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) |