Skip to main content

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

From: Amount, distance-dependent and structural effects of forest patches on bees in agricultural landscapes

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