The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Foraging ranges of solitary bees
Open accessAbstract
Summary: Habitat requirements of solitary bees include nesting sites, food resources and nesting material. We used translocation experiments to establish foraging distances and measured foraging trip duration to analyse how solitary bees cope with the distance between nesting sites and suitable food plants in different habitat types. Maximum foraging distance between nesting site and food patch was 150–600 m for the 16 bee species examined. Foraging distance was correlated positively with body length. Mean foraging trip duration, measured for seven bee species, ranged from 6 to 28 min and was also correlated with body length. In a study of the polylectic species Osmia rufa , we found a significant decrease in foraging trip duration with increasing number of plant species. Logistic regressions showed that the oligolectic Megachile lapponica nested in trap nests with a probability of 50% if the distance between trap nest and food patch was less than 250 m. The oligolectic Chelostoma rapunculi utilized trap nests when the distance to the nearest food patch was less than 300 m. These experiments showed that solitary bees have a rather small foraging range so local habitat structure appears to be of more importance than large‐scale landscape structure. All requirements for sustaining viable populations must be within this range. Therefore, it is necessary to maintain and restore a dense network of habitat patches in landscapes to ensure long‐term sustainability of wild bee diversity and their ecological function as pollinators.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—Ecosystem service management
Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x · Cited by 4,455
Self-citationGaribaldi, L. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Kremen, C., Morales, J. M., Bommarco, R., Cunningham, S. A., Carvalheiro, L. G., Chacoff, N. P., Dudenhöffer, J. H., Greenleaf, S. S., et al. (2011) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2011.01669.x · Cited by 962
Zurbuchen, A., Landert, L., Klaiber, J., Müller, A., Hein, S., & Dorn, S. (2010) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.12.003 · Cited by 819
Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis
Batáry, P., Báldi, A., Kleijn, D., & Tscharntke, T. (2011) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1923 · Cited by 661
Self-citationLe Féon, V., Schermann-Legionnet, A., Delettre, Y., Aviron, S., Billeter, R., Bugter, R., Hendrickx, F., & Burel, F. (2010) · Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.015 · Cited by 307
Metadata
- Authors
- Gathmann, A., & Tscharntke, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 757-764
- ISSN
- 0021-8790 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2656
- OpenAlex
- W1986562905
- Cited by
- 1,134
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Foraging ranges of solitary bees. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x
- The paper
- Gathmann, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2002). Foraging ranges of solitary bees. Journal of Animal Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2656.2002.00641.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.