Search

Metrics to assess relative adult bee body size have included both mass and morphometrics, but these metrics may not equally or reliably estimate body size for all bee species and in all situations, due to bee age, diet, and/or environment. Understanding the relationships between different metrics and possible redundancies in the information they afford is important but not always known. Body size measurements provide valuable data for interpreting research outcomes for managed solitary bees, including Osmia lignaria Say and Megachile rotundata F. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Applied studies of these important and readily available U.S. crop pollinators focus on refining commercial management practices, and basic empirical studies in various scientific disciplines (from genomics to ecology) employ them as model systems to study solitary bees. To examine common metrics of body size, we measured head capsule width (HCW), intertegular distance (ITD), and fresh and dry weights of newly emerged adults of both species. Using linear and exponential models, we determined relationships between these body size metrics. For M. rotundata, linear models best described relationships between ITD and all other metrics, and between HCW and fresh and dry weights. For O. lignaria, linear models best fit relationships between all metrics except for fresh weight with both ITD and HCW, which were fitted better with exponential models. For both species, model fits were strongest when males and females were pooled. Depending on the study question, knowing that only one metric may reliably measure body size can simplify evaluations of O. lignaria and M. rotundata responses to artificial or environmental variables.

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

Current pesticide risk assessment for bees relies on a single (social) species, the western honey bee, Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae). However, most of the >20,000 bee species worldwide are solitary. Differences in life history traits between solitary bees (SB) and honey bees (HB) are likely to determine differences in routes and levels of pesticide exposure. The objectives of this review are to: 1) compare SB and HB life history traits relevant for risk assessment; 2) summarize current knowledge about levels of pesticide exposure for SB and HB; 3) identify knowledge gaps and research needs; 4) evaluate whether current HB risk assessment schemes cover routes and levels of exposure of SB; and 5) identify potential SB model species for risk assessment. Most SB exposure routes seem well covered by current HB risk assessment schemes. Exceptions to this are exposure routes related to nesting substrates and nesting materials used by SB. Exposure via soil is of particular concern because most SB species nest underground. Six SB species (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae - Osmia bicornis L., O. cornifrons Radoszkowski, O. cornuta Latreille, O. lignaria Say, Megachile rotundata F., and Halictidae - Nomia melanderi Cockerell) are commercially available and could be used in risk assessment. Of these, only N. melanderi nests underground, and the rest are cavity-nesters. However, the three Osmia species collect soil to build their nests. Life history traits of cavity-nesting species make them particularly suitable for semifield and, to a lesser extent, field tests. Future studies should address basic biology, rearing methods and levels of exposure of ground-nesting SB species.

The engineering of flowering agricultural field borders has emerged as a research and policy priority to mitigate threats to pollinators. Studies have, however, rarely addressed the potential that flowering field borders might compete with neighboring crops for pollinator visits if they both are in bloom at the same time, despite this being a concern expressed by growers. We evaluated how wildflower plantings added to orchard borders in a large (512 ha) commercial almond orchard affected honey bee and wild bee visitation to orchard borders and the crop. The study was conducted over two consecutive seasons using three large (0.48 ha) wildflower plantings paired with control orchard borders in a highly simplified agricultural landscape in California. Honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) and wild bee visitation to wildflower plots were at least an order of magnitude higher than to control plots, but increased honey bee visitation to wildflower plots did not lead to any detectable shifts in honey bee visitation to almond flowers in the neighboring orchard. Wild bees were rarely observed visiting almond flowers irrespective of border treatment, indicating a limited short-term potential for augmenting crop pollination using wild bees in highly simplified agricultural landscapes. Although further studies are warranted on bee visitation and crop yield from spatially independent orchards, this study indicates that growers can support bees with alternative forage in almond orchards without risking competition between the wildflower plantings and the crop.

Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees. For those that possess life histories that are distinct from A. mellifera, further risk assessments may be warranted. In January 2017, forty bee researchers, representative of regulatory agencies, academia and agrochemical industries, gathered to discuss the current state of science on pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees and to determine how well honey bee exposure estimates, implemented by different regulatory agencies, may be protective for non-Apis bees. Workshop participants determined that although current risk assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, several routes of exposure are unique to non-Apis bees and warranted further investigation. In this forum article, we discuss these key routes of exposure relevant to non-Apis bees and identify important research gaps that can help inform future bee risk assessment decisions.

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.

Studies of bee movement and activities across a landscape are important for developing an understanding of their behavior and their ability to withstand environmental stress. Recent research has shown that proteins, such as egg albumin, are effective for mass-marking bees. However, current protein mass-marking techniques require sacrificing individual bees during the data collection process. A nonlethal sampling method for protein mark-capture research is sorely needed, particularly for vulnerable, sensitive, or economically valuable species. This study describes a nonlethal sampling method, in which three non-Apis bee species (Bombus bifarius Cresson [Hymenoptera: Apidae], Osmia lignaria Say [Hymenoptera: Megachilidae], and Megachile rotundata Fabricius [Hymenoptera: Megachilidae]) were tested for a unique protein marker by immersing them momentarily in saline buffer and releasing them. Results showed that an egg albumin-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay was 100% effective at detecting the protein on bees that were sampled nonlethally. Furthermore, this sampling method did not have an impact on bee survivorship, suggesting that immersing bees in buffer is a reliable and valid surrogate to traditional, destructive sampling methods for mark-capture bee studies.

Pollination services provided by managed bees are essential for California almond (Prunus dulcis Mill.; Rosales: Rosaceae) production. Currently, pollination needs are met by rented or owned Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera: Apidae; honey bee) colonies. Excessive demand on a challenged A. mellifera industry to provide strong colonies in early spring has caused sharp increases in rental prices over the past decade, inviting the consideration of alternative pollinators in addition to, or in place of, A. mellifera. Osmia lignaria Say (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae; the blue orchard bee) is an excellent pollinator of fruit and nut trees, but its pollination impacts when used in tandem with A. mellifera have yet to be evaluated in commercial almond orchards. A 2-yr study was conducted in California orchards to compare almond pollination and production using A. mellifera as sole pollinator to an alternative practice of adding O. lignaria as a co-pollinator with A. mellifera. Almond orchard managerial decisions, such as for pesticide use and irrigation intensity, vary between almond growing regions because of local climates. Therefore, both north-central and southern sites of California's San Joaquin Valley are represented. We compared bee visitation, nut set, and nut yield between orchards and between tree rows within orchards. Also, O. lignaria reproductive success was recorded to assure that these bees remained in the orchards as pollinators and to assess the ability to sustain these bees under regional orchard conditions. We demonstrated that augmenting large commercial almond orchards with O. lignaria can significantly increase nut set and sometimes nut yield in both regions evaluated.

International audience; Honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) provide essential pollination services for agricultural production worldwide. Recent declines in honey bee populations have been attributed to a multitude of potential stressors, such as pest pressure, nutritional stress, and exposure to pesticides (vanEngelsdorp et al. 2009b). One possible explanation for bee decline is the accumulation of pesticide residues in honey bee brood comb, resulting in chronic exposure to a suite of agrochemicals which may detrimentally influence honey bee health. Wu et al. (2011) demonstrated that bees reared in brood comb containing high levels of pesticide residues exhibit increased brood mortality and shorter adult longevity.

The blue orchard bee, Osmia lignaria (Say), is a solitary bee that is an excellent pollinator of tree fruit orchards. Due to the annual rising costs of honey bee hive rentals, many orchardists are eager to develop management tools and practices to support O. lignaria as an alternative pollinator. Establishing O. lignaria pollination as a sustainable industry requires careful consideration of both bee and orchard management. Here, we test the effect of artificial nest box distribution on in-orchard propagation of O. lignaria in Utah commercial tart cherry orchards. Two nest box distributions were compared across three paired, 1.2-ha plots. One distribution, traditionally employed by O. lignaria consultants, included a centrally located tote for mass-nesting with smaller, surrounding ‘satellite’ nest boxes at orchard margins. The other distribution was composed of smaller, more equally distributed nest boxes throughout the 1.2-ha plots. Significantly higher propagation of O. lignaria was observed in the latter nest box distribution, although all treatments resulted in bee return exceeding the number of bees initially released. These findings provide support for the use of O. lignaria in tart cherry orchards, and demonstrate how simple changes to bee set-up and management can influence propagation efforts.

Contracted commercial beekeeping operations provide an essential pollination service to many agricultural systems worldwide. Increased use of genetically engineered crops in agriculture has raised concerns over pollinator-mediated gene flow between transgenic and conventional agricultural varieties. This study evaluated whether contracted migratory beekeeping practices influence transgenic pollen flow among spatially isolated alfalfa fields. Twelve honey bee ( Apis mellifera L.) colonies were permitted to forage on transgenic alfalfa blossoms for 1 wk in Touchet, WA. The hives were then transported 112 km to caged conventional alfalfa plots following one and two nights of isolation (8 and 32 h, respectively) from the transgenic source. Alfalfa seed harvested from the conventional plots was assessed for the presence of the transgene using a new seedling germination assay. We found that 8 h of isolation from a transgenic alfalfa source virtually eliminated the incidence of cross-pollination between the two varieties.