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