R language. Bioinformatics. 2004; 20: 289-290. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412 PMID: 14734327

40. Paxton RJ. Male mating behaviour and mating systems of bees: an overview. Apidologie. 2005; 36: 145-156. https://doi.org/10.1051/apido:2005007

41. Spaethe J, Weidenmuller A. Size variation and foraging rate in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). Insectes Sociaux. 2002; 49: 142-146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00040-002-8293-z
42. Peat J, Tucker J, Goulson D. Does intraspecific size variation in bumblebees allow colonies to efficiently exploit different flowers? Ecol Entomol. 2005; 30: 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00676.x

43. Goulson D, Peat J, Stout JC, Tucker J, Darvill B, Derwent LC, et al. Can alloethism in workers of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, be explained in terms of foraging efficiency? Anim Behav. 2002; 64: 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2002.3041

44. Dainese M, Riedinger V, Holzschuh A, Kleijn D, Scheper J, Steffan-Dewenter I. Managing trap-nesting bees as crop pollinators: spatiotemporal effects of floral resources and antagonists. J Appl Ecol. 2017; 21: 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2017.05.021

45. Diekötter T, Kadoya T, Peter F, Wolters V, Jauker F. Oilseed rape crops distort plant-pollinator interactions. J Appl Ecol. 2010; 47: 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01759.x

46. Herbertsson L, Rundlöf M, Smith HG. The relation between oilseed rape and pollination of later flowering plants varies across plant species and landscape contexts. Basic Appl Ecol. 2017; 24: 77–85.

47. Roulston TH, Cane JH. The effect of pollen protein concentration on body size in the sweat bee Lasio-glossum zephyrum (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Evol Ecol. 2002; 16: 49–65. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016048526475

48. Klostermeyer EC, Mech SJ Jr, Rasmussen WB. Sex and weight of Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) progeny associated with provision weights. J Kans Entomol Soc. 1973; 46: 536–548.

49. Bosch J, Vicens N. Body size as an estimator of production costs in a solitary bee. Ecol Entomol. 2002; 27: 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2311.2002.00406.x

50. Vanderplanck M, Moerman R, Rasmont P, Lognay G, Wathelet B, Wattiez R, et al. How does pollen chemistry impact development and feeding behaviour of polylectic bees? Plos One. 2014; 9: e86209. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086209 PMID: 24465963