Table 2 Country, buffer (m), type of pollinators, matrix around the sampling sites, and key results of studies that have examined the effects of the amount of forest cover in a landscape on bees
References | Country | Buffer | Pollinator | Matrix | Key results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[42] | Spain | 10–100 | Honeybees | Pasture | By decreasing forest cover, fruit set and the number of developing pollen tubes per flower decreased |
[117] | Canada | 250–1500 | Native bees | Corn and soybean | Only at the buffer of 750 m from the forest, bee abundance and richness were positively correlated with the forest cove |
[19] | Costa Rica | 0–1500 | Native and honeybee | Farm and pasture | By increasing forest cover proportion at scales from 200 to 1200 m, Meliponine richness increased |
[128] | USA | 500–3000 | Native bees | Farm | Forest cover did not affect crop visitation by wild bees |
[20] | Costa Rica | 200 | Native and honeybee | Farm and pasture | By increasing forest cover proportion, tree-nesting Meliponines increased while honeybees showed opposite patterns |
[17] | Costa Rica | 400 | Stingless bees | Farm | Forest cover proportion positively affected Meliponine richness and abundance |
[119] | Japan | 500–4000 | Apis cerana | Farm | Forest cover proportion within the 1500-m buffer positively affected A. cerana abundance in the farms |
[15] | Germany | 250–2000 | Native and honeybee | Wild cherry | Forest cover proportion did not affect bees |
[115] | Canada | 120–2020 | Native and honeybee | Farm | Forest cover proportion negatively affected the total number of species and the number of interaction links between plant and pollinator at buffers of 1520 and 1620 m, respectively |
[51] | USA | 250–1000 | Bumblebee | Mixed | Native species richness was significantly lower in landscapes with greater riparian forest cover |
[97] | Mexico | 1700 | Frieseomelitta nigra; Apis mellifera | Plantation | Forest cover proportion positively affected bee diversity and abundance on plantations |
[129] | Canada | 400 | Native bees | Grassland | Forest cover proportion did not affect bees |
[103] | Brazil | 250–2000 | Euglossine | Soya, and maize | Forest cover proportion did not affect bees |
[101] | Brazil | 300–2000 | Native bees and honeybee | Coffee | Forest cover proportion positively affected native bee abundance, richness, and diversity at all buffers Forest cover proportion at the 300 m scale negatively affected honeybee abundance |
[26] | Switzerland | 500 | Osmia bicornis | Farm | Forest cover proportion did not affect the abundance of O. bicornis |
[113] | Brazil | 250–2000 | Euglossine | Water | Forest cover proportion positively affected bee richness within a buffer of 250 m |
[39] | Brazil | 750–3000 | Native bees | Tomato | Forest cover proportion positively affected the abundance of all pollinator groups |
[64] | Mexico | 200–1000 | Native bees | Farm | Forest cover proportion positively affected bee richness, particularly species of the family Apidae |
[102] | Brazil | 250–2000 | Solitary and honeybee | Soya, and maize | Forest cover proportion negatively affected the abundance of solitary bees at both 1000 and 1250 m scales |
[24] | Brazil | 500–1000 | Trigona spp. | Farm | Forest cover proportion positively affected bee visitation rate |
[85] | India | 100–2000 | Honeybee | Coffee | Positive effects of agroforests, forest fragments, and land cover heterogeneity on the presence and number of nests |
[124] | Mexico | 250–2000 | Native bees | Soybean and maize | Polycultures farms that had the greatest proportion of surrounding forest cover showed the highest bee richness |
[71] | Brazil | 500–1500 | Stingless bees | Mixed | Forest cover proportion negatively affected stingless bee body size; mean community body size was larger in areas with greater amounts of deforestation, and smaller in areas with less deforestation |
[72] | USA | 500–5000 | Native bees | Cornfields | Forest cover proportion negatively affected bee abundance but positively affected bee richness |
[38] | Brazil | 25 | Native bees | Deforested areas | Forest cover was the most important factor to increase bee abundance and richness |
[35] | Guatemala | 300–2000 | Bumble and stingless bees | Corn, green bean | By increasing forest cover proportion, bumblebee abundance increased |
[27] | Costa Rica | 200 | Euglossine | – | Forest cover proportion positively affected orchid bee visitation |
[125] | Thailand | 1500–15,000 | Stingless bees | Mixed fruit orchards | Forest cover proportion positively affected stingless bee richness and abundance (< 2 km) |
[7] | France | 500–3000 | Native and honeybees | Orchard | Forest cover at 500 m increased most of all wild hymenopteran abundance and, while forest cover at 3 km promoted average abundance including the domestic honeybee |
[33] | USA | 250–1000 | Native bees | Lowbush blueberry | Bee abundance and richness decreased in cover types with few floral resources such as coniferous and deciduous/mixed forest |
[111] | Germany | 250–3000 | Native and honeybee | Mixed | At 750 m scale, forest cover proportion positively affected bee richness and abundance of solitary bees whereas bumblebees and honeybees did not respond to landscape context at these scales Forest cover proportion negatively affected honeybees at a radius of 3000 m |
[96] | Brazil | 400–1000 | Native bees | Forest | Forest cover proportion negatively affected the functional richness of reproductive plant attributes |
[107] | Estonia | 2000 | Bumblebee | Farm | Forest cover proportion increased bumblebee richness and abundance |