Best management practices for bee conservation in forest openings

IF 2.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION Conservation Science and Practice Pub Date : 2024-10-14 DOI:10.1111/csp2.13231
Michael J. Cunningham-Minnick, Joan Milam, Aliza Fassler, David I. King
{"title":"Best management practices for bee conservation in forest openings","authors":"Michael J. Cunningham-Minnick,&nbsp;Joan Milam,&nbsp;Aliza Fassler,&nbsp;David I. King","doi":"10.1111/csp2.13231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Native bees are an ecologically diverse group of pollinators in global decline due at least in part to invasive species, pesticides, and habitat loss. Although guidelines exist for land managers to restore pollinator habitat, these “best management practices” (BMPs) include other pollinator taxa that may have different requirements than bees, do not give particular attention to rare bee species, or describe practices that are impractical for land managers. Using co-production science, our team of land managers and researchers sampled bee communities in 100 wildlife openings on six National Forests (NF) within the Great Lakes Basin of the United States during 2017–2019. We found that bee communities responded to site factors and management practices, including prescribed fire, mechanical methods (e.g., felling, brushhogging, mowing), herbicides, and pollinator plantings. Bee abundance, diversity, and rarity were strongly related to soil properties, landscape context, and the plant community, including small-statured woody species, which collectively informed our BMPs. For instance, mechanical treatments were most beneficial for openings with clayey or organic soils while prescribed fire was most effective in openings with well-drained soils. Our BMPs highlight effects of treatment combinations, including negative effects on rare species when herbicides were combined with plantings and positive effects on abundance and rare species when prescribed fire was combined with mechanical treatments. Since our BMPs were generated in collaboration with land managers, they better conform to their needs and constraints, contributing to more effective native bee conservation.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"6 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.13231","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.13231","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Native bees are an ecologically diverse group of pollinators in global decline due at least in part to invasive species, pesticides, and habitat loss. Although guidelines exist for land managers to restore pollinator habitat, these “best management practices” (BMPs) include other pollinator taxa that may have different requirements than bees, do not give particular attention to rare bee species, or describe practices that are impractical for land managers. Using co-production science, our team of land managers and researchers sampled bee communities in 100 wildlife openings on six National Forests (NF) within the Great Lakes Basin of the United States during 2017–2019. We found that bee communities responded to site factors and management practices, including prescribed fire, mechanical methods (e.g., felling, brushhogging, mowing), herbicides, and pollinator plantings. Bee abundance, diversity, and rarity were strongly related to soil properties, landscape context, and the plant community, including small-statured woody species, which collectively informed our BMPs. For instance, mechanical treatments were most beneficial for openings with clayey or organic soils while prescribed fire was most effective in openings with well-drained soils. Our BMPs highlight effects of treatment combinations, including negative effects on rare species when herbicides were combined with plantings and positive effects on abundance and rare species when prescribed fire was combined with mechanical treatments. Since our BMPs were generated in collaboration with land managers, they better conform to their needs and constraints, contributing to more effective native bee conservation.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
林地蜜蜂保护的最佳管理方法
本地蜜蜂是一种具有生态多样性的授粉动物,至少部分由于入侵物种、杀虫剂和栖息地丧失,其数量在全球范围内不断减少。虽然有土地管理者恢复授粉者栖息地的指南,但这些 "最佳管理实践"(BMP)包括了可能与蜜蜂有不同要求的其他授粉分类群,没有特别关注珍稀蜜蜂物种,或者描述了对土地管理者来说不切实际的实践。利用共同生产科学,我们的土地管理者和研究人员团队在 2017-2019 年期间对美国五大湖盆地内六个国家森林(NF)的 100 个野生动物开阔地的蜜蜂群落进行了采样。我们发现,蜜蜂群落对场地因素和管理方法做出了反应,包括规定火种、机械方法(如砍伐、灌木、割草)、除草剂和授粉植物。蜜蜂的丰度、多样性和稀有性与土壤特性、景观环境和植物群落(包括小乔木物种)密切相关,这些因素共同为我们的 BMP 提供了信息。例如,机械处理对粘土或有机土壤的开阔地最有益,而在排水良好的土壤中,野火烧草最有效。我们的 BMP 强调了处理组合的效果,包括除草剂与种植相结合时对稀有物种的负面影响,以及野火与机械处理相结合时对丰度和稀有物种的正面影响。由于我们的 BMP 是与土地管理者合作制定的,因此更符合他们的需求和限制,有助于更有效地保护本地蜜蜂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conservation Science and Practice
Conservation Science and Practice BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
6.50%
发文量
240
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Motivating residents to volunteer for urban waterway restoration: A segmentation approach Impact of drought and development on the effectiveness of beehive fences as elephant deterrents over 9 years in Kenya Quantifying public support for culling crown-of-thorns starfish (Acanthaster spp.) on the Great Barrier Reef Development of an assay for the detection of the federally threatened Florida eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi) using soil eDNA
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1