Skip to main content

Table 3 Country, number (NP) and area (ha) of forest patches, type of pollinators, matrix around forest patches, isolation (km), and key results of studies that have investigated the structural effects of forest patches on bees

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

References Country NP Area Pollinator Matrix Isolation Key results
[4] Argentina 8 0.5–480 Native and honeybee Cornfield By decreasing patch size, the frequency and richness of native bees declined but the relative numbers of honeybees increased. Honeybees visiting were negatively correlated with individual trees
[120] Brazil 2 50 Euglossine Euglossine bees moved over cleared areas in search of fragrances
[78] Panama 10 1–1500 Euglossine Mixed 100–500 Euglossine bees recorded on islands were visitors from mainland sites and were equally frequent in fragments and continuous forest
[68] Brazil 8 1–50,000 Bombus brasiliensis Farm 4 Patches maintain greater richness and frequency of floral visitors than continuous sites
[20] Costa Rica 22 0.25–230 Native and honeybee Farm; pasture 500 Tree-nesting Meliponines were correlated with larger patches, smaller edge: area ratios. Honeybees showed opposite patterns
[122] Chile 5 2–600 Native bees Pine plantation Small patches had higher species richness than continuous forests
[18] Costa Rica 22 0.25–230 Euglossine Pasture 0.5–19 Euglossine bees’ abundance was significantly positively correlated to forest patch size, negatively related to forest shape. Richness was negatively related to fragment area, and not related to fragment isolation
[47] Spain 6 2–140 Native and honeybee Farm 1–20 Large patches supported a greater flower visitor diversity, but small patches tended to have higher insect visitation rates
[79] Brazil 9 1–354 Euglossine Farm > 100 Fragment size or ratio area/perimeter did not affect the abundance and richness of euglossine bees but the size of core areas positively affected them
[131] Switzerland Chelostoma florisomne; Hoplitis adunca Farm Forests covering a distance of up to 480 m were crossed by Chelostoma florisomne
[23] Mexico 14 0.07–24.9 Native bees Pasture 2 Patch size positively affected bee richness and diversity
[130] Mexico Euglossa dilemma Farm 130–200 Bee populations forest remnants were neither differentiated from nor had less genetic diversity than, populations in near-continuous forest separated from 130 km of agricultural lands
[1] Brazil 9 2–18 Euglossine Pasture; tomato 0.05–135 The smallest forest patch had the highest abundance of bees
[61] Brazil 4 287–94,000 Euglossine Coffee Forest shape index negatively affected euglossine abundance
[5] Brazil 3 100–280 Euglossine Pasture 3 The largest fragment was the main source of the observed variation in species richness and abundance
[82] Tanzania 6 Megachile Tea Continuous fragments had a higher diversity of pollinators than forest patches
[48] Australia 4 0.15–30 Honeybee Farm Honeybee abundance and pollen deposition were lower in small patches
[36] New Zealand 15 0.01–1,000,000 Bumblebee Grassland Patch area did not affect variation in the abundance or biomass of bumblebees
[45] Brazil 5 3–484 Native bees Soybean 20 Patch size positively affected the abundance of Apinae and oligolectic bees and negatively affected the richness of Augochlorini bees
[114] Canada 3 7–350 Andrena Forest Two small fragments had higher reductions in reproductive output than the continuous (350 ha) fragment
[10] Ethiopia 4–100,000 Honeybee Coffee Forest fragmentation increased the relative abundance of honeybees
[98] Brazil Eulaema
Athletica
Oil palm; rubber tree   Fragment size and isolation did not affect genetic diversity
[110] Costa Rica 12 0.9–16 Native bees Farm 2 Fragment size did not affect bee abundance, diversity, and parasitism, and mortality rates in trap nests. Total bee abundance did not vary from edge to center. Species diversity was higher in the forest center
[13] Ecuador 19 2.5–3500 Euglossine Farm 0.3–17 Fragments area and isolation did not affect bee abundance, richness, or evenness
[80] Brazil 30 15–25 Native bees Mixed Open areas had higher bee richness and diversity than forest patches
[106] Australia 14 > 5,  < 20 Native bees Large forest fragments had higher taxonomic diversity of bees visiting flowers of trees than small fragments. Small fragments had higher mean body sizes than those in larger fragments. The abundance of stingless bees decreased in small fragments compared to large fragments
[118] Japan 13 1.3–10 Native bees Farm Small patches can have the same potential in maintaining as large patches. Bee richness quickly increased at the small range of the area (< 3 ha)
[65] USA 14 5–164 Solitary bees Mixed 0.6–19 Forest patch size did not affect bee community structure or individual family occupancy
[76] USA Bombus vosnesenskii; Bombus bifarius Forest Forests did not act as barriers to the fine-scale movement for either species
[44] Norway 24 0.11–72 Bumblebee Farm 0–428 Patch isolation negatively affected bumblebee abundance
Forest fragmentation reduced the abundance of forest specialists while increasing the abundance of open-habitat species
[66] Norway 24 Native bees Farm Patch complexity negatively affected the total number of pollinators