Humans, bees, and pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago, IL (USA)

Abstract

Despite the global trend in urbanization, little is known about patterns of biodiversity or provisioning of ecosystem services in urban areas. Bee communities and the pollination services they provide are important in cities, both for small-scale urban agriculture and native gardens. To better understand this important ecological issue, we examined bee communities, their response to novel floral resources, and their potential to provide pollination services in 25 neighborhoods across Chicago, IL (USA). In these neighborhoods, we evaluated how local floral resources, socioeconomic factors, and surrounding land cover affected abundance, richness, and community composition of bees active in summer. We also quantified species-specific body pollen loads and visitation frequencies to potted flowering purple coneflower plants (Echinacea purpurea) to estimate potential pollination services in each neighborhood. We documented 37 bee species and 79 flowering plant genera across all neighborhoods, with 8 bee species and 14 flowering plant genera observed on average along each neighborhood block. We found that both bee abundance and richness increased in neighborhoods with higher human population density, as did visitation to purple coneflower flower heads. In more densely populated neighborhoods, bee communities shifted to a suite of species that carry more pollen and are more active pollinators in this system, including the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) and native species such as Agapostemon virescens. More densely populated neighborhoods also had a greater diversity of flowering plants, suggesting that the positive relationship between people and bees was mediated by the effect of people on floral resources. Other environmental variables that were important for bee communities included the amount of grass/herbaceous cover and solar radiation in the surrounding area. Our results indicate that bee communities and pollination services can be maintained in dense urban neighborhoods with single-family and multi-family homes, as long as those neighborhoods contain diverse and abundant floral resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Ahrné K, Bengtsson J, Elmqvist T (2009) Bumble bees (Bombus spp.) along a gradient of increasing urbanization. PLoS ONE 4:e5574

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albrecht M, Duelli P, Muller C, Kleijn D, Schmid B (2007) The Swiss agri-environment scheme enhances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in nearby intensively managed farmland. J Appl Ecol 44:813–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Albrecht M, Schmid B, Hautier Y, Muller CB (2012) Diverse pollinator communities enhance plant reproductive success. Proc R Soc B 279(4845):4852

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anderson MJ, Gorley RN, Clarke KR (2008) PERMANOVA + for PRIMER: guide to software and statistical methods. Primer E, Plymouth

    Google Scholar 

  5. Artz DR, Nault BA (2011) Performance of Apis mellifera, Bombus impatiens, and Peponapis pruinosa (Hymenoptera:Apidae) as pollinators of pumpkin. J Econ Entomol 104:1153–1161

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Balvanera P, Pfisterer AB, Buchmann N, He J-S, Nakashizuka T, Raffaelli D, Schmid B (2006) Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecol Lett 9:1146–1156

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Banaszak-Cibicka W, Zmihorski M (2012) Wild bees along an urban gradient: winners and losers. J Insect Conserv 16:331–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bates AJ, Sadler JP, Fairbrass AJ, Falk SJ, Hale JD, Matthews TJ (2011) Changing bee and hoverfly pollinator assemblages along an urban-rural gradient. PLoS ONE 8:e23459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (1998) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cadenasso ML, Pickett STA, Schwarz K (2007) Spatial heterogeneity in urban ecosystems: reconceptualizing land cover and a framework for classification. Front Ecol Environ 5:80–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cane JH (2003) Exotic nonsocial bees in North American: ecological implications. In: Strickler K, Cane JH (eds) For nonnative crops, whence pollination of the future. Thomas Say Foundation. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, pp 113–126

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cane JH (2005) Bees, pollination, and the challenges of sprawl. In: Johnson EA, Klemens MW (eds) Nature in fragments: the legacy of sprawl. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 109–124

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carper AL, Adler LS, Warren PS, Irwin RE (2014) Effects of suburbanization on forest bee communities. Environ Entomol 43:253–262

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheptou PO, Avendaño VLG (2006) Pollination processes and the Allee effect in highly fragmented populations: consequences for the mating system in urban environments. New Phytol 172:774–783

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frankie GW, Thorp RW, Schindler M, Hernandez J, Ertter B, Rizzardi M (2005) Ecological patterns of bees and their host ornamental flowers in two northern California cities. J Kansas Entomol Soc 78:227–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ghazoul J (2006) Floral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J Ecol 94:295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Greenleaf SS, Williams NM, Winfree R, Kremen C (2007) Bee foraging ranges and their relationship to body size. Oecologia 153:589–596

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grimm NB, Faeth SH, Golubiewski NE, Redman CL, Wu J, Bai X, Briggs JM (2008) Global change and the ecology of cities. Science 319:756–760

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Grove JM, Burch WR Jr (1997) A social ecology approach and applications of urban ecosystem and landscape analyses: a case study of Baltimore Maryland. Urban Ecosyst 1:259–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hegland SJ, Grytnes J-A, Totland Ø (2009) The relative importance of positive and negative interactions for pollinator attraction in a plant community. Ecol Res 24:929–936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hennig EI, Ghazoul J (2011) Plant pollinator interactions within the urban environment. Perspect Plant Eco Evol Syst 13:137–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoehn P, Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Steffan-Dewenter I (2008) Functional group diversity of bee pollinators increases crop yield. Proc R Soc B 275:2283–2291

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jędrzejewska-Szmek K, Zych M (2013) Flower-visitor and pollen transport networks in a large city: structure and properties. Arthropod-Plant Interact 7:503–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jha S, Kremen C (2013) Resource diversity and landscape-level homogeneity drive native bee foraging. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110:555–558

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kendal D, Williams KJH, Williams NSG (2012) Plant traits link people’s plant preferences to the composition of their gardens. Landsc Urban Plan 105:34–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kinzig AP, Warren P, Martin C, Hope D, Katti M (2005) The effects of human socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics on urban patterns of biodiversity. Ecol Soc 10:23

    Google Scholar 

  27. Klein AM, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc R Soc B 270:955–961

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B 274:303–313

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kremen C, Williams NM, Thorp RW (2002) Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proc Natl Acad Sci 99:16812–16816

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ksiazek K, Fant J, Skogen K (2012) An assessment of pollen limitation on Chicago green roofs. Landsc and Urban Plan 107:401–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Larson M (2005) Higher pollinator effectiveness by specialist than generalist flower-visitors of unspecialized Knautia arvensis (Dipsacaceae). Oecologia 146:394–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lázaro A, Totland Ø (2010) Population dependence in the interactions with neighbors for pollination: a field experiment with Taraxacum officinale. Am J Bot 97:760–769

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Leong M, Kremen C, Roderick GK (2014) Pollinator interactions with yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) across urban, agricultural, and natural landscapes. PLoS ONE 9:e86357

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lonsdorf E, Kremen C, Ricketts T, Winfree R, Williams N, Greenleaf S (2009) Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes. Ann Bot 103:1589–1600

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Loram A, Tratalos J, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2007) Urban domestic gardens (X): the extent & structure of the resource in five major cities. Landsc Ecol 22:601–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2010) Determinates of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosyst 13:333–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Matteson KC, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) Bee richness and abundance in New York City gardens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:140–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Matteson KC, Grace JB, Minor ES (2013) Direct and indirect effects of land use on floral resources and flower-visiting insects across an urban landscape. Oikos 122:682–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. McClintock N (2010) Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of metabolic rift. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 3:191–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of ecological communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach

    Google Scholar 

  41. McCune B, Mefford MJ (2011) PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 6. MjM Software, Gleneden Beach

    Google Scholar 

  42. McDonald RI, Marcotullio PJ, Güneralp B (2013) Urbanization and global trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Elmqvist T, Fragkias M, Goodness J, Güneralp B, Marcotullio PJ, McDonald RI, Parnell S, Schewenius M, Sendstad M, Seto KC, Wilkinson C (eds) Urbanization, biodiversity and ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  43. McIntyre NE, Hostetler ME (2001) Effects of urban land use on pollinator communities in a desert metropolis. Basic Appl Ecol 2:209–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. McKinney ML (2002) Urbanization, biodiversity, and conservation. Bioscience 52:883–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. McKinney ML (2004) Measuring floristic homogenization by non-native plants in north America. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 13:47–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Michener CD (2006) The bees of the World, 2nd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  48. Moeller DA (2004) Facilitative interactions among plants via shared pollinators. Ecology 84:3289–3301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Morales CL, Traveset A (2009) A meta-analysis of impacts of alien vs. native plants on pollinator visitation and reproductive success of co-flowering native plants. Ecol Lett 12:716–728

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Owen J (1991) The ecology of a garden, the first fifteen years. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 225

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pauw A (2007) Collapse of a pollination web in small conservation areas. Ecology 88:1759–1769

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pollard E (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol Conserv 12:115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ricketts TH, Regetz J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Bogdanski A, Gemmill-Herren B, Greenleaf SS, Klein AM, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Ochieng A, Viana BF (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11:499–515

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Samnegard U, Persson AS, Smith HG (2011) Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmland. Biol Conserv 144:2602–2606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Swift MJ, Izac AMN, van Noordwijk M (2004) Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes–are we asking the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:113–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Tonietto R, Fant J, Ascher J, Ellis K, Larkin D (2011) A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks, and prairies. Landsc Urban Plan 103:102–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. United Nations Population Division (2006) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005 Revision. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, New York, USA

  58. Vazquez DP, Morris WF, Jordano P (2005) Interaction frequency as a surrogate for the total effect of animal mutualists on plants. Ecol Lett 8:1088–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Vicens N, Bosch J (2000) Weather-dependent pollinator activity in an apple orchard, with special reference to Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae and Apidae). Environ Entomol 29:413–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wagenius W, Lyon SP (2010) Reproduction of Echinacea angustifolia in fragmented prairie is pollen-limited but not pollinator-limited. Ecology 91:733–742

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Willmer PG (1983) Thermal constraints on activity patterns in nectar-feeding insects. Ecol Entomol 8:455–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Winfree R, Kremen C (2009) Are ecosystem services stabilized by differences among species? A test using crop pollination. Proc R Soc B 276:229–237

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Winfree R, Griswold T, Kremen C (2007) Effects of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conserv Biol 21:213–223

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Winfree R, Williams NM, Gaines H, Ascher JS, Kremen C (2008) Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. J Appl Ecol 45:793–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Wojcik VA, McBride JR (2012) Common factors influence bee foraging in urban and wildland landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 15:581–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zych M, Goldstein J, Roguz K, Stpiczynska M (2013) The most effective pollinator revisited: pollen dynamics in a spring-flowering herb. Arthropod-Plant Interact 7:315–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the staff at UIC’s plant research laboratory for assisting with care for Echinacea and John Ascher for bee identification. Thanks to Amélie Davis for thoughtful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript and Eric Lonsdorf for help with the solar radiation calculations. We also thank two anonymous reviewers, whose suggestions improved the manuscript. This work was funded by NSF Proposal Number: DEB-1120376.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily S. Minor.

Additional information

Communicated by Jens Wolfgang Dauber.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 List of bee species and their abundances in residential neighborhoods of Chicago, Illinois

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lowenstein, D.M., Matteson, K.C., Xiao, I. et al. Humans, bees, and pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodivers Conserv 23, 2857–2874 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-014-0752-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pollinators
  • Human-environment interactions
  • Urban
  • Floral visitation
  • Floral resources
  • Ecosystem service