Conservation Evidence strives to be as useful to conservationists as possible. Please take our survey to help the team improve our resource.

Providing evidence to improve practice

Individual study: Restoration of Nontarget Species: Bee Communities and Pollination Function in Riparian Forests

Published source details

Williams N.M. (2011) Restoration of Nontarget Species: Bee Communities and Pollination Function in Riparian Forests. Restoration Ecology, 19, 450-459


This study is summarised as evidence for the intervention(s) shown on the right. The icon shows which synopsis it is relevant to.

Pollination: Restore habitat along watercourses Mediterranean Farmland

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).

 

Other biodiversity: Restore habitat along watercourses Mediterranean Farmland

A replicated, paired site comparison in 2003 in 10 riparian sites along the Sacramento River in California, USA, found similar numbers of flowers and flower species in restored and remnant forest sites. Plants: Similar numbers of flowers (401–2,458 vs 317–1,668) and flower species (37–47 vs 21–36) were found in restored and remnant sites, but different communities were found (data reported as relative Sørensen index). 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). Flowers were sampled in each plot, in February-August 2003 (60 quadrats, 0.25 x 4 m).