# Grassland-to-crop conversion in agricultural landscapes has lasting impact on the trait diversity of bees

Gaëtane Le Provost, Isabelle Badenhausser, Cyrille Violle, Fabrice Requier, Marie D'ottavio, Marilyn Roncoroni, Louis Gross, Nicolas Gross

► To cite this version:

Gaëtane Le Provost, Isabelle Badenhausser, Cyrille Violle, Fabrice Requier, Marie D'ottavio, et al. "Grassland-to-crop conversion in agricultural landscapes has lasting impact on the trait diversity of bees." Landscape Ecology, 2021, 36, pp.281-295. 10.1007/s10980-020-01141-2. hal-03045949

HAL Id: hal-03045949

https://hal.science/hal-03045949

Submitted on 17 Oct 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished 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_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Grassland-to-crop conversion in agricultural landscapes has lasting impact on the trait diversity of bees

Gaëtane Le Provost ID · Isabelle Badenhausser ID · Cyrille Violle · Fabrice Requier ID · Marie D'Ottavio · Marilyn Roncoroni · Louis Gross · Nicolas Gross

Received: 5 February 2020 / Accepted: 10 October 2020 / Published online: 18 October 2020
© The Author(s) 2020

## Abstract

*Context* Global pollinator decline has motivated much research to understand the underlying mechanisms. Among the multiple pressures threatening pollinators, habitat loss has been suggested as a key contributing factor. While habitat destruction is often associated with immediate negative impacts, pollinators can also exhibit delayed responses over time.

*Objectives* We used a trait-based approach to investigate how past and current land use at both local and

landscape levels impact plant and wild bee communities in grasslands through a functional lens.

*Methods* We measured flower and bee morphological traits that mediate plant-bee trophic linkage in 66 grasslands. Using an extensive database of 20 years of land-use records, we tested the legacy effects of the landscape-level conversion of grassland to crop on flower and bee trait diversity.

*Results* Land-use history was a strong driver of flower and bee trait diversity in grasslands. Particularly, bee trait diversity was lower in landscapes where much of the land was converted from grassland to crop long ago. Bee trait diversity was also strongly driven by plant trait diversity computed with flower traits.

**Electronic supplementary material** The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01141-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

G. Le Provost (✉) · I. Badenhausser · M. D'Ottavio · M. Roncoroni · L. Gross
Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé UMR 7372, CNRS, Université de La Rochelle, 79360 Villiers en Bois, France
e-mail: gaetaneleprovost@free.fr

G. Le Provost · I. Badenhausser · M. D'Ottavio · M. Roncoroni · L. Gross
INRAE, USC 1339, Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé UMR 7372, CNRS, Université de La Rochelle, 79360 Villiers en Bois, France

G. Le Provost · I. Badenhausser · M. D'Ottavio · M. Roncoroni · L. Gross
LTSER « Zone Atelier Plaine & Val de Sèvre », Centre d'Etudes Biologiques de Chizé UMR 7372, CNRS, Université de La Rochelle, 79360 Villiers en Bois, France

G. Le Provost
Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre
SBIK-F, Senckenberg Gesellschaft für Naturforschung,
60325 Frankfurt, Germany

I. Badenhausser
INRAE, Unité de Recherche Pluridisciplinaire Prairies
Plantes Fourragères, 86600 Lusignan, France

C. Violle
UMR 5175 CEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD,
Univ Paul Valéry 3, 34293 Montpellier, France

F. Requier
Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, IRD, UMR Évolution,
Génomes, Comportement et Écologie,
91198 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
However, this relationship was not observed in landscapes with a long history of grassland-to-crop conversion. The effects of land-use history on bee communities were as strong as those of current land use, such as grassland or mass-flowering crop cover in the landscape.

*Conclusions* Habitat loss that occurred long ago in agricultural landscapes alters the relationship between plants and bees over time. The retention of permanent grassland sanctuaries within intensive agricultural landscapes can offset bee decline.

**Keywords** Functional trait diversity · Grassland · Habitat loss · Land-use changes · Landscape history · Plant–pollinator interactions

## Introduction

The global decline of pollinators has motivated much research to better understand the underlying drivers (Goulson et al. 2015). Among the multiple pressures threatening bees, habitat loss has been suggested as a key contributing factor (Potts et al. 2010; Vanbergen et al. 2013). This is particularly true in European agricultural landscapes where the direct destruction of natural and semi-natural grasslands, through their conversion into annual crops over the last 50 years, has resulted in a reduction in nesting habitat and food resource availability for bees (Kremen et al. 2007). Assessing the direct and indirect impacts of habitat loss is therefore critical if we are to identify sound conservation strategies aiming at promoting pollinators in agricultural landscapes.

Plant and pollinator responses consecutive to habitat loss can be delayed through time (Bommarco et al. 2014). For instance, plants are expected to experience time-delayed responses to habitat loss because of long persistence times in seed banks (Purschke et al. 2014). Similarly, pollinators may exhibit delayed responses to local habitat loss through spillover from remnant habitats in the landscape (Bommarco et al. 2014). Such landscape processes can considerably slow down local species loss for years (Kuussaari et al. 2009). Yet, in the long run grassland-to-crop conversion can affect plant–pollinator mutualism by decreasing pollen dissemination (Aguilar et al. 2006) and threatening the persistence of bee-dependent plant in remnant grasslands (Clough et al. 2014). These time-delayed response to habitat loss constitutes an opportunity to avert further bee decline, if sound conservation and restoration efforts are implemented on time (Burkle and Alarcón 2011; Valiente-Banuet et al. 2015; Baude et al. 2016). Considering both current and long-term effects of land-use changes on plants and wild pollinators may therefore be essential to avoid irreversible bee loss and secure pollination services in agricultural landscapes (Larsen et al. 2005).

Understanding how habitat loss impacts mutualistic interactions and shape plant and bee communities is inherently challenging due to the high number of species and potential interactions at play (Bartomeus et al. 2016). Functional traits have been proposed as an efficient tool to overcome this challenge (Lavorel et al. 2013; Deraison et al. 2015; Gravel et al. 2016). The approach is based on the identification of traits involved in plant–bee interactions (i.e. ‘trait matching’, Bartomeus et al. 2016; Martin et al. 2019; Klumpers et al. 2019). For instance, tongue length in bees determines floral resource acquisition: bees with long tongue are expected to visit plants with deep corolla, suggesting a strong matching between flower and bee morphology (Bartomeus et al. 2016). Trait matching between plant and bee species can be scaled up at the community level (Suding et al. 2008). According to the trait matching between plant and bee species, the diversity of tongue length observed in bee communities should correlate positively with the diversity of floral resources available in local plant communities and in the surrounding landscape (Le Provost et al. 2017). Investigating how plant and bee trait diversity responds to habitat loss may allow

M. D’Ottavio
Laboratoire de Lutte Biologique, Département des
sciences biologiques, Université du Québec à Montréal
(UQAM), Succ. Centre-Ville, Montréal,
QC C.P. 8888, Canada

M. Roncoroni · N. Gross
Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup,
UMR Ecosystème Prairial, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand,
France

L. Gross
INRAE, UR 0633, URZF Unité de Recherche Zoologie
Forestière, 45075 Orléans, France
inferring the importance of plant–pollinator interac-
tions in shaping the functional structure of plant and
bee communities (Bartomeus et al. 2016).

We used an extensive database of 20 years of field
land-use records in an agricultural plain of 430 km²
situated in western France (Bretagnolle et al. 2018) to
investigate the effects of current and past land use on
plant and wild bee trait diversity in grasslands.
Historically, the study region was a typical rural area
composed of mixed crop-livestock systems (dairy
goats and cows). Fifty years ago, grassland was the
dominant land use, covering 80% of the study area.
Since that time and up to the present day, shifts from
livestock to annual crop production has resulted in a
strong decline in grassland cover (grassland cover in
2014: 12% of the area) (Bretagnolle et al. 2018).
Within the study area, we sampled 66 grassland fields
with a wide range of land-use histories, while
controlling for the effects of current landscape com-
position and the management of the sampled grassland
field. Comparing grasslands in present-day landscapes
having varying land-use change histories is an explicit
way to quantify the legacy effect of land-use changes
on plant and bee communities (Kuussaari et al. 2009;
Bommarco et al. 2014). Land-use history was assessed
by the age of the sampled grassland field (‘grassland
age’) and a metric quantifying the time elapsed since
grassland-to-crop conversion at the landscape level
(‘grassland-to-crop conversion’). A high value of
grassland-to-crop conversion indicates that most of
the grasslands in the current landscape of the sampled
grassland field were converted into annual crops long
ago. We quantified plant and wild bee trait diversity in
the focal grassland fields by measuring different
morphological traits a priori involved in plant-bee
interactions (see ‘Methods’ section). We tested the
two following hypotheses: (i) according to the trait
matching observed between plants and bees, bee trait
diversity in the grassland fields is primarily deter-
mined by flower trait diversity of local plant commu-
nities, and increasing flower trait diversity of plant
communities should increase the morphological diver-
sity in bee communities; (ii) plants and their pollina-
tors have time-delayed responses to grassland-to-crop
conversion (i.e. might owe an ‘extinction debt’, sensu
Kuussaari et al. 2009). Consequently, landscapes with
recent grassland-to-crop conversion can still harbour
diverse plant and bee communities, while their species
pools might have strongly declined in historically

crop-dominated landscapes, due to the scarcity of
stable habitats (Bommarco et al. 2014). Additionally,
specialist pollinator species characterized by a narrow
feeding niche can suffer more than generalist species
from habitat destruction (McKinney and Lockwood
1999). In landscapes where grasslands were converted
into crops long ago, we thus expected that the
functional diversity of bee communities may be
reduced, mainly composed of generalist species, and
that the trait matching between plants and bees will be
less pronounced.

**Materials and methods**

Study area

The study was conducted in 2014 in the Long Term Socio-Ecological Research (LTSER) ‘Zone atelier Plaine et Val de Sèvre’ (ZAPVS) located in western France (Bretagnolle et al. 2018). The LTSER covered approximately 430 km² of an intensively managed agricultural plain. In 2014, grasslands covered about 12% of the area and included artificial grasslands (i.e., alfalfa), temporary (sown with pure grasses or in mixtures with legume species) and permanent grasslands managed by grazing, mowing or abandoned. The remaining areas were covered by crops (66% of the surface), the main crops being straw cereal (34% of the surface), sunflower (10%), corn (9%) and oilseed rape (7%). Since 1994, land cover of the study area has been monitored on a yearly basis at the field level (~ 11,000 fields), by using about 30 land-use types (see Bretagnolle et al. 2018 for methodological details on land cover monitoring), and has been stored in a GIS database.

Grassland selection

We monitored 66 grassland fields within the study
area. The selected 66 grassland fields differed in local
management practices and were selected among hay
meadows with varying ages and vegetation types. The
age of the grassland field was calculated as the time
elapsed (counted in years) since the last tillage
according to our land-use GIS database. The grassland
age was set to 20 years when it has never been
ploughed since 1994.
For each focal grassland field, we calculated the current landscape composition and a landscape metric linked to land-use history within a 1-km radius of the centre of the field (Fig. S1). The scale of 1 km is an adequate scale to describe landscapes relevant to bees as it has been shown that most foraging flights are within this distance (e.g. Holzschuh et al. 2007, 2016). For landscape composition, we considered landscape elements and metrics known to impact bees, i.e. the proportion of the landscape covered by grasslands, forests and mass-flowering crops (oilseed rape and sunflower) (Westphal et al. 2003; Bailey et al. 2014; Clough et al. 2014). For the land-use history metric, we characterized the time elapsed since grasslands had been converted for the first time into annual crops averaged at the landscape-level, i.e. the grassland-to-crop conversion. To do so, we first calculated the time (in years, starting from 1994) elapsed since the first grassland-to-crop conversion for all fields in a 1 km-radius surrounding each of the focal grassland fields. For instance, a field cultivated as annual crop since 1994 had a value of 20 years; a grassland field converted to crop in 2000 had a value of 14 years; a grassland field set in place from 1994 to 2014 had a value of 0. To account for the field size, this metric was weighted by the field area. We then averaged all field values at the landscape level. Thus, a high value of the grassland-to-crop conversion metric indicates that grasslands in the 1-km radius were converted to crops long ago. In the study area, sown grasslands are often included in crop rotation. As they are regularly ploughed, the conversion from sown grassland to crop was not explicitly considered in our metric.

At the end of the selection process, the 66 selected grassland fields included pure legume (alfalfa or clover) grasslands (n = 11), meadows sown with pure (e.g. ryegrass) (n = 4) or mixed grasses (n = 18), sown with legume and grass mixtures (n = 23), and spontaneous flora (n = 10). All grasslands were either temporary (i.e. grasslands with an age ≤ 5 years) (n = 34) or permanent grasslands (defined as grasslands with an age > 5 years) (n = 32), and their average age was 8 year-old (sd = 6.55). Current landscape composition metrics of the 66 1-km radius landscapes ranged from 0 to 35% for grassland, 0 to 32% for forest and 0 to 44% for mass-flowering crop cover. Note that the age of focal grassland fields, current landscape composition metrics and grassland-

to-crop conversion metric were not correlated (Table S1).

## Plant survey and floral traits

A botanical survey was conducted in summer 2014 from the 4th to the 19th of August 2014. We used 10 quadrats of 1 m² located randomly within each grassland field to estimate plant diversity and species abundance. In each quadrat, the number of species was recorded and a percentage cover of the quadrat surface was visually estimated for each plant species. Relative abundance per species was then calculated as the sum of the species cover in the 10 quadrats divided by the total cover of all species. The sampling effort was sufficient to properly estimate plant species richness in the studied grasslands (Fig. S2).

To characterize flower diversity, we focused on flower traits relevant in determining plant-bee interactions (Fontaine et al. 2006; Bartomeus et al. 2016). We measured flower traits linked to resource accessibility: the flower opening angle (A, °) measured at the widest part of the corolla; the corolla depth (Cd, mm); the diameter (Cw, mm) of one flower measured at the widest part of the corolla; the mean width (Cwm, mm) of one flower calculated as the mean of three measures of the corolla width; the distance from the nectaries to the anthers (NAD, mm); the nectar access (Na) defined as the ratio between corolla width and the distance from the nectaries to the anthers. We also measured traits that influence flower-handling strategies by bees (Spaethe et al. 2001): the ‘landing zone’ (LZ, mm), which corresponds to the diameter of the inflorescence or of the flower; and the number of flowers (Nf) in one inflorescence (the number of flowers was one for simple flower). Flower traits were measured on the 25 plant species secreting nectar that represented 80% of the total cover of plant species with nectar (Table S2). Five individuals per species were measured, and a mean trait value was calculated for each trait on the 25 plant species. All measurements were performed using a stereo microscope (Leica Microsystems M50) equipped with an integrated high definition microscope camera (Leica IC80 HD).
## Bee sampling and bee morphological traits

We sampled wild bees in each of the 66 grassland fields using coloured pan traps. This is a common method to estimate pollinator diversity in agricultural landscapes (e.g. Westphal et al. 2008; Davis et al. 2018; Sirami et al. 2019). Six coloured pan traps per grassland field were left in place for four consecutive days. One pan trap consisted in two different plastic cups (15 cm diameter filled with water and a few drops of liquid soap) treated with yellow, blue or white UV-reflecting paint. We used all colour combination in order to sample a good representation of the diversity of bee communities (Bukovinszky et al. 2017; Hall 2018). Sampling was carried out along two parallel 50-m transects, one located at the field edge (three pan traps consisting in the three combinations of two colours), the other 25 m away inside the field (three pan traps). The pan traps were located at each end and in the centre of both transects. The sampling was carried out in late summer 2014 (between the 4th and the 25th of August), during the peak period of wild bee diversity in this study area (Rollin et al. 2015), and when bees mainly forage on herbaceous plant species in semi-natural habitats (Rollin et al. 2013; Requier et al. 2019a, b). Catches of the six pan traps per grassland field were pooled, and the bees were preserved in ethanol. Although the Western honey bee *Apis mellifera* can present a dual nature as managed and wild species in Western Europe (Requier et al. 2019a, b), we excluded *A. mellifera* from the samples given that managed colonies are substantially dominant in the study area (*pers. obs.* F. Requier). Thus, we used the term ‘bees’ as a surrogate for ‘wild bees’. The sampling effort was sufficient to properly estimate bee species richness in the studied grasslands (Fig. S2).

We measured bee traits related to body size, foraging and resource acquisition. Body size is a trait associated to foraging distance (Greenleaf et al. 2007), and pollination efficiency (Larsen et al. 2005). Foraging distance can also be influenced by wing size (Foster and Cartar 2011). Bee mouthparts were measured as they determine bee efficiency in acquiring floral resources (Klumpers et al. 2019) and of plant-bee network structure (Bartomeus et al. 2016). Body size (BS, mm) was measured as the inter-tergular distance, i.e. the distance between the wing bases (Greenleaf et al. 2007; Forrest et al. 2015). We also

measured body length (Bl, mm), wing area (Wg, mm) and wing length vs. body size ratio (Wg:BS). Finally, we measured different parts of bee head and proboscis: the head width (Hw, mm), the prementum length (Pl, mm) and the glossa length (Gl, mm). We calculated the ratio between head width and body size (Hw:BS), between prementum length and body size (Pl:BS) and between glossa length and body size (Gl:BS) (Bartomeus et al. 2016; Cariveau et al. 2016). Measurements were performed using the stereo microscope (Leica Microsystems M50) equipped with an integrated high definition microscope camera (Leica IC80 HD).

Bee morphological traits were measured directly on the trapped individuals. The mean number of individual bees captured per grassland field over the six pan traps was 49 individuals. Traits were measured on 30 randomly selected individuals within each bee community (or all individuals when the number of captured bees was < 30, which was the case in 42% of the sampled grassland fields). Bees were identified at the species level. In total, 1050 individuals were measured, belonging to 60 wild bee species representative of the most abundant species in the study area (see Rollin et al. 2015, Table S3 and Fig. S2). Measuring all species in all communities—including the very rare species—is challenging and not necessarily needed to properly estimate functional diversity as the selected indices of functional diversity used in our study are not influenced by very rare species (Blonder et al. 2014).

## Statistical analyses

All statistical analyses were performed using the R statistical software (R Development Core Team 2016) version 3.3.1.

### *Trait-based characterization of plant and bee communities*

We performed two principal component analyses (PCA) on flower traits, and on bee traits at the individual level to evaluate the correlations between the different traits measured, and to identify major functional dimensions (Devictor et al. 2010). We used the *varimax* procedure to maximize the correlations between PCA axes and traits. Based on the PCA, we selected three independent floral traits, each being
highly correlated with one PCA axis (Fig. S3a and b): the flower width (i.e. the corolla diameter), the flower depth (i.e. the corolla depth) and the landing zone. For bees, we selected three independent bee traits, each being highly correlated with one PCA axis (Fig. S3c and d): body size; glossa length, a key trait involved in plant–bee mutualism (Bartomeus et al. 2016); and the prementum length vs. body size ratio, a trait that can determine bee efficiency in acquiring floral resources (Borrell 2005; Klumpers et al. 2019).

We then characterized the multi-trait functional diversity of plant and bee communities in each of the surveyed grasslands by calculating the volume of the multi-trait space occupied by all species (for plants) or individuals (for bees) belonging to a grassland field, using the *R hypervolume* package (Blonder et al. 2014, 2018). Contrary to other multidimensional functional diversity metrics (e.g. Cornwell et al. 2006), the hypervolume takes into account holes in the phenotypic space, giving a more accurate approximation of the functional space occupied by a community (Blonder et al. 2014). In addition, we calculated plant community mean trait values for each selected floral trait as the average of trait values in a given grassland, weighted by species abundance (following Garnier et al. 2004).

As there is an intrinsic mathematical link between the hypervolume estimates and the number of species or individuals recorded in the community, we randomly sampled the same number of species or individuals in each plant and bee community, respectively, using a rarefaction technique. This number was equal to that of the community with the lowest number of species or individuals (i.e. five). We then estimated the hypervolume on this subset, with constant number of species or individuals, and repeated the procedure 100 times for each community. The trait diversity was calculated as the mean hypervolume over all the 100 random samples. Note that the raw hypervolumes— calculated directly with all species or individuals sampled in the grassland—were highly correlated (r ≥ 0.96) to the hypervolumes corrected for the number of species recorded or individuals trapped (Fig. S4).

## Effects of land-use on plant communities

We used linear models to evaluate the effects of current and past land use on the trait diversity of plant

communities, i.e. floral hypervolume. We included in our models the effects of grassland field age and of the metric of grassland-to-crop conversion at the landscape scale. We also included current landscape composition metrics (% grassland, % forest and % mass-flowering crop areas). We used plant productivity as a proxy for grassland management intensity, as it is related to fertilizer inputs. This was assessed by harvesting plant biomass every month (between February and August 2014) above a cutting height of 5 cm from the soil surface, within five 35 × 35 cm quadrats per grassland. Grassland productivity was then calculated as the weight of dried plant material (oven-dried at 60 °C for 72 h) product per square meter per day between the initial biomass measurement and peak biomass (end of May). To account for potential non-linear effects, we considered quadratic terms for current land-use variables and land-use history. Finally, our model integrated latitude and longitude to correct for additional spatial effects not accounted for by the local and landscape predictors (see correlations among the predictors in Table S1). We performed model simplification using a backward regression procedure in the *R MASS* package (Venables and Ripley 2002), and we further kept the models with lower AICc ($\Delta$ AICc < 2). If multiple models were selected within a $\Delta$ AICc < 2, a model averaging procedure was performed rather than focusing on the model with the best AICc, in order to determine average parameter coefficients for the best final set of predictors (García-Palacios et al. 2018; Le Bagousse-Pinguet et al. 2019; Sirami et al. 2019). We used the *MuMln* package (Bartoń 2014) and the *dredge* function that provides an average value over the selected models for the best predictors. Model residuals were inspected for constant variance and normality. We standardized all variables (z-scored: mean-centred and divided by the standard deviation) to interpret parameter estimates on a comparable scale (Schielzeth 2010). We calculated the relative effects of the parameter estimates for each set of predictors to evaluate the relative importance of each predictor on flower trait diversity of the plant community. This method is similar to a variance decomposition analysis since we z-scored all predictors.
Effects of land-use on bee communities
and on the relationship between flower and bee
morphological diversities

We included in the model the functional properties of
the flower community (community weighted means of
the selected traits, and floral hypervolume) as predic-
tors of bee trait diversity. To test how land use impacts
the interactions between plants and bees, we included
in the model the same land use factors as for the
analysis of flower trait diversity. We added in the
model two-way interactions between current land use,
land-use history and the flower trait diversity. Finally,
as for the analysis of flower trait diversity, our model
integrated latitude and longitude, and quadratic terms
for current land-use variables and land-use history. We
used the same analytic procedure described above to
select the best set of predictors for bee morphological
diversity.

To illustrate the effects of typical land-use changes
that occurred in agricultural landscapes in Western
Europe on the trait diversity of bee communities, we
computed bee hypervolume in a focal grassland for
three situations that resulted from contrasted past and
present land-use management: (i) a current situation
that corresponds to landscapes with low land-use
intensification, similar to those observed twenty years
ago in the study region, i.e. a permanent focal
grassland (~ 15 year-old) with diverse plant commu-
nities, situated in a landscape with recent grassland-to-
crop conversion (5 years) and where the landscape
was currently composed of 9% of mass-flowering
crops and 20% of permanent grasslands; (ii) a situation
that corresponds to moderately intensified agricultural
landscapes, i.e. a permanent focal grassland (~ 15
year-old) with diverse plant communities, situated in a
historically crop-dominated landscape (grassland-to-
crop conversion of 10 years on average) where only
few permanent and plant species rich grasslands have
been maintained (e.g. through agri-environmental
scheme subsidies), and currently composed of 15%
of mass-flowering crops and 10% of permanent
grasslands; (iii) a situation that corresponds to inten-
sive agricultural landscapes observed currently in the
study area, i.e. a temporary grassland (< 5 year-old)
with low flower trait diversity, situated in a crop-
dominated landscape (grassland-to-crop conversion of
at least 20 years), and currently composed of 25% of
mass-flowering and 8% of species-poor temporary

grasslands. Bee hypervolumes were calculated by
gathering individuals from different sampled grass-
lands corresponding to each category. We then
randomly sampled 100 individuals from each pool
and estimated the bee hypervolume on this subset. The
procedure was repeated 100 times for the three
categories and the three hypervolumes were calculated
as the mean hypervolume over the 100 random
samples.

Results

Past and current land-use had significant effects on the
flower trait diversity of plant communities (i.e. floral
hypervolume), with an R² = 0.47 (Fig. 1; see also
Table S6 for AICc-based model selection and
Table S7). The effect of past land use was determined
by a positive effect of the sampled grassland age (57%
of explained variance, P-value < 0.001), where flower
trait diversity within plant communities was higher in
old permanent grasslands. The effect of current land
use was mainly due to a negative effect of the
grassland productivity (43% explained variance,
P-value < 0.001) (Fig. 1).

Bee trait diversity (i.e. bee hypervolume) was
largely explained by the flower trait diversity (i.e.,
floral hypervolume) and individual floral trait values
(altogether 34% of explained variance) (Fig. 2; see
also Table S8 and Table S9). Specifically, the flower
trait diversity had a positive effect on bee trait
diversity (8% of explained variance, without interac-
tions, P-value = 0.012), indicating that functionally
diverse plant communities support diverse bee com-
munities. The mean flower depth had a positive effect
on bee hypervolume (19% of explained variance,
P-value < 0.001), while the mean flower width had a
negative effect (8% of explained variance, P-value =
0.021), suggesting that plant communities dominated
by flowers with narrow and deep corollas are posi-
tively associated with functionally diverse bee
communities.

The positive relationship between flower and bee
trait diversity was modulated by current landscape
composition and land-use history (Figs. 2 and 3). Bee
trait diversity was explained by two significant
interactions between flower trait diversity and: (i) the
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1** Relative effects of estimates (%) of each group of predictors (i.e. land-use history and current land use) and parameter estimates (± SE) resulting from the model averaging procedure on the flower trait diversity of plant community (hypervolume, sd³). P-values of the best selected models for</figcaption></figure>

proportion of mass-flowering crops in the surrounding landscape (9% of explained variance, P-value = 0.001); (ii) the grassland-to-crop conversion (10% of explained variance, P-value = 0.013). We found a strong positive relationship between flower and bee trait diversities in landscapes with a low mass-flowering crop cover (Fig. 3a) and recent grassland-to-crop conversion (Fig. 3b). In contrast, this relationship weakened in landscapes dominated by mass-flowering crops or where grasslands have been converted to arable fields for a long time.

At the local scale, grassland age had a quadratic effect on bee trait diversity (24% of explained variance, P-value < 0.001) which was higher in 10 to 15 year-old grasslands (Fig. 3c). Finally, current landscape composition variables accounted for 10% of explained variance, mostly due to a positive effect of the proportion of grasslands in the surrounding landscape (7% of explained variance, P-value = 0.027) (Fig. 2).

each model parameter are given, \*P-value < 0.05; \*\*P-value < 0.01; \*\*\*P-value < 0.001. We considered only plants with nectar in the analyses. The flower trait diversity was log-transformed and all variables were scaled. See also Table S6 for details on model selection and Table S7

When evaluating how contrasted land-use manage-
ments (combining focal grassland age, grassland cover
in the current landscape and the history of grassland-
to-crop conversion) affected the trait diversity of bee
communities, we found that bee trait diversity strongly
decreased in historically crop-dominated landscapes
where grassland-to-crop conversion occurred long
ago, compared to landscapes where grassland-to-crop
conversion occurred only recently. Bee trait diversity
in permanent grassland with high flower trait diversity
decreased by half when the focal grassland was
situated in a historically crop-dominated landscape
compared to when it was situated in a landscape
recently converted to crop. In the case of a temporary
grassland with low flower trait diversity and situated in
historically crop-dominated landscape with few tem-
porary grasslands, bee trait diversity decreased by a
factor of three compared to a species-rich permanent
grassland situated in a historically grassland-domi-
nated landscape (Fig. 4).
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2** Relative effects of estimates (%) of each group of predictors (i.e. land-use history, current land use and flower community) and their interactions on bee trait diversity (hypervolume, sd³) and parameter estimates (± SE) resulting from the model averaging procedure. ‘Flower TD’ is the abbreviation for ‘Flower trait diversity’. P-values of the best</figcaption></figure>

selected models for each model parameter are given, \*P-value < 0.05; \*\*P-value < 0.01; \*\*\*P-value < 0.001. Bee trait diversity and flower trait diversity (hypervolumes, sd³) were log-transformed and all variables were scaled. See also Table S8 for details on model selection and Table S9

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3** Significant effects of a flower trait diversity interacting with the percentage of mass-flowering crops in the landscape; b flower trait diversity interacting with grassland-to-crop conversion, and c age of the grassland on bee trait diversity. The colour gradient in panels a and b corresponds to bee trait diversity values, ranging from low values (blue) to high values (red). Black dots show the overall gradients in flower trait</figcaption></figure>

diversity, the percentage of mass-flowering crops in the landscape, the landscape grassland-to-crop conversion and the grassland age for the 66 grasslands. The shaded area in panel c indicates the 95% confidence intervals. Bee trait diversity and flower trait diversity (hypervolumes, sd³) were scaled and log-transformed
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4** Observed bee trait diversity calculated for grasslands with contrasted floral diversity and landscape land-use history: (i) permanent grasslands with diverse plant communities in a historically grassland-dominated landscape, in green (sampled grasslands were around 15 year-old with high flower trait diversity, situated in a landscape where grasslands were converted into annual crops 5 years ago, 9% of mass-flowering crops, 20% of grasslands); (ii) permanent grasslands with diverse plant communities in a crop-dominated landscape with few remnant permanent grasslands, in orange (sampled grasslands were around 15 year-old with high flower trait diversity, situated in a landscape where grasslands were converted into annual crops 10 years ago, 15% of mass-flowering crops and 10% of grasslands); (iii) temporary grasslands with low flower diversity, situated in a crop-dominated landscape where only temporary grasslands remain, in blue (sampled grasslands were around 5 year-old with low flower trait diversity, situated in a landscape where grasslands were converted into annual crops at least 20 years ago, 25% of mass-flowering crops and 8% of grasslands). (a) Bee trait diversity (hypervolume, sd³) observed in each category. Significant differences are indicated with letters. (b) Pairwise plots representing the hypervolume for each category, along traits (scaled) of the three-hypervolume dimensions: body size, glossa length and prementum length vs. body size ratio. The coloured lines are the contour lines of each hypervolume. The small coloured dots are the uniformly random samples from the inferred hypervolume. The large, filled, and coloured circles are the hypervolume centroids</figcaption></figure>

Discussion

Our study shows that past grassland-to-crop conver-
sion can have lasting negative impacts on present-day
bee trait diversity. We found that increasing flower
trait diversity increased bee trait diversity in grass-
lands (Fig. 2), highlighting the matching between the

diversity, situated in a crop-dominated landscape where only
temporary grasslands remain, in blue (sampled grasslands were
around 5 year-old with low flower trait diversity, situated in a
landscape where grasslands were converted into annual crops at
least 20 years ago, 25% of mass-flowering crops and 8% of
grasslands). (a) Bee trait diversity (hypervolume, sd³) observed
in each category. Significant differences are indicated with
letters. (b) Pairwise plots representing the hypervolume for each
category, along traits (scaled) of the three-hypervolume
dimensions: body size, glossa length and prementum length
vs. body size ratio. The coloured lines are the contour lines of
each hypervolume. The small coloured dots are the uniformly
random samples from the inferred hypervolume. The large,
filled, and coloured circles are the hypervolume centroids

multidimensional morphological diversity of plant
communities and their pollinators. However, the
positive relationship between plant and bee trait
diversities disappeared in agricultural landscapes
where much of the land was converted into annual
crops long ago, compared to similar current land-
scapes but with more recent grassland-to-crop
conversion. Hence, our results suggest that past land-
use changes can alter plant-bee interactions over time
threatening their long-term persistence in agricultural
landscapes.

Plant-bee trait matching explains bee trait
diversity

Although clear matching between some plant and bee
traits has been identified (Bartomeus et al. 2016;
Klumpers et al. 2019), quantifying how plant-bee trait
matching influences the whole bee communities has
been challenging so far. Using a multi-trait approach,
we found that bee trait diversity increased with
increasing flower trait diversity in grasslands
(Fig. 2). This result highlights a strong matching
between the multidimensional phenotypes of plants
and their pollinators. It supports the idea that flower
and bee morphological traits interact in complex ways
to determine the diversity and abundances of bees at
the community level (Coutinho et al. 2018).

In addition to flower diversity, flower mean traits of
the plant communities were important parameters to
quantify the net effect of flower trait diversity on bee
communities. For instance, we found that the com-
munity mean flower depth had a positive effect on bee
trait diversity (Fig. 2). Previous studies demonstrated
that pollinators with long mouthparts forage prefer-
entially on narrow or tubular flowers (Fontaine et al.
2006; Campbell et al. 2014; Klumpers et al. 2019),
while short mouthpart pollinators could not access
deep flowers (Bartomeus et al. 2016). Thus, plant
communities dominated by narrow or tubular flowers
would be expected to support less diverse bee
communities. Our results do not support this hypoth-
esis. One possible explanation could be that there are
multiple bee strategies to access deep flowers. For
instance, body size and shape could also determine bee
ability to exploit narrow flowers if oblong bees can
enter these flowers to access nectar, despite their short
mouthparts (Spaethe et al. 2001). Moreover, some
wild bee species (e.g. bumble bees such as *Bombus
terrestris*, *Bombus lapidarius*, *Bombus lucorum*) can
rob nectar from flower buds by making holes near the
base of the perianth of tubular flowers, which other-
wise would not be accessible to them owing to their
short tongues (Sáez et al. 2017).

Grassland-to-crop conversion has a lasting impact
on the relationship between plants and bees

Grassland-to-crop conversion modulated the func-
tional linkage between plant and bee communities
(Figs. 2 and 3b). The positive correlation between
flower and bee trait diversity was not observed in
landscapes where grasslands were converted into
annual crops long ago compared to landscapes where
grasslands have been only recently converted
(Fig. 3b). Therefore, our results suggest that bee
communities experienced time-delayed responses to
habitat loss, consistently with our hypotheses.
Decreasing grassland cover in agricultural landscapes
has been shown to affect plant and pollinator com-
munities (e.g. Clough et al. 2014). By considering
land-use history, our study goes one step further and
reveals that the effects of landscape simplification—
through the decrease of grassland cover over time—
are not only immediate but have also a lasting and
negative impact on bee diversity. Our results highlight
that land-use history could be a major driver of the
disruption of plant-pollinator interactions currently
observed, that may precede the loss of plant and
pollinator species in agricultural landscapes (Valiente-
Banuet et al. 2015).

Additionally, the local disturbance regime that
occurred within grasslands directly modified the
diversity of plants and bees, as illustrated by the
positive effect of the age of the focal grassland on the
flower (Fig. 1) and bee (Figs. 2, and 3c) trait diversity.
Conversely to flower trait diversity, bee trait diversity
flattened in 10 to 15 year-old grassland fields. Habitat
stability over time is a key contributing factor to
functional diversity in agricultural landscapes that can
allow specialist species with low dispersal abilities to
persist in intensive landscapes (Mouquet et al. 2003;
Le Provost et al. 2017, 2020). We also found a linear
positive effect of the proportion of grassland cover
itself in the surrounding current landscape on bee trait
diversity (Fig. 2). The presence of grasslands in the
surrounding landscape can enhance bee trait diversity
within local communities, independently of the local
flower community, by creating landscape-scale spil-
lover sustaining a flow of functionally contrasted
species across bee communities (Blitzer et al. 2012).
Impact of mass-flowering crop cover
on the relationship between plants and bees

The positive relationship between plant and bee morphological diversities was also dependent on the proportion of mass-flowering crops in the surrounding landscapes. The positive effect of flower trait diversity on bee trait diversity weakened in landscapes dominated by a high cover of mass-flowering crops (Fig. 3a). Mass-flowering crops such as oilseed rape and sunflower are mostly visited by generalist pollinators, and increasing mass-flowering crop cover in the landscape benefits few dominant species sharing specific traits (Diekötter et al. 2010). After the cessation of the flowering, these generalist species may forage in the surrounding natural or semi-natural habitats, where resources are still available. Such landscape-level spillover can modify the trait distribution within these habitats, and locally distort the trait matching between plant and bee communities. Our data were collected in late summer, few months after the mass-bloom of oilseed rape and sunflower, which allowed us to specifically test how the lasting effect of mass-flowering crops in the landscape can impact the relationship between plant and bee trait diversities in grasslands. This result echoes previous studies which found that a high proportion of mass-flowering crops in the surrounding landscape disrupts local plant–pollinator interactions (e.g. Diekötter et al. 2010), which can in turn affect pollinators later in the year (Riedinger et al. 2014).

Assessing bee trait diversity under contrasted land-use managements

There is great expectation that current strategies,
aiming at enhancing floral resources at both local and
landscape scales, will mitigate bee decline (e.g. agri-
environmental scheme such as sowing nectar flower
mixtures) (Scheper et al. 2014). When quantifying
how bee diversity varied under contrasted land-use
managements typically observed in our study region,
we found that the persistence of functionally diverse
bee communities is predicted to strongly decline in
historically crop-dominated landscapes, even in
flower-rich grasslands (Fig. 4). However, in real-
world landscapes, different local and landscape
drivers associated with current and past land-use
changes may affect present-day biodiversity. By

disentangling the effects of past and current land use
operating at contrasted spatial scales (from the field- to
the landscape-scale), our study may help to better
understand the ultimate drivers of bee decline, and to
refine conservation strategies. Consistently, our results
indicate that a high proportion of grasslands in the
surrounding landscape enhances local bee trait diver-
sity, and that grasslands with high flower diversity
support functionally diverse bee communities (Fig. 2).
In agricultural landscapes, these grasslands may be
more attractive than grasslands composed of less
diverse plant communities and, by providing a wide
array of feeding resources, could concentrate diverse
bee communities (Clough et al. 2014). However, bee
trait diversity in permanent and flower-rich grasslands
strongly decreased in historically crop-dominated
landscapes where grassland-to-crop conversion
occurred long ago, compared to landscapes where
grassland-to-crop conversion occurred only recently
(Fig. 3). Past land-use changes may have led to an
extinction debt within pollinator communities, and
many pollinator species might be already extinct in
agricultural landscapes (Kuussaari et al. 2009). While
sowing grasslands in historically crop-dominated
landscapes might help to avert further pollinator
decline, restoring the past pollinator communities
might therefore not be possible. Our study emphasized
the urgent need to sanctuarise significant amount of
permanent grasslands in agricultural areas, and to
develop management strategies that ensure the sus-
tainability of flower-rich grasslands to avoid future
plant and pollinator loss (Bommarco et al. 2014).

To test the legacy effect of habitat loss, our study
was based on a selection of grassland fields charac-
terised by varying land-use change histories. This
observational set up could be complemented by future
long-term studies to explicitly monitor the time-
delayed effects of past land-use changes on plant–
bee interactions and the induced biodiversity loss.
Such long-term studies can help to accurately predict
the shape of pollinator response following land-use
changes (e.g. linear or exponential decay), and to
determine if restoration efforts could be implemented
to avert further pollinator decline. Furthermore, we
collected data at a specific period of the year (late
summer) after the bloom of mass-flowering crops, in
order to specifically test how current and past land use
affect wild plant and bee communities in grasslands.
However, bee phenology can modify the community
composition over the growing season, and we might
have under-estimated the importance of bee species
that are more active in spring and early summer in
driving bee response to land-use changes. Studies
considering plant and bee communities at different
times of the year could provide valuable insights on
how land-use changes influence plant–pollinator tem-
poral mismatch.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the role of past habitat loss in
shaping the present-day trait diversity of bee commu-
nities in agricultural landscapes. By considering
landscapes characterized by different land-use histo-
ries, we show that past habitat degradation in agricul-
tural landscapes can disrupt plant-bee interactions.
The persistence of functionally diverse bee commu-
nities is predicted to strongly decline over time with
the conversion of permanent grasslands into intensive
annual crops. Therefore, plant and bee communities in
agricultural landscapes may suffer strong extinction
debts. This time-delayed response to habitat loss
constitute an opportunity to avert further bee decline in
farmlands, by developing long-term conservation and
restoration efforts to preserve plant-bee mutualism.
Long-term monitoring can help to further investigate
the temporal dynamics of pollinator decline, to
quantify the time needed to recover after disturbances,
and to identify the ecological conditions that secure
future pollination service in agricultural landscapes.

**Acknowledgements** We thank F. Coudray, H. Deraison, Y. Erreca, T. Fanjas-Mercère, J-L. Gautier, N. Guillon, F. Mezerette, S. Pillaud, A. Saintilan, E. Tedesco and the technical services of the Chizé Centre for Biological Studies for field assistance. The study was partly supported by the FarmLand research program, an ERA-Net BiodivERsA project funded by the French National Research Agency (ANR-11-EBID-0004) and the ECODEAL research programme, 2013–2014 BiodivERsA/FACCE-JPI joint call for research proposals, with the national funders ANR, BMBF, FORMAS (2014 – 1783), FWF, MINECO, NWO and PT-DLR. G. Le Provost was supported by a region Poitou-Charentes - department Deux-Sèvres PhD grant. N. Gross has received the support of the EU in the framework of the Marie-Curie FP7 COFUND People Program, through the award of an AgreenSkills + fellowship (under grant agreement n° 609398). CV was supported by the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant Project ‘ecophysiological and biophysical constraints on domestication in crop plants’ (grant ERC-StG-2014-639706-CONSTRAINTS). We thank Eric

Allan, Pascal Carrère, Colin Fontaine, Hervé Jactel, Sandra Lavorel and Pete Manning for their useful comments on the previous versions of the manuscript. This work was supported by the French government IDEX-ISITE initiative 16-IDEX-0001 (CAP 20–25).

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

**Funding** Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

References

Aguilar R, Ashworth L, Galetto L, Aizen MA (2006) Plant reproductive susceptibility to habitat fragmentation: review and synthesis through a meta-analysis. Ecol Lett 9:968–980

Bailey S, Requier F, Nusillard B, Roberts SPM, Potts SG, Bouget C (2014) Distance from forest edge affects bee pollinators in oilseed rape fields. Ecol Evol 4:370–380

Bartomeus I, Gravel D, Tylianakis JM, Aizen MA, Dickie IA, Bernard-Verdier M (2016) A common framework for identifying linkage rules across different types of interactions. Funct Ecol 30:1894–1903

Bartón K (2014) MuMIn: Model selection and model averaging based on information criteria (AICc and alike). R Package Version 1–1

Baude M, Kunin WE, Boatman ND, Conyers S, Davies N, Gillespie MAK, Morton RD, Smart SM, Memmott J (2016) Historical nectar assessment reveals the fall and rise of floral resources in Britain. Nature 530:85–88

Blitzer EJ, Dormann CF, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Rand TA, Tscharntke T (2012) Spillover of functionally important organisms between managed and natural habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146:34–43

Blonder B, Lamanna C, Violle C, Enquist BJ (2014) The n-dimentional hypervolume. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 23:595–609

Blonder B, Morrow CB, Maitner B, Harris DJ, Lamanna C, Violle C, Enquist BJ, Kerkhoff AJ (2018) New approaches for delineating n-dimensional hypervolumes. Methods Ecol Evol 9:305–319

Bommarco R, Lindborg R, Marini L, Öckinger E (2014) Extinction debt for plants and flower-visiting insects in
landscapes with contrasting land use history. Divers Distrib
20:591–599

Borrell BJ (2005) Long tongues and loose niches: evolution of Euglossine Bees and their nectar flowers. Biotropica 37:664–669

Bretagnolle V, Berthet E, Gross N, Gauffre B, Plumejeaud C, Houte S, Badenhausser I, Monceau K, Allier F, Monestiez P, Gaba S (2018) Towards sustainable and multifunctional agriculture in farmland landscapes: lessons from the integrative approach of a French LTSER platform. Sci Total Environ 627:822–834

Bukovinszky T, Verheijen J, Zwerver S, Klop E, Biesmeijer JC, Wäckers FL, Prins HHT, Kleijn D (2017) Exploring the relationships between landscape complexity, wild bee species richness and reproduction, and pollination services along a complexity gradient in the Netherlands. Biol Conserv 214:312–319

Burkle LA, Alarcón R (2011) The future of plant–pollinator diversity: understanding interaction networks across time, space, and global change. Am J Bot 98:528–538

Campbell DR, Forster M, Bischoff M (2014) Selection of trait combinations through bee and fly visitation to flowers of Polemonium foliosissimum. J Evol Biol 27:325–336

Cariveau DP, Nayak GK, Bartomeus I, Zientek J, Ascher JS, Gibbs J, Winfree R (2016) The allometry of bee proboscis length and its uses in ecology. PLoS ONE 11:e0151482

Clough Y, Ekroos J, Báldi A, Batáry P, Bommarco R, Gross N, Holzschuh A, Hopfenmüller S, Knop E, Kuussaari M, Lindborg R, Marini L, Öckinger E, Potts SG, Pöyry J, Roberts SPM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Smith HG (2014) Density of insect-pollinated grassland plants decreases with increasing surrounding land-use intensity. Ecol Lett 17:1168–1177

Cornwell WK, Schwilk DW, Ackerly DD (2006) A trait-based test for habitat filtering: convex hull volume. Ecology 87:1465–1471

Coutinho JG, da Garibaldi E, Viana LA (2018) The influence of local and landscape scale on single response traits in bees: a meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 256:61–73

Davis ES, Kelly R, Maggs CA, Stout JC (2018) Contrasting impacts of highly invasive plant species on flower-visiting insect communities. Biodivers Conserv 27:2069–2085

Deraison H, Badenhausser I, Börger L, Gross N (2015) Herbi-
vore effect traits and their impact on plant community
biomass: an experimental test using grasshoppers. Funct
Ecol 29:650–661

Devictor V, Clavel J, Julliard R, Lavergne S, Mouillot D, Thuiller W, Venail P, Villeger S, Mouquet N (2010) Defining and measuring ecological specialization. J Appl Ecol 47:15–25

Diekötter T, Kadoya T, Peter F, Wolters V, Jauker F (2010) Oilseed rape crops distort plant-pollinator interactions. J Appl Ecol 47:209–214

Fontaine C, Dajoz I, Meriguet J, Loreau M (2006) Functional diversity of plant-pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biol 4:e1

Forrest JR, Thorp RW, Kremen C, Williams NM (2015) Con-
trasting patterns in species and functional-trait diversity of
bees in an agricultural landscape. J Appl Ecol 52:706–715

Foster DJ, Cartar RV (2011) Wing wear affects wing use and choice of floral density in foraging bumble bees. Behav Ecol 22:52–59

García-Palacios P, Gross N, Gaitán J, Maestre FT (2018) Climate mediates the biodiversity–ecosystem stability relationship globally. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:8400–8405

Garnier E, Cortez J, Billès G, Navas ML, Roumet C, Debussche M, Laurent G, Blanchard A, Aubry D, Bellmann A, Neill C, Toussaint JP (2004) Plant functional markers capture ecosystem properties during secondary succession. Ecol ogy 85:2630–2637

Goulson D, Nicholls E, Botías C, Rotheray EL (2015) Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 347:1255957

Gravel D, Albouy C, Thuiller W (2016) The meaning of func-
tional trait composition of food webs for ecosystem func-
tioning. Phil Trans R Soc B 371:20150268

Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596

Hall M (2018) Blue and yellow vane traps differ in their sam-
pling effectiveness for wild bees in both open and wooded
habitats. Agric For Entomol 20:487–495

Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T (2007) Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. J Appl Ecol 44:41–49

Holzschuh A, Dainese M, González-Varo JP, Mudri-Stojnić S, Riedinger V, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Wickens JB, Wickens VJ, Bommarco R, Kleijn D, Potts SG, Roberts SPM, Smith HG, Vilà M, Vujić A, Steffan-Dewenter I (2016) Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe. Ecol Lett 19:1228–1236

Klumpers SGT, Stang M, Klinkhamer PGL (2019) Foraging efficiency and size matching in a plant-pollinator community: the importance of sugar content and tongue length. Ecol Lett 22:469–479

Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vázquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein AM, Regetz J, Ricketts TH (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem ser- vices produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual frame- work for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314

Kuussaari M, Bommarco R, Heikkinen RK, Helm A, Krauss J, Lindborg R, Öckinger E, Pärtel M, Pino J, Rodà F, Stefanescu C, Teder T, Zobel M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2009) Extinction debt: a challenge for biodiversity conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 24:564–571

Larsen TH, Williams NM, Kremen C (2005) Extinction order and altered community structure rapidly disrupt ecosystem functioning. Ecol Lett 8:538–547

Lavorel S, Storkey J, Bardgett RD, de Bello F, Berg MP, Le Roux X, Moretti M, Mulder C, Pakeman RJ, Díaz S, Harrington R (2013) A novel framework for linking functional diversity of plants with other trophic levels for the quantification of ecosystem services. J Veg Sci 24:942–948

Le Bagousse-Pinguet Y, Soliveres S, Gross N, Torices R, Ber-
dugo M, Maestre FT (2019) Phylogenetic, functional, and
taxonomic richness have both positive and negative effects on ecosystem multifunctionality. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116:8419–8424

Le Provost G, Gross N, Börger L, Deraison H, Roncoroni M, Badenhausser I (2017) Trait-matching and mass effect determine the functional response of herbivore communities to land-use intensification. Funct Ecol 31:1600–1611

Le Provost G, Badenhausser I, Le Bagousse-Pinguet Y, Clough Y, Henckel L, Violle C, Bretagnolle V, Roncoroni M, Manning P, Gross N (2020) Land-use history impacts functional diversity across multiple trophic groups. Proc Natl Acad Sci 117:1573–1579

Martin EA, Feit B, Requier F, Friberg H, Jonsson M (2019) Assessing the resilience of biodiversity-driven functions in agroecosystems under environmental change. Adv Ecol Res 60:59–123

McKinney ML, Lockwood JL (1999) Biotic homogenization: a few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14:450–453

Mouquet N, Munguia P, Kneitel JM, Miller TE (2003) Community assembly time and the relationship between local and regional species richness. Oikos 103:618–626

Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353

Purschke O, Sykes MT, Poschlod P, Michalski SG, Römermann C, Durka W, Kühn I, Prentice HC (2014) Interactive effects of landscape history and current management on dispersal trait diversity in grassland plant communities. J Ecol 102:437–446

Requier F, Garnery L, Kohl PL, Njovu HK, Pirk CW, Crewe RM, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019a) The conservation of native honey bees is crucial. Trends Ecol Evol 34:789–798

Requier F, Paillet Y, Laroche F, Rutschmann B, Zhang J, Lombardi F, Svoboda M, Steffan-Dewenter I (2019b) Contribution of European forests to safeguard wild honeybee populations. Conserv Lett e12693

Riedinger V, Renner M, Rundlöf M, Steffan-Dewenter I, Holzschuh A (2014) Early mass-flowering crops mitigate pollinator dilution in late-flowering crops. Landsc Ecol 29:425–435

Rollin O, Bretagnolle V, Decourtye A, Aptel J, Michel N, Vaissière BE, Henry M (2013) Differences of floral resource use between honey bees and wild bees in an intensive farming system. Agric Ecosyst Environ 179:78–86

Rollin O, Bretagnolle V, Fortel L, Guilbaud L, Henry M (2015) Habitat, spatial and temporal drivers of diversity patterns in a wild bee assemblage. Biodivers Conserv 24:1195–1214

Sáez A, Morales CL, Garibaldi LA, Aizen MA (2017) Invasive bumble bees reduce nectar availability for honey bees by robbing raspberry flower buds. Basic Appl Ecol 19:26–35

Scheper J, Reemer M, van Kats R, Ozinga WA, van der Linden GT, Schaminée JH, Siepel H, Kleijn D (2014) Museum

specimens reveal loss of pollen host plants as key factor driving wild bee decline in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:17552–17557

Schielzeth H (2010) Simple means to improve the interpretability of regression coefficients. Methods Ecol Evol 1:103–113

Sirami C, Gross N, Baillod AB, Bertrand C, Carrié R, Hass A, Henckel L, Miguet P, Vuillot C, Alignier A, Girard J, Batáry P, Clough Y, Violle C, Giralt D, Bota G, Badenhausser I, Lefebvre G, Gauffre B, Vialatte A, Calatayud F, Gil-Tena A, Tischendorf L, Mitchell S, Lindsay K, Georges R, Hilaire S, Recasens J, Solé-Senan XO, Robleño I, Bosch J, Barrientos JA, Ricarte A, Marcos-Garcia MA, Miñano J, Mathevet R, Gibon A, Baudry J, Balent G, Poulin B, Burel F, Tscharntke T, Bretagnolle V, Siriwardena G, Ouin A, Brotons L, Martin JL, Fahrig L (2019) Increasing crop heterogeneity enhances multitrophic diversity across agricultural regions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 116:16442–16447

Spaethe J, Tautz J, Chittka L (2001) Visual constraints in foraging bumblebees: flower size and color affect search time and flight behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 98:3898–3903

Suding KN, Lavorel S, Chapin FS, Cornelissen JHC, Díaz S, Garnier E, Goldberg D, Hooper DU, Jackson ST, Navas ML (2008) Scaling environmental change through the community-level: a trait-based response-and-effect framework for plants. Glob Change Biol 14:1125–1140

Valiente-Banuet A, Aizen MA, Alcántara JM, Arroyo J, Cocucci A, Galetti M, García MB, García D, Gómez JM, Jordano P, Medel R, Navarro L, Obeso JR, Oviedo R, Ramírez N, Rey PJ, Traveset A, Verdú M, Zamora R (2015) Beyond species loss: the extinction of ecological interactions in a changing world. Funct Ecol 29:299–307

Vanbergen AJ, Initiative the IP (2013) Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Front Ecol Environ 11:251–259

Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern Applied Statistics with S, Fourth edition. Springer, New York. ISBN 0-387-95457-0, http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/pub/MASS4/

Westphal C, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol Lett 6:961–965

Westphal C, Bommarco R, Carré G, Lamborn E, Morison N, Petanidou T, Potts SG, Roberts SPM, Szentgyörgyi H, Tscheulin T, Vaissière BE, Woyciechowski M, Biesmeijer JC, Kunin WE, Settele J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecol Monogr 78:653–671

**Publisher's Note** Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.