Dataset Information

No Mow May lawns have higher pollinator richness and abundances: An engaged community provides floral resources for pollinators.

ABSTRACT: No Mow May is a community science initiative popularized in recent years that encourages property owners to limit their lawn mowing practices during the month of May. The goal of No Mow May is to provide early season foraging resources for pollinators that emerge in the spring, especially in urban landscapes when few floral resources are available. We worked with the city council of Appleton, Wisconsin, USA. to allow No Mow May to take place in May 2020. Four hundred and thirty-five property owners registered for No Mow May in Appleton. We measured floral and bee richness and abundance in the yards of a subset of homes (N = 20) located near regularly mowed urban parks (N = 15) at the end of the month. We found that homes that participated in No Mow May had more diverse and abundant flora than regularly mowed green spaces throughout the city. No Mow May homes had three times higher bee richness and five times higher bee abundances than frequently mowed greenspaces. Using generalized linear models, we found that the best predictor of bee richness was the size of the designated unmowed area, and the best predictors of bee abundances were the size of the unmowed area as well as floral richness. While our findings cannot conclusively attribute increases in bee abundances and richness to the No Mow May efforts, our data does show that bee pollinators make use of no mow spaces as key floral resources during early spring in the upper midwestern United States. A post-No Mow May survey revealed that the participants were keen to increase native floral resources in their yards, increase native bee nesting habitat, reduce mowing intensities, and limit herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer applications to their lawns. The No Mow May initiative educated an engaged community on best practices to improve the conservation of urban pollinators in future years.

SUBMITTER: Del Toro I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7518183 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

No Mow May lawns have higher pollinator richness and abundances: An engaged community provides floral resources for pollinators.

Del Toro Israel I Ribbons Relena R RR

PeerJ 20200922

No Mow May is a community science initiative popularized in recent years that encourages property owners to limit their lawn mowing practices during the month of May. The goal of No Mow May is to provide early season foraging resources for pollinators that emerge in the spring, especially in urban landscapes when few floral resources are available. We worked with the city council of Appleton, Wisconsin, USA. to allow No Mow May to take place in May 2020. Four hundred and thirty-five property own ...[more]

PMID: 33024642

Similar Datasets

Project description:Modeling pollination ecosystem services requires a spatially explicit, process-based approach because they depend on both the behavioral responses of pollinators to the amount and spatial arrangement of habitat and on the within- and between-season dynamics of pollinator populations in response to land use. We describe a novel pollinator model predicting flower visitation rates by wild central-place foragers (e.g., nesting bees) in spatially explicit landscapes. The model goes beyond existing approaches by: (1) integrating preferential use of more rewarding floral and nesting resources; (2) considering population growth over time; (3) allowing different dispersal distances for workers and reproductives; (4) providing visitation rates for use in crop pollination models. We use the model to estimate the effect of establishing grassy field margins offering nesting resources and a low quantity of flower resources, and/or late-flowering flower strips offering no nesting resources but abundant flowers, on bumble bee populations and visitation rates to flowers in landscapes that differ in amounts of linear seminatural habitats and early mass-flowering crops. Flower strips were three times more effective in increasing pollinator populations and visitation rates than field margins, and this effect increased over time. Late-blooming flower strips increased early-season visitation rates, but decreased visitation rates in other late-season flowers. Increases in population size over time in response to flower strips and amounts of linear seminatural habitats reduced this apparent competition for pollinators. Our spatially explicit, process-based model generates emergent patterns reflecting empirical observations, such that adding flower resources may have contrasting short- and long-term effects due to apparent competition for pollinators and pollinator population size increase. It allows exploring these effects and comparing effect sizes in ways not possible with other existing models. Future applications include species comparisons, analysis of the sensitivity of predictions to life-history traits, as well as large-scale management intervention and policy assessment.

Project description:Land-use and land-cover change associated with agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss. In heavily modified agricultural landscapes, grazing lands may be the only areas that can provide essential resources for native grassland species. Management decisions, such as choice of livestock species, affect the extent to which grazing lands provide suitable habitat for native species such as pollinators.Our study compared how sheep versus cattle herbivory affected floral resources and butterfly abundance across low-diversity, former Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pastures managed with patch-burn grazing.Across all years (2017-2019), flowering species richness and abundance were significantly higher in cattle pastures than sheep pastures. On average, we recorded 6.9 flowering species/transect in cattle pastures and 3.8 flowering species/transect in sheep pastures. The average floral abundance per transect was 1278 stems/transect in cattle pastures and 116 stems/transect in pastures grazed by sheep.Similarly, we observed higher butterfly species richness, diversity, and abundance in cattle than in sheep pastures. In cattle pastures, we observed an average of 75 butterflies and 6.75 species per transect, compared with an average of 52 butterflies and 3.37 species per transect in sheep pastures. However, the butterfly community composition did not significantly differ between grazing treatments likely because agricultural-tolerant, habitat generalists comprised the majority of the butterfly community. Five generalist butterflies comprised 92.3% of observations; Colias philodice was the most abundant (61% of observations). Speyeria idalia and Danaus plexippus, two butterflies of conservation concern, comprised less than 0.5% of butterfly observations.Our results, which are among the first attempt quantifying butterfly use of post-CRP fields grazed by livestock, show that increased precipitation and cattle grazing promoted higher forb abundance and richness. However, additional interventions may be needed to enhance floral resources to sustain and improve pollinator diversity in these landscapes.

Project description:Understanding how urbanization alters functional interactions among pollinators and plants is critically important given increasing anthropogenic land use and declines in pollinator populations. Pollinators often exhibit short-term specialization and visit plants of the same species during one foraging trip. This facilitates plant receipt of conspecific pollen-pollen on a pollinator that is the same species as the plant on which the pollinator was foraging. Conspecific pollen receipt facilitates plant reproductive success and is thus important to plant and pollinator persistence. We investigated how urbanization affects short-term specialization of insect pollinators by examining pollen loads on insects' bodies and identifying the number and species of pollen grains on insects caught in urban habitat fragments and natural areas. We assessed possible drivers of differences between urban and natural areas, including frequency dependence in foraging, species richness and diversity of the plant and pollinator communities, floral abundance, and the presence of invasive plant species. Pollinators were more specialized in urban fragments than in natural areas, despite no differences in the species richness of plant communities across site types. These differences were likely driven by higher specialization of common pollinators, which were more abundant in urban sites. In addition, pollinators preferred to forage on invasive plants at urban sites and native plants at natural sites. Our findings reveal indirect effects of urbanization on pollinator fidelity to individual plant species and have implications for the maintenance of plant species diversity in small habitat fragments. Higher preference of pollinators for invasive plants at urban sites suggests that native species may receive fewer visits by pollinators. Therefore, native plant species diversity may decline in urban sites without continued augmentation of urban flora or removal of invasive species.

Project description:BackgroundThe decline of pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes proceeds due to intensive land use and the associated loss of habitat and food sources. The feeding of those insects depends on the spatial and temporal distribution of nectar and pollen as food resource. Hence, to protect insect biodiversity, a spatio-temporal assessment of food quantity of their habitats is necessary. Therefore, sufficient data on traits of floral resources are required.New informationAs floral resources' traits of plants are important to quantify food availability, we present two databases, the FloRes Database (Floral Resources Database) and the raw database, from where FloRes was derived. Both databases contain the plant traits: (1) flowering period, (2) floral-unit density per day, (3) nectar volume per floral unit per day, (4) sugar content per floral unit, (5) sugar concentration in nectar, (6) pollen mass or volume per floral unit and per day, (7) protein content of pollen and (8) corolla depth. All traits were sampled from literature and online databases. The raw database consists of 702 specified plant species, 138 unspecified species 37 species (spec., sp), 22 species pluralis (spp) and, for 79, only the genus was identified) and two species complexes (agg.). Those 842 taxa belong to 488 genera and 102 families. Finally, only 27 taxa have a complete set of traits, too few for a sufficient assessment of spatio-temporal availability of floral food-resources.As information on floral resources is scattered throughout many publications with different units, we also present our multistep workflow implemented in five consecutive R-scripts. The multistep workflow standardises the trait units of the raw database to comparable entities with identical units and aggregates them on a reasonable taxonomic level into the second application database, the FloRes Database. Finally, the FloRes Database contains aggregated information of traits for 42 taxa and, when corolla depth is excluded, for 72 taxa.This is the first attempt to gather these eight traits from different literature sources into one database with a multistep workflow. The publication of the multistep workflow enables the users to extend the FloRes Database on their own demands with other literature data or newly-gathered data to improve quantification of food resources. Especially, the combination of pollen, nectar and the open flowers per square metre is, as far as we know, a novelty.The FloRes Database can be used to evaluate the quantity of food-resource habitats available for pollinators, for example, to compare seed mixtures of agri-environmental measures, such as flower strips, considering flower phenology on a daily basis.

Project description:Background and aimsPollinator landscapes, as determined by pollinator morphology/behaviour, can vary inter- or intraspecifically, imposing divergent selective pressures and leading to geographically divergent floral ecotypes. Assemblages of plants pollinated by the same pollinator (pollinator guilds) should exhibit convergence of floral traits because they are exposed to similar selective pressures. Both convergence and the formation of pollination ecotypes should lead to matching of traits among plants and their pollinators.MethodsWe examined 17 floral guild members pollinated in all or part of their range by Prosoeca longipennis, a long-proboscid fly with geographic variation in tongue length. Attractive floral traits such as colour, and nectar properties were recorded in populations across the range of each species. The length of floral reproductive parts, a mechanical fit trait, was recorded in each population to assess possible correlation with the mouthparts of the local pollinator. A multiple regression analysis was used to determine whether pollinators or abiotic factors provided the best explanation for variation in floral traits, and pollinator shifts were recorded in extralimital guild member populations.Key resultsNine of the 17 species were visited by alternative pollinator species in other parts of their ranges, and these displayed differences in mechanical fit and attractive traits, suggesting putative pollination ecotypes. Plants pollinated by P. longipennis were similar in colour throughout the pollinator range. Tube length of floral guild members co-varied with the proboscis length of P. longipennis.ConclusionsPollinator shifts have resulted in geographically divergent pollinator ecotypes across the ranges of several guild members. However, within sites, unrelated plants pollinated by P. longipennis are similar in the length of their floral parts, most probably as a result of convergent evolution in response to pollinator morphology. Both of these lines of evidence suggest that pollinators play an important role in selecting for certain floral traits.

Dataset Information

No Mow May lawns have higher pollinator richness and abundances: An engaged community provides floral resources for pollinators.

Publications

No Mow May lawns have higher pollinator richness and abundances: An engaged community provides floral resources for pollinators.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets