Study

Providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes

  • Published source details Pywell R.F., Warman E.A., Carvell C., Sparks T.H., Dicks L.V., Bennett D., Wright A., Critchley C.N.R. & Sherwood A. (2005) Providing foraging resources for bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. Biological Conservation, 121, 479-494.

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Leave field margins unsprayed within the crop (conservation headlands)

Action Link
Bee Conservation

Sow uncropped arable field margins with a native wild flower seed mix

Action Link
Bee Conservation

Leave arable field margins uncropped with natural regeneration

Action Link
Bee Conservation

Leave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots (includes 'lapwing plots')

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands)

Action Link
Farmland Conservation

Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

Action Link
Farmland Conservation
  1. Leave field margins unsprayed within the crop (conservation headlands)

    A replicated controlled trial (Pywell et al. 2005) in East Anglia and the West Midlands, England, found no significant difference in bumblebee species richness and abundance when 16 conservation headlands were compared with paired conventional field margins. In both types of field margin, a few species of plant contributed to the vast majority of foraging visits by bumblebees, mainly creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and spear thistle C. vulgare.

  2. Sow uncropped arable field margins with a native wild flower seed mix

    In a replicated controlled trial in central and eastern England (Pywell et al. 2005), bumblebee foraging activity and species richness were significantly enhanced at 28 uncropped field margins sown with a 'wildlife seed mixture', compared to paired control sites of conventionally managed cereal or 16 'conservation headlands'. The seed mixture contained grasses, and annual and perennial broad-leaved herbs. This result was dependent upon key forage species being included in the seed mixture, including red clover Trifolium pratense, bird's-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus and borage Borago officinalis, the latter being of particular importance to short-tongued bumblebee species such as Bombus terrestris and B. lucorum.

  3. Leave arable field margins uncropped with natural regeneration

    Bumblebee foraging activity and species richness were significantly enhanced on 18 uncropped, regularly cultivated field margins where natural regeneration had been allowed to take place for five years, compared to paired control sites of conventionally managed cereal, in East Anglia and the West Midlands, England (Pywell et al. 2005). The uncropped margins had significantly more plant species than either conservation headlands or uncropped margins sown with a wildflower seed mix. However, two species considered to be pernicious weeds, spear thistle and creeping thistle C. arvense were key forage plants for the bumblebees, so this option may lead to conflict between agricultural and conservation objectives.The naturally regenerated field margins supported fewer bumblebees (18 individuals and 2.7 species/100 m on average) than margins sown with a wild flower seed mixture (29 bumblebees, 3.0 species/100 m), but the two treatments were not directly compared in the analysis.

  4. Leave cultivated, uncropped margins or plots (includes 'lapwing plots')

    A controlled trial on paired sites in 2003 on Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme farmland in the UK (Pywell et al. 2005) found that bumblebee Bombus spp. foraging activity and species richness were significantly enhanced on uncropped, regularly cultivated field margins where natural regeneration had been allowed to take place for five years, compared to sites of conventionally managed cereal. The uncropped margins had significantly more plant species than either conservation headlands or uncropped margins sown with a wildflower seed mix. However, two species considered to be pernicious weeds, spear thistle Cirsium vulgare and creeping thistle C. arvense were key forage plants for the bumblebees, so this option may lead to conflict between agricultural and conservation objectives. Bumblebee numbers were estimated through paired surveys on field margins and conventionally-managed cereal field margins. Foraging bumblebees were recorded along 100 x 6 m transects and the plant species on which bumblebees were observed feeding was noted. Twenty 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrats were used along the bumblebee transects to record the presence of all plant species.

  5. Leave headlands in fields unsprayed (conservation headlands)

    A replicated controlled paired-sites comparison in 2003 in East Anglia and the West Midlands, UK (Pywell et al. 2005) found no significant difference in bumblebee Bombus spp. species richness and abundance when 16 conservation headlands were compared with paired conventional field margins. In both types of field margin, a few species of plant contributed to the vast majority of foraging visits by bumblebees, mainly creeping thistle Cirsium arvense and spear thistle C. vulgare. Nineteen farms were surveyed in East Anglia, and 17 farms in the West Midlands. Three agri-environment scheme (Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme (ASPS)) options were studied: field margins sown with a wildlife seed mixture (28 sites), conservation headlands with no fertilizer (16 sites), naturally regenerated field margins (18 sites). Fifty-eight conventional cereal field margins were used as a control, and paired with ASPS sites. Bumblebees were surveyed along 100 x 6 m or 50 x 6 m transects twice, in July and August. Vegetation was surveyed in twenty 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrats.

     

  6. Plant nectar flower mixture/wildflower strips

    A replicated, controlled, paired sites comparison in 2003 in central and eastern England (Pywell et al. 2005) found bumblebee Bombus spp. foraging activity and species richness were significantly enhanced at 28 uncropped field margins sown with a ‘wildlife seed mixture’, compared to paired control sites of conventionally managed cereal or 16 ‘conservation headlands’. Wildlife seed mixture margins contained significantly more grass, non-grass and perennial plant species than control sites, with over double the total number of species. Flowering herbaceous plants were more abundant and diverse in wildlife seed margins, and these margins provided the widest range of forage species. This result was dependent upon key forage species being included in the seed mixture, including red clover Trifolium pratense, bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus and borage Borago officinalis, the latter being of particular importance to short-tongued bumblebee species such as Bombus terrestris and B. lucorum. The seed mixture contained grasses, and annual and perennial broadleaved herbs. Nineteen farms were surveyed in East Anglia, and 17 farms in the West Midlands. Three agri-environment scheme (Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme) options were studied: field margins sown with a wildlife seed mixture (28 sites), conservation headlands with no fertilizer (16 sites), naturally regenerated field margins (18 sites). Fifty-eight conventional cereal field margins were used as a control, and paired with Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme sites. Bumblebees were surveyed along 100 x 6 m or 50 x 6 m transects twice, in July and August. Vegetation was surveyed in twenty 0.5 x 0.5 m quadrats.

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