Habitat Fragmentation and Native Bees: a Premature Verdict?

By J. Cane. 2001

282 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Few studies directly address the consequences of habitat fragmentation for communities of pollinating insects, particularly for the key pollinator group, bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Bees typically live in habitats where nesting substrates and bloom are patchily distributed and spatially dissociated. Bee studies have all defined habitat fragments as remnant patches of floral hosts or forests, overlooking the nesting needs of bees. Several authors conclude that habitat fragmentation is broadly deleterious, but their own data show that some native species proliferate in sampled fragments. Other studies report greater densities and comparable diversities of native bees at flowers in some fragment size classes relative to undisrupted habitats, but find dramatic shifts in species composition. Insightful studies of habitat fragmentation and bees will consider fragmentation, alteration, and loss of nesting habitats, not just patches of forage plants, as well as the permeability of the surrounding matrix to interpatch movement. Inasmuch as the floral associations and nesting habits of bees are often attributes of species or subgenera, ecological interpretations hinge on authoritative identifications. Study designs must accommodate statistical problems associated with bee community samples, especially non-normal data and frequent zero values. The spatial scale of fragmentation must be appreciated: bees of medium body size can regularly fly 1–2 km from nest site to forage patch. Overall, evidence for prolonged persistence of substantial diversity and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss1/art3/ (1 of 10) [9/5/2008 11:01:43 AM] Conservation Ecology: Habitat Fragmentation and Native Bees: A Premature Verdict? abundances of native bee communities in habitat fragments of modest size promises practical solutions for maintaining bee populations. Provided that reserve selection, design, and management can address the foraging and nesting needs of bees, networks of even small reserves may hold hope for sustaining considerable pollinator diversity and the ecological services pollinators provide.

Subfields: Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics, Genetics, Insect Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5fee4fa06b80aaa43ac145ade6564fa99ef72d34

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics

In Genetics

In Insect Science

Citations in the corpus

The State of Bee Monitoring in the United States: A Call to Refocus Away From Bowl Traps and Towards More Effective Methods (2020, unknown): “2000, Cane 2001, Roulston et al.”
The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside (2007, background): “In contrast, Aizen & Feinsinger (1994) found a decline in bee richness with declining habitat fragment size, but inference from their study is limited by their small sample size (eight study fragments), poor taxonomic resolution and potentially improper application of anova (Cane 2001).”
Impact of landscape alteration and invasions on pollinators: a meta‐analysis (2012, background): “Second, the availability of nesting sites and larval host plants (Cane 2001; Winfree, Bartomeus & Cariveau 2011) can be modified.”
Ecology of Urban Bees: A Review of Current Knowledge and Directions for Future Study (2009, background): “Cane (2001) documented high temporal variation in bee species diversity and Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2009 Hernandez et al.: Ecology of Urban Bees 4 abundance indicating that short study duration can be problematic depending on study design…”
Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat (2009, background): “These corridors (e.g., hedges, ditches, field track margins) may provide resources required for a species to successfully complete its life cycle (Cane 2001; Dennis et al. 2003).”
The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees: an empirical test and review of the literature (2020, methodology): “A reliable, robust methodology for surveying bees is required to make valid assessments of the status of bee populations, understand the ecology of species, and to track whether management actions have had their desired outcomes (Cane 2001, Cane and Tepedino 2001).”
Wild Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) of the Michigan Highbush Blueberry Agroecosystem (2009, background): “have repeatedly found greater native bee abundance and diversity at Þeld edges, presumably closer to nesting sites and alternative foraging material (e.g., Cane 2001 ).”
Habitat area but not habitat age determines wild bee richness in limestone quarries (2009, background): “2006), while other studies question the importance of habitat fragmentation for pollinator diversity (Cane 2001; Cane et al 2006).”
Effects of Cultivation and Proximity to Natural Habitat on Ground-nesting Native Bees in California Sunflower Fields (2006, background): “Floral resources are inherently patchy in natural landscapes, and bees may have evolved to find patches of suitable habitats in a matrix of unsuitable areas (Kremen and Ricketts, 2000; Cane, 2001).”
Bee Richness and Abundance in New York City Urban Gardens (2008, background): “The relative abundance of cavity-nesting species in urban areas (Owen 1991, Yurlina 1998, Cane 2001, Cane et al. 2006) and speciÞcally in gardens (Owen 1991) may be due to opportunistic use of artiÞcial cavities in built structures, the loss of some soil-nesting species, or both.”
Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae)? (2006, unknown): “In Tucson, Arizona, cavity nesting bees were more abundant in urban fragments than in the outlying desert, probably because of the higher availability of nesting sites in the urban area (Cane, 2001).”