ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Wild Bee Conservation: Habitat Heterogeneity and Ecological Improvement in Agricultural Land With Open Grassland.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Wild bee populations are declining due to habitat loss and degradation. Flower-rich heterogenous grasslands have the potential to compensate for the loss and provide valuable habitat for wild bees. To investigate the effects of different levels of habitat heterogeneity and of ecological habitat improvement to increase foraging resources on wild bee communities, we comparatively studied two Central European grassland types in Austria (AT) and Luxembourg (LU) using pan traps. We collected and identified > 5000 individuals representing considerable fractions of wild bee fauna of these countries and characterised habitat heterogeneity (number of habitat elements, ecotone lengths) using GIS data and flower-colour abundance (white, yellow, blue) using drone imaging. Our findings suggest that macro-scale heterogeneity alone may not drive wild bee assemblages in LU, pointing to the potential overriding importance of unmeasured microhabitat variables, such as nesting substrates and taxonomic floral composition. In AT, however, wild bee abundance increased with habitat heterogeneity as measured by the length of ecotones with trees and bushes. Ecological improvement of habitat was important in LU, in that formerly intensively farmed land with sown wildflower fallows hosted higher richness and abundance than extensively used grassland. In AT, in contrast, higher species richness and abundance occurred in extensively used grassland than in formerly intensively farmed land with wildflower strips; here, overall increased floral resource abundance on ecologically improved sites seemed to have less influence, and flower species diversity, the quality of floral resources or any combination of flower properties, may have been more important than just its quantity as assessed by flower-colour abundance. In conclusion, we emphasise the relevance of regional habitat heterogeneity to wild bees and the opportunities by ecological improvement of intensively farmed land. Conservation strategies should be tailored to regional landscape contexts, prioritising extensive grassland protection in Austria and targeted wildflower fallow establishment in Luxembourg.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.