Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Grassland restorations improve pollinator communities: a meta-analysis

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Journal of Insect Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Natural grasslands are being destroyed at an alarming pace, but land managers are actively working to restore these habitats. Many of these efforts focus on restoring plant diversity but often do not consider responses of higher trophic levels such as pollinators, which provide crucial ecosystems services. We conducted a meta-analysis of 25 large-scale studies to examine the effects of grassland restorations on pollinator communities. Specifically, we compared pollinator communities in restored, degraded and remnant grasslands to determine if restorations improve pollinators from a degraded state and if they fully restore them to remnant values. We found that grassland restorations significantly improved both pollinator abundance and richness as compared to degraded grasslands. Additionally, pollinator abundance and richness did not significantly differ from remnant sites, indicating a near full recovery. Sub-analyses found that factors such as pollinator taxa, restoration age, and mode of land degradation all influenced the magnitude of recovery. In particular, lepidopteran abundance increased more than bee abundance in these restorations. Older restorations (> 10 years) showed the strongest improvements in pollinator communities. This research highlights the importance of grassland restorations in supporting not only plant diversity but also pollinators.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht M, Duelli P, Muller C, Kleijn D, Schmid B (2007) The Swiss agri-environment scheme enhances pollinator diversity and plant reproductive success in nearby intensively managed farmland. J Appl Ecol 44:813–822

    Google Scholar 

  • Alison J, Duffield SJ, Morecroft MD, Marrs RH, Hodgson JA (2017) Successful restoration of moth abundance and species-richness in grassland created under agri-environment schemes. Biol Conserv 213:51–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen-Wardell G, Bernhardt P, Bitner R, Burquez A, Buchmann S, Cane J, Cox PA, Dalton V, Feinsinger P, Ingram M, Inouye D, Jones CE, Kennedy K, Kevan P, Koopowitz H, Medellin R, Medellin-Morales S, Nabhan GP, Pavlik B, Tepedino V, Torchio P, Walker S (1998) The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conserv Biol 12:8–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer CR, Pirk CWW, Carvalheiro LG, Nicolson SW (2014) Economic and ecological implications of geographic bias in pollinator ecology in the light of pollinator declines. Oikos 123:401–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Balbuena MS, Tison L, Hahn ML, Greggers U, Menzel R, Farina WM (2015) Effects of sublethal doses of glyphosate on honeybee navigation. J Exp Biol 218:2799–2805

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bartomeus I, Stavert JR, Ward D, Aguado O (2019) Historical collections as a tool for assessing the global pollination crisis. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 374:9

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur B (2014) Dispersal-limited species - A challenge for ecological restoration. Basic Appl Ecol 15:559–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Borschig C, Klein AM, von Wehrden H, Krauss J (2013) Traits of butterfly communities change from specialist to generalist characteristics with increasing land-use intensity. Basic Appl Ecol 14:547–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH (1984) On the relationship between abundance and distribution of species. Am Nat 124:255–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruckmann SV, Krauss J, Steffan-Dewenter I (2010) Butterfly and plant specialists suffer from reduced connectivity in fragmented landscapes. J Appl Ecol 47:799–809

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson BD, Bahlai CA, Gibbs J, Landis DA (2016) Flowering phenology influences bee community dynamics in old fields dominated by the invasive plant Centaurea stoebe. Basic Appl Ecol 17:497–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland SM, Munson SM, Pilliod DS, Welty JL, Bradford JB, Butterfield BJ (2018) Long-term trends in restoration and associated land treatments in the southwestern United States. Restor Ecol 26:311–322

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBano SJ, Roof SM, Rowland MM, Smith LA (2016) Diet overlap of mammalian herbivores and native bees: implications for managing co-occurring grazers and pollinators. Nat Areas J 36:458–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney JT, Jokela KJ, Debinski DM (2015) Seasonal succession of pollinator floral resources in four types of grasslands. Ecosphere 6:14

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwell SL, Griswold T, Elle E (2016) Habitat type plays a greater role than livestock grazing in structuring shrubsteppe plant-pollinator communities. J Insect Conserv 20:515–525

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery SM, Rudgers JA (2010) Ecological assessment of dune restorations in the great lakes region. Restor Ecol 18:184–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery SM, Doran PJ (2013) Presence and management of the invasive plant Gypsophila paniculata (baby's breath) on sand dunes alters arthropod abundance and community structure. Biol Conserv 161:174–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch G, Glaum P, Simao MC, Vaidya C, Matthijs J, Iuliano B, Perfecto I (2019) Changes in adult sex ratio in wild bee communities are linked to urbanization. Sci Rep 9:10

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleeger JW, Riggio MR, Mendelssohn IA, Lin Q, Hou A, Deis DR (2018) Recovery of saltmarsh meiofauna six years after the & IT Deepwater Horizon & IT oil spill. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 502:182–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Forup ML, Memmott J (2005) The restoration of plant-pollinator interactions in hay meadows. Restor Ecol 13:265–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghazoul J (2006) Floral diversity and the facilitation of pollination. J Ecol 94:295–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Glenn SM, Collins SL, Gibson DJ (1992) Disturbances in tallgrass prairie—local and regional effects on community heterogeneity. Landscape Ecol 7:243–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Graystock P, Goulson D, Hughes WOH (2014) The relationship between managed bees and the prevalence of parasites in bumblebees. Peerj 2:14

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin SR, Bruninga-Socolar B, Kerr MA, Gibbs J, Winfree R (2017) Wild bee community change over a 26-year chronosequence of restored tallgrass prairie. Restor Ecol 25:650–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Breeze TD, Ellis C, Goulson D (2015) Measuring the economic value of pollination services: principles, evidence and knowledge gaps. Ecosyst Serv 14:124–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen S, Roets F, Seymour CL, Thebault E, van Veen FJF, Pryke JS (2018) Alien plants have greater impact than habitat fragmentation on native insect flower visitation networks. Divers Distrib 24:58–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartnett DC, Hickman KR, Walter LEF (1996) Effects of bison grazing, fire, and topography on floristic diversity in tallgrass prairie. J Range Manag 49:413–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Helbing F, Cornils N, Stuhldreher G, Fartmann T (2015) Populations of a shrub-feeding butterfly thrive after introduction of restorative shrub cutting on formerly abandoned calcareous grassland. J Insect Conserv 19:457–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbertsson L, Lindstrom SAM, Rundlof M, Bornmarco R, Smith HG (2016) Competition between managed honeybees and wild bumblebees depends on landscape context. Basic Appl Ecol 17:609–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill JK, Griffiths HM, Thomas CD (2011) Climate change and evolutionary adaptations at species' range margins. In: Berenbaum MR, Carde RT, Robinson GE (eds) Annual review of entomology, vol 56. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto, pp 143–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser-Bunbury CN, Mougal J, Whittington AE, Valentin T, Gabriel R, Olesen JM, Bluthgen N (2017) Ecosystem restoration strengthens pollination network resilience and function. Nature 542:223–227

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM (1998) Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant-pollinator interactions. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 29:83–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Lettow MC, Brudvig LA, Bahlai CA, Gibbs J, Jean RP, Landis DA (2018) Bee community responses to a gradient of oak savanna restoration practices. Restor Ecol 26:882–890

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindstrom SAM, Herbertsson L, Rundlof M, Bommarco R, Smith HG (2016) Experimental evidence that honeybees depress wild insect densities in a flowering crop. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 283:8

    Google Scholar 

  • Longcore T (2003) Terrestrial arthropods as indicators of ecological restoration success in coastal sage scrub (California, USA). Restor Ecol 11:397–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Maccherini S, Bacaro G, Favilli L, Piazzini S, Santi E, Marignani M (2009) Congruence among vascular plants and butterflies in the evaluation of grassland restoration success. Acta Oecol Int J Ecol 35:311–317

    Google Scholar 

  • McCune F, Normandin E, Mazerolle MJ, Fournier V (2020) Response of wild bee communities to beekeeping, urbanization, and flower availability. Urban Ecosyst 23:39–54

    Google Scholar 

  • McKee M, Brye KR, Wood L (2019) Soil carbon sequestration across a chronosequence of tallgrass prairie restorations in the Ozark Highlands region of northwest Arkansas. Aims Geosci 5:1–24

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Meine C (1999) It's about time: conservation biology and history. Conserv Biol 13:1–3

    Google Scholar 

  • Molano-Flores B (2009) Insect herbivory of ovules and seeds in native and restored prairies. Restor Ecol 17:187–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Moranz RA, Debinski DM, McGranahan DA, Engle DM, Miller JR (2012) Untangling the effects of fire, grazing, and land-use legacies on grassland butterfly communities. Biodivers Conserv 21:2719–2746

    Google Scholar 

  • Motta EVS, Raymann K, Moran NA (2018) Glyphosate perturbs the gut microbiota of honey bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:10305–10310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Munsch T, Helbing F, Fartmann T (2019) Habitat quality determines patch occupancy of two specialist Lepidoptera species in well-connected grasslands. J Insect Conserv 23:247–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemec KT, Bragg TB (2008) Plant-feeding Hemiptera and Orthoptera communities in native and restored mesic tallgrass prairies. Restor Ecol 16:324–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Öckinger E, Winsa M, Roberts SPM, Bommarco R (2018) Mobility and resource use influence the occurrence of pollinating insects in restored seminatural grassland fragments. Restor Ecol 26:873–881

    Google Scholar 

  • Odanaka K, Gibb J, Turley NE, Isaacs R, Brudvig LA (2020) Canopy thinning, not agricultural history, determines early responses of wild bees to longleaf pine savanna restoration. Restor Ecol 28:138–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogilvie JE, Forrest JRK (2017) Interactions between bee foraging and floral resource phenology shape bee populations and communities. Current Opinion in Insect Science 21:75–82

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne JL, Clark SJ, Morris RJ, Williams IH, Riley JR, Smith AD, Reynolds DR, Edwards AS (1999) A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. J Appl Ecol 36:519–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Poniatowski D, Stuhldreher G, Loffler F, Fartmann T (2018) Patch occupancy of grassland specialists: Habitat quality matters more than habitat connectivity. Biol Conserv 225:237–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Renauld M, Hutchinson A, Loeb G, Poveda K, Connelly H (2016) Landscape simplification constrains adult size in a native ground-nesting bee. PLoS ONE 11:11

    Google Scholar 

  • Ries L, Debinski DM, Wieland ML (2001) Conservation value of roadside prairie restoration to butterfly communities. Conserv Biol 15:401–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutgers-Kelly AC, Richards MH (2013) Effect of meadow regeneration on bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) abundance and diversity in southern Ontario, Canada. Can Entomol 145:655–667

    Google Scholar 

  • Samson F, Knopf F (1994) Prairie conservation in North-America. Bioscience 44:418–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott AJ, Morgan JW (2012) Recovery of soil and vegetation in semi-arid Australian old fields. J Arid Environ 76:61–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Sjodin NE, Bengtsson J, Ekbom B (2008) The influence of grazing intensity and landscape composition on the diversity and abundance of flower-visiting insects. J Appl Ecol 45:763–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Skorka P, Settele J, Woyciechowski M (2007) Effects of management cessation on grassland butterflies in southern Poland. Agr Ecosyst Environ 121:319–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Torne-Noguera A, Rodrigo A, Arnan X, Osorio S, Barril-Graells H, da Rocha LC, Bosch J (2014) Determinants of spatial distribution in a bee community: nesting resources, flower resources, and body size. PLoS ONE 9:10

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA (2007) Enhancing nest sites for native bee crop pollinators. N. A. Center, Lincoln, Nebraska

    Google Scholar 

  • Viechtbauer W (2010) Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw 36:1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther-Hellwig K, Fokul G, Frankl R, Buchler R, Ekschmitt K, Wolters V (2006) Increased density of honeybee colonies affects foraging bumblebees. Apidologie 37:517–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman S (1988) Statistical-methods for meta-analysis—Hedges, Lv, Olkin, I. J Educ Stat 13:75–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams NM, Kremen C (2007) Resource distributions among habitats determine solitary bee offspring production in a mosaic landscape. Ecol Appl 17:910–921

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Williams NM, Crone EE, Roulston TH, Minckley RL, Packer L, Potts SG (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol Conserv 143:2280–2291

    Google Scholar 

  • Young TP (2000) Restoration ecology and conservation biology. Biol Conserv 92:73–83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Binod Basyal, Kylea Garces, Grace Freundlich, Abhi Maurya, Jeff Masters and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on manuscript drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Louisville, 139 Life Sciences Bldg, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Aaron N. Sexton & Sarah M. Emery

Authors
  1. Aaron N. Sexton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah M. Emery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AS, SE conceived the study, AS performed data collection and analyzed the data, AS, SE wrote and edited the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aaron N. Sexton.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 21 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sexton, A.N., Emery, S.M. Grassland restorations improve pollinator communities: a meta-analysis. J Insect Conserv 24, 719–726 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00247-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-020-00247-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation