Urban wildlife gardeners successfully support native bees in their backyards

Abstract Residential gardens provide significant opportunities for biodiversity conservation. They cover substantial portions of urban landscapes, and it is well-established that wildlife species respond to specific habitat characteristics of residential gardens such as vegetation structure. However, wildlife responses to the full suite of landscaping decisions comprising the intentional creation of a garden for wildlife are less well-understood. We compared habitat and bee community structure, and importance in a site-species landscape network, between residential gardens described by their owners as wildlife gardens, nearby residential gardens not intended for wildlife (control gardens), and nearby remnant vegetation in Melbourne, Australia. We found that vegetation diversity was higher in wildlife and control gardens compared to remnants, and the proportion of native vegetation was higher in wildlife gardens and remnants compared to control gardens. Bee diversity, but not abundance was higher in wildlife gardens and remnants compared to control gardens. Wildlife gardens and remnants had similar numbers but different suites of bee species, with wildlife gardens supporting more above ground- compared to below ground-nesting species, suggesting that each is missing key habitat elements. Landscape mosaics comprising both habitat types may therefore maximise bee diversity at the landscape scale. Analysis of the landscape network revealed that wildlife gardens and remnants supported more habitat specialist bee species (i.e. higher node strength) compared to control gardens and contributed more to network robustness. Residents that created wildlife gardens achieved their aims of supporting more wildlife compared to control gardens. They created small habitat patches that nonetheless complemented existing urban remnants, supported habitat specialists, and enhanced the robustness of the landscape network. Local governments can achieve biodiversity conservation goals at the landscape scale by supporting residents to create and maintain wildlife gardens.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Urban Ecosystems
Published
2026-04-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-026-01993-7
Primary Topic
Plant and animal studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Urban wildlife gardeners successfully support native bees in their backyards

J William L Brown, Nicholas S. G. Williams, Ken Walker, Caragh G. Threlfall et al.
Urban Ecosystems
Plant and animal studies
article

Urban wildlife gardeners successfully support native bees in their backyards

J William L Brown, Nicholas S. G. Williams, Ken Walker, Caragh G. Threlfall, Jess Baumann
article en

Abstract

Abstract Residential gardens provide significant opportunities for biodiversity conservation. They cover substantial portions of urban landscapes, and it is well-established that wildlife species respond to specific habitat characteristics of residential gardens such as vegetation structure. However, wildlife responses to the full suite of landscaping decisions comprising the intentional creation of a garden for wildlife are less well-understood. We compared habitat and bee community structure, and importance in a site-species landscape network, between residential gardens described by their owners as wildlife gardens, nearby residential gardens not intended for wildlife (control gardens), and nearby remnant vegetation in Melbourne, Australia. We found that vegetation diversity was higher in wildlife and control gardens compared to remnants, and the proportion of native vegetation was higher in wildlife gardens and remnants compared to control gardens. Bee diversity, but not abundance was higher in wildlife gardens and remnants compared to control gardens. Wildlife gardens and remnants had similar numbers but different suites of bee species, with wildlife gardens supporting more above ground- compared to below ground-nesting species, suggesting that each is missing key habitat elements. Landscape mosaics comprising both habitat types may therefore maximise bee diversity at the landscape scale. Analysis of the landscape network revealed that wildlife gardens and remnants supported more habitat specialist bee species (i.e. higher node strength) compared to control gardens and contributed more to network robustness. Residents that created wildlife gardens achieved their aims of supporting more wildlife compared to control gardens. They created small habitat patches that nonetheless complemented existing urban remnants, supported habitat specialists, and enhanced the robustness of the landscape network. Local governments can achieve biodiversity conservation goals at the landscape scale by supporting residents to create and maintain wildlife gardens.

Urban EcosystemsVol. 29(3)
The University of Melbourne (AU), Museums Victoria (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
University of Melbourne
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Plant and animal studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.