Six years of wild bee monitoring shows changes in biodiversity within and across years and declines in abundance

Environmental concentrations of TCEP and TDCIPP induce dysbiosis of gut microbiotal and metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.)

Organophosphorus flame retardants (OPFRs) have emerged as significant global pollutants, yet their harmful effects on pollinating insects remain largely unexplored. This study explored the toxicological effects of tri(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) and tri(1,3-dichloro-2-propyl) phosphate (TDCIPP) on the gut microbiota and metabolic pathways of honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). Exposure to TCEP led to a 35 % reduction in intestinal wall thickness and significantly suppressed the expression of pyrimidine metabolism-associated enzymes, including CAD, DHODH, and ODCase (p < 0.05). In contrast, TDCIPP exposure increased the relative abundance of Snodgrassella and Lactobacillus by 40 % and 25 %, respectively, while exerting more extensive toxicity by disrupting nucleotide metabolism, oxidative stress responses, and microbial diversity. Histological assessments revealed that both chemicals compromised intestinal wall integrity and induced crypt loss in the midgut epithelium. Multi-omics analyses underscored distinct toxicity mechanisms: TCEP primarily inhibited pyrimidine biosynthesis, impairing nucleotide synthesis and DNA repair processes, whereas TDCIPP caused broader metabolic disturbances, likely attributed to its greater hydrophobicity. Notably, the enhanced prevalence of certain microbial taxa suggests potential microbial adaptations to TDCIPP-induced stress. This comparative analysis highlighted the detrimental effects of TCEP and TDCIPP on gut health and metabolism, critical factors for honeybee survival and ecological function. These findings underscored the urgent need for further investigation into the ecological hazards posed by OPFRs and provided a basis for developing mitigation strategies to address the impacts of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) on pollinators.

Land Use Change Consistently Reduces α- But Not β- and γ-Diversity of Bees

Land use change threatens global biodiversity and compromises ecosystem functions, including pollination and food production. Reduced taxonomic α-diversity is often reported under land use change, yet the impacts could be different at larger spatial scales (i.e., γ-diversity), either due to reduced β-diversity amplifying diversity loss or increased β-diversity dampening diversity loss. Additionally, studies often focus on taxonomic diversity, while other important biodiversity components, including phylogenetic diversity, can exhibit differential responses. Here, we evaluated how agricultural and urban land use alters the taxonomic and phylogenetic α-, β-, and γ-diversity of an important pollinator taxon-bees. Using a multicontinental dataset of 3117 bee assemblages from 157 studies, we found that taxonomic α-diversity was reduced by 16%-18% in both agricultural and urban habitats relative to natural habitats. Phylogenetic α-diversity was decreased by 11%-12% in agricultural and urban habitats. Compared with natural habitats, taxonomic and phylogenetic β-diversity increased by 11% and 6% in urban habitats, respectively, but exhibited no systematic change in agricultural habitats. We detected a 22% decline in taxonomic γ-diversity and a 17% decline in phylogenetic γ-diversity in agricultural habitats, but γ-diversity of urban habitats was not significantly different from natural habitats. These findings highlight the threat of agricultural expansions to large-scale bee diversity due to systematic γ-diversity decline. In addition, while both urbanization and agriculture lead to consistent declines in α-diversity, their impacts on β- or γ-diversity vary, highlighting the need to study the effects of land use change at multiple scales.

Nasturtium leaf compounds, diphenyl disulfide and lyral, against Atta sexdens (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) and their symbiotic fungi

Social insect pests, particularly leaf-cutting ants, present a considerable challenge in terms of control. Leaf-cutting ants are significant agricultural, forestry, and pasture pests, and understanding their behavior and defense mechanisms is essential for managing their colonies effectively. While toxic ant baits are a primary control method, the limited availability of effective insecticides and concerns over their hazardous nature has spurred the search for alternative solutions, particularly natural compounds, which aligns with the goals of forest certification groups. In the light of previous evidence demonstrating the efficacy of nasturtium leaves (Tropaeolum majus L. (Brassicales: Tropaeolaceae)) in suppressing leaf-cutting ant colonies, this study investigates 2 active components of nasturtium leaf extracts: diphenyl disulfide and lyral. We tested their impact on Atta sexdens (L.) (Hymenoptera: Formicidae), the most prevalent leaf-cutter ant species in Brazil, and their symbiotic fungus, Leucoagaricus gongylophorus (Möller) Singer (Agaricales: Agaricaceae). We conducted experiments with increasing concentrations of diphenyl disulfide and lyral, assessing their effects on the symbiotic fungus and on forager workers and gardeners of A. sexdens colonies. Our findings revealed no fungicidal activity, and ant mortality was minimal in both topical and ingestion bioassays with the exception of gardeners topically exposed to diphenyl sulfide. Furthermore, the compounds did not affect leaf ingestion, but diphenyl disulfide did increase interactions among foragers. These results suggest that neither diphenyl disulfide nor lyral are the primary contributors to the suppression of leaf-cutting ant colonies by nasturtium leaves. However, they may enhance the formicidal activity of other compounds present in nasturtium leaves.

Buzzing towards Resilience: Investigating the Spatial Alignment of the Desert Pallid Bee, Centris pallida, and Its Host Plants in Response to Climate Change

Wild bees are vital for the pollination of native plants and crops, providing essential ecosystem services. Climate change is known to impact biodiversity and species distributions, but insects adapted to desert ecosystems may exhibit unique physiological, behavioral, and evolutionary responses. The desert pallid bee (C. pallida), a solitary bee native to the arid southwestern United States and northern Mexico, primarily forages on yellow palo verde (P. microphylla), blue palo verde (P. florida), and desert ironwood (O. tesota). This study used MaxEnt to estimate the current and projected geographical overlap of suitable habitats for C. pallida and its host plants. Here, we used MaxEnt to estimate the current and forecasted overlapping geographically suitable habitat of C. pallida with all three host plants. We forecasted potential environmentally suitable areas for each species to the year 2040 using the current distribution model and climate projections with moderate CO2 levels. We found a continued spatial alignment in the suitable area of the bee and its host plants with a 70% increase in the range overlap area, though shifted to higher average altitudes and a slight northern expansion. These findings may provide insight to stakeholders on the conservation needs of desert-dwelling pollinators.

Bee monitoring by community scientists: comparing a collections-based program with iNaturalist

Bee monitoring, or widespread efforts to document bee community biodiversity, can involve data collection using lethal (specimen collections) or non-lethal methods (observations, photographs). Additionally, data can be collected by professional scientists or by volunteer participants from the general public. Collection-based methods presumably produce more reliable data with fewer biases against certain taxa, while photography-based approaches, such as data collected from public natural history platforms like iNaturalist, can involve more people and cover a broader geographic area. Few efforts have been made to quantify the pros and cons of these different approaches. We established a community science monitoring program to assess bee biodiversity across the state of Pennsylvania (USA) using specimen collections with nets, blue vane traps, and bowl traps. We recruited 26 participants, mostly Master Gardeners, from across the state to sample bees after receiving extensive training on bee monitoring topics and methods. The specimens they collected were identified to species, stored in museum collections, and the data added to public databases. Then, we compared the results from our collections to research-grade observations from iNaturalist during the same time period (2021 and 2022). At state and county levels, we found collections data documented over twice as much biodiversity and novel baseline natural history data (state and county records) than data from iNaturalist. iNaturalist data showed strong biases toward large-bodied and non-native species. This study demonstrates the value of highly trained community scientists for collections-based research that aims to document patterns of bee biodiversity over space and time.

Fewer bowl traps and more hand netting can increase effective number of bee species and reduce excessive captures

Reports increasingly point to substantial declines in wild bee abundance and diversity, yet there is uncertainty about how best to measure these attributes in wild bee populations. Two commonly used methods are passive trapping with bee bowls or active netting of bees on flowers, but each of these has drawbacks. Comparing the outcomes of the two methods is complicated by their uncomparable units of effort. The abundance distribution of bee species is also typically highly skewed, making it difficult to accurately assess diversity when rarer species are unlikely to be caught. The effective number of species, or Hill numbers, provides a way forward by basing the response metric on the number of equally abundant species. Our goal is to compare the effective number of bee species captured between hand netting and bowl trapping in wheatgrass prairie in South Dakota and tallgrass prairie in Minnesota, USA. Species overlap between the two methods ranged from ~40% to ~60%. Emphasis placed on rare species was important, so that 95% confidence limits overlapped between the two methods for species richness but netting exceeded trapping for Shannon's and Simpson's diversities. Netting always captured more bee species with fewer bee individuals than trapping. In most cases, the number of bees captured in bowl traps indicated substantial over-sampling, with little increase in bee species detected. Correlations between bee and floral abundance, richness, and diversity differed between netted and trapped samples. We conclude that netting and trapping together produce a more complete account of species richness, but shifting sampling emphasis from trapping to netting will result in fewer bees, but more bee species captured. Due to the different relationships between bee and floral diversities that depended on sampling method, it is unwise to compare habitat associations determined by netting with those determined by trapping.

Osmia taurus (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): A Non-native Bee Species With Invasiveness Potential in North America

Bees are important pollinators and are essential for the reproduction of many plants in natural and agricultural ecosystems. However, bees can have adverse ecological effects when introduced to areas outside of their native geographic ranges. Dozens of non-native bee species are currently found in North America and have raised concerns about their potential role in the decline of native bee populations. Osmia taurus Smith (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) is a mason bee native to eastern Asia that was first reported in the United States in 2002. Since then, this species has rapidly expanded throughout the eastern part of North America. Here, we present a comprehensive review of the natural history of O. taurus, document its recent history of spread through the United States and Canada, and discuss the evidence suggesting its potential for invasiveness. In addition, we compare the biology and history of colonization of O. taurus to O. cornifrons (Radoszkowski), another non-native mason bee species now widespread in North America. We highlight gaps of knowledge and future research directions to better characterize the role of O. taurus in the decline of native Osmia spp. Panzer and the facilitation of invasive plant-pollinator mutualisms.

Can trap color affect arthropod community attraction in agroecosystems? A test using yellow vane and colorless traps

Vane trapping is one of the most effective methods for sampling flower-visiting arthropods. Despite its importance in pollinator studies, the effects of trap color on the abundance and richness of pollinators are less understood. To test this, we conducted a 3-season field experiment over 2 years with two types of vane traps: yellow and colorless. We set up twelve traps each in three field sites within the Lower Rio Grande Valley in south Texas, planted with Vigna unguiculata, Crotalaria juncea, Raphanus raphanistrum, and Sorghum drummondii. At each site, six colorless vane and six yellow vane traps were placed equidistant from each other. The experiment was replicated three times across three seasons, first during the pre-flowering season, when the crops were in full bloom, and when there was no crop on the field. In total, we collected 1912 insects, out of which 76.7% were pollinators. Generalized Linear Regression analyses showed that yellow traps consistently attracted significantly more arthropods and pollinators, but these differences were also season dependent. Furthermore, we noticed that Hymenoptera, followed by Coleoptera, were the most prevalent orders in both the yellow vane and colorless vane traps. Interestingly, although there was no significant difference in species richness of the arthropods in the yellow and colorless vane traps, our results suggest that trap color plays a significant role in capturing pollinators, including non-target arthropods. Our data add another line of evidence suggesting that trap color should be accounted for designing experiments that estimate pollinator and arthropod community diversity.

Informing policy and practice on insect pollinator declines: Tensions between conservation and animal welfare

Climate change, agricultural intensification, and other anthropogenic ecosystem challenges have caused declines in the diversity and abundance of insect pollinators. In response to these declines, entomologists have called for greater attention to insect pollinator conservation. Conservation primarily aims to protect groups of non-human animals—populations or species—with only secondary concern for the welfare of individual animals. While conservation and animal welfare goals are sometimes aligned, they often are not. And because animal welfare comes second, it tends to be sacrificed when in tension with conversation priorities. Consider, for example, lethal sampling to monitor many pollinator populations. Growing evidence suggests that the welfare of individual insect pollinators may be morally significant, particularly in the Hymenoptera and Diptera. Considering insect welfare in conservation practices and policies presents many challenges as, in the face of rapid, anthropogenic change, it may be impossible to avoid harming individual animals while promoting diverse populations. We suggest some practical, implementable strategies that can allow for more robust integration of animal welfare goals into insect pollinator conservation. By following these strategies, entomologists may be able to find policies and practices that promote the health of ecosystems and the individual animals within them.

Biology, Genetic Diversity, and Conservation of Wild Bees in Tree Fruit Orchards

Different species of bees provide essential ecosystem services by pollinating various agricultural crops, including tree fruits. Many fruits and nuts depend on insect pollination, primarily by wild and managed bees. In different geographical regions where orchard crops are grown, fruit growers rely on wild bees in the farmscape and use orchard bees as alternative pollinators. Orchard crops such as apples, pears, plums, apricots, etc., are mass-flowering crops and attract many different bee species during their bloom period. Many bee species found in orchards emerge from overwintering as the fruit trees start flowering in spring, and the active duration of these bees aligns very closely with the blooming time of fruit trees. In addition, most of the bees in orchards are short-range foragers and tend to stay close to the fruit crops. However, the importance of orchard bee communities is not well understood, and many challenges in maintaining their populations remain. This comprehensive review paper summarizes the different types of bees commonly found in tree fruit orchards in the fruit-growing regions of the United States, their bio-ecology, and genetic diversity. Additionally, recommendations for the management of orchard bees, different strategies for protecting them from multiple stressors, and providing suitable on-farm nesting and floral resource habitats for propagation and conservation are discussed.