Pollination: Restore habitat along watercourses

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
  • Certainty
  • Harms

Source countries

Key messages

Pollination (0 studies)

Flower visitation (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found that bee visitation rates to native flowers did not differ between restored and remnant sites, but there were different plant-insect interactions.

Pollinator numbers (1 study): One replicated, paired site comparison from the USA found similar numbers of bees and bee species, but different bee communities, in restored and remnant sites.

Implementation options (0 studies)

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. A replicated, paired site comparison in 2003 in 10 riparian sites along the Sacramento River in California, USA, found that bee visitation to native flowers, and the number of bees and bee species, did not differ between restored and remnant sites, but there were different bee species and different plant-insect interactions at different sites. Flower visitation: The proportion of native plants visited did not differ between restored and remnant sites (0.67 vs 0.48 visits/minute), but different species visited flowers (15% of plant-visitor interactions were shared between restored and remnant sites). Pollinator numbers: The number of bees (253–702 vs 225–499) and bee species (19–58 vs 37–47) did not differ between restored and remnant sites. Different bee species were present at remnant and restored sites (36% of bee species were present at both sites in a pair; other data reported as ordination results). Methods: Each of five restored sites was paired with a remnant site (5.5–10 km apart). Plots within sites (1 ha) were 0.5–3.7 km apart. Restored sites were previously walnut and almond orchards (6 years before sampling) and were planted with similar vegetation to remnant sites (maple Acer spp., oak Quercus spp., willow Salix spp., and grass). The proportion of native plants (common to both sites: willow Salix spp., mule fat Baccharis salicifolia, lupin  Lupinus spp., California rose Rosa californica, and ash-leaved maple Acer negundo) did not differ between restored and remnant sites (0.49 vs 1.82 individuals, 0.39 vs 0.89 species/flower head). Bees were sampled every six weeks in February–August 2003 (transect walks and pan traps). Flowers were sampled in each plot (60 quadrats, 0.25 x 4 m).

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Shackelford, G. E., Kelsey, R., Robertson, R. J., Williams, D. R. & Dicks, L. V. (2017) Sustainable Agriculture in California and Mediterranean Climates: Evidence for the effects of selected interventions. Synopses of Conservation Evidence Series. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Mediterranean Farmland

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Mediterranean Farmland
Mediterranean Farmland

Mediterranean Farmland - Published 2017

Mediterranean Farmland synopsis

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