Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 641–659 | Cite as

Native plants are the bee’s knees: local and landscape predictors of bee richness and abundance in backyard gardens

Article

Abstract

Urban gardens may support bees by providing resources in otherwise resource-poor environments. However, it is unclear whether urban, backyard gardens with native plants will support more bees than gardens without native plants. We examined backyard gardens in northwestern Ohio to ask: 1) Does bee diversity, abundance, and community composition differ in backyard gardens with and without native plants? 2) What characteristics of backyard gardens and land cover in the surrounding landscape correlate with changes in the bee community? 3) Do bees in backyard gardens respond more strongly to local or landscape factors? We sampled bees with pan trapping, netting, and direct observation. We examined vegetation characteristics and land cover in 500 m, 1 km, and 2 km buffers surrounding each garden. Abundance of all bees, native bees, and cavity-nesting bees (but not ground-nesting bees) was greater in native plant gardens but only richness of cavity-nesting bees differed in gardens with and without native plants. Bee community composition differed in gardens with and without native plants. Overall, bee richness and abundance were positively correlated with local characteristics of backyard gardens, such as increased floral abundance, taller vegetation, more cover by woody plants, less cover by grass, and larger vegetable gardens. Differences in the amount of forest, open space, and wetlands surrounding gardens influenced abundance of cavity- and ground-nesting bees, but at different spatial scales. Thus, presence of native plants, and local and landscape characteristics might play important roles in maintaining bee diversity within urban areas.

Keywords

Native bees Urban gardens Hymenoptera Pollination Urbanization 

Supplementary material

11252_2014_349_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Table S1(DOCX 24 kb)
11252_2014_349_MOESM2_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Table S2(DOCX 24 kb)
11252_2014_349_MOESM3_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Table S3(DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. Ahrné K, Bengtsson J, Elmqvist T (2009) Bumble bees (Bombus spp) along a gradient of increasing urbanization. PLoS ONE 4:e5574PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Angold PG, Sadler JP, Hill MO, Pullin A, Rushton S, Austin K, Small E, Wood B, Wadsworth R, Sanderson R, Thompson K (2006) Biodiversity in urban habitat patches. Sci Total Environ 360:196–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arscott DB, Jackson JK, Kratzer EB (2006) Role of rarity and taxonomic resolution in a regional and spatial analysis of stream macroinvertebrates. J N Am Benthol Soc 25:977–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brosi BJ, Daily GC, Shih TM, Oviedo F, Durán G (2008) The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside. J Appl Eco 45:773–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown CJ, Albrecht C (2001) The effect of tropical deforestation on stingless bees of the genus Melipona (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Apidae: Meliponni) in central Rondonia, Brazil. J Biogeogr 28:623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cane JH, Minckley RL, Kervin LJ, Roulston TH, Williams NM (2006) Complex responses within a desert bee guild (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) to urban habitat fragmentation. Ecol Appl 16:632–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colwell RK (2009) EstimateS: Statistical estimation of species richness and shared species from samples. Version 8.2. User’s Guide and application published at: http://purl.oclc.org/estimates
  8. Czech B, Krausman P, Devers P (2007) Economic associations among cases of species endangerment in the United States. Bioscience 50:593–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daily G (1997) Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickman CR (1987) Habitat fragmentation and vertebrate species richness in an urban environment. J Appl Ecol 24:337–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dormann CF, McPherson JM, Araújo MB, Bivand R, Bolliger J, Carl G, Davies RG, Hirzel A, Jetz W, Kissling WD, Kühn I, Ohlemüller R, Peres-Neto PR, Reineking B, Schröder B, Schurr FM, Wilson R (2007) Methods to account for spatial autocorrelation in the analysis of species distributional data: a review. Ecography 30:609–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fahrig L (2003) Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fetridge ED, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) The bee fauna of residential gardens in a suburb of New York City (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:1067–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frankie GW, Ehler LE (1978) Ecology of insects in urban environments. Ann Rev Entomol 23:367–387CrossRefGoogle 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 Kans Entomol Soc 78:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frankie GW, Thorp RW, Pawelek JC, Hernandez J, Colville R (2009) Urban bee diversity in a small residential garden in northern California. J Hymenopt Res 18:368–379Google Scholar
  17. Gathmann A, Tscharntke T (2002) Foraging ranges of solitary bees. J Anim Ecol 71:757–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Geslin B, Gauzens B, Thébault E, Dajoz I (2013) Plant pollinator networks along a gradient of urbanisation. PLoS ONE 8:e63421PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conervation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25:90–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goulson D, Stout JC (2001) Homing ability of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie 32:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goulson D, Lye GC, Darvill B (2008) Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annu Rev Entomol 53:191–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hämmer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electron 4:1–9Google Scholar
  23. Heard MS, Carvell C, Carreck NL, Rothery P, Osborne JL, Bourke AFG (2007) Landscape context not patch size determines bumble-bee density on flower mixes sown for agri-environment schemes. Biol Lett 3:638–641PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hernandez JL, Frankie GW, Thorp RW (2009) Ecology of urban bees: a review of current knowledge and directions for future study. Cities Environ 2:1–15Google Scholar
  25. Hines HM, Hendrix SD (2005) Bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae) diversity and abundance in tallgrass prairie patches: Effects of local and landscape floral resources. Environ Entomol 34:1477–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Homer C, Huang CQ, Yang LM, Wylie B, Coan M (2004) Development of a 2001 national land-cover database for the United States. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 70:829–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hothorn T, Hornik K, Zeileis A (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: a conditional inference framework. J Comp Graph Stat 15:651–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jha S, Vandermeer JH (2010) Impacts of coffee agroforestry management on tropical bee communities. Biol Cons 143:1423–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Klein AM, Steffan–Dewenter I, Tscharntke T (2003) Fruit set of highland coffee increases with the diversity of pollinating bees. Proc R Soc B 270:955–961PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kremen C, Williams NM, Bugg RL, Fay JP, Thorp RW (2004) The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California. Ecol Lett 7:1109–1119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kruess A, Tscharntke T (2002) Grazing intensity and the diversity of grasshoppers, butterflies, and trap-nesting bees and wasps. Conserv Biol 16:1570–1580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larson JL, Redmond CT, Potter DA (2013) Assessing insecticide hazard to bumble bees foraging on flowering weeds in treated lawns. PLoS ONE 8(6):e66375PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. LeBuhn G, Droege S, Williams N, Minckley R, Griswold T, Kremen C, Messinger O, Cane J, Roulston T, Parker F, Tepedino V, Buchmann S (2003) A standardized method for monitoring bee populations - the bee inventory plot. <http://www.online.sfsu.edu/~beeplot/>
  34. Losey J, Vaughan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2010) Determinates of inner city butterfly and bee species richness. Urban Ecosyst 13:333–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2011) Small scale additions of native plants fail to increase beneficial insect richness in urban gardens. Insect Conserv Diver 4:89–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Matteson KC, Ascher JS, Lanellotto GA (2008) Bee richness and abundance in New York City urban gardens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matteson KC, Grace JB, Minor ES (2012) Direct and indirect effects of land use on floral resources and flower-visiting insects across an urban landscape. Oikos 122:682–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McFrederick QS, LeBuhn G (2006) Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biol Conserv 129:372–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McIntyre NE, Hostetler ME (2001) Effects of urban land use on pollinator (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) communities in a desert metropolis. Basic Appl Ecol 2:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McIntyre NE, Rango J, Fagan WF, Faeth SH (2001) Ground arthropod community structure in a heterogeneous urban environment. Landscape Urban Plann 52:257–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKinney ML (2008) Effects of urbanization on species richness: a review of plants and animals. Urban Ecosyst 11:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Moron D, Szentgyorgyi H, Wantuch M, Celary W, Westphal C, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2008) Diversity of wild bees in wet meadows: implications for conservation. Wetlands 28:975–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neame LA, Griswold T, Elle E (2013) Pollinator nesting guilds respond differently to urban habitat fragmentation in an oak-savannah ecosystem. Insect Conserv Diver 6:57–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ockinger E, Smith HG (2007) Semi-natural grasslands as population sources for pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. J Appl Ecol 44:50–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olden JD, Lawler JJ, Poff NL (2008) Machine learning methods without tears: a primer for ecologists. Q Rev Biol 83:171–193PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pawelek JC, Frankie GW, Thorp RW, Przybylski M (2009) Modification of a community garden to attract native bee pollinators in urban San Luis Obispo, California. Cities Environ 2:1–20Google Scholar
  48. Philpott SM (2010) A canopy dominant ant affects twig nesting ant assembly in coffee agroecosystems. Oikos 119:1954–1960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar, D, and the R Development Core Team (2013) nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R package version 3.1–102Google Scholar
  50. Potts SG, Biesmeijer JC, Kremen C, Neumann P, Schweiger O, Kunin WE (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25:345–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org/
  52. Richards RT, Chambers JC, Ross C (1998) Use of native plants on federal lands: policy and practice. J Range Manage 51:625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rudd H, Vala J, Schaefer V (2002) Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity strategy: a connectivity analysis of urban greenspaces. Restoration Ecol 10:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Savard JL, Clergeau P, Mennechez G (2000) Biodiversity concepts and urban ecosystems. Landscape Urban Plann 48:131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith RM, Thompson K, Hodgson PH, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2005) Urban domestic gardens (IX): Composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biol Conserv 129:312–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape cintext on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Strobl C, Malley J, Tutz J, Gerhard (2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychol Meth 14:323–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Thies C, Tscharntke T (1999) Landscape structure and biological control in agroecosystems. Science 285:893–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tommasi D, Miro A, Higo HA, Winston ML (2004) Bee diversity and abundace in an urban setting. Can Entomol 136:851–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tuell JK, Fiedler AK, Landis D, Issacs R (2008) Visitation by wild and managed bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) to Eastern U.S. native plants for the use in conservation programs. Environ Entomol 37:707–718PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) (2007) State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth. 108ppGoogle Scholar
  62. Welzel K (2011) Pollination by native bee communities in Berkeley, California. Berkeley Sci J 14:1–6Google Scholar
  63. Williams NM, Crone EE, Roulston TH, Minckley RL, Packer L, Potts SG (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol Conserv 143:2280–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Winfree R, Griswold T, Kremen C (2007) Effect of human disturbance on bee communities in a forested ecosystem. Conserv Biol 21:213–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wojcik VA, Frankie GW, Thorp RW, Hernandez JL (2008) Seasonality in bees and their floral resource plants at a constructed urban bee habitat in Berkeley, California. J Kans Entomol Soc 81:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of ToledoToledoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesDartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Studies DepartmentUniversity of California Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations