Pollination: Restore habitat along watercourses

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 1
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

25%
Certainty

10%
Harms

0%

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Study locations

Key messages

Pollination (0 studies)

Flower visitation (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found that bee visitation rates to native flowers did not differ between restored and remnant sites, but there were different plant-insect interactions.

Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of bees and bee species, but different bee communities, in restored and remnant sites.

Implementation options (0 studies)

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

A replicated, paired site comparison in 2003 in 10 riparian sites along the Sacramento River in California, USA, found that bee visitation to native flowers, and the number of bees and bee species, did not differ between restored and remnant sites, but there were different bee species and different plant-insect interactions at different sites. Flower visitation: The proportion of native plants visited did not differ between restored and remnant sites (0.67 vs 0.48 visits/minute), but different species visited flowers (15% of plant-visitor interactions were shared between restored and remnant sites). Pollinator numbers: The number of bees (253–702 vs 225–499) and bee species (19–58 vs 37–47) did not differ between restored and remnant sites. Different bee species were present at remnant and restored sites (36% of bee species were present at both sites in a pair; other data reported as ordination results). Methods: Each of five restored sites was paired with a remnant site (5.5–10 km apart). Plots within sites (1 ha) were 0.5–3.7 km apart. Restored sites were previously walnut and almond orchards (6 years before sampling) and were planted with similar vegetation to remnant sites (maple Acer spp., oak Quercus spp., willow Salix spp., and grass). The proportion of native plants (common to both sites: willow Salix spp., mule fat Baccharis salicifolia, lupin Lupinus spp., California rose Rosa californica, and ash-leaved maple Acer negundo) did not differ between restored and remnant sites (0.49 vs 1.82 individuals, 0.39 vs 0.89 species/flower head). Bees were sampled every six weeks in February–August 2003 (transect walks and pan traps). Flowers were sampled in each plot (60 quadrats, 0.25 x 4 m).
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Williams N.M. (2011) Restoration of nontarget species: bee communities and pollination function in riparian forests. Restoration Ecology, 19, 450-459.

Please cite as:

Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R., Robertson, R. J., Williams, D. R. & Dicks, L. V. (2017) Sustainable Agriculture in California and Mediterranean Climates: Evidence for the effects of selected interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Mediterranean Farmland

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Water: Restore habitat along watercourses Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	1	Synopsis Link
Pest regulation: Add compost to the soil Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link
Crop production: Add compost to the soil Action Link	Likely to be beneficial	8	Synopsis Link