Action

Action Synopsis: Bee Conservation About Actions

Reduce tillage

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Source countries

Key messages

Evidence on whether reduced tillage or no tillage benefits ground-nesting bees is mixed. Two replicated trials on squash Cucurbita spp. farms in the USA had contrasting results. One showed no difference in the abundance of bees between tilled and untilled farms, the other found three times more squash bees Peponapis pruinosa on no-till farms than on conventional farms.

 

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. Two replicated trials have compared the effects of tillage on the abundance of squash bee and other bees visiting squash Cucurbita spp. flowers in the United States. Both studies used 20 or more farms, in the same area (Virginia or Maryland, USA). Shuler et al. (2005) found that there were three times more squash bees on no-till farms as on tilled farms, although there was no difference in the numbers of bumblebees Bombus spp. or honey bees Apis mellifera. By contrast, Julier & Roulston (2009) found no difference in the numbers of squash bees or other bees between farms that had tilled after the previous year's pumpkin crop and those that had not. Julier & Roulston's study only included farms growing pumpkins, which are relatively late flowering compared to other cultivated squash plants. Early emerging squash bees may have been missed by this study because they had to travel elsewhere to forage and nest.

    Additional reference

    Julier H.E. & Roulston T.H. (2009). Wild bee abundance and pollination service in cultivated pumpkins: farm management, nesting behaviour and landscape effects. Journal of Economic Entomology, 102, 563‐573

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Dicks, L.V., Showler, D.A. & Sutherland, W.J. (2010) Bee conservation: evidence for the effects of interventions. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, UK

 

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Bee Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bee Conservation
What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation assesses the research looking at whether interventions are beneficial or not. It is based on summarised evidence in synopses, on topics such as amphibians, bats, biodiversity in European farmland, and control of freshwater invasive species. More are available and in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
Our Journal: Conservation Evidence

Our Journal:
Conservation Evidence

A unique, free to publish open-access journal publishing research and case studies that measure the effects of conservation actions.

Read latest volume: Volume 16

Special issues: Amphibian special issue

Go to the Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust