Table 5 The effects of urbanization and local variables on the presence of bees in urban gardens and green roofs
References | Country | Garden | Urbanization | Key result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
[1] | Sweden | Urban garden | Negative | Local variables were more important than landscape variables |
[66] | USA | Urban garden | – | Adding wild native species to the garden did not attract pollinators |
[85] | Sweden | Urban garden | Negative | Seed set for C. persicifolia decreased with urbanization |
[97] | USA | Green roof | Negative | Green spaces around green roofs increased bee abundance |
[102] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Bombus and Megachile were affected by local variables |
[9] | Switzerland | Green roof | Negative | Green roof size has no effects on bee populations |
[39] | Sweden | Urban garden | – | Garden size does not affect pollinator populations |
[98] | Belgium | Urban garden | Negative | Bumblebee visiting rate decreased with the increasing amount of green space around gardens |
[84] | UK | Urban garden | – | Regardless of the origin, the increase in flowers attracts bumblebees |
[54] | USA | Urban garden | – | In-garden flowers have a positive effect on coneflower pollination |
[30] | UK | Urban garden | – | Garden size does not affect pollinator populations |
[33] | UK | Urban garden | – | Garden size does not affect pollinator populations |
[79] | USA | Urban garden | Neutral | Garden size does not affect pollinator populations |
[96] | Australia | Urban garden | Negative | Colletidae were almost absent from residential landscapes |
[59] | Canada | Green roof | Negative | Roof height reduced brood cells |
[81] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Garden size positively affected small bees |
[28] | Canada | Urban garden | – | Garden size does not affect pollinator populations |
[16] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Urbanization is associated with reduced flower visitor richness |
[6] | Poland | Urban garden | Negative | The presence of a large green patch around the gardens has a positive effect on bee presence |
[95] | Germany | Urban garden | Positive | Local variables were strongly related to flower visitation rates |
[60] | Australia | Urban garden | Neutral | Local and landscape variables were not associated with bees' populations |
[24] | UK | Urban garden | Neutral | Bumblebees were negatively correlated with areas cultivated for vegetables |
[36] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Diversity and abundance of Bombus spp. Decreased with urbanization |
[48] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Bees were positively associated with distance to the city center |
[23] | USA | Urban garden | Neutral | Visits to one species increased with urbanization but visits to others decreased |
[78] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | The diversity of bees decrease with increasing flower abundance |
[47] | Austria | Green roof | – | Roof height did not affect bee communities |
[87] | Philippine | Urban garden | Negative | Home gardens surrounded by woody habitats showed higher bee richness |
[91] | USA | Urban garden | Positive | The presence of green spaces around the gardens positively affected bees |
[11] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Canopy cover within gardens negatively affected bee abundance |
[7] | USA | Urban garden | Neutral | Garden size positively affected small bees |
[44] | China | Urban garden | Negative | Urbanization negatively affected Gentiana dahurica |
[38] | Ghana | Urban garden | Neutral | Fewer cavity-nesting bees were found in urban than in rural areas |
[52] | France | Urban garden | Negative | Gardens surrounded by other gardens showed higher bee richness |
[22] | USA | Urban garden | Neutral | Positive effect on non-native species but negative on native species |
[5] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Natural cover around gardens increases bee richness |
[68] | USA | Urban garden | Negative | Suburban landscapes are suboptimal for B. impatiens |
[50] | Austria | Urban garden | Neutral | Flower abundance was the most important factor as a local variable |
[18] | Argentina | Green roof | Negative | Street cover in the landscape negatively affected total richness |
[8] | USA | Urban–rural | Negative | Urban areas negatively impact bee communities |
[61] | Mexico | Urban garden | Neutral | Floral visitor abundance was influenced by habitat type and season |
[20] | USA | Urban garden | Positive | Barren lands around gardens negatively affected bee populations |
[12] | USA | Urban garden | Neutral | Bee abundance and richness did not change with increasing floral resources |
[74] | USA | Urban garden | Positive | The percent urban cover positively affected B. vosnesenskii |