Landscape Ecology

, Volume 32, Issue 5, pp 1023–1037 | Cite as

Assessing wild bees in perennial bioenergy landscapes: effects of bioenergy crop composition, landscape configuration, and bioenergy crop area

  • John B. GrahamEmail author
  • Joan I. Nassauer
  • William S. Currie
  • Herbert Ssegane
  • M. Cristina Negri
Research Article



Wild bee populations are currently under threat, which has led to recent efforts to increase pollinator habitat in North America. Simultaneously, U.S. federal energy policies are beginning to encourage perennial bioenergy cropping (PBC) systems, which have the potential to support native bees.


Our objective was to explore the potentially interactive effects of crop composition, total PBC area, and PBC patches in different landscape configurations.


Using a spatially-explicit modeling approach, the Lonsdorf model, we simulated the impacts of three perennial bioenergy crops (PBC: willow, switchgrass, and prairie), three scenarios with different total PBC area (11.7, 23.5 and 28.8% of agricultural land converted to PBC) and two types of landscape configurations (PBC in clustered landscape patterns that represent realistic future configurations or in dispersed neutral landscape models) on a nest abundance index in an Illinois landscape.


Our modeling results suggest that crop composition and PBC area are particularly important for bee nest abundance, whereas landscape configuration is associated with bee nest abundance at the local scale but less so at the regional scale.


Strategies to enhance wild bee habitat should therefore emphasize the crop composition and amount of PBC.


InVEST Lonsdorf model Perennial bioenergy crops Pollinator Neutral landscape models Alternative scenario Nest abundance index 



This project was funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Bioenergy Technologies Office. The project was also funded in part by dissertation fellowships granted to JBG by the University of Michigan School of Natural Resources and the University of Michigan Rackham Graduate School. Author contributions: JBG conducted the analysis and wrote the manuscript as part of a doctoral dissertation. JIN supervised the work and contributed to the conceptual design. WSC contributed to the framing and conceptual design of the neutral landscape models, analysis techniques, and research questions. HS contributed to the conceptual design and provided data used in developing future landscape patterns. MCN contributed to the conceptual design. We would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

10980_2017_506_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2561 kb)


  1. Alcamo J (2008) Environmental futures the practice of environmental scenario analysis. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey D, Billeter R, Aviron S, Schweiger O, Herzog F (2007) The influence of thematic resolution on metric selection for biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 22:461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett AB, Isaacs R (2014) Landscape composition influences pollinators and pollination services in perennial biofuel plantings. Agric Ecosyst Environ 193:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett AB, Meehan TD, Gratton C, Isaacs R (2014) Modeling pollinator community response to contrasting bioenergy scenarios. PLoS ONE 9:e110676.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentrup G (2008) Conservation buffers: design guidelines for buffers, corridors, and greenways. U.S. Department of Agriculture, AshevilleGoogle Scholar
  6. Chensheng L, Warchol KM, Callahan RA (2014) Sub-lethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Bull Insectol 67:125–130Google Scholar
  7. Das S, Priess JA, Schweitzer C (2012) Modelling regional scale biofuel scenarios—a case study for India. Glob Chang Biol Bioenergy 4:176–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deguines N, Jono C, Baude M, Henry M, Julliard R, Fontaine C (2014) Large-scale trade-off between agricultural intensification and crop pollination services. Front Ecol Environ 12:212–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Douglas MR, Tooker JF (2015) Large-scale deployment of seed treatments has driven rapid increase in use of neonicotinoid insecticides and preemptive pest management in U.S. field crops. Environ Sci Technol. doi: 10.1021/es506141g PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Etherington TR, Holland EP, O’Sullivan D (2015) NLMpy: a python software package for the creation of neutral landscape models within a general numerical framework. Methods Ecol Evol 6:164–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham JB (2016) Working landscapes: transdisciplinary research on bioenergy and agroforestry alternatives for an Illinois watershed. University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Grixti JC, Wong LT, Cameron SA, Favret C (2009) Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biol Conserv 142:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamada Y, Ssegane H, Negri MC (2015) Mapping intra-field yield variation using high resolution satellite imagery to integrate bioenergy and environmental stewardship in an agricultural watershed. Remote Sens 7:9753–9768Google Scholar
  15. Heard MS, Carvell C, Carreck NL, Rothery P, Osborne JL, Bourke AF (2007) Landscape context not patch size determines bumble-bee density on flower mixtures sown for agri-environment schemes. Biol Lett 3:638–641CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Jauker F, Diekötter T, Schwarzbach F, Wolters V (2009) Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat. Landscape Ecol 24:547–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jin Y, Yang L, Danielson P, Homer C, Fry J, Xian G (2013) A comprehensive change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database to circa 2011. Remote Sens Environ 132:159–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (2011) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kennedy CM, Lonsdorf E, Neel MC, Williams NM, Ricketts TH, Winfree R, Bommarco R, Brittain C, Burley AL, Cariveau D, Carvalheiro LG (2013) A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol Lett 16:584–599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein A-M, Brittain C, Hendrix SD, Thorp R, Williams N, Kremen C (2012) Wild pollination services to California almond rely on semi-natural habitat. J Appl Ecol. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2012.02144.x Google Scholar
  21. Koh I, Lonsdorf EV, Williams NM, Brittain C, Isaacs R, Gibbs J, Ricketts TH (2016) Modeling the status, trends, and impacts of wild bee abundance in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:140–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kremen C, M’Gonigle LK (2015) Small-scale restoration in intensive agricultural landscapes supports more specialized and less mobile pollinator species. J Appl Ecol 52:602–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lonsdorf E, Kremen C, Ricketts T, Winfree R, Williams N, Greenleaf S (2009) Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Ann Bot 103:1589–1600CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Lonsdorf E, Ricketts T, Kremen C, Winfree R, Greenleaf S, Williams N (2011) Crop pollination services. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts TH, Daily GC, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital: theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 168–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. M’Gonigle LK, Ponisio LC, Cutler K, Kremen C (2015) Habitat restoration promotes pollinator persistence and colonization in intensively managed agriculture. Ecol Appl 25:1557–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Mallinger RE, Gibbs J, Gratton C (2016) Diverse landscapes have a higher abundance and species richness of spring wild bees by providing complementary floral resources over bees’ foraging periods. Landsc Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0332-z Google Scholar
  27. McGarigal K (2015) FRAGSTATS help.Google Scholar
  28. McGarigal K, Ene E (2013) Fragstats.Google Scholar
  29. Meehan TD, Gratton C, Diehl E, Hunt ND, Mooney DF, Ventura SJ, Barham BL, Jackson RD (2013) Ecosystem-service tradeoffs associated with switching from annual to perennial energy crops in riparian zones of the US Midwest. PLoS ONE 8:e80093CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Morandin LA, Kremen C (2013) Hedgerow restoration promotes pollinator populations and exports native bees to adjacent fields. Ecol Appl 23:829–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landsc Ecol 19:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olsson O, Bolin A, Smith HG, Lonsdorf EV (2015) Modeling pollinating bee visitation rates in heterogeneous landscapes from foraging theory. Ecol Modell 316:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ostaff DP, Mosseler A, Johns RC, Javorek S, Klymko J, Ascher JS (2015) Willows (Salix spp.) as pollen and nectar sources for sustaining fruit and berry pollinating insects. Can J Plant Sci 95:505–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pollinator Health Task Force (2015) National strategy to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  35. Ponisio LC, M’Gonigle LK, Kremen C (2016) On-farm habitat restoration counters biotic homogenization in intensively managed agriculture. Glob Chang Biol 22:704–715CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. R Core Team (2015) R: a language and environment for statistical computing.Google Scholar
  38. Ridgeway A, Wen A, Elgersma K (2015) Density and diversity of bees in the Midwestern agricultural landscape: influence of surrounding agricultural land use and biofuel candidate crops. Ecol Sci Front Celebr, ESA CentenGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 29:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rowe RL, Hanley ME, Goulson D, Clarke DJ, Doncaster CP, Taylor G (2011) Potential benefits of commercial willow Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) for farm-scale plant and invertebrate communities in the agri-environment. Biomass Bioenergy 35:325–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sanchez-Bayo F (2014) The trouble with neonicotinoids. Science 346:806–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Sardiñas HS, Kremen C (2015) Pollination services from field-scale agricultural diversification may be context-dependent. Agric Ecosyst Environ 207:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ssegane H, Negri MC (2016) An integrated landscape designed for commodity and bioenergy crops for a tile-drained agricultural watershed. J. Environ, QualGoogle Scholar
  44. Ssegane H, Negri MC, Quinn J, Urgun-Demirtas M (2015) Multifunctional landscapes: site characterization and field-scale design to incorporate biomass production into an agricultural system. Biomass Bioenerg 80:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanley DA, Stout JC (2013) Quantifying the impacts of bioenergy crops on pollinating insect abundance and diversity: a field-scale evaluation reveals taxon-specific responses. J Appl Ecol 50:335–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolf AT, Ascher JS (2008) Bees of Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). Gt Lakes Entomol 41:129–168Google Scholar
  48. Wray JC, Neame LA, Elle E (2014) Floral resources, body size, and surrounding landscape influence bee community assemblages in oak-savannah fragments. Ecol Entomol 39:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • John B. Graham
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joan I. Nassauer
    • 2
  • William S. Currie
    • 2
  • Herbert Ssegane
    • 3
  • M. Cristina Negri
    • 4
  1. 1.Lake Superior State UniversitySault Sainte MarieUSA
  2. 2.University of MichiganSchool of Natural Resources and EnvironmentAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.The Climate CorporationChesterfieldUSA
  4. 4.Argonne National LaboratoryLemontUSA

Personalised recommendations