ArticlePloS one2024
Do local and landscape context affect the attractiveness of flower gardens to bees?
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Planting floral resources is a common strategy for increasing the abundance and diversity of beneficial flower-visiting insects in human-modified systems. However, the context of the local area and surrounding landscape may affect the attractiveness of these floral resource provisioning plots. We compared the relative effects of local floral resources and surrounding urban land-use on the abundance of bees on flowering plants in common gardens in eastern Tennessee, USA. We planted four types of common garden plots at each of five different landscapes representing a variety of surrounding land use: 1) Urban Garden, 2) Forage Grassland, 3) Mixed Agriculture, 4) Forest, and 5) Organic Farm. Each common garden plot type had a fixed plant community representing one of three plant families (Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae) or a mix of all three, and all four common gardens were replicated at all the sites. We concurrently sampled bees in the garden plots and in a 50 m radius (local area) around the garden plots. We found that the size of the floral display (i.e. the visual display size of flowers) and diversity of flowers in the local area did not affect bee abundance or species richness in the garden plots. Although there was a significant positive association between developed land use in a 2 km radius and bee abundance in the gardens, the effect was small, and there was no relationship between land use and bee abundance or species richness in the local area. There were significant differences in the composition of the bee community between the local area and garden plots, but the largest determinants of bee community composition and species richness in the gardens were floral display size and variation in the garden plant species in bloom. This finding is promising for anyone wishing to promote pollinator populations by providing more floral resources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.