Spillover of chalkbrood fungi to native solitary bee species from non‐native congeners

LeCroy, Kathryn A.; Krichilsky, Erin; Grab, Heather; Roulston, T’ai H.; Danforth, Bryan N.

doi:10.1111/1365-2664.14399

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The numbers of such parasites could increase over time, especially if trap‐nest occupancy was to increase (Groulx & Forrest, 2018; Steffan‐Dewenter & Tscharntke, 2001; Torchio, 1979). Indeed, others have suggested that trap‐nests intended for cavity‐nesting pollinator conservation can act as ecological traps by providing habitat for parasites and encouraging the spread of pathogens (Colla, 2022; LeCroy et al., 2023; MacIvor & Packer, 2015). It would be useful to monitor Osmia populations over several years after nesting‐habitat supplementation to test whether population increases are maintained or whether they are eventually overtaken by growing numbers of parasites or pathogens.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplemental nesting habitat increases bee abundance in apple orchards

Hyjazie,

Forrest

2024

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying the resources that limit bee populations is essential for both bee conservation and pollination management in agroecosystems. Land‐use change typically leads to decreased habitat availability for wild pollinators, including loss of nesting habitat, which is an essential but often‐overlooked resource for wild bees. Cavity‐nesting bees, such as many Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), occupy holes in wood or reeds to build their nests; due to their nesting habits, they are frequently scarce in agricultural settings. Nevertheless, under the right circumstances, these bees can be ideal pollinators of apple and other orchard crops. Artificial nesting structures (‘bee hotels’ or ‘trap‐nests’) are often used to study cavity‐nesting bees and have been proposed as tools for bee conservation. To evaluate the effects of additional nesting habitat on the local abundance of pollinators, we selected 24 sites in apple orchards in eastern Canada in 2021 and 2022. Each site comprised two study plots: one in which we installed artificial nesting structures for cavity‐nesting bees, and one without added nesting habitat (control). Pollinator surveys were conducted in both plot types to measure pollinator visits to apple blossoms and, after apple bloom, to flowers in the undergrowth and/or in shrubs. Numbers and size of developing fruit were also recorded. Both Osmia bees and overall pollinator numbers were significantly higher in the treatment with trap‐nests (respectively, 33% and 22% higher during the 2021 growing season, and 113% and 30% higher during apple bloom across the 2 years of the study); however, there was no consistent difference in apple size or fruit set between the two treatments. Thus, trap‐nests locally increased the numbers of cavity‐nesting bees as well as total pollinator numbers, but they had little effect on apple yield, likely because apple production was not pollinator limited in the years of this study. Synthesis and applications. These findings suggest that bee populations in apple orchards can be limited by nesting resources such that addition of constructed nesting habitat could be an effective means of increasing pollinator numbers in orchards, and potentially, supporting bee conservation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supplemental nesting habitat increases bee abundance in apple orchards

Hyjazie,

Forrest

2024

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are potential consequences that could result from these accidental introductions (Goulson 2003, Russo et al 2021. One concern would be whether the non-native species harbor any pests or diseases that could spread to native Chelostoma, particularly given that eight of the nine native North American species of Chelostoma occur in the west (LeCroy et al 2023). Routes of exposure would likely be limited to shared nesting sites and nesting resources since native Chelostoma do not use the same floral resources as the nonnative species, potentially limiting their risk.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chelostoma Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) of Montana, including first records of the introduced bees Chelostoma campanularum (Kirby, 1802) and Chelostoma rapunculi (Lepeletier, 1841)

Delphia

2023

The Pan-Pacific Entomologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The megachilid bees of the genus Chelostoma Latreille, 1809 in Montana, U.S.A., are reviewed. Two Palearctic species, Chelostoma (Foveosmia) campanularum (Kirby, 1802) and Chelostoma (Gyrodromella) rapunculi (Lepeletier, 1841), are reported for the first time from Montana. The Montana specimens represent a range expansion from southeastern Michigan for C. campanularum and from northeastern Illinois for C. rapunculi. These collections appear to represent an established local population for C. campanularum with specimens from multiple dates, years, and locations in Bozeman, Montana; specimens of C. rapunculi have only been found in one location and year. The habitat, distribution, and potential ecological impacts of establishment of these two non-native species in Montana are discussed. An identification key to the Chelostoma of Montana is provided.

show abstract

“…The presence of fungal pathogens from Japan (i.e., Ascosphaera naganensis and Ascosphaera fusiformis) has been reported in the United States in several native Osmia spp. (Hedtke et al 2015, LeCroy et al 2022. While the presence of these Ascosphaera spp.…”

Section: Biological Traits and Data Suggesting Potential For Invasive...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Osmia taurus (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): A Non-native Bee Species With Invasiveness Potential in North America

Gutierrez

LeCroy

Roulston

et al. 2023

Environmental Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees are important pollinators and are essential for the reproduction of many plants in natural and agricultural ecosystems. However, bees can have adverse ecological effects when introduced to areas outside of their native geographic ranges. Dozens of non-native bee species are currently found in North America and have raised concerns about their potential role in the decline of native bee populations. Osmia taurus Smith (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) is a mason bee native to eastern Asia that was first reported in the United States in 2002. Since then, this species has rapidly expanded throughout the eastern part of North America. Here, we present a comprehensive review of the natural history of O. taurus, document its recent history of spread through the United States and Canada, and discuss the evidence suggesting its potential for invasiveness. In addition, we compare the biology and history of colonization of O. taurus to O. cornifrons (Radoszkowski), another non-native mason bee species now widespread in North America. We highlight gaps of knowledge and future research directions to better characterize the role of O. taurus in the decline of native Osmia spp. Panzer and the facilitation of invasive plant-pollinator mutualisms.

show abstract

Spillover of chalkbrood fungi to native solitary bee species from non‐native congeners

Cited by 11 publications

References 69 publications

Supplemental nesting habitat increases bee abundance in apple orchards

Supplemental nesting habitat increases bee abundance in apple orchards

Chelostoma Latreille, 1809 (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) of Montana, including first records of the introduced bees Chelostoma campanularum (Kirby, 1802) and Chelostoma rapunculi (Lepeletier, 1841)

Osmia taurus (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): A Non-native Bee Species With Invasiveness Potential in North America

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About