Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Value of Uncropped Field Margins For Foraging Bumblebees

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

Abstract

The intensification of agriculture has led to declines in species diversity and abundance within groups of certain flora and fauna. Bumblebees (Bombus spp.) are one group where a decline has been documented, and it is thought to be attributable to a decrease in forage resources and potential nest sites. As bumblebees play an important role in the pollination of many entomophilous crops, this decline could impact on agricultural productivity. We examined the role of naturally regenerated field margins in providing forage plants on land where nectar resources are otherwise impoverished. The following question was addressed – Are naturally regenerated unsprayed field margins more attractive to foraging bumblebees and honeybees than cropped field margins managed as conservation headlands? Significantly more bees visited naturally regenerated field margins than cropped field margins. Honeybees (Apis mellifera), Bombus terrestris, and Bombus lapidarius were the most commonly observed bee species. Different wildflower species within the naturally regenerated margins varied greatly in relative number of visits received, and bumblebee species were found to prefer different flower species to honeybees. The potential role that naturally regenerated field margins could play in the conservation of bumblebee species, and the implications for other species of flora and fauna, are discussed.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aebischer, N.J. (1991) Twenty years of monitoring invertebrates and weeds in cereal In The Ecology of temperate cereal fields(J.F. Darbyshire and G.R. Potts, eds), pp. 305-31. Oxford: Blackwell Science Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford, D.V. (1975) Bumblebees. London: Davis-Poynter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batra, S.W.T. (1995) Bees and pollination in our changing environment. Apidologie 26, 361-70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatman, N.D. (1998) The value of buffer zones for the conservation of biodiversity. In The 1998 Brighton Conference-Pests & Diseases, pp. 939-950. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boatman, N.D. and Sotherton, N.W. (1988) The agronomic consequences and costs of managing field margins for game and wildlife conservation. Asp. Appl. Biol. 17, 47-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiverton, P.A. and Sotherton, N.W. (1991) The effects on beneficial arthropods of exclusion of herbicides from cereal crop edges. J. Appl. Ecol. 28, 1027-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colbert, S. and de Oliveira, D. (1990) Influence of pollen variety on raspberry (Rubus idaeusL.) development. J. Hered. 81, 434-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, J.H. and Slayter, R.O. (1977) Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their in community stability and organization. Am. Nat. 111, 1119-44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, S.A. (1995) Insects, plants and succession: Advantages of long-term set-aside. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 53, 201-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, S.A. (1996) Why bumblebees are special. In Bumblebees for pleasure and profit(A. Matheson, ed.), pp. 2-11. Cardiff: IBRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, S.A. (2000) Conserving compartments in pollination webs. Conser. Biol. 14, 1229-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, S.A., Williams, I.H. and Osborne, J.L. (1991) Bees and the pollination of crops and wild flowers in the European Community. Bee World 72, 47-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbet, S.A., Saville, N.M., Prys-Jones, O.E. and Unwin D.M. (1995) The competition box: A graphical aid to forecasting pollinator performance. J. Appl. Ecol. 32, 707-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cresswell, J.E., Osborne, J. and Goulson, D.G. (2000) An economic model of the limits to foraging range in central place foragers with numerical solutions for bumblebees. Ecol. Entomol. 25, 249-55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, C.N.R. (1996) Monitoring as a feedback mechanism for the conservation management of arable plant communities. In Vegetation management in forestry, amenity and conservation areaspp. 239-44. Aspects of Applied Biology 44. Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, C.N.R. (1996) Vegetation of Arable Field Margins in Breckland. Ph.D. Thesis, Norwich: University of East Anglia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critchley, C.N.R., Fowbert, J.A., Diack, I.A. and Sherwood, A.J. (1999). Cultivation regimes to conserve annual plant communities in uncropped arable field boundary strips. In Field margins and buffer zones; Ecology, management and policy(N.D. Boatman, D.H.K. Davies, K. Chaney, R. Feber, G.R. de Snoo and T.H. Sparks, eds), pp. 139-46. Aspects of Applied Biology 54. Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennis, P.D. and Fry, G.L.A. (1992) Field margins: Can they enhance natural enemy populations and general arthropod diversity on farmland? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 40, 95-115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover, J. 1992. The conservation of insects on arable farmland. In The conservation of insects and their habitats(N.W. Collins and J. Thomas, eds), pp. 294-318. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad, W. and Fry, G. (1995) Foraging activity of bumblebees (Bombus) in relation to flower resources on arable land. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 53, 123-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dukas, R. and Edelstein-Keshet L. (1998) The spatial distribution of colonial food provisioners. J. Theor. Biol. 190, 121-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egler, F. (1954) Vegetation science concepts I. Initial floristic composition a factor in old-field vegetation development. Vegetation 4, 412-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feber, R.E., Smith, H. and MacDonald D.W. (1996) The effect on butterfly abundance of management of uncropped edges of arable fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 33, 1191-205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielder, A.G. (1987) Management options for field margins an Agricultural Advisor's view. In Field margins(J.M. Way and P.W. Greig-Smith, eds), pp. 85-94. BCPC Monograph 35. Thornton Heath: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Firbank, L.G., Carter, N., Derbyshire, J.F. and Potts G.R. (eds) (1991) The ecology of temperate cereal fields. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free, J.B. (1970) Insect pollination of crops. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Free, J.B. and Butler, C.G. (1959) Bumblebees. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, R.J., Gregory, R.D., Gibbons, D.W., Marchant, J.H., Wilson, J.D., Baillie, S.R. and Carter, N. (1995) Population declines and range contractions among lowland farm birds in Britain. Conser. Biol. 96, 1425-41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fussell, M. and Corbet, S.A. (1992) Flower usage by bumblebees: A basis for forage plant management. J. Appl. Ecol. 29, 451-65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greaves, M.P. and Marshall, E.J.P. (1987) Field margins: Definitions and statistics. In Field margins(J.M. Way and P.W. Greig-Smith, eds), pp. 3-9. BCPC Monograph 35. Thornton Heath: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawthorne, A. and Hassall, M. (1994) Effects of management techniques on carabid communities of cereal field margins. In Field margins: Integrating agriculture and conservation(N. Boatman, ed.), BCPC Monograph 58. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hippa, H., Koponen, S. and Osmonen, O. (1981) Diurnal activity of flower visitors to the cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorusL.). Rep. Kevo Subarctic Res. Stn. 17, 55-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inouye, D. (1976) Resource partitioning and community structure: A study of bumblebees in the Colorado Rocky mountains. Doctoral Dissertation. North Carolina, USA: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inouye, D. (1978) Response partitioning in bumblebees. Experimental studies in foraging behaviour. Ecology 59, 672-8.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, M.J. and Ferguson, A.M. (1994) Vibratory collection of Actinidia deliciosa(kiwifruit) pollen. Ann. Botany 74, 479-82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, M., van den Brand, C., Kramer, P. and Boerrigter, E. (1991) Visitation, flight distances and seed set in the rare species Phyteuma nigrum(Campanulaceae). Acta Hort. 288, 303-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lagerlof, J., Stark, J. and Svensson, B. (1992) Margins of agricultural fields as habitats for pollinating insects. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 40, 117-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAFF (1998) The countryside stewardship scheme. London: MAFF Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAFF (1999) Arable stewardship. London: MAFF Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E.J.P. (1989) Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. J. Appl. Ecol. 26, 247-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreby, S.J. and Southway S. (1999) The importance of the crop edge compared to the mid-field, in providing invertebrate food for farmland birds. In Field margins and buffer zones: Ecology, management and policy(N.D. Boatman, D.H.K. Davies, K. Chaney, R. Feber, G.R. de Snoo and T.H. Sparks, eds), pp. 217-22. Aspects of Applied Biology 54.Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Toole, C. (1994) Who cares for solitary bees? In Forage for bees in an agricultural landscape(A. Matheson, ed.), pp. 47-56. Cardiff: IBRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz-S´anchez, F.J. (1995) Diversity of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in several Spanish ecosystems. In Changes in fauna of wild bees in Europe(J. Banaszak, ed.), pp. 147-63. Bydgoszcz: Pedagogical University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J.L. and Williams, I.H. (1996) umblebees as pollinators of crops and wild-flowers. In Bumblebees for pleasure and profit(A. Matheson, ed.), pp. 24-32. Cardiff: IBRA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Williams I. and Corbet, S.A. (1991) Bees, pollination and habitat change in the European Community. Bee World 72, 99-116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petanidou, T., den Nijs, H.C.M. and Ellis, A.C. (1991) Comparitive pollination of two rare Dutch Gentianaspecies, in relation to population size. Acta Hort. 288, 308-17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, E. (1977) A method for assessing changes in the abundance of butterflies. Biol. Cons. 12, 115-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, E., Elias, D.O., Skelton, M.J. and Thomas, J.A. (1975) Amethod of assessing the abundance of butterflies in MonksWood National Nature Reserve in 1973. Entomologist's Gazette 26, 79-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, G.R. (1986) The partridge: Pesticides, predation and conservation. London: Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prys-Jones, O.E. and Corbet, S.A. (1991) Bumblebees: Naturalists' handbook 6.Slough: Richmond Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyke, G.H. (1982) Local geographic distributions of bumblebees near Crested Bute, Colorado: Competition and community structure. Ecology 63, 555-73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands, M.R.W. (1985) Pesticide use on cereals and the survival of grey partridge chicks:Afield experiment. J. Appl. Ecol. 22, 49-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ranta, E. and Lundberg, H. (1980) Resource partitioning in bumblebees: The significance of differences in proboscis length. Oikos 35, 298-302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, D., Hoobs, R. and Erhlich, P. (eds) (1992) Reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems: Local and global perspectives. Chipping Norton: Surrey Beatty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saville, N.M., Dramstad,W.E., Fry, G.L.A. and Corbet, S.A. (1997) Bumblebee movement in a fragmented agricultural landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 61, 145-54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, W. (1987) Methods taken to preserve arable weeds and their associated communities in central Europe. In Field margins(J.M. Way and P.W. Greig-Smith, eds), pp. 109-112. BCPC Monograph 35. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallshire, D. and Cooke, A.I. (1999) Field margins in UK agri-environment schemes. In Field margins and buffer zones: Ecology, management and policy(N.D. Boatman, D.H.K. Davies, K. Chaney, R. Feber, G.R. de Snoo and T.H. Sparks, eds), pp. 19-28. Aspects of Applied Biology 54.Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., Feber, R.E., Johnson, P.J., McCallum, K., Plesner Jensen, S., Younes, M. and MacDonald, D.W. (1993) The Conservation and Management of Arable Field Margins.Peterborough: English Nature.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H., Feber, R.E. and MacDonald, D.W. (1994) The role of wild flower seed mixtures in field margin restoration. In Field margins: Integrating agriculture and conservation.(N.D. Boatman, ed.), pp. 289-94. BCPCMonograph Number 58. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Snoo, G.R. (1995) Unsprayed field margins: Implications for environment, biodiversity and agricultural practice.Ph.D. thesis. Holland: Leiden University.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Snoo, G.R. and Chaney, K. (1999) Unsprayed field margins what are we trying to achieve? In Field margins and buffer zones: Ecology, management and policy(N.D. Boatman, D.H.K. Davies, K. Chaney, R. Feber, G.R. de Snoo and T.H. Sparks, eds), pp. 1-12. Aspects of Applied Biology 54.Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, T.H. and Parish, T. (1995) Factors affecting the abundance of butterflies in field boundaries in Swavesey fens, Cambridgeshire, U.K. Biol. Cons. 73, 221-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • SPSS Inc. (1998) SPSS for Windows: Advanced statistics. Release 9.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stace, C.A. (1997) New flora of the British Isles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoate, C. (1999) The influence of filed boundary structure on breeding territory establishment of whitethroat Sylvia communisand yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella. In Field margins and Value of field margins for bumblebees291 buffer Zones: Ecology, management and policy(N.D. Boatman, D.H.K. Davies, K. Chaney, R. Feber, G.R. de Snoo and T.H. Sparks, eds), pp. 125-30. Aspects of Applied Biology 54. Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tew, T.E., Todd, I.A. and MacDonald, D.W. (1994) Field margins and small mammals. In Field margins: Integrating agriculture and conservation(N.D. Boatman, ed.), pp. 85-94. BCPC Monograph 58. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J.A. (1995) The conservation of declining butterfly populations in Britain and Europe: Priorities, problems and successes. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 56, 55-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torchio, P.F. (1991) Bees as crop pollinators and the role of solitary species in changing environments. Acta hort. 288, 49-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Gathmann, A. and Steffan-Dewenter, I. (1998) Bioindication using trap-nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: Community structure and interactions. J. Appl. Ecol. 35, 708-19.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, P.C.L. and Hassall, M. (1994) Effects of management on spider communities of headlands in cereal fields. Pedobiologia 38, 169-84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.H. (1982) The distribution and decline of British bumblebees (BombusLatr.) J. Apic. Res. 21, 236-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P.H. (1986) Environmental change and the distributions of British bumble bees (BombusLatr.) Bee World 67, 50-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P.J. (1993) Conserving Britain's cornfield flowers. In Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds 1993, pp. 411-16. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P.J. and Aebischer N.J. (1995) The distribution of dicotyledonous arable weeds in relation to distance from the field edge. J. Appl. Ecol. 32, 295-310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, P.J. (1999) The effect of nitrogen on populations of rare arable plants in Britain. In Field margins and buffer zones: Ecology, management and policy(N.D. Boatman, D.H.K. Davies, K. Chaney, R. Feber, G.R. de Snoo and T.H. Sparks, eds), pp. 93-100. Aspects of Applied Biology 54.Warwick: Association of Applied Biologists.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Biodiversity and Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton, SO16 7PX, U.K.

    Andrea R. Kells

  2. The Game Conservancy Trust, Burgate Manor, Fordingbridge, Hampshire, SP6 1EF, U.K

    John M. Holland

  3. Division of Biodiversity and Ecology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett Crescent East, Southampton, SO16 7PX, U.K

    Dave Goulson

Authors
  1. Andrea R. Kells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John M. Holland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dave Goulson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea R. Kells.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kells, A.R., Holland, J.M. & Goulson, D. The Value of Uncropped Field Margins For Foraging Bumblebees. Journal of Insect Conservation 5, 283–291 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013307822575

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013307822575

Search

Navigation