Unusual nesting behavior in &lt;i&gt;Megachile&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;Eutricharaea&lt;/i&gt;) &lt;i&gt;rotundata&lt;/i&gt; (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)

Sheffield, Cory S.

doi:10.17161/jom.v0i69.6532

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Isodontia mexicana (Saussure) is regularly found nesting in crevices on the exterior of houses (e.g., the windowsill); the native wasp is tolerant of human activity and has even established in several European countries (Polidori et al, 2018 ). In another example, Megachile rotundata (Fabricius) nest in an array of materials, from car radiators (Sheffield, 2017 ) to abandoned invasive paper wasp nests sheltered under building roof awnings (MacIvor, 2021 ). Other bee and wasp species might also benefit from these fine‐scale environmental conditions which are difficult to quantify but could represent resources that shape diversity urbanization patterns.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests

Xie

Sookhan

Carscadden

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial patterns in biodiversity are used to establish conservation priorities and ecosystem management plans. The environmental filtering of communities along urbanization gradients has been used to explain biodiversity patterns but demonstrating filtering requires precise statistical tests to link suboptimal environments at one end of a gradient to lower population sizes via ecological traits. Here, we employ a three‐part framework on observational community data to test: (I) for trait clustering (i.e., phenotypic similarities among co‐occurring species) by comparing trait diversity to null expectations, (II) if trait clustering is correlated with an urbanization graient, and (III) if species' traits relate to environmental conditions. If all criteria are met, then there is evidence that urbanization is filtering communities based on their traits. We use a community of 46 solitary cavity‐nesting bee and wasp species sampled across Toronto, a large metropolitan city, over 3 years to test these hypotheses. None of the criteria were met, so we did not have evidence for environmental filtering. We do show that certain ecological traits influence which species perform well in urban environments. For example, cellophane bees ( Hylaeus : Colletidae) secrete their own nesting material and were overrepresented in urban areas, while native leafcutting bees ( Megachile : Megachilidae) were most common in greener areas. For wasps, prey preference was important, with aphid‐collecting ( Psenulus and Passaloecus : Crabronidae) and generalist spider‐collecting ( Trypoxylon : Crabronidae) wasps overrepresented in urban areas and caterpillar‐ and beetle‐collecting wasps ( Euodynerus and Symmorphus : Vespidae, respectively) overrepresented in greener areas. We emphasize that changes in the prevalence of different traits across urban gradients without corresponding changes in trait diversity with urbanization do not constitute environmental filtering. By applying this rigorous framework, future studies can test whether urbanization filters other nesting guilds (i.e., ground‐nesting bees and wasps) or larger communities consisting of entire taxonomic groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests

Xie

Sookhan

Carscadden

et al. 2022

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the response of bees to urbanization has often been illustrated positive by recent studies 41 – 44 , and our findings support it. Leafcutter bees are cavity nesters and use almost all unpredictable sites for constructing nest tubes 45 , 46 . Therefore, they are less affected by the soil, which is often polluted and compacted in urban places and agricultural landscapes 13 , 47 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ornamental roses for conservation of leafcutter bee pollinators

Sinu

Jamal

Shaji

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollinator conservation is a global priority. Efforts are taken to restore pollinators by improving flower resources, a crucial driver of pollinator diversity and population growth. It helped gardening and landscaping supply chains, which introduced lists of bee-friendly plants and bee hotels, yet, desirable results seem distant. One shortcoming of the present schemes is that they lack a cohesive planning for nesting opportunities and nesting provisions for wild solitary bees, the crucial pollinators of crop and wild plants. We tested whether the world’s popular ornamental plant, rose (Rosa chinensis Jacq.)—a hitherto unlisted bee-friendly plant—can aid in conserving leafcutter bees, which require fresh leaves for constructing nest cells. We surveyed 2360 rose plants in 136 sites in rural and urban places and lowlands and highlands of south (8°N–12°N) and northeastern India (26°N–27°N) for the characteristic notches the bees leave on foraged leaves. We reared brood constructed with rose and non-rose leaves to examine the brood success rate. About a quarter of all the roses surveyed had the notches of leafcutter bees on the leaves. However, the proportion of cut roses varied considerably among sites. Bees used roses much higher in urban areas and lowlands than in rural areas and highlands. The selection of plants was negatively associated with pesticide application. The brood success rate was 100% for the brood that was constructed by the leaves of rose and non-rose plants. Rose flowers do not support bees, but rose leaves indeed do. We recommend rose plants in leafcutter bee conservation and restoration schemes, particularly in urban environment.

show abstract

“…Fruit trees, landscaping with beautifying flower plants, and backyard horticultural plots in human habitations may also explain this abundance as they are important sources of forage and nesting resources for bees (Ulyshen et al, 2010), and constructions further offer suitable sites for nest thermoregulation (Cely-Santos & Philpott, 2019). Megachile species, for example, was associated with homestead (Figure 5), and this can be attributed to their nesting behavior on pre-existing man-made cavities (Sheffield, 2017). Human habitations can therefore be targeted for bee conservation, hence further validating recommendations by Tarakini et al (2020) for the need for bee awareness programs to reduce fear towards bees if successful conservation around homesteads is to be achieved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drivers of diversity and community structure of bees in an agroecological region of Zimbabwe

Tarakini

Chemura

Tarakini

et al. 2021

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Worldwide bees provide an important ecosystem service of plant pollination. Climate change and land‐use changes are among drivers threatening bee survival with mounting evidence of species decline and extinction. In developing countries, rural areas constitute a significant proportion of the country's land, but information is lacking on how different habitat types and weather patterns in these areas influence bee populations. This study investigated how weather variables and habitat‐related factors influence the abundance, diversity, and distribution of bees across seasons in a farming rural area of Zimbabwe. Bees were systematically sampled in five habitat types (natural woodlots, pastures, homesteads, fields, and gardens) recording ground cover, grass height, flower abundance and types, tree abundance and recorded elevation, temperature, light intensity, wind speed, wind direction, and humidity. Zero‐inflated models, censored regression models, and PCAs were used to understand the influence of explanatory variables on bee community composition, abundance, and diversity. Bee abundance was positively influenced by the number of plant species in flower ( p < .0001). Bee abundance increased with increasing temperatures up to 28.5°C, but beyond this, temperature was negatively associated with bee abundance. Increasing wind speeds marginally decreased probability of finding bees. Bee diversity was highest in fields, homesteads, and natural woodlots compared with other habitats, and the contributions of the genus Apis were disproportionately high across all habitats. The genus Megachile was mostly associated with homesteads, while Nomia was associated with grasslands. Synthesis and applications. Our study suggests that some bee species could become more proliferous in certain habitats, thus compromising diversity and consequently ecosystem services. These results highlight the importance of setting aside bee‐friendly habitats that can be refuge sites for species susceptible to land‐use changes.

show abstract

Unusual nesting behavior in <i>Megachile</i> (<i>Eutricharaea</i>) <i>rotundata</i> (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae)

Cited by 8 publications

References 26 publications

No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests

No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests

Ornamental roses for conservation of leafcutter bee pollinators

Drivers of diversity and community structure of bees in an agroecological region of Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About