Estimating genus-specific effects of non-native honey bees and urbanization on wild bee communities: A case study in Maryland, United States

Non-native species have the potential to detrimentally affect native species through resource competition, disease transmission, and other forms of antagonism. The western honey bee (Apis mellifera) is one such species that has been widely introduced beyond its native range for hundreds of years. There are strong concerns in the United States, and other countries, about the strain that high-density, managed honey bee populations could pose to already imperiled wild bee communities. While there is some experimental evidence of honey bees competing with wild bees for resources, few studies have connected landscape-scale honey bee apiary density with down-stream consequences for wild bee communities. Here, using a dataset from Maryland, US and joint species distribution models, we provide the largest scale, most phylogenetically resolved assessment of non-native honey bee density effects on wild bee abundance to date. As beekeeping in Maryland primarily consists of urban beekeeping, we also assessed the relative impact of developed land on wild bee communities. Six of the 33 wild bee genera we assessed showed a high probability (> 90 %) of a negative association with apiary density and/or developed land. These bees were primarily late-season, specialist genera (several long-horned genera represented) or small, ground nesting, season-long foragers (including several sweat bee genera). Conversely, developed land was associated with an increase in relative abundance for some genera including invasive Anthidium and other urban garden-associated genera. We discuss several avenues to ameliorate potentially detrimental effects of beekeeping and urbanization on the most imperiled wild bee groups. We additionally offer methodological insights based on sampling efficiency of different methods (hand netting, pan trapping, vane trapping), highlighting large variation in effect sizes across genera. The magnitude of sampling effect was very high, relative to the observed ecological effects, demonstrating the importance of integrated sampling, particularly for multi-species or community level assessments.

Moths versus Bees: Contrasts in Habitat Preferences Across Barrens of the Northeastern USA

Bees and moths are globally important pollinators. Xeric barrens in the largely mesic northeastern USA support high levels of pollinator diversity, including rare bees and moths. We investigated the response of bee vs. moth communities to abiotic and vegetation drivers in barrens across the region. We sampled local environmental conditions, vegetation, bees, and moths for 2-4 years in 19 preserves. Employing random forest analysis, we tested the role of 29 abiotic and vegetation predictors of bee vs. moth abundance, species richness, Shannon-Wiener Index, evenness, and species composition. Variables related to climate, canopy cover, and soils were the most important predictors of abundance, diversity, and species composition for both bees and moths. Vegetation variables, such as species richness of shrubs and hostplants, were also important for bees. The direction of these relationships contrasted sharply between bees and moths: bees were more abundant and species rich in more open, sandy sites and moths the opposite. Habitat preferences for a subset of moth xeric specialists were much more similar to bees than to other moths, with a preference for open, sandy conditions. Contrasts between bees and moths in habitat preferences likely stemmed from differences in their life histories: bees rely on flowers for feeding and porous substrates for nesting, whereas most moth adults feed on flowers, but many moth caterpillars use woody plants as hosts. In sharp contrast to the results for abundance and richness, bees and moths responded similarly for the Shannon-Wiener Index, which raises important general questions about the conservation value of these two metrics. Our results suggest that, because of differences in habitat preferences among pollinators, barrens management for both open and more closed habitats is likely to promote the highest abundance and diversity of local bee and moth pollinator communities jointly.

A checklist of the bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of Minnesota

Research studies and conservation actions aimed at improving conditions for bees require a basic understanding of which species are present in a given region. The US state of Minnesota occupies a unique geographic position at the confluence of eastern deciduous forests, northern boreal forests, and western tallgrass prairie, which has led to a diverse and unique bee fauna. In recent years there have been multiple ongoing bee-focused inventory and research projects in Minnesota. Combined with the historic specimens housed in the University of Minnesota Insect Collection and other regional collections, these furnished a wealth of specimens available to form the basis of a statewide checklist. Here, we present the first comprehensive checklist of Minnesota bee species, documenting a total of 508 species in 45 genera. County-level occurrence data is included for each species, and further information on distribution and rarity is included for species of regional or national interest. Some species have their taxonomy clarified, with Perdita citrinella Graenicher, 1910 syn. nov. recognized as a junior synonym of Perdita perpallida Cockerell, 1901, P. bequaerti syn. nov. recognized as a junior synonym of P. pallidipennis Graenicher, 1910 stat. nov., Anthidiellum boreale (Robertson, 1902) stat. nov. recognized as a full species, and Anthidiellium beijingense Portman & Ascher nom. nov. is proposed for A. boreale Wu to resolve the homonymy with A. boreale (Robertson). We further include a list of species that may occur in Minnesota and highlight 11 species occurring in the state that are considered non-native. Recent collecting efforts, as well as increased taxonomic attention paid to Minnesota bees, have resulted in 66 species that have only been documented in the last 10 years. As a first step in determining native bees of conservation concern, we document 38 species that have not been detected in the state during the last 50 years and discuss their conservation status, along with other species for which evidence of decline exists. The checklist of Minnesota bees will continue to grow and change with additional surveys and research studies. In particular, recent surveys have continued to detect new bee species, and many bee groups are in need of taxonomic revision, with the most recent revisions for many genera occurring decades ago. Overall, this checklist strengthens our understanding of the bees of Minnesota and the broader region, informs conservation assessments, and establishes a baseline for faunal change.