Search

This study investigates the ecological interaction between honeybees (Apis mellifera) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) plants, examining the mutual benefits of this relationship. Field experiments conducted in Egypt from December 2022 to May 2023 recorded diverse insect pollinators attracted to fennel flowers, especially honeybees. Assessing honeybee colonies near fennel fields showed improvements in sealed brood (357.5–772.5 cells), unsealed brood (176.3–343.8 cells), pollen collection (53.25–257.5 units), honey accumulation (257.5–877.5 units), and colony strength (7.75–10) over three weeks. Fennel exposure explained 88–99% of variability in foraging metrics. Comparing open versus self-pollinated fennel revealed enhanced attributes with bee pollination, including higher flower age (25.67 vs 19.67 days), more seeds per umbel (121.3 vs 95.33), bigger seeds (6.533 vs 4.400 mm), heavier seeds (0.510 vs 0.237 g/100 seeds), and increased fruit weight per umbel (0.619 vs 0.226 g). Natural variation in seed color and shape also occurred. The outcomes demonstrate the integral role of honeybees in fennel agroecosystems through efficient pollination services that improve crop productivity and quality. Fennel provides abundant nutritional resources that bolster honeybee colony health. This research elucidates the symbiotic bee-fennel relationship, underscoring mutualistic benefits and the importance of ecological conservation for sustainable agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As urbanization continues to increase, it is expected that two‐thirds of the human population will reside in cities by 2050. Urbanization fragments and degrades natural landscapes, threatening wildlife including economically important species such as bees. In this study, we employ whole genome sequencing to characterize the population genetics, metagenome and microbiome, and environmental stressors of a common wild bee, Ceratina calcarata. Population genomic analyses revealed the presence of low genetic diversity and elevated levels of inbreeding. Through analyses of isolation by distance, resistance, and environment across urban landscapes, we found that green spaces including shrubs and scrub were the most optimal pathways for bee dispersal, and conservation efforts should focus on preserving these land traits to maintain high connectivity across sites for wild bees. Metagenomic analyses revealed landscape sites exhibiting urban heat island effects, such as high temperatures and development but low precipitation and green space, had the highest taxa alpha diversity across all domains even when isolating for potential pathogens. Notably, the integration of population and metagenomic data showed that reduced connectivity in urban areas is not only correlated with lower relatedness among individuals but is also associated with increased pathogen diversity, exposing vulnerable urban bees to more pathogens. Overall, our combined population and metagenomic approach found significant environmental variation in bee microbiomes and nutritional resources even in the absence of genetic differentiation, as well as enabled the potential early detection of stressors to bee health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) are important agricultural pollinators, and there is increasing demand for forage habitat for managed colonies. However, there is also evidence that pasturing honey bee colonies within natural landscapes may negatively affect wild bees through resource competition.To assess resource competition between managed honey bees and wild bees, we conducted repeated, short‐term deployments of honey bee colonies within Florida forests coinciding with seasonal wildflower bloom, and compared wild bee foraging with and without honey bee colonies present over multiple seasons.We recorded over 2000 bee visits including 196 pairwise bee–plant interactions. Deploying honey bee colonies was associated with a reduction in wild bee foraging rates, and honey bee and wild bee foraging rates were significantly, negatively correlated. Honey bees disproportionately visited resources with high floral density. Honey bee foraging preferences differed significantly from genera with small‐bodied (Lasioglossum, Perdita, Augochlorella), and/or specialist species (Perdita, Andrena), as well as with Megachile, but overlapped with genera including larger‐bodied (Bombus, Habropoda, Osmia, Xylocopa) and/or generalist species (Bombus, Xylocopa, Agapostemon). Deploying honey bee colonies did not significantly affect plant–pollinator network metrics.These results illustrate that short‐term honey bee colony deployment can negatively affect wild bee foraging and that competition may be greater for certain genera, particularly larger‐bodied bees or those with generalist diets though less for smaller‐bodied and/or specialist bees. Our short‐term, low‐density deployment treatments may have precluded significant effects on network metrics and likely underestimate the effects of typical higher density and longer‐term honey bee deployment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to the widespread use of pesticides and the lack of floral resources in many agricultural landscapes, beekeepers have moved numerous honey bee colonies in protected areas which could shelter an important diversity of wild bees. Here, we investigated the seasonal dynamics of the competition between honey bees and wild bees through a two‐year study of plant–bee networks in a Mediterranean protected area. We recorded the visitation rates of four bee groups: honey bees, small wild bees, large wild bees and bumblebees. Our study reveals that the competition for floral resources induced by honey bees is especially strong during the early spring and then decreases along the season for all groups of wild bees. We observed a competitive exclusion of all groups of wild bees illustrated by an avoidance of well‐flowered plant species in presence of honey bees. As a consequence, we detected a rewiring of large and small bee floral preferences linked to the presence of honey bees. In presence of honey bees, Rosmarinus officinalis and Cistus albidus were significantly less visited by large bees. This study underlines the need to mitigate the establishment of numerous honey bee colonies in protected areas as honey bees could strongly affect the foraging activity of wild bees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Bees and other pollinators play a vital role in food production and natural ecosystems. Native bee populations are declining due in part to habitat loss. Individuals can help bees by landscaping with plants that provide pollen and nectar. Most information on bee-friendly plants concerns herbaceous ornamentals, but flowering trees and shrubs, too, can provide food for urban bees. Conservation organizations recommend landscaping mainly with native plants to support native bees, but some studies suggest that including some non-invasive non-native plants that bloom earlier or later than native plants can help support bees when resources from native plants are scarce. That strategy might backfire, however, if such plants disproportionately host invasive bee species. This study tested that hypothesis by identifying all non-native bees among 11,275 bees previously collected from 45 species of flowering woody plants across hundreds of urban sites. Besides the ubiquitous honey bee, six other non-native bee species comprised 2.9% of the total collection. Two alien species considered to have invasive tendencies by outcompeting native bees were more abundant on non-native plants. Planting their favored hosts might facilitate those bees' spread in urban areas. Pros and cons of non-native woody landscape plants for urban bee conservation warrant further study. Urban ecosystems can support diverse communities of wild native bees. Because bloom times are conserved by geographic origin, incorporating some non-invasive non-native plants in urban landscapes can extend the flowering season and help support bees and other pollinators during periods when floral resources from native plants are limiting. A caveat, though, is the possibility that non-native plants might disproportionately host non-native, potentially invasive bee species. We tested that hypothesis by identifying all non-native bees among 11,275 total bees previously collected from 45 species of flowering woody landscape plants across 213 urban sites. Honey bees, Apis mellifera L., accounted for 22% of the total bees and 88.6% of the non-native bees in the collections. Six other non-native bee species, accounting for 2.86% of the total, were found on 16 non-native and 11 native woody plant species. Non-Apis non-native bees in total, and Osmia taurus Smith and Megachile sculpturalis (Smith), the two most abundant species, were significantly more abundant on non-native versus native plants. Planting of favored non-native hosts could potentially facilitate establishment and spread of non-Apis non-native bees in urban areas. Our host records may be useful for tracking those bees' distribution in their introduced geographical ranges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]