Declines of bees and butterflies over 15 years in a forested landscape

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.

Factors driving bumble bee (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus) and butterfly (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera) use of sheared shrubland and young forest communities of the western Great Lakes

In the northern Great Lakes region, the creation and maintenance of early-successional woody communities as wildlife habitat have increasingly become a conservation priority. The extent to which insect pollinators use these systems remains largely anecdotal. In summer (June-August) of 2021, we surveyed 49 early-successional sites in the western Great Lakes region treated with either shrub-shearing or silviculture (young forest) for bumble bees, butterflies, and habitat components (i.e., structural vegetation and floral resources). Hierarchical distance models predicted pollinator densities (λ^) to be, on average, λ^ = 84 bumble bees/ha and λ^ = 102 butterflies/ha. Although sheared shrubland and young forest communities supported comparable densities of bumble bees and butterflies, density was not equal across all sites. At the microhabitat scale, butterfly density and morphospecies richness were negatively associated with tall shrub cover and butterfly morphospecies richness (but not density) was driven by floral richness. Similarly, bumble bee density was positively associated with metrics of floral resources, underscoring the importance of blooming plants within these woody systems. Landscape covariates explained variation in butterfly density/richness but not bumble bee density. Ultimately, our results demonstrate that blooming plant abundance is an important driver of bumble bee and butterfly densities within these managed early-successional communities. Because early-successional woody communities are dynamic and their herbaceous openings are ephemeral, routine management would ensure that a variety of successional conditions exist on the landscape to meet the needs of bumble bees, butterflies, and potentially other insect pollinators.

Forecasting insect dynamics in a changing world

Predicting how insects will respond to stressors through time is difficult because of the diversity of insects, environments, and approaches used to monitor and model. Forecasting models take correlative/statistical, mechanistic models, and integrated forms; in some cases, temporal processes can be inferred from spatial models. Because of heterogeneity associated with broad community measurements, models are often unable to identify mechanistic explanations. Many present efforts to forecast insect dynamics are restricted to single-species models, which can offer precise predictions but limited generalizability. Trait-based approaches may offer a good compromise that limits the masking of the ranges of responses while still offering insight. Regardless of the modeling approach, the data used to parameterize a forecasting model should be carefully evaluated for temporal autocorrelation, minimum data needs, and sampling biases in the data. Forecasting models can be tested using near-term predictions and revised to improve future forecasts.

Forests are critically important to global pollinator diversity and enhance pollination in adjacent crops

Although the importance of natural habitats to pollinator diversity is widely recognized, the value of forests to pollinating insects has been largely overlooked in many parts of the world. In this review, we (i) establish the importance of forests to global pollinator diversity, (ii) explore the relationship between forest cover and pollinator diversity in mixed-use landscapes, and (iii) highlight the contributions of forest-associated pollinators to pollination in adjacent crops. The literature shows unambiguously that native forests support a large number of forest-dependent species and are thus critically important to global pollinator diversity. Many pollinator taxa require or benefit greatly from resources that are restricted to forests, such as floral resources provided by forest plants (including wind-pollinated trees), dead wood for nesting, tree resins, and various non-floral sugar sources (e.g. honeydew). Although landscape-scale studies generally support the conclusion that forests enhance pollinator diversity, findings are often complicated by spatial scale, focal taxa, landscape context, temporal context, forest type, disturbance history, and external stressors. While some forest loss can be beneficial to pollinators by enhancing habitat complementarity, too much can result in the near-elimination of forest-associated species. There is strong evidence from studies of multiple crop types that forest cover can substantially increase yields in adjacent habitats, at least within the foraging ranges of the pollinators involved. The literature also suggests that forests may have enhanced importance to pollinators in the future given their role in mitigating the negative effects of pesticides and climate change. Many questions remain about the amount and configuration of forest cover required to promote the diversity of forest-associated pollinators and their services within forests and in neighbouring habitats. However, it is clear from the current body of knowledge that any effort to preserve native woody habitats, including the protection of individual trees, will benefit pollinating insects and help maintain the critical services they provide.