Action Synopsis: Bee Conservation About Actions

Convert to organic farming

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

Evidence on the impact of organic farming on wild bees is equivocal. Three replicated trials in Europe or Canada have shown that the abundance of wild bees is higher under organic arable farming than under conventional farming. One of these showed that bee diversity is higher in organically farmed wheat fields and in mown fallow strips adjacent to them. Three replicated trials in Europe or the USA have found no significant difference in the numbers of bumblebees (two trials), bumblebee species (one trial), or wild bees visiting flowering crops (one trial) between conventional and organic arable farms.


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

  1. Belfrage et al. (2005) counted bumblebees Bombus spp. on six organic and six conventional arable farms in Roslagen, southeastern Sweden. They found no significant difference in the numbers of bumblebees between the two farm types.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A comparison of organic and conventional canola (oilseed rape Brasscia sp.) fields in Canada found a significantly greater abundance of wild bees in organic fields (averages 86 bees per organic field sample, 58 bees per conventional field; Morandin & Winston 2005).

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A comparison of 21 organic and 21 conventional winter wheat fields in northern Germany found a greater abundance and diversity of wild bees on organic fields than on paired control fields (Kleijn et al. 2006, Holzschuh et al. 2007). Average bee species richness per field was 6.9 for organic fields and 2.1 species for conventional fields. 1,326 individuals of 31 bee species (average abundance 63.1) were recorded in organic fields compared to 181 individuals of 16 species (average abundance 8.6) in conventional fields.

    Additional Reference

    Holzschuh A., Steffan-Dewenter I., Kleijn D. & Tscharntke T. (2007) Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44, 41-49

    Study and other actions tested
  4. In the same study, the total number of bee species was higher under organic farming whether you considered the number found at individual sites, the total number found in each region or the total for the entire study (Clough et al. 2007). Diversity between sites as well as within sites was greater for organic fields than for conventional fields. This means bee diversity improved under organic wheat farming at the larger landscape level, as well as the local level.

    Study and other actions tested
  5. Also in the same study, Holzschuh et al. (2008) report higher bee abundance and diversity on permanent fallow strips next to organic winter fields, compared to fallow strips next to conventional wheat fields. On average, 2.6 m wide annually mown fallow strips next to organic fields had 6.3 bee species, 8.5 bumblebee individuals and 2.6 solitary bees/100 m in total over four surveys, compared to 4.0 species, 3.7 bumblebees and 1.1 solitary bees/100 m on strips next to conventional fields.

    Study and other actions tested
  6. A study of 15 organic and 40 conventional arable field boundaries in Finland found no significant difference in the numbers of bumblebees or bumblebee species (Ekroos et al. 2008). On average, three bumblebees from 1.1 species were recorded per transect on conventional farm field boundaries, and 3.8 bumblebees from 1.4 species on organic farm field boundaries.

    Study and other actions tested
  7. Rundlöf et al. (2008) surveyed bumblebees Bombus spp. on 12 pairs of organic and conventional farms in Sweden, and found significantly more bumblebees and bumblebee species on organic than conventional farms (on average 7.7 and 4.9 species/farm on organic and conventional farms respectively). This difference between organic and conventional farms was not statistically significant when only the six pairs of farms in heterogenous (mixed) farming landscapes, with smaller field sizes and more grassland, were considered. So organic farming had a greater effect on wild bumblebees in intensive, homogenous arable landscapes.

    Study and other actions tested
  8. Winfree et al. (2008) surveyed wild solitary and social bees visiting flowering crops on 22 or 23 farms, of which six or seven were organic and 16 conventional, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, USA. Organic and conventional farms did not differ in field size, crop diversity or wild/weedy plant diversity and all lay in a heterogeneous landscape with many small patches of natural habitat such as woodland. They found no difference in either the abundance or species richness of bees between organic and conventional farms.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Showler, D.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2010) Bee conservation: evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, UK


Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bee Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bee Conservation
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust