Search

Emergence traps have increasingly been used to study ground nesting bees. They offer an advantage over other methods, such as netting or passive traps, because they can directly measure ground nesting bees at a landscape scale. However, emergence trapping for ground nesting bees has limitations, including low catch rates and data that is difficult to interpret. For example, emergence traps catch a combination of actively nesting bees, newly emerging bees from nests provisioned the previous year, overwintering bees, and incidental bees, such as non-ground-nesting species or bees that were simply sleeping on vegetation. Further, a single emergence trap can capture many specimens from a single nest due to the presence of workers, newly emerging reproductives (gynes), or multiple siblings from a nest provisioned the previous year. Due to these factors, a thorough knowledge of the life history of bee species collected is necessary to accurately filter and interpret the data. Here, we provide methods to determine whether bee specimens caught from emergence traps came from nests. Using a combination of trap data, life-history characters, and estimates of bee age, we classify bees as newly emerging, active nests, or incidentally caught. This will allow researchers to reduce the risk of spurious inferences that may over- or under-estimate bee nesting. Many areas of future research remain, particularly studies on the efficacy of emergence traps for ground-nesting bee research as well as a glaring need to better document the life-history of many bee species. Abstract content goes here

2017-2018 Belmont Forum and BiodivERsA joint call for research proposals, under the BiodivScen ERA-Net COFUND programme, and with the funding organisations AEI, NWO, ECCyT and NSF Funding information, Allen-Perkins A, Magrach A, Dainese M, Garibaldi LA, Kleijn D, Rader R, Reilly JR, Winfree R, Lundin O, McGrady CM, Brittain C, Biddinger DJ, Artz DR, Elle E, Hoffman G, Ellis JD, Daniels J, Gibbs J, Campbell JW, Brokaw J, Wilson JK, Mason K, Ward KL, Gundersen KB, Bobiwash K, Gut L, Rowe LM, Boyle NK, Williams NM, Joshi NK, Rothwell N, Gillespie RL, Isaacs R, Fleischer SJ, Peterson SS, Rao S, Pitts-Singer TL, Fijen T, Boreux V, Rundlöf M, Viana BF, Klein AM, Smith HG, Bommarco R, Carvalheiro LG, Ricketts TH, Ghazoul J, Krishnan S, Benjamin FE, Loureiro J, Castro S, Raine NE, de Groot GA, Horgan FG, Hipólito J, Smagghe G, Meeus I, Eeraerts M, Potts SG, Kremen C, García D, Miñarro M, Crowder DW, Pisanty G, Mandelik Y, Vereecken NJ, Leclercq N, Weekers T, Lindstrom SAM, Stanley DA, Zaragoza-Trello C, Nicholson CC, Scheper J, Rad C, Marks EAN, Mota L, Danforth B, Park M, Bezerra ADM, Freitas BM, Mallinger RE, Oliveira da Silva F, Willcox B, Ramos DL, D da Silva E Silva F, Lázaro A, Alomar D, González-Estévez MA, Taki H, Cariveau DP, Garratt MPD, Nabaes Jodar DN, Stewart RIA, Ariza D, Pisman M, Lichtenberg EM, Schüepp C, Herzog F, Entling MH, Dupont YL, Michener CD, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Burns KLW, Vilà M, Robson A, Howlett B, Blechschmidt L, Jauker F, Schwarzbach F, Nesper M, Diekötter T, Wolters V, Castro H, Gaspar H, Nault BA, Badenhausser I, Petersen JD, Tscharntke T, Bretagnolle V, Willis Chan DS, Chacoff N, Andersson GKS, Jha S, Colville JF, Veldtman R, Coutinho J, Bianchi FJJA, Sutter L, Albrecht M, Jeanneret P, Zou Y, Averill AL, Saez A, Sciligo AR, Vergara CH, Bloom EH, Oeller E, Badano EI, Loeb GM, Grab H, Ekroos J, Gagic V, Cunningham SA, Åström J, Cavigliasso P, Trillo A, Classen A, Mauchline AL, Montero-Castaño A, Wilby A, Woodcock BA, Sidhu CS, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vogiatzakis IN, Herrera JM, Otieno M, Gikungu MW, Cusser SJ, Nauss T, Nilsson L, Knapp J, Ortega-Marcos JJ, González JA, Osborne JL, Blanche R, Shaw RF, Hevia V, Stout J, Arthur AD, Blochtein B, Szentgyorgyi H, Li J, Mayfield MM, Woyciechowski M, Nunes-Silva P, Halinski de Oliveira R, Henry S, Simmons BI, Dalsgaard B, Hansen K, Sritongchuay T, O'Reilly AD, Chamorro García FJ, Nates Parra G, Magalhães Pigozo C, Bartomeus I

Wild bee populations have undergone declines in recent years across much of the Western world, and these declines have the potential to limit yield in pollination-dependent crops. Highbush blueberry, Vaccinium corymbosum, and tart cherry, Prunus cerasus, are spring-blooming crops that rely on the movement of pollen by bees and other insects for pollination. Wild bee populations can be increased on farmland by providing floral resources, but whether the addition of these plants translates into increased pollinator density on crop flowers has not been documented in most cropping systems. To determine the importance of providing additional floral resources for wild bee pollinator communities, we selected blueberry fields and tart cherry orchards with and without herbaceous floral enhancements in western Michigan, USA. The bee communities visiting crop flowers, enhancements and control grassy field margins were sampled over a 5-yr period. In addition, the pollen diets of the most abundant wild bee crop pollinators were quantified across Michigan to better understand their foraging niches and to identify potentially important alternative host plants. The presence of floral enhancements did not increase the abundance of wild bees on either blueberry or cherry flowers during bloom. The bee community visiting blueberry was evenly composed of short-season bees that fly only during the spring and long-season bees that fly in both spring and summer. In contrast, the bee community visiting cherry was dominated by short-season spring bees. The majority of pollen collected by the wild bee communities visiting blueberry and cherry was from spring-flowering woody plants, with limited use of the herbaceous enhancements. Enhancements attracted greater abundance and species richness of bees compared to control areas, including twice as many floral specialists. Conserving summer-flying, grassland-associated bees is an appropriate goal for pollinator conservation programs. However, herbaceous enhancements may not provide adequate resources for the wild bees that pollinate spring-flowering crops. This study demonstrates that an examination of the pollen collected by wild bees across their flight periods can identify plant species to help them persist in intensively managed landscapes.

Supporting ecosystem services and conserving biodiversity may be compatible goals, but there is concern that service-focused interventions mostly benefit a few common species. We use a spatially replicated, multiyear experiment in four agricultural settings to test if enhancing habitat adjacent to crops increases wild bee diversity and abundance on and off crops. We found that enhanced field edges harbored more taxonomically and functionally abundant, diverse, and compositionally different bee communities compared to control edges. Enhancements did not increase the abundance or diversity of bees visiting crops, indicating that the supply of pollination services was unchanged following enhancement. We find that actions to promote crop pollination improve multiple dimensions of biodiversity, underscoring their conservation value, but these benefits may not be spilling over to crops. More work is needed to identify the conditions that promote effective co-management of biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Sustained pollinator services within coffee farms depend substantially on a diverse bee community. While studies have been conducted to understand the impacts of forest proximity and farm level management on pollinators, few have examined the interaction between these two spatial scales. We surveyed pollinator communities within 18 sites on a large organic farm surrounded by native forest in southern Costa Rica. We selected sites 0, 50 and 150 m from the forest edge within shaded and sparsely-shaded (sun) portions of the farm to quantify the influence of both shade management and distance to contiguous forest on pollinator communities. Contrary to similar studies, native bees dominated the composition of pollinators on this farm. Overall, pollinator diversity and activity did not differ significantly neither between the shade management types nor among the sites 0, 50 or 150 m from the forest edge. However, pollinator diversity was found to be significantly higher at sun sites near forest (0 m) compared with further away, whereas the diversity was the same for the shade sites regardless of forest proximity. We found that greater numbers of coffee flowers within each site increased bee abundance and flower visitation frequency. Bee abundance was greater in sites with less ground cover and bee diversity and visitation frequencies were higher in sites with greater amounts of shade canopy cover and trees in flower. Based on our results, we suggest including flowering shade trees that provide high levels of canopy cover, maintaining or re-establishing forested areas within or surrounding farms, and eliminating or reducing agrochemical use to increase native pollinator activity and diversity within coffee farms.

Most of the world's crops depend on pollinators, so declines in both managed and wild bees raise concerns about food security. However, the degree to which insect pollination is actually limiting current crop production is poorly understood, as is the role of wild species (as opposed to managed honeybees) in pollinating crops, particularly in intensive production areas. We established a nationwide study to assess the extent of pollinator limitation in seven crops at 131 locations situated across major crop-producing areas of the USA. We found that five out of seven crops showed evidence of pollinator limitation. Wild bees and honeybees provided comparable amounts of pollination for most crops, even in agriculturally intensive regions. We estimated the nationwide annual production value of wild pollinators to the seven crops we studied at over $1.5 billion; the value of wild bee pollination of all pollinator-dependent crops would be much greater. Our findings show that pollinator declines could translate directly into decreased yields or production for most of the crops studied, and that wild species contribute substantially to pollination of most study crops in major crop-producing regions.

Wind is a critical factor in the ecology of pollinating insects such as bees. However, the role of wind in determining patterns of bee abundance and floral visitation rates across space and time is not well understood. Orchid bees are an important and diverse group of neotropical pollinators that harvest pollen, nectar and resin from plants. In addition, male orchid bees collect volatile scents that they store in special chambers in their hind legs, and for which the wind-based dispersal of odors may play a particularly crucial role. Here we take advantage of this specialized scent foraging behavior to study the effects of wind on orchid bee visitation at scent sources in a fragmented tropical forest ecosystem. We find that temporal changes in wind speed and turbulence are correlated with visitation to scent stations within sites, while local landscape structure is a strong determinant of spatial variation in visitation across nearby sites. These results suggest that the increased dispersal of attractive scents provided by wind and turbulence outweighs any biomechanical or energetic costs that might deter bees from foraging in these conditions. Overall, our results highlight the significance of wind in the ecology of these important pollinators in neotropical forests.