Study

Augmenting flower trait diversity in wildflower strips to optimise the conservation of arthropod functional groups for multiple agroecosystem services

  • Published source details Balzan M.V., Bocci G. & Moonen A. (2014) Augmenting flower trait diversity in wildflower strips to optimise the conservation of arthropod functional groups for multiple agroecosystem services. Journal of Insect Conservation, 18, 713-728.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Pollination: Plant flowers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Pest regulation: Plant flowers

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Pollination: Plant flowers

    A replicated, controlled study in 2011 in an organic tomato field near Pisa, Italy, found that wild bees increased over time in some flower plots but decreased over time in others. Implementation options: In plots with three species from one plant family (Apiaceae), or six species from two plant families (Apiaceae and Fabaceae), numbers of bees increased over time (minimum: 0.3 bees/plot, 10–31 days after flowering; maximum: 3 bees/plot, 38–45 days after flowering). Similar numbers of bees were found in both of these flower-species mixtures (0.3–3 bees/plot). In plots with nine plant species (three Apiaceae, three Fabaceae, and three others), numbers of bees decreased over time (maximum: 3.7 bees/plot, on the first day of flowering; minimum: 0.2 bees/plot, 38 days after flowering). Methods: Four treatments were compared: three, six, or nine flower species/plot, and a control with no flowers. Five plots/treatment were sown with flower seeds on 6 and 21 June. Each flower plot (2 x 10 m) was next to a tomato plot (4 x 10 m). Bees on flowers were sampled with aspirators every 14 days after flowering began.

     

  2. Pest regulation: Plant flowers

    A replicated, controlled study in 2011 in an organic tomato field near Pisa, Italy (same study as (8)), found more natural enemies in flower plots than on bare ground. Plots with the most flower species had the fewest tomato pests but the most generalist pests, and plots with different numbers of flower species had similar numbers of natural enemies. Natural enemy numbers: More ground-dwelling predators were found in flower plots than on bare ground (carabid beetles/plot: 0–28.7 vs 0–1.2; staphylinid beetles/plot 0.5–7.4 vs 0–0.4; spiders/plot: 0.4–7.1 vs 0.2–1.5). Implementation options: Fewer tomato pests (sap-sucking bugs), but more generalist pests (Lygus sp. and Nezara viridula), were found on flowers in plots with nine flower species, compared to plots with three flower species (numbers of individuals not reported). Similar numbers of natural enemies were found on flowers in all plots (numbers of individuals not reported). On flowers, predatory beetles Hippodamia variegata and parasitic wasps increased over time (beetles: minimum: 0 individuals/plot, on the first day of flowering; maximum: 2.7 individuals/plot, 38 days after flowering; wasps: minimum: 0 individuals/plot, on the first day after flowering; maximum: 36.5 individuals/plot, 21 days after flowering), but formicid ants decreased over time (numbers of individuals not reported). On the ground, carabid beetles increased over time (minimum: 0 individuals/plot, nine days after flowering; maximum: 28.7 individuals/plot, 37 days after flowering), but staphylinid beetles and spiders did not. Methods: Four treatments were compared: three, six, or nine flower species/plot, and a control with no flowers. Five plots/treatment were sown with flower seeds on 6 and 21 June. Each flower plot (2 x 10 m) was next to a tomato plot (4 x 10 m). Ground-dwelling predators were sampled with pitfall traps every 7 days, and natural enemies on flowers were sampled with aspirators every 14 days, after flowering began.

     

Output references
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 18

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 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