Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Reap what you sow: local plant composition mediates bumblebee foraging patterns within urban garden landscapes

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although urban gardens are often celebrated for supporting bee abundance and diversity within cities, little is known about how garden management and urbanization levels influence bee foraging behavior and ability to utilize resources within these landscapes. Specifically, the preferences and diet breadth of bees may depend critically on local and landscape conditions in human-managed, urban environments. To understand how foraging patterns and pollen preferences are influenced by urban landscape composition, we first examined if bees visit plants grown within urban gardens and second assessed the relationships between local floral resources, urban land cover, and pollen collection patterns, focusing on 20 community gardens across 125 km of the California central coast. We targeted a well-studied, essential native pollinator in this ecoregion, Bombus vosnesenskii, and analyzed pollen on the bodies of individuals collected in our study gardens to compare their contents to local and landscape garden composition factors. We found that greater landscape-level urban cover and greater plant species richness in the garden both drove higher within-garden pollen collection. We also found that B. vosnesenskii preferred ornamental plant species over highly available crop species in the gardens. Our study indicates that landscapes that support plant diversity, including both ornamental plants and sustenance-oriented food crops, promote greater within-garden pollen collection patterns, with likely benefits for urban garden food production.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Will be made available on the DRYAD repository upon publication.

References

  • Aebischer NJ, Robertson PA, Kenward RE (1993) Compositional analysis of habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74(5):1313–1325

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahrné K, Bengtsson J, Elmqvist T (2009) Bumble bees (Bombus spp) along a gradient of increasing urbanization. PLoS One 4(5):e5574

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Alarcón R (2010) Congruence between visitation and pollen-transport networks in a California plant–pollinator community. Oikos 119(1):35–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldock KC, Goddard MA, Hicks DM, Kunin WE, Mitschunas N, Osgathorpe LM et al (2015) Where is the UK’s pollinator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for flower-visiting insects. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 282(1803):20142849

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballare KM, Neff JL, Ruppel R, Jha S (2019) Multi-scalar drivers of biodiversity: local management mediates wild bee community response to regional urbanization. Ecol Appl 29(3):e01869

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Banaszak-Cibicka W, Żmihorski M (2012) Wild bees along an urban gradient: winners and losers. J Insect Conserv 16(3):331–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthel S, Isendahl C (2013) Urban gardens, agriculture, and water management: sources of resilience for long-term food security in cities. Ecol Econ 86:224–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton K (2018) MuMin: multi-model inference. R package version 1.15. 6. 2016

  • Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H, ... Grothendieck G (2011) Package ‘lme4’. Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version, 1–1

  • Beyer HL, Haydon DT, Morales JM, Frair JL, Hebblewhite M, Mitchell M, Matthiopoulos J (2010) The interpretation of habitat preference metrics under use–availability designs. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 365(1550):2245–2254

    Google Scholar 

  • Bigirimana J, Bogaert J, De Cannière C, Bigendako MJ, Parmentier I (2012) Domestic garden plant diversity in Bujumbura, Burundi: role of the socio-economical status of the neighborhood and alien species invasion risk. Landsc Urban Plan 107(2):118–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaauw BR, Isaacs R (2014) Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop. J Appl Ecol 51(4):890–898

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair RB, Launer AE (1997) Butterfly diversity and human land use: species assemblages along an urban gradient. Biol Conserv 80:113–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Braker S, Ghazoul J, Obrist MK, Moretti M (2014) Habitat connectivity shapes urban arthropod communities: the key role of green roofs. Ecology 95(4):1010–1021

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosi BJ (2016) Pollinator specialization: from the individual to the community. New Phytol 210(4):1190–1194

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brosi BJ, Briggs HM (2013) Single pollinator species losses reduce floral fidelity and plant reproductive function. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(32):13044–13048

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Burkle LA, Marlin JC, Knight TM (2013) Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co-occurrence, and function. Science 339(6127):1611–1615

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burns JG (2005) A test of spatial memory and movement patterns of bumblebees at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Behav Ecol 17:48–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Calenge C (2006) The package “adehabitat” for the R software: a tool for the analysis of space and habitat use by animals. Ecol Model 197(3–4):516–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Cane JH (2005) Bees, pollination, and the challenges of sprawl. Nature in fragments: the legacy of sprawl. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 109-124

  • Cartar RV (2004) Resource tracking by bumble bees: responses to plant-level differences in quality. Ecology 85:2764–2771

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalheiro LG, Seymour CL, Nicolson SW, Veldtman R (2012) Creating patches of native flowers facilitates crop pollination in large agricultural fields: mango as a case study. J Appl Ecol 49(6):1373–1383

    Google Scholar 

  • Chamberlain DE, Cannon AR, Toms MP (2004) Associations of garden birds with gradients in garden habitat and local habitat. Ecography 27(5):589–600

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke LW, Jenerette GD (2015) Biodiversity and direct ecosystem service regulation in the community gardens of Los Angeles, CA. Landsc Ecol 30(4):637–653

    Google Scholar 

  • Crone EE, Williams NM (2016) Bumble bee colony dynamics: quantifying the importance of land use and floral resources for colony growth and queen production. Ecol Lett 19(4):460–468

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cusser S, Grando C, Zucchi MI, López-Uribe MM, Pope NS, Ballare K, Luna-Lucena D, Almeida EAB, Neff JL, Young K, Jha S (2019) Small but critical: semi-natural habitat fragments promote bee abundance in cotton agroecosystems across both Brazil and the United States. Landsc Ecol 34(7):1825–1836

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis ES, Reid N, Paxton RJ (2012) Quantifying forage specialisation in polyphagic insects: the polylectic and rare solitary bee, Colletes floralis (Hymenoptera: Colletidae). Insect Conserv Divers 5:289–297

    Google Scholar 

  • De Luca PA, Vallejo-Marin M (2013) What’s the ‘buzz’about? The ecology and evolutionary significance of buzz-pollination. Curr Opin Plant Biol 16(4):429–435

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dogterom MH, Matteoni JA, Plowright RC (1998) Pollination of greenhouse tomatoes by the north American Bombus vosnesenskii (Hymenoptera: Apidae). J Econ Entomol 91(1):71–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebeling A, Klein AM, Schumacher J, Weisser WW, Tscharntke T (2008) How does plant richness affect pollinator richness and temporal stability of flower visits? Oikos 117(12):1808–1815

    Google Scholar 

  • Egerer MH, Arel C, Otoshi MD, Quistberg RD, Bichier P, Philpott SM (2017) Urban arthropods respond variably to changes in landscape context and spatial scale. J Urban Ecol 3(1):jux001

    Google Scholar 

  • Egerer M, Ordóñez C, Lin BB, Kendal D (2019) Multicultural gardeners and park users benefit from and attach diverse values to urban nature spaces. Urban For Urban Green 46:126445

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox J, Weisberg S (2018) An R companion to applied regression. Sage Publications

  • 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(3):227–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Garbuzov M, Ratnieks FL (2014) Quantifying variation among garden plants in attractiveness to bees and other flower-visiting insects. Funct Ecol 28(2):364–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Geslin B, Gauzens B, Thebault E, Dajoz I (2013) Plant pollinator networks along a gradient of urbanisation. PLoS One 8(5):e63421

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG (2010) Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol Evol 25(2):90–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goulson D (2000) Why do pollinators visit proportionally fewer flowers in large patches? Oikos 91(3):485–492

    Google Scholar 

  • Green W (2009) USDA PLANTS compilation, version 1. NRCS: The PLANTS Database. Retrieved January 14, 2020 from https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/java/

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunnarsson B, Federsel LM (2014) Bumblebees in the city: abundance, species richness and diversity in two urban habitats. J Insect Conserv 18(6):1185–1191

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmon-Threatt AN, de Valpine P, Kremen C (2017) Estimating resource preferences of a native bumblebee: the effects of availability and use–availability models on preference estimates. Oikos 126(5):633–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison T, Winfree R (2015) Urban drivers of plant-pollinator interactions. Funct Ecol 29(7):879–888

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig EI, Ghazoul J (2011) Plant–pollinator interactions within the urban environment. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol Syst 13(2):137–150

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):3

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmquist KG, Mitchell RJ, Karron JD (2012) Influence of pollinator grooming on pollen-mediated gene dispersal in Mimulus ringens (Phrymaceae). Plant Species Biol 27(1):77–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer C, Dewitz J, Yang L, Jin S, Danielson P, Xian G et al (2015) Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States–representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 81(5):345–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulsmann et al (2015) Plant diversity and composition compensate for negative effects of urbanization on foraging bumble bees. Apidologie

  • Inouye DW (1978) Resource partitioning in bumble bees: experimental studies of foraging behavior. Ecology 59:672–678

    Google Scholar 

  • IPBES (2016) The assessment report of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services on pollinators, pollination and food production. IPBES, Bonn

    Google Scholar 

  • Jha S, Kremen C (2013a) Resource diversity and landscape-level homogeneity drive native bee foraging. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(2):555–558

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jha S, Kremen C (2013b) Urban land use limits regional bumble bee gene flow. Mol Ecol 22(9):2483–2495

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jha S, Stefanovich LEV, Kremen C (2013) Bumble bee pollen use and preference across spatial scales in human-altered landscapes. Ecol Entomol 38(6):570–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DH (1980) The comparison of usage and availability measurements for evaluating resource preference. Ecology 61(1):65–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson AL, Borowy D, Swan CM (2018) Land use history and seed dispersal drive divergent plant community assembly patterns in urban vacant lots. J Appl Ecol 55(1):451–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1993) Techniques for pollination biologists. University press of Colorado

  • Kemper Center for Home Gardening (2020) “Plant finder.” Missouri Botanical Garden. Retrieved January 14, 2020 from https://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/plantfinder/plantfindersearch.aspx

  • Kleijn D, Raemakers I (2008) A retrospective analysis of pollen host plant use by stable and declining bumble bee species. Ecology 89(7):1811–1823

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Klein AM, Vaissiere BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Cunningham SA, Kremen C, Tscharntke T (2006) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 274(1608):303–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch J (2012) Bumble bees of the western United States. US Forest Service, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowarik I (2011) Novel urban ecosystems, biodiversity, and conservation. Environ Pollut 159(8–9):1974–1983

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Bugg RL, Nicola N, Smith SA, Thorp RW, Williams NM (2002) Native bees, native plants and crop pollination in California. Fremontia 30(3–4):41–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin BB, Philpott SM, Jha S (2015) The future of urban agriculture and biodiversity-ecosystem services: challenges and next steps. Basic Appl Ecol 16(3):189–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Loram A, Warren P, Thompson K, Gaston K (2011) Urban domestic gardens: the effects of human interventions on garden composition. Environ Manag 48(4):808–824

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein DM, Minor ES (2016) Diversity in flowering plants and their characteristics: integrating humans as a driver of urban floral resources. Urban Ecosyst 19:1735–1748

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein DM, Matteson KC, Xiao I, Silva AM, Minor ES (2014) Humans, bees, and pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago, IL (USA). Biodivers Conserv 23(11):2857–2874

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenstein DM, Matteson KC, Minor ES (2019) Evaluating the dependence of urban pollinators on ornamental, non-native, and ‘weedy’ floral resources. Urban Ecosyst 22(2):293–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubbe CS, Siebert SJ, Cilliers SS (2010) Political legacy of South Africa affects the plant diversity patterns of urban domestic gardens along a socio-economic gradient. Sci Res Essays 5(19):2900–2910

    Google Scholar 

  • MacIvor JS, Cabral JM, Packer L (2014) Pollen specialization by solitary bees in an urban landscape. Urban Ecosyst 17(1):139–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Malfi RL, Crone E, Williams N (2019) Demographic benefits of early season resources for bumble bee (B. vosnesenskii) colonies. Oecologia 191(2):377–388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Matteson KC, Langellotto GA (2009) Bumble bee abundance in New York City community gardens: implications for urban agriculture. Cities Environ 2(1):5

    Google Scholar 

  • Matteson KC, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) Bee richness and abundance in New York City urban gardens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101(1):140–150

    Google Scholar 

  • McFrederick QS, LeBuhn G (2006) Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp.(Hymenoptera: Apidae)? Biol Conserv 129(3):372–382

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Michener CD (2000) Bees of the world. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Minahan DF, Brunet J (2018) Strong interspecific differences in foraging activity observed between honey bees and bumble bees using miniaturized radio frequency identification (RFID). Front Ecol Evol 6:156

    Google Scholar 

  • Morandin LA, Kremen C (2013) Bee preference for native versus exotic plants in restored agricultural hedgerows. Restor Ecol 21(1):26–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Odell E, Raguso RA, Jones KN (1999) Bumblebee foraging responses to variation in floral scent and color in snapdragons (Antirrhinum: Scrophulariaceae). Am Midl Nat 142:257–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohashi K, Thomson JD, D’Souza D (2007) Trapline foraging by bumble bees: IV. Optimization of route geometry in the absence of competition. Behav Ecol 18:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Oksanen J, Blanchet FG, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, ... Stevens MHH (2018) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5–2. 2018

  • Paker Y, Yom-Tov Y, Alon-Mozes T, Barnea A (2014) The effect of plant richness and urban garden structure on bird species richness, diversity and community structure. Landsc Urban Plan 122:186–195

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Philpott SM, Bichier P (2017) Local and landscape drivers of predation services in urban gardens. Ecol Appl 27(3):966–976

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Philpott SM, Egerer MH, Bichier P, Cohen H, Cohen R, Liere H, Jha S, Lin BB (in revision) Gardener demographics, experience, and motivations drive differences in plant species richness and composition in urban gardens. Ecol Soc

  • Plascencia M, Philpott SM (2017) Floral abundance, richness, and spatial distribution drive urban garden bee communities. Bull Entomol Res 107(5):658–667

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pope NS, Jha S (2018) Seasonal food scarcity prompts long-distance foraging by a wild social bee. Am Nat 191(1):45–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Quistberg RD, Bichier P, Philpott SM (2016) Landscape and local correlates of bee abundance and species richness in urban gardens. Environ Entomol 45(3):592–601

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Requier F, Odoux JF, Tamic T, Moreau N, Henry M, Decourtye A, Bretagnolle V (2015) Honey bee diet in intensive farmland habitats reveals an unexpectedly high flower richness and a major role of weeds. Ecol Appl 25(4):881–890

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie AD, Ruppel R, Jha S (2016) Generalist behavior describes pollen foraging for perceived oligolectic and polylectic bees. Environ Entomol 45(4):909–919

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rudd H, Vala J, Schaefer V (2002) Importance of backyard habitat in a comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy: a connectivity analysis of urban green spaces. Restor Ecol 10(2):368–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahli HF, Conner JK (2007) Visitation, effectiveness, and efficiency of 15 genera of visitors to wild radish, Raphanus raphanistrum (Brassicaceae). Am J Bot 94(2):203–209

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saifuddin M, Jha S (2014) Colony-level variation in pollen collection and foraging preferences among wild-caught bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Environ Entomol 43(2):393–401

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schenau E, Jha S (2017) High levels of male diploidy but low levels of genetic structure characterize Bombus vosnesenskii populations across the Western US. Conserv Genet 18(3):597–605

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro AM (2002) The Californian urban butterfly fauna is dependent on alien plants. Divers Distrib 8(1):31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Shwartz A, Turbé A, Simon L, Julliard R (2014) Enhancing urban biodiversity and its influence on city-dwellers: an experiment. Biol Conserv 171:82–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RM, Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Warren PH, Gaston KJ (2006) Urban domestic gardens (IX): composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biol Conserv 129(3):312–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Southon GE, Jorgensen A, Dunnett N, Hoyle H, Evans KL (2017) Biodiverse perennial meadows have aesthetic value and increase residents’ perceptions of site quality in urban greenspace. Landsc Urban Plan 158:105–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter I, Munzenberg U, Burger C, Thies C, Tscharntke T (2002) Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83:1421–1432

    Google Scholar 

  • Sushinsky JR, Rhodes JR, Possingham HP, Gill TK, Fuller RA (2013) How should we grow cities to minimize their biodiversity impacts? Glob Chang Biol 19(2):401–410

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson K, Austin KC, Smith RM, Warren PH, Angold PG, Gaston KJ (2003) Urban domestic gardens (I): putting small-scale plant diversity in context. J Veg Sci 14(1):71–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Thorp RW, Horning DS, Dunning LL (1983) Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera, Apidae) (Vol. 23). Univ of California Press

  • Turo KJ, Gardiner MM (2019) From potential to practical: conserving bees in urban public green spaces. Front Ecol Environ 17(3):167–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaudo AD, Tooker JF, Grozinger CM, Patch HM (2015) Bee nutrition and floral resource restoration. Curr Opin Insect Sci 10:133–141

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walther-Hellwig K, Frankl R (2000) Foraging habitats and foraging distances of bumblebees, Bombus spp.(Hym., Apidae), in an agricultural landscape. J Appl Entomol 124(7–8):299–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Werrell PA, Langellotto GA, Morath SU, Matteson KC (2009) The influence of garden size and floral cover on pollen deposition in urban community gardens. Cities and the Environment

  • Westrich P (1996) Habitat requirements of central European bees and the problems of partial habitats. In: Linnean Society Symposium Series, vol 18, pp 1-16. Academic Press Limited

  • Williams NM, Kremen C (2007) Resource distributions among habitats determine solitary bee offspring production in a mosaic landscape. Ecol Appl 17(3):910–921

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NM, Cariveau D, Winfree R, Kremen C (2011) Bees in disturbed habitats use, but do not prefer, alien plants. Basic Appl Ecol 12(4):332–341

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):793–802

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the many field and lab crew members who made this project possible. Specifically, we’d like to thank the following people for helping collect our vegetation data, for compiling our pollen library, and for collecting our Bombus vosnesenskii specimens: Peter Bichier, Julia Burks, Monika Egerer, Dakota Hafalia-Yackel, Claire Kirk, Mike MacDonald, Ana Rubio, and Jay Tan. We thank Angelita Ashbacher for providing training on our pollen slide protocol and Greg Gilbert and Ingrid Parker who provided equipment for slide preparation and photography. The study was funded by United States Department of Agriculture – National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) grant # 2016-67019-25185 to S Philpott, H Liere, B Lin, and S Jha.

Funding

The study was funded by United States Department of Agriculture – National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA) grant # 2016–67,019-25,185 to S Philpott, H Liere, B Lin, and S Jha.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Integrative Biology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Megan O’Connell, Erin McGilvray & Shalene Jha

  2. Environmental Studies Department, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, USA

    Zachariah Jordan, Hamutahl Cohen & Stacy M. Philpott

  3. Department of Environmental Studies, Seattle University, Seattle, WA, USA

    Heidi Liere

  4. Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), ACT, Canberra, Australia

    Brenda B. Lin

Authors
  1. Megan O’Connell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zachariah Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin McGilvray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamutahl Cohen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Heidi Liere
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brenda B. Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stacy M. Philpott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Shalene Jha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Megan O’Connell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethics approval

Our research did not require any ethics approvals.

Consent to participate

Our research did not involve human subjects.

Consent for publication

Urban Ecosystems has our permission to publish this work.

Code availability

Will be made available on GitHub upon publication.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 61 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

O’Connell, M., Jordan, Z., McGilvray, E. et al. Reap what you sow: local plant composition mediates bumblebee foraging patterns within urban garden landscapes. Urban Ecosyst 24, 391–404 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01043-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-020-01043-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation