ArmbrusterW. et al. 1989. Pollination of Dalechampia magnoliifolia (Euphorbiaceae) by male Euglossinebees. – Am. J. Bot.76: 1279–1285.
AtkinsonD.SiblyR. M. 1997. Why are organisms usually bigger in colder environments? Making sense of a life history puzzle. – Trends Ecol. Evol.12: 235–239.
BartomeusI. et al. 2016. A common framework for identifying linkage rules across different types of interactions. – Funct. Ecol.30: 1894–1903.
BatesD. et al. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. – J. Stat. Softw.67: 1–48.
BerggrenA. 2005. The effect of propagule size and landscape structure on morphological differentiation and asymmetry in experimentally introduced Roesel's bush-crickets. – Conserv. Biol.19: 1095–1102.
BergmannC. 1847. Über die Verhältnisse der Wärmeökonomie der Thierezuihrer Grösse. – Göttinger Studien1: 595–708.
BlackburnT. M. et al. 2008. Geographic gradients in body size: a clarification of Bergmann's rule. – Divers. Distrib.5: 165–174.
BonteD. et al. 2012. Costs of dispersal. – Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil.87: 290–312.
BorthagarayA. I. et al. 2012. Connecting landscape structure and patterns in body size distributions. – Oikos121: 697–710.
BrownJ. H. et al. 2004. Toward a metabolic theory of ecology. – Ecology85: 1771–1789.
BurnhamK. P.AndersonD. R. 2004. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. – Sociol. Methods Res.33: 261–304.
CaneJ. H. 1987. Estimation of bee size using intertegular span (Apoidea). – J. Kansas Entomol. Soc.60: 145–147.
CaneJ. H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and native bees: a premature verdict? – Conserv. Ecol.5: 3.
Cribari-NetoF.ZeileisA. 2010. Beta regression in R. – J. Stat. Softw.34: 1–24.
DellicourS. et al. 2017. Distribution and predictors of wing shape and size variability in three sister species of solitary bees. – PLoS One3: e0173109.
DirzoR.RavenP. H. 2003. Global state of biodiversity and loss. – Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.28: 137–167.
FuchsR. et al. 2015a. Gross changes in reconstructions of historic land cover/use for Europe between 1900 and 2010. – Global Change Biol.21: 299–313.
FuchsR. et al. 2015b. The potential of old maps and encyclopaedias for reconstructing historic continental land cover/use change. – App. Geogr.59: 43–55.
Gamez-ViruesS. et al. 2015. Landscape simplification filters species traits and drives biotic homogenization. – Nat. Comm.6: 8568.
GardnerJ. L. et al. 2011. Declining body size: a third universal response to warming? – Cell26: 285–291.
GathmannA.TscharntkeT. 2002. Foraging ranges of solitary bees. – J. Anim. Ecol.71: 757–764.
GérardM. et al. 2018a. Stressful conditions reveal decrease in size, modification of shape but relatively stable asymmetry in bumblebee wings. – Sci. Rep.8: 15169.
GérardM. et al. 2018b. Patterns of size variation in bees at a continental scale: does Bergmann's rule apply? – Oikos127: 1095–1103.
GérardM. et al. 2019. Shift in size of bumblebee queens over the last century. – Global Change Biol.26: 1185–1195.
GérardM. et al. 2020a. Global warming and plant–pollinator mismatches. – Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 4: 77–86.
GérardM. et al. 2020b. Impact of landscape fragmentation and climate change on body size variation of bumblebees during the last century. – Dryad Digital Repository, .
GergsA.JagerT. 2014. Body size-mediated starvation resistance in an insect predator – J. Anim. Ecol.83: 758–768.
GoulsonD. et al. 2015. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. – Science347: 1255957.
GreenleafS. S. et al. 2007. Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. – Oecologia153: 589–596.
HeinrichB. 1993. The hot-blooded insects: strategies and mechanisms of thermoregulation. – Harvard Univ. Press.
HesselbarthM. H. K. et al. 2019. Landscapemetrics: an open-source R tool to calculate landscape metrics. – Ecography42: 1648–1657.
HillJ. K. et al. 1999. Flight morphology in fragmented populations of a rare British butterfly Hesperia comma. – Biol. Conserv.87: 277–283.
HillaertJ. et al. 2018a. Size-dependent movement explains why bigger is better in fragmented landscapes. – Ecol. Evol.8: 10754–10767.
HillaertJ. et al. 2018b. Information use during movement regulates how fragmentation and loss of habitat affect body size. – Proc. R. Soc. B285: 20180953.
JaukerF. et al. 2016. Intra-specific body size determines pollination effectiveness. – Basic Appl. Ecol.17: 714–719.
Karger, D. N. et al. 2017. Climatologies at high resolution for the earth's land surface areas. – Sci. Data4: 170122.
KeinathD. A. et al. 2017. A global analysis of traits predicting species sensitivity to habitat fragmentation. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr.26: 115–127.
KendallL. K. et al. 2019. Pollinator size and its consequences: robust estimates of body size in pollinating insects. – Ecol. Evol.9: 1702–1714.
KleiberM. 1932. Body size and metabolism. – Hilgardia6: 315–353.
KleijnD.RaemakersI. 2008. A retrospective analysis of pollen host plant use by stable and declining bumble bee species. – Ecology89: 1811–1823.
KnightM. E. et al. 2005. An interspecific comparison of foraging range and nest density of four bumble bee (Bombus) species. – Mol. Ecol.14: 1811–1820.
LüdeckeD. 2019. sjPlot: data visualization for statistics in social science. – R package ver. 2.7.2, , .
MarshallL. et al. 2018. The interplay of climate and land use change affects the distribution of EU bumblebees. – Global Change Biol.24: 101–116.
McGarigalK. 2015. FRAGSTATS help. – Univ. of Massachusetts.
McGarigalK.MarksB. J. 1995. FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for quantifying landscape structure. – USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-351, Corvallis.
MeiriS. et al. 2007. What determines conformity to Bergmann's rule. – Global Ecol. Biogeogr.16: 788–794.
MerckxT. et al. 2018. Body-size shifts in aquatic and terrestrial urban communities. – Nature558: 113–116.
MillienV. et al. 2006. Ecotypic variation in the context of global climate change revisiting the rules. – Ecol. Lett.9: 853–869.
NootenS. S.RehanS. M. 2019. Historical changes in bumble bee body size and range shift of declining species. – Biodiver. Conserv.29: 451–467.
OllertonJ. 2017. Pollinator diversity: distribution, ecological function and conservation. – Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.48: 353–376.
OsborneJ. L. et al. 2008. Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. – J. Anim. Ecol.77: 406–415.
PahlM. et al. 2011. Large scale homing in honeybees. – PLoS One6: e19669.
PetersR. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. – Cambridge Univ. Press.
PottsS. G. et al. 2010. Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. – Trends Ecol. Evol.25: 345–353.
PykeG. H. 1978. Optimal foraging in bumblebees and coevolution with their plants. – Oecologia36: 281–293.
RasmontP. et al. 2015. Climatic risk and distribution atlas of European bumblebees. – BioRisk10: 1–236.
RogerN. et al. 2017. Impact of pollen resources drift on common bumblebees in NW Europe. – Global Change Biol.23: 68–76.
ScrivenJ. J. et al. 2016. Bergmann's body size rule operates in facultatively endothermic insects: evidence from a complex of cryptic bumblebee species. – PLoS One11: e0163307.
ShelomiM. 2012. Where are we now? Bergmann's rule sensu lato in insects. – Am. Nat.180: 511–519.
SheridanJ. A.BickfordD. 2011. Shrinking body size as an ecological response to climate change. – Nat. Clim. Change1: 401–406.
SmithT. J.MayfieldM. M. 2018. The effect of habitat fragmentation on the bee visitor assemblages of three Australian tropical rainforest species. – Ecol. Evol.8: 8204–8216.
Solis-MonteroL.Vallejo-MarinM. 2016. Does the morphological fit between flowers and pollinators affect pollen deposition? An experimental test in a buzz-pollinated species with anther dimorphism. – Ecol. Evol.7: 2706–2715.
StangM. et al. 2009. Size-specific interaction patterns and size matching in a plant–pollinator interaction web. – Ann. Bot.103: 1459–1469.
StevensV. M. et al. 2014. A comparative analysis of dispersal syndromes in terrestrial and semi-terrestrial animals. – Ecol. Lett.17: 1039–1052.
StreinzerM. et al. 2016. Body size limits dim-light foraging activity in stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini). – J. Comp. Physiol. A202: 643–655.
TahoriA. S. et al. 1969. Variability in insecticide tolerance of eighteen honey bee colonies. – Entomol. Exp. Appl.12: 85–98.
TaylorP. D.MerriamG. 1995. Wing morphology of a forest damselfly is related to landscape structure. – Oikos73: 43–48.
ThompsonH. M.HuntL. V. 1999. Extrapolating from honeybees to bumblebees in pesticide risk assessment. – Ecotoxicology8: 147–166.
TscharntkeT. et al. 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. – Ecol. Lett.8: 857–874.
ValladaresG. et al. 2006. Habitat fragmentation effects on trophic processes of insect–plant food webs. – Conserv. Biol.20: 212–217.
WangX. et al. 2014. Measuring habitat fragmentation: an evaluation of landscape pattern metrics. – Methods Ecol. Evol.5: 634–646.
WarzechaD. et al. 2016. Intraspecific body size increases with habitat fragmentation in wild bee pollinators. – Landscape Ecol.31: 1449–1445.
WoodwardG. et al. 2005. Body size in ecological networks. – Trends Ecol. Evol.20: 402–409.
WrightI. R. et al. 2015. Evidence of forage distance limitations for small bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). – Eur. J. Entomol.112: 303–310.
Yvon-DurocherG.AllenA. P. 2012. Linking community size structure and ecosystem functioning using metabolic theory. – Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B367: 2998–3007.
