Quantifying the attractiveness of garden flowers for pollinators

Rosi Rollings,Dave Goulson

doi:10.1007/s10841-019-00177-3

Rosi Rollings, Dave Goulson

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-019-00177-3

Copy DOI

Abstract

There is great interest in planting urban areas to benefit pollinating insects, with the potential that urban areas and gardens could act as an extensive network of pollinator-friendly habitats. However, there are a great many different plant cultivars available to the gardener, and a paucity of evidence-based advice as to which plants are truly most attractive to flower-visiting insects. Here, we report insect visitation to metre square plots of 111 different ornamental plant cultivars at a site in central UK. Data were collected over 5 years, and comprise over 9000 insect observations, which were identified to species (for honeybees and bumblebees) or as ‘solitary bees’, Syrphidae, Lepidoptera and ‘others’. Unlike some previous studies, we found no difference in numbers of insects attracted to native or non-native species, or according to whether plants were annuals, biennials or perennials, but we did find that native plants attracted a significantly higher diversity of flower-visiting insects. Overall, the most-visited plants were Calamintha nepeta, Helenium autumnale and Geranium rozanne. However, patterns of visitation were quite different for every insect taxa examined. For example, different species of short-tongued bumblebees showed little overlap in their most-preferred plant cultivars. Interestingly, very similar plant cultivars often attracted different insect communities; for example, 72% of visitors to Aster novi belgii were honeybees or bumblebees, while the related Anthemis tinctoria, which also has daisy-like flowers, did not attract a single honeybee or bumblebee but was popular with solitary bees, hoverflies, and ‘other’ pollinators. Some plant cultivars such as Eryngium planum and Myosotis arvensis were attractive to a broad range of insects, while others attracted only a few species but sometimes in large numbers, such as Veronicastrum virginicum and Helenium autumnale which were both visited predominantly by honey bees. It is clear that we do not yet fully understand what factors drive insect flower preferences. Recommendations are made as to which flower cultivars could be combined to provide forage for a diversity of pollinator groups over the season from early spring to autumn, though it must be born in mind that some plants are likely to perform differently when grown in different environmental conditions.

Highlights

Promoting wildlife friendly gardening has become a common strategy intended to help mitigate declines in wildlife, with regard to pollinators such as bees (e.g. Goddard et al 2010; Mader et al 2011)
The most obvious step that gardeners might take to encourage pollinators is to plant flowers for them, but which ones should they plant? Ornamental plants are enormously variable in their attractiveness to pollinators (e.g. Garbuzov and Ratnieks 2014b), and many cultivars that have been bred by artificial selection have become much less attractive to
4825 honey bees, 3388 bumblebees, 702 solitary bees, 624 hoverflies, 435 lepidopterans and 161 other insects were observed visiting the flowers in the experimental patches over the 5 years

Summary

Introduction

Promoting wildlife friendly gardening has become a common strategy intended to help mitigate declines in wildlife, with regard to pollinators such as bees (e.g. Goddard et al 2010; Mader et al 2011). Many lists have been published of the ones recommended for pollinators, for example on the websites of organisations such as the Royal Horticultural Society, the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, and the Xerces Society, or in the many books about wildlife gardening These lists appear to be largely based on anecdote or casual observation rather than scientific evidence (Garbuzov et al 2017). Rather few attempts have been made to rigorously evaluate which garden plants are most attractive, using a standardise technique (exceptions include Garbuzov and Ratnieks 2014b, 2015; Salisbury et al 2015; Garbuzov et al 2015a, b) Those that have, often find considerable variation within members of a particular Genus; for example, different Lavandula cultivars vary tenfold in the numbers of bees they attract (Garbuzov and Ratnieks 2014b), so providing generic advice such as “lavenders are good for bees” is not helpful

Methods

Results

Conclusion