9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Quantifying bee assemblages and attractiveness of flowering woody landscape plants for urban pollinator conservation

      research-article
      , *
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Urban and suburban landscapes can be refuges for biodiversity of bees and other pollinators. Public awareness of declining pollinator populations has increased interest in growing plants that provide floral resources for bees. Various publications and websites list “bee-friendly” plants, but such lists are rarely based on empirical data, nor do they emphasize flowering trees and shrubs, which are a major component of urban landscapes. We quantified bee visitation to 72 species of flowering woody landscape plants across 373 urban and suburban sites in Kentucky and southern Ohio, USA, sampling and identifying the bee assemblages associated with 45 of the most bee-attractive species. We found strong plant species effects and variation in seasonal activity of particular bee taxa, but no overall differences in extent of bee visitation or bee genus diversity between native and non–native species, trees and shrubs, or early-, mid-, and late-season blooming plants. Horticulturally-modified varieties of Hydrangea, Prunus, and Rosa with double petals or clusters of showy sterile sepals attracted few bees compared to related plants with more accessible floral rewards. Some of the non-native woody plant species bloomed when floral resources from native plants were scarce and were highly bee-attractive, so their use in landscapes could help extend the flowering season for bees. These data will help city foresters, landscape managers, and the public make informed decisions to create bee–friendly urban and suburban landscapes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references51

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Biodiversity conservation and the extinction of experience.

          Biodiversity loss is a matter of great concern among conservation scientists, but the wherewithal to reverse this trend is generally lacking. One reason is that nearly half of the world's people live in urban areas and are increasingly disconnected from nature. If there is to be broad-based public support for biodiversity conservation, the places where people live and work should be designed so as to provide opportunities for meaningful interactions with the natural world. Doing so has the potential not only to engender support for protecting native species, but also to enhance human well-being. Accomplishing these goals will necessitate conservation scientists forging new collaborations with design professionals, health practitioners and social scientists, as well as encouraging the participation of the general public.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of Introduced Bees on Native Ecosystems

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Where is the UK's pollinator biodiversity? The importance of urban areas for flower-visiting insects

              Insect pollinators provide a crucial ecosystem service, but are under threat. Urban areas could be important for pollinators, though their value relative to other habitats is poorly known. We compared pollinator communities using quantified flower-visitation networks in 36 sites (each 1 km2) in three landscapes: urban, farmland and nature reserves. Overall, flower-visitor abundance and species richness did not differ significantly between the three landscape types. Bee abundance did not differ between landscapes, but bee species richness was higher in urban areas than farmland. Hoverfly abundance was higher in farmland and nature reserves than urban sites, but species richness did not differ significantly. While urban pollinator assemblages were more homogeneous across space than those in farmland or nature reserves, there was no significant difference in the numbers of rarer species between the three landscapes. Network-level specialization was higher in farmland than urban sites. Relative to other habitats, urban visitors foraged from a greater number of plant species (higher generality) but also visited a lower proportion of available plant species (higher specialization), both possibly driven by higher urban plant richness. Urban areas are growing, and improving their value for pollinators should be part of any national strategy to conserve and restore pollinators.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                26 December 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 12
                : e0208428
                Affiliations
                [001]Department of Entomology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, United States of America
                Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: Bayer North American Bee Care Center ( https://beecare.bayer.com/home) provided a grant to BMM and DAP. There are no patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1610-2493
                Article
                PONE-D-18-08647
                10.1371/journal.pone.0208428
                6306157
                30586408
                d878933f-57be-44ac-aec4-3bdb09f676d4
                © 2018 Mach, Potter

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 21 March 2018
                : 16 November 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 6, Pages: 18
                Funding
                Funded by: North American Bee Care Center
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005888, Horticultural Research Institute;
                Funded by: USDA-NIFA-SCRI
                Award ID: 2016-51181-235399
                Funded by: University of Kentucky Nursery Research Endowment Fund
                This research was supported by grants from: Bayer North American Bee Care Center ( https://beecare.bayer.com/home), BMM, DAP; Horticultural Research Institute ( http://www.hriresearch.org/), DAP; United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Specialty Crop Research Initiative grant 2016-51181-235399 facilitated and administered in collaboration with the Interregional Research Project no. 4 grant 2015-34383-23710 ( https://nifa.usda.gov/), DAP; University of Kentucky Nursery Research Endowment Fund ( http://www.uky.edu/hort/), BMM, DAP. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Hymenoptera
                Bees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Flowering Plants
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Animals
                Invertebrates
                Arthropoda
                Insects
                Hymenoptera
                Bees
                Honey Bees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Shrubs
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Organisms
                Eukaryota
                Plants
                Trees
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Plant Science
                Plant Anatomy
                Flowers
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecological Metrics
                Species Diversity
                Ecology and Environmental Sciences
                Ecology
                Ecological Metrics
                Species Diversity
                Custom metadata
                Both relevant datasets are available at UKnowledge, the University of Kentucky's open-access data repository; Bee attractiveness data: https://doi.org/10.13023/8czn-nc30; Bee assemblage data: https://doi.org/10.13023/hnvq-cr16.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article