Study

Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest-site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground-nesting bees

  • Published source details Sardiñas H.S., Ponisio L.C. & Kremen C. (2016) Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest-site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground-nesting bees. Restoration Ecology, 24, 499-505

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Soil: Plant hedgerows

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pollination: Plant hedgerows

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Soil: Plant hedgerows

    A replicated site comparison in farmland in the Central Valley, California, USA (years of study not reported), found similar soil structure in field edges with or without planted hedgerows. Soil erosion and aggregation: Similar particle sizes were found in soils with or without planted hedgerows (data reported as statistical results). Methods: Eight fields with planted hedgerows (mostly Californian native shrubs and forbs, at least five years after planting) were compared with eight field edges without planted hedgerows. Two soil samples were collected from each site (0–10 cm depth).

     

  2. Pollination: Plant hedgerows

    A replicated site comparison in farmland in the Central Valley, California, USA (years of study not reported), found fewer ground-nesting bees in planted hedgerows, compared to unplanted field edges. Pollinator numbers: Fewer ground-nesting bees were found in planted hedgerows, compared to unplanted edges (13 vs 33 individuals/site), but there were similar numbers of flower-visiting bees (data reported as statistical results), and similar numbers of bee species (2.9 vs 3.2 rarified species richness). Indicators of ground-nesting bee habitat did not differ between planted hedgerows and unplanted edges (data on bare ground, soil compaction, particle size, and surface heterogeneity reported as statistical results). Methods: Eight field edges with planted hedgerows (mostly Californian native shrubs and forbs, at least five years after planting) were compared to eight field edges without planted hedgerows. Ground-nesting bees were sampled with emergence traps (0.6 m2, 30 traps/site/sample, three samples in two years, in May–August). Foraging bees were netted on inflorescences (one hour/site/sample, within 10 days of emergence samples). Nesting indicators were assessed using soil samples (0–10 cm depth, two samples/site) and visual estimates.

     

Output references

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, terrestrial 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 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust