Urban and suburban landscapes can be refuges for biodiversity of bees and other pollinators. Public awareness of declining pollinator populations has increased interest in growing plants that provide floral resources for bees. Various publications and websites list “bee-friendly” plants, but such lists are rarely based on empirical data, nor do they emphasize flowering trees and shrubs, which are a major component of urban landscapes. We quantified bee visitation to 72 species of flowering woody landscape plants across 373 urban and suburban sites in Kentucky and southern Ohio, USA, sampling and identifying the bee assemblages associated with 45 of the most bee-attractive species. We found strong plant species effects and variation in seasonal activity of particular bee taxa, but no overall differences in extent of bee visitation or bee genus diversity between native and non–native species, trees and shrubs, or early-, mid-, and late-season blooming plants. Horticulturally-modified varieties of Hydrangea, Prunus, and Rosa with double petals or clusters of showy sterile sepals attracted few bees compared to related plants with more accessible floral rewards. Some of the non-native woody plant species bloomed when floral resources from native plants were scarce and were highly bee-attractive, so their use in landscapes could help extend the flowering season for bees. These data will help city foresters, landscape managers, and the public make informed decisions to create bee–friendly urban and suburban landscapes.

Systemic neonicotinoid insecticides used in urban arboriculture could pose a risk to bees and other pollinators foraging on treated plants. We measured uptake and dissipation of soil-applied imidacloprid and dinotefuran in nectar and leaves of 2 woody plant species, a broadleaf evergreen tree (Ilex × attenuata) and a deciduous shrub (Clethra alnifolia), to assess concentrations to which pollinators and pests might be exposed in landscape settings. Three application timings, autumn (postbloom), spring (prebloom), and summer (early postbloom), were evaluated to see if taking advantage of differences in the neonicotinoids' systemic mobility and persistence might enable pest control while minimizing transference into nectar. Nectar and tissue samples were collected from in-ground plants and analyzed for residues by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) in 2 successive years. Concentrations found in nectar following autumn or spring applications ranged from 166 to 515 ng/g for imidacloprid and from 70 to 1235 ng/gg for dinotefuran, depending on plant and timing. These residues exceed concentrations shown to adversely affect individual- and colony-level traits of bees. Summer application mitigated concentrations of imidacloprid (8-31 ng/g), but not dinotefuran (235-1191 ng/g), in nectar. Our data suggest that dinotefuran may be more persistent than is generally believed. Implications for integrated pest and pollinator management in urban landscapes are discussed. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:860-870. © 2017 SETAC.

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.

Anthropogenic disturbance is driving global biodiversity loss, including the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a dietary specialist of milkweed. In response, ornamental milkweed plantings are increasingly common in urbanized landscapes, and recent evidence indicates they have conservation value for monarch butterflies. Unfortunately, sap-feeding insect herbivores, including the oleander aphid (Aphis nerii), frequently reach high densities on plants in nursery settings and urbanized landscapes. Aphid-infested milkweed may inhibit monarch conservation efforts by reducing host plant quality and inducing plant defenses. To test this, we evaluated the effects of oleander aphid infestation on monarch oviposition, larval performance, and plant traits using tropical milkweed (Asclepias curassavica), the most common commercially available milkweed species in the southern U.S. We quantified monarch oviposition preference, larval herbivory, larval weight, and plant characteristics on aphid-free and aphid-infested milkweed. Monarch butterflies deposited three times more eggs on aphid-free versus aphid-infested milkweed. Similarly, larvae fed aphid-free milkweed consumed and weighed twice as much as larvae fed aphid-infested milkweed. Aphid-free milkweed had higher total dry leaf biomass and nitrogen content than aphid-infested milkweed. Our results indicate that oleander aphid infestations can have indirect negative impacts on urban monarch conservation efforts and highlight the need for effective Lepidoptera-friendly integrated pest management tactics for ornamental plants.

No abstract