Bee species-specific nesting material attracts a generalist parasitoid: implications for co-occurring bees in nest box enhancements

Determining Minnesota bee species' distributions and phenologies with the help of participatory science

The Minnesota Bee Atlas project contributed new information about bee distributions, phenologies, and community structure by mobilizing participatory science volunteers to document bees statewide. Volunteers submitted iNaturalist (©2016 California Academy of Sciences) photograph observations, monitored nest-traps for tunnel-nesting bees, and conducted roadside observational bumble bee surveys. By pairing research scientists and participatory science volunteers, we overcame geographic and temporal challenges to document the presence, phenologies, and abundances of species. Minnesota Bee Atlas project observations included new state records for Megachile inimica, Megachile frugalis, Megachile sculpturalis, Osmia georgica, Stelis permaculata, and Bombus nevadensis, nesting phenology for 17 species, a new documentation of bivoltinism for Megachile relativa in Minnesota, and over 500 observations of the endangered species Bombus affinis. We also expanded known ranges for 16 bee species compared with specimens available from the University of Minnesota (UMN) Insect Collection. Surveys with standardized effort across the state found ecological province associations for six tunnel-nesting species and lower bumble bee abundance in the Prairie Parkland ecological province than the Laurentian Mixed Forest or Eastern Broadleaf Forest ecological provinces, indicating potential benefit of a focus on bumble bee habitat management in the Prairie Parkland. Landcover analysis found associations for four tunnel-nesting species, as well as a possible association of B. affinis with developed areas. These data can inform management decisions affecting pollinator conservation and recovery of endangered species. By engaging over 2,500 project volunteers and other iNaturalist users, we also promoted conservation action for pollinators through our educational programs and interactions.

The Bees among Us: Modelling Occupancy of Solitary Bees

Occupancy modelling has received increasing attention as a tool for differentiating between true absence and non-detection in biodiversity data. This is thought to be particularly useful when a species of interest is spread out over a large area and sampling is constrained. We used occupancy modelling to estimate the probability of three phylogenetically independent pairs of native—introduced species [Megachile campanulae (Robertson)—Megachile rotundata (Fab.), Megachile pugnata Say—Megachile centuncularis (L.), Osmia pumila Cresson—Osmia caerulescens (L.)] (Apoidea: Megachilidae) being present when repeated sampling did not always find them. Our study occurred along a gradient of urbanization and used nest boxes (bee hotels) set up over three consecutive years. Occupancy modelling discovered different patterns to those obtained by species detection and abundance-based data alone. For example, it predicted that the species that was ranked 4^th in terms of detection actually had the greatest occupancy among all six species. The native M. pugnata had decreased occupancy with increasing building footprint and a similar but not significant pattern was found for the native O. pumila. Two introduced bees (M. rotundata and M. centuncularis), and one native (M. campanulae) had modelled occupancy values that increased with increasing urbanization. Occupancy probability differed among urban green space types for three of six bee species, with values for two native species (M. campanulae and O. pumila) being highest in home gardens and that for the exotic O. caerulescens being highest in community gardens. The combination of occupancy modelling with analysis of habitat variables as an augmentation to detection and abundance-based sampling is suggested to be the best way to ensure that urban habitat management results in the desired outcomes.

'Bee hotels' as tools for native pollinator conservation: a premature verdict?

Society is increasingly concerned with declining wild bee populations. Although most bees nest in the ground, considerable effort has centered on installing ‘bee hotels’—also known as nest boxes or trap nests—which artificially aggregate nest sites of above ground nesting bees. Campaigns to ‘save the bees’ often promote these devices despite the absence of data indicating they have a positive effect. From a survey of almost 600 bee hotels set up over a period of three years in Toronto, Canada, introduced bees nested at 32.9% of sites and represented 24.6% of more than 27,000 total bees and wasps recorded (47.1% of all bees recorded). Native bees were parasitized more than introduced bees and females of introduced bee species provisioned nests with significantly more female larva each year. Native wasps were significantly more abundant than both native and introduced bees and occupied almost 3/4 of all bee hotels each year; further, introduced wasps were the only group to significantly increase in relative abundance year over year. More research is needed to elucidate the potential pitfalls and benefits of using bee hotels in the conservation and population dynamics of wild native bees.