Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41923427›Full record

ArticleEcological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America2026

Species-habitat networks reveal key habitats for landscape-level wild bee conservation.

Marit Kinga Kasten, Sara Tassoni, Thomas Hiller, Markus Röhl, Michael Roth, Ingo Grass

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Species-habitat networks reveal key habitats for landscape-level wild bee conservation.Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marit Kinga KastenEcology of Tropical Agricultural Systems, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4412-7283
Sara TassoniEcology of Tropical Agricultural Systems, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3659-1824
Thomas HillerEcology of Tropical Agricultural Systems, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4044-9956
Markus RöhlInstitute for Landscape and Environment, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5989-4537
Michael RothInstitute for Landscape and Environment, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0834-7493
Ingo GrassEcology of Tropical Agricultural Systems, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7788-1940

Funding

Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg project number BW6_09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most agricultural landscapes are composed of a variety of habitats. A landscape perspective is needed to understand biodiversity decline, but many studies focus on single habitat types. In addition, the use of local resources by species within and across habitats implies that species and their habitats are linked in species-habitat networks. However, studies on these networks are scarce. Here, we used grid-based sampling to assess wild bees at 224 sampling locations across all major habitat types, that is, arable land, grassland, forest and orchard, in 14 differently composed agricultural landscapes of Southern Germany. We assigned wild bees to habitat types based on the dominant habitat cover surrounding their sampling location to establish species-habitat networks and assessed how these networks differed in modularity and robustness to habitat loss. Orchards harbored more wild bees than expected based on their proportional cover in the landscape, indicating a preference for this extensively managed but threatened habitat by wild bees. Orchards also supported the highest species richness and proportion of oligolectic wild bees, while forests harbored the lowest richness and more social species. Landscape diversity affected both structure and robustness of bee-habitat networks in response to the simulated loss of habitats. Networks in more diverse landscapes had higher modularity but tended to be less robust, showing that greater landscape diversity and modularity do not necessarily buffer against the effects of habitat loss. However, this effect appeared to be mainly driven by increases in network size, as standardized modularity and robustness (z-scores) were not affected by landscape diversity. We could show that species-habitat networks are a powerful tool to inform ecologists and policy makers about the importance of key habitats and landscape diversity for species conservation. Key habitats for wild bee conservation include extensively managed habitats like traditional orchards. Nevertheless, all habitat types support a similar proportion of endangered species, emphasizing the importance of a diverse landscape. Conserving wild bees requires a variety of complementary habitats at the landscape scale and must consider the management of traditional and intensively managed habitats alike. Policy measures targeting landscape diversity are urgently needed.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesEcosystemAgricultureAnimalsBeesBiodiversityGermanyagricultural intensificationfarmlandinsect declinelandscape compositionland usemeadow orchard

Identifiers

PMID41923427
PMCPMC13044500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.