Evaluating bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) diversity using Malaise traps in coffee landscapes of Costa Rica

Abstract

Even though Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica Linnaeus, Rubiaceae) can self-pollinate, bees are important pollinators, without which there is lower fruit quality and yield. We studied bee diversity in coffee agroecosystems in Costa Rica during two coffee flowering seasons (2005 and 2006). Malaise traps were used as a passive sampling method to collect bees during coffee blooms. We collected 1012 bee individuals from three different site types: nonagricultural fields and shaded and unshaded coffee farms. Unshaded coffee farms had significantly higher species richness (S) and number of bee individuals (n) than did the shaded coffee farms and nonagricultural sites. Overall bee diversity did not differ among site types but evenness (J′) was significantly lower in unshaded coffee farms. Using a more detailed community analysis, there was a significant association between functional groups and habitat type with more species and individuals of small-bodied ground-nesting bees (Lasioglossum (Dialictus) Robertson) associated with unshaded coffee farms. A large proportion (49%) of bees collected were of this subgenus, which was never before reported as common in coffee agroecosystems. Further studies should establish whether Dialictus is important in coffee pollination. We propose strategies involving conservation of native bees through simple habitat management for small-scale coffee farms that may improve crop quality and quantity.

Sampling bees in tropical forests and agroecosystems: a review

“…Another drawback of using the Malaise trap as a collecting method in the forest understory is that it captures only insects flying low in the vegetation, and not those in the canopy (Missa et al 2008). The Malaise trap is also biased in favor of collecting certain groups such as sweat bees (genus Lasioglossum) (Nardone 2013;Ngo et al 2013). Lastly, because the Malaise trap is efficient at capturing a large abundance and variety of insects (LeBuhn et al 2007), the processing time is quite high (Harris and Burns 2000;Grootaert et al 2010).…”

The influence of local and landscape scale on single response traits in bees: A meta-analysis

“…Ecological processes operating at different spatial scales complement each other in explaining the structure of a particular community, but the relative importance of these processes may vary according to the response trait considered in the analysis (Klein et al, 2008;Forrest et al, 2015;Martins et al, 2015;Ekroos et al, 2013). Ground nesting bees, for example, are strongly affected by management intensity of field crops, largely benefitting from open areas with low humidity content (Ngo et al, 2013). On the other hand, large social bees, which move small distances to forage and form small colonies, are more influenced by landscape heterogeneity (Ekroos et al, 2013), indicating that this group is more influenced by ecological processes at large spatial scales than local spatial scales (Aguirre-Gutiérrez et al, 2016).…”

Vertical diversity patterns and biotic interactions of trap-nesting bees along a fragmentation gradient of small secondary rainforest remnants

“…None of the studies investigated a fragmentation gradient that included different tree locations in order to measure edge effects of secondary forest remnants, which is important due to their potential for conservation and maintenance of ecosystem services for agricultural areas (Klein et al 2003;Brosi et al 2007a;Ngo et al 2013).…”