The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Pollination efficiency of wild bees and hoverflies provided to oilseed rape
Open accessAbstract
Declining numbers in honeybees and various wild bee species pose a threat to global pollination services. The identification and quantification of the pollination service provided by different taxa within the pollinator guild is a prerequisite for the successful establishment of nature conservation and crop management regimes. Wild bees and hoverflies are considered to be valuable pollinators in agricultural and natural systems. Although some information on pollination efficiency of individual pollinator species is available, comparative studies of both taxa at different densities are rare. In the present study, the efficiency of the solitary mason bee Osmia rufa and two hoverfly species ( Eristalis tenax and Episyrphus balteatus ) as pollinators of oilseed rape Brassica napus was examined in a standardized caged plant breeding regime. Honeybee Apis mellifera colonies were used as a reference pollinator taxon. Yield parameters responded differently to pollinator density and identity. Fruit set and number of seeds per pod increased with increasing pollinator density, although these were stronger in the mason bee than the hoverfly treatment. Weight per 1000 seeds did not respond to any pollinator treatment, indicating that seed quality was not affected. Oilseed rape yield in the highest tested densities of both pollinator taxa resulted in yield values close to the efficiency of small honeybee colonies. Hoverflies required approximately five‐fold densities of the red mason bees to reach a similar fruit set and yield. Thus, mason bees are more efficient in plant breeding and managed pollination systems. Both natural pollinator taxa, however, are of potential value in open and closed crop production systems.
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
Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss
Oliver, T. H., Isaac, N. J. B., August, T. A., Woodcock, B. A., Roy, D. B., & Bullock, J. M. (2015) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms10122 · Cited by 419
Bee diversity effects on pollination depend on functional complementarity and niche shifts
Fründ, J., Dormann, C. F., Holzschuh, A., & Tscharntke, T. (2013) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/12-1620.1 · Cited by 356
Mass-flowering crops dilute pollinator abundance in agricultural landscapes across Europe
Holzschuh, A., Dainese, M., González‐Varo, J. P., Mudri‐Stojnić, S., Riedinger, V., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Wickens, J. B., Wickens, V. J., Bommarco, R., et al. (2016) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/ele.12657 · Cited by 289
Self-citationDunn, L., Lequerica, M., Reid, C. R., & Latty, T. (2020) · Pest Management Science · doi:10.1002/ps.5807 · Cited by 253
Interactive effects of climate and land use on pollinator diversity differ among taxa and scales
Ganuza, C., Redlich, S., Uhler, J., Tobisch, C., Rojas-Botero, S., Peters, M. K., Zhang, J., Benjamin, C. S., Englmeier, J., Ewald, J., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm9359 · Cited by 101
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Jauker, F., Bondarenko, B., Becker, H. C., & Steffan‐Dewenter, I.
- Venue
- Agricultural and Forest Entomology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-07-15
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 81-87
- ISSN
- 1461-9555 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-9563
- OpenAlex
- W2063961502
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.32
- 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: Pollination efficiency of wild bees and hoverflies provided to oilseed rape. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2011.00541.x
- The paper
- Jauker, F., Bondarenko, B., Becker, H. C., & Steffan‐Dewenter, I. (2012). Pollination efficiency of wild bees and hoverflies provided to oilseed rape. Agricultural and Forest Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-9563.2011.00541.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.