The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside
Abstract
Summary: Despite ongoing concerns and controversy over a putative ‘global pollination crisis’ there is little information on the response of bees, the most important group of pollinators, to land‐use change. In particular, there are no published studies of the effects of tropical forest fragmentation on entire bee communities. We examined bee community responses to forest fragment size, shape, isolation and landscape context (forest variables) by sampling foraging bees at ground level using aerial netting within, and in pastures adjacent to, 22 forest fragments ranging in area from c. 0·25 ha to 230 ha, in southern Costa Rica. We sampled each site 13 times in total, in both wet and dry seasons. Although there were no effects of forest variables on bee diversity and abundance, we did find strong changes in bee community composition. In particular, tree‐nesting meliponines (social stingless bees) were associated with larger fragments, smaller edge:area ratios and greater proportions of forest surrounding sample points, while introduced Apis showed opposite patterns. Community composition was also strikingly different between forests and pastures, despite their spatial proximity. In forests, even in the smallest patches, meliponines comprised a much larger proportion of the apifauna, and orchid bees (euglossines) were common. In pastures, Apis was much more abundant and no euglossine bees were found. These results agree broadly with other studies that have found contrasting responses to habitat fragmentation from different bee groups. Conserving meliponine bees, important for pollination of coffee and other crops, and euglossine bees, critical in long‐distance pollen transport, will require forest. Synthesis and applications. In the first study of the effects of tropical forest fragmentation on entire understorey bee assemblages, we found bee community resilience to land‐use change, as deforested sites and small forest fragments can have a diverse component of bees. While bees as a whole show some degree of resilience to land‐use change, there are taxon‐specific responses and, in our study area, there is clear value to conserving native forest, particularly for the ecologically and economically important meliponine and euglossine bees.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers
Potts, S. G., Biesmeijer, J. C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O., & Kunin, W. E. (2010) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2010.01.007 · Cited by 6,458
Ecological impacts of invasive alien species on bees
Stout, J. C., & Morales, C. L. (2009) · Apidologie · doi:10.1051/apido/2009023 · Cited by 284
Gutiérrez-Chacón, C., Valderrama-A, C., & Klein, A.-M. (2020) · Journal of Insect Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10841-019-00205-2 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Brosi, B. J., Daily, G. C., Shih, T. M., Oviedo, F., & Durán, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Ecology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-11-14
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 773-783
- ISSN
- 0021-8901 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2664
- OpenAlex
- W1594636992
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01412.x
- The paper
- Brosi, B. J., Daily, G. C., Shih, T. M., Oviedo, F., & Durán, G. (2008). The effects of forest fragmentation on bee communities in tropical countryside. Journal of Applied Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01412.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.