Food for Pollinators: Quantifying the Nectar and Pollen Resources of Urban Flower Meadows

Planted meadows are increasingly used to improve the biodiversity and aesthetic amenity value of urban areas. Although many ‘pollinator-friendly’ seed mixes are available, the floral resources these provide to flower-visiting insects, and how these change through time, are largely unknown. Such data are necessary to compare the resources provided by alternative meadow seed mixes to each other and to other flowering habitats. We used quantitative surveys of over 2 million flowers to estimate the nectar and pollen resources offered by two exemplar commercial seed mixes (one annual, one perennial) and associated weeds grown as 300m2 meadows across four UK cities, sampled at six time points between May and September 2013. Nectar sugar and pollen rewards per flower varied widely across 65 species surveyed, with native British weed species (including dandelion, Taraxacum agg.) contributing the top five nectar producers and two of the top ten pollen producers. Seed mix species yielding the highest rewards per flower included Leontodon hispidus, Centaurea cyanus and C. nigra for nectar, and Papaver rhoeas, Eschscholzia californica and Malva moschata for pollen. Perennial meadows produced up to 20x more nectar and up to 6x more pollen than annual meadows, which in turn produced far more than amenity grassland controls. Perennial meadows produced resources earlier in the year than annual meadows, but both seed mixes delivered very low resource levels early in the year and these were provided almost entirely by native weeds. Pollen volume per flower is well predicted statistically by floral morphology, and nectar sugar mass and pollen volume per unit area are correlated with flower counts, raising the possibility that resource levels can be estimated for species or habitats where they cannot be measured directly. Our approach does not incorporate resource quality information (for example, pollen protein or essential amino acid content), but can easily do so when suitable data exist. Our approach should inform the design of new seed mixes to ensure continuity in floral resource availability throughout the year, and to identify suitable species to fill resource gaps in established mixes.

Macroinvertebrate Diversity in Urban and Rural Ponds: Implications for Freshwater Biodiversity Conservation

Ponds are among the most biodiverse freshwater ecosystems, yet face significant threats from removal, habitat degradation and a lack of legislative protection globally. Information regarding the habitat quality and biodiversity of ponds across a range of land uses is vital for the long term conservation and management of ecological resources. In this study we examine the biodiversity and conservation value of macroinvertebrates from 91 lowland ponds across 3 land use types (35 floodplain meadow, 15 arable and 41 urban ponds). A total of 224 macroinvertebrate taxa were recorded across all ponds, with urban ponds and floodplain ponds supporting a greater richness than arable ponds at the landscape scale. However, at the alpha scale, urban ponds supported lower faunal diversity (mean: 22 taxa) than floodplain (mean: 32 taxa) or arable ponds (mean: 30 taxa). Floodplain ponds were found to support taxonomically distinct communities compared to arable and urban ponds. A total of 13 macroinvertebrate taxa with a national conservation designation were recorded across the study area and 12 ponds (11 floodplain and 1 arable pond) supported assemblages of high or very high conservation value. Pond conservation currently relies on the designation of individual ponds based on very high biodiversity or the presence of taxa with specific conservation designations. However, this site specific approach fails to acknowledge the contribution of ponds to freshwater biodiversity at the landscape scale. Ponds are highly appropriate sites outside of protected areas (urban/arable), with which the general public are already familiar, for local and landscape scale conservation of freshwater habitats.