Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Pollinator-Promoting Interventions in European Urban Habitats—A Synthesis

  • Gabriella Süle*
  • , András Báldi
  • , David Kleijn
  • , Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter
  • , Stephen Venn
  • , Dave Goulson
  • , Simon Dietzel
  • , Audrey Muratet
  • , Lorna J. Cole
  • , Erik Öckinger
  • , Olga Tzortzakaki
  • , Weronika Banaszak-Cibicka
  • , Oliver Betz
  • , Lorna M. Blackmore
  • , Łukasz Dylewski
  • , Benoît Fontaine
  • , Bertrand Fournier
  • , Costanza Geppert
  • , Janine Griffiths-Lee
  • , Catriona Hawthorn
  • Andrea Holzschuh, Jakub Horák, Svenja Horstmann, Helen Hoyle, Vassiliki Kati, Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki, Lorenzo Marini, Alice Michelot-Antalik, Marco Moretti, Briony A. Norton, Benjamin B. Phillips, Milan Plećaš, Patrik Rada, Miklós Sárospataki, Sonja Schulze, Assaf Shwartz, Philipp Unterweger, Viktor Szigeti
*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Pollinators receive considerable interest due to their fundamental role in ecosystem functioning and human well-being. Unlike farmlands, studies of urban pollinator-promoting interventions are scarce and have not been synthesised, hampering policy implementation. To fill this gap, we compared pollinator-promoting interventions (treatment) with conventionally managed (control) sites regarding vegetation, floral resources, and pollinators. Our synthesis investigated 1051 sampling sites with different interventions (abandonment, extensive mowing, flower sowing, and combined practices) and habitats (parks, grasslands, road verges, private and public gardens) from 28 European datasets at pooled- and study-levels. Urban pollinator-promoting interventions generally benefited plants and pollinators with taxon, intervention, habitat, and spatio-temporal specific differences. Pooled analyses showed mostly positive and never negative treatment effects, while study-level details described primarily positive and neutral but rarely negative effects. Bumblebees and butterflies benefited most from the interventions. Some effects were stronger for interventions involving flower sowing, interventions occurring in road verges, and interventions located in Northwestern Europe. Although regulations, guidelines, and monitoring are improving, knowledge gaps remain for some pollinator taxa (e.g., beetles), regions (e.g., Mediterranean), and novel interventions (e.g., for ground-nesting insects). Further collaborative studies from around the world could help cities bring people, plants, and pollinators together by creating resilient, multi-functional urban spaces.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere70189
JournalEcology Letters
Volume28
Issue number8
Early online date18 Aug 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPrint publication - Aug 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Author(s). Ecology Letters published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Keywords

  • city
  • conservation
  • data synthesis
  • extensive mowing
  • flower sowing
  • green infrastructure
  • meta-analysis
  • pollinator-promoting interventions
  • restoration measures
  • urban areas

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Pollinator-Promoting Interventions in European Urban Habitats—A Synthesis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this