Free Access

Table II

Attributes of habitat fragmentation studies for native bee communities. Modified from Cane (2001).

Country Habitat Cause offragmentation Parameter No. ofsites No. ofbee taxa Abundance of non-Apisbees Trend Ref.
Argentina Dry thornscrub Agricultural clearing Fragment size 8 43 481 Species richness declined with decreasing fragment size. Aizen and Feinsinger (1994)
Brazil Rainforest Experimental deforestation Fragment size 4 16 1092 Abundance decreased with fragment size. Powell and Powell (1980)
Brazil Rainforest Experimental deforestation Fragment size 7 16 290 Abundance increased with fragment size. Becker et al.(1991)
Brazil Atlantic forest Agricultural clearing Fragment sizeand level of disturbance 9 21 3653 No effect offragmentation due tohigh variability of species composition and abundance between sites. Tonhasca et al.(2002)
Costa Rica Agricultural (coffee) Agricultural clearing Distance to forest patch 16 40 618 Species richnesswas significantly higherin farms within 100 mfrom forest patches. Ricketts (2004)
Costa Rica Tropical forest Agricultural clearing Fragment size, shape, isolation and context 22 117 1537 Fragment size, shape, isolation and context affected community composition, but notabundance or species richness. Brosi et al.(2008)
Europe (7)* Agricultural (various) Agricultural clearing Land-use intensity; habitat diversity; distance tosemi-natural habitat 24 115 > 14529** Across landscapes, bee species richness increased with habitat diversity and proximity of semi-natural habitat, but decreased with increasing land-use intensity. Hendrickx et al. (2007)
Germany Agricultural (cereals) Agricultural clearing Distance tosemi-natural grassland 40 23 212 Species richnessand abundance decreasewith increasing isolation. Steffan-Dewenterand Tscharntke (1999)
Germany Agricultural (cereals) Agricultural clearing % semi-natural grasslands within 3 km 15 36 1340 Abundance and diversityof solitary bees werecorrelated with % semi-natural areas upto 750 m, no effect found for Bombus or Apis. Steffan-Dewenter et al. (2002)
Indonesia Rainforest Agricultural clearing Land-useintensity 12 22 401 Solitary bee abundance, not species richness, increased; social bee abundance and speciesrichness decreased. Klein et al. (2002)
Indonesia Agricultural (coffee) Agricultural clearing Amount of shade, distance to forest patch 24 29 > 895 Solitary bee diversity increased with less shade; social bee diversity decreased with distanceto forest patch. Klein et al. (2003)
South Africa Renosterveld shrubland Agricultural clearing Fragment size 24 19 - Vegetation cover hada greater effect than fragment size on bee species richness and composition. Donaldson et al. (2002)
U.S.A. Scrub desert Urbanisation Fragment sizeand age 59 62 2512 Species richness decreases and density increases with smaller fragment size. Fragment size and age hadgreatest effect onground-nesting specialists. Cane et al. (2006)
U.S.A. Agricultural (sunflower) Agricultural clearing % of semi-naturalhabitat within 3 km 16 33 5732 Species richness and abundance increase dwith increasing % semi-natural habitat. Greenleaf and Kremen (2006)
U.S.A. Various Agricultural clearing, urbanisation % of forest habitat within 1.6 km 40 130 2551 Species richness and abundance decreased within creasing forest cover, but increased with agriculture and urbanisation. Winfree et al. (2007)
U.S.A. Agricultural (tomato, melon, pepper) Agricultural clearing % of forest habitat within 0.5–3 km 29 54 4592 No effect of % of forest habitat and species richness on crops. Winfree et al. (2008)

Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland.


The number of non-Apis bees was not indicated; therefore bees of 8.5–12 mm in length identified by Schweiger et al. (2005) were excluded.

40 habitat ‘islands’ consisting of 4 mustard and 4 radish plants.

The number of non-Apis eusocial bees was not indicated.