Honey bees and wild pollinators differ in their preference for and use of introduced floral resources

Introduced plants may be important foraging resources for honey bees and wild pollinators, but how often and why pollinators visit introduced plants across an entire plant community is not well understood. Understanding the importance of introduced plants for pollinators could help guide management of these plants and conservation of pollinator habitat. We assessed how floral abundance and pollinator preference influence pollinator visitation rate and diversity on 30 introduced versus 24 native plants in central New York. Honey bees visited introduced and native plants at similar rates regardless of floral abundance. In contrast, as floral abundance increased, wild pollinator visitation rate decreased more strongly for introduced plants than native plants. Introduced plants as a group and native plants as a group did not differ in bee diversity or preference, but honey bees and wild pollinators preferred different plant species. As a case study, we then focused on knapweed (Centaurea spp.), an introduced plant that was the most preferred plant by honey bees, and that beekeepers value as a late‐summer foraging resource. We compared the extent to which honey bees versus wild pollinators visited knapweed relative to coflowering plants, and we quantified knapweed pollen and nectar collection by honey bees across 22 New York apiaries. Honey bees visited knapweed more frequently than coflowering plants and at a similar rate as all wild pollinators combined. All apiaries contained knapweed pollen in nectar, 86% of apiaries contained knapweed pollen in bee bread, and knapweed was sometimes a main pollen or nectar source for honey bees in late summer. Our results suggest that because of diverging responses to floral abundance and preferences for different plants, honey bees and wild pollinators differ in their use of introduced plants. Depending on the plant and its abundance, removing an introduced plant may impact honey bees more than wild pollinators.     

Bee Preference for Native versus Exotic Plants in Restored Agricultural Hedgerows

Habitat restoration to promote wild pollinator populations is becoming increasingly common in agricultural lands. Yet, little is known about how wild bees, globally the most important wild pollinators, use resources in restored habitats. We compared bee use of native and exotic plants in two types of restored native plant hedgerows: mature hedgerows (>10 years from establishment) designed for natural enemy enhancement and new hedgerows (≤2 years from establishment) designed to enhance bee populations. Bees were collected from flowers using timed aerial netting and flowering plant cover was estimated by species using cover classes. At mature hedgerow sites, wild bee abundance, richness, and diversity were greater on native plants than exotic plants. At new sites, where native plants were small and had limited floral display, abundance of bees was greater on native plants than exotic plants; but, controlling for floral cover, there was no difference in bee diversity and richness between the two plant types. At both mature and new hedgerows, wild bees preferred to forage from native plants than exotic plants. Honey bees, which were from managed colonies, also preferred native plants at mature hedgerow sites but exhibited no preference at new sites. Our study shows that wild bees, and managed bees in some cases, prefer to forage on native plants in hedgerows over co‐occurring weedy, exotic plants. Semi‐quantitative ranking identified which native plants were most preferred. Hedgerow restoration with native plants may help enhance wild bee abundance and diversity, and maintain honey bee health, in agricultural areas.     

Visitation by wild and managed bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) to eastern U.S. native plants for use in conservation programs

Addition of floral resources to agricultural field margins has been shown to increase abundance of beneficial insects in crop fields, but most plants recommended for this use are non-native annuals. Native perennial plants with different bloom periods can provide floral resources for bees throughout the growing season for use in pollinator conservation projects. To identify the most suitable plants for this use, we examined the relative attractiveness to wild and managed bees of 43 eastern U.S. native perennial plants, grown in a common garden setting. Floral characteristics were evaluated for their ability to predict bee abundance and taxa richness. Of the wild bees collected, the most common species (62%) was Bombus impatiens Cresson. Five other wild bee species were present between 3 and 6% of the total: Lasioglossum admirandum (Sandhouse), Hylaeus affinis (Smith), Agapostemon virescens (F.), Halictus ligatus Say, and Ceratina calcarata/dupla Robertson/Say. The remaining wild bee species were present at <2% of the total. Abundance of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) was nearly identical to that of B. impatiens. All plant species were visited at least once by wild bees; 9 were highly attractive, and 20 were moderately attractive. Honey bees visited 24 of the 43 plant species at least once. Floral area was the only measured factor accounting for variation in abundance and richness of wild bees but did not explain variation in honey bee abundance. Results of this study can be used to guide selection of flowering plants to provide season-long forage for conservation of wild bees.     

Plant evolution can mediate negative effects from honey bees on wild pollinators

1. Pollinators are introduced to agroecosystems to provide pollination services. Introductions of managed pollinators often promote ecosystem services, but it remains largely unknown whether they also affect evolutionary mutualisms between wild pollinators and plants.
2. Here, we developed a model to assess effects of managed honey bees on mutualisms between plants and wild pollinators. Our model tracked how interactions among wild pollinators and honey bees affected pollinator and plant populations.
3. We show that when managed honey bees have a competitive advantage over wild pollinators, or a greater carrying capacity, the honey bees displace the wild pollinator. This leads to reduced plant density because plants benefit less by visits from honey bees than wild pollinators that coevolved with the plants.
4. As wild pollinators are displaced, plants evolve by increasing investment in traits that are attractive for honey bees but not wild pollinators. This evolutionary switch promotes wild pollinator displacement. However, higher mutualism investment costs by the plant to the honey bee can promote pollinator coexistence.
5. Our results show plant evolution can promote displacement of wild pollinators by managed honey bees, while limited plant evolution may lead to pollinator coexistence. More broadly, effects of honey bees on wild pollinators in agroecosystems, and effects on ecosystem services, may depend on the capacity of plant populations to evolve.

     

大蜜蜂的生物学特性、面临威胁与保护策略

昆虫传粉在维持植物的有性繁殖、物种形成及生态系统稳定中扮演着重要角色, 而野生传粉昆虫为生态系统提供了巨大的传粉服务功能。大蜜蜂(Apis dorsata)为亚洲特有的一种野生传粉昆虫, 是热带地区多种植物和农作物的有效传粉者, 在保障热带生物多样性及作物产量中有不可或缺的作用。但受全球气候变化、人类活动和生境恶化等因素的影响, 其种群数量日益减少, 开展大蜜蜂种质资源保护势在必行。本文综述了大蜜蜂筑巢、迁飞和传粉服务功能, 分析了人为猎取蜂巢, 栖息生境遭受破坏, 杀虫剂和除草剂滥用, 昆虫、螨类和病原物侵染, 气候变化等威胁种群的因素, 以期从强化大蜜蜂基础研究和保护、推动生态农业发展、建立适合大蜜蜂迁飞生态廊道、加强检验检疫及科学合理利用大蜜蜂种质资源等方面制定相应的保护措施。     

Attractiveness of single and multiple species flower patches to beneficial insects in agroecosystems

The provision of floral resources for the enhancement of beneficial insect populations has shown promise as a strategy to enhance biological control and pollination in agroecosystems. One approach involves the provision of a single flower species while a second involves the multiple flower species, but the two have never been compared experimentally. Here we examine the influence of single and multiple species flower treatments on the abundance and foraging behaviour of key beneficial insects in two agricultural agroecosystems (broccoli and lucerne crops). The five flower treatments comprised buckwheat only, phacelia only, a simple mixture of buckwheat and phacelia, a complex mixture of buckwheat, phacelia and a commercial seed blend or the existing crop as a control. The abundance of bumble‐bees (Bombus hortorum) and honey bees (Apis mellifera) was highest in the three treatments that contained phacelia, while hoverfly (Melanostoma fasciatum) numbers were high in all four flower treatments. Bumble‐bees and honey bees probed almost exclusively phacelia flowers, even when provided with a choice of other flower species in the simple and complex mixture treatments. In contrast, hoverflies probed the flowers of all plant species in single and multiple species treatments, with no apparent difference in acceptance. However, in mixture treatments, the majority of individual bumble‐bees, honey bees and hoverflies probed the flowers from only one species, despite the presence of alternative flower species. Our results illustrate how an appreciation of insect floral attractiveness can be used to customise the species composition of floral patches to potentially maximise biological control and pollination in targeted agroecosystems.     

Time since establishment drives bee and hoverfly diversity,abundance of crop-pollinating bees and aphidophagous hoverflies in perennial wildflower strips

Wildflower strips (WFS) are amongst the most commonly applied measures to promote pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests in agroecosystems. Their potential to enhance these functionally important insect groups may vary substantially with time since establishment of WFS. However, knowledge on their temporal dynamics remains scarce, hampering recommendations for optimized design and management. We therefore examined temporal dynamics of taxonomic and functional groups of bees and hoverflies in perennial WFS ranging from one to ≥6 years since sowing with a standardized species-rich seed mixture of flowering plants in 18 agricultural landscapes in Switzerland. The abundance of wild bees, honeybees and hoverflies declined after the second year by 89%, 62% and 72%, respectively. Declines in bee abundance and hoverfly species richness were linear and those of aphidophagous hoverflies exponential, while wild bee species richness peaked in the third year. Declines over time generally paralleled decreases in flower abundance (-83%) and flowering species richness (-61%) and an increase in grass cover (+70%) in WFS. Flowering plant species richness showed strong positive relationships with dominant crop-visiting wild bees and aphidophagous hoverflies. Furthermore, dominant crop-visiting wild bees, but not aphidophagous hoverflies, were positively related to the proportion of (semi-)open semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape (500 m radius), but negatively with forest. We conclude that the effectiveness of perennial WFS to promote pollinator diversity, crop-pollinating bees and aphidophagous hoverflies through foraging resources decreases after the first two to three years, probably due to a decline of diverse and abundant floral resources. Although older perennial WFS may still provide valuable nesting and overwintering opportunities for pollinators and natural enemies, our findings indicate that regular re-sowing of perennial WFS may be necessary to maintain adequate floral resource provisioning for effective pollinator conservation and promotion of crop pollination and natural pest control services in agricultural landscapes.     

Humans,bees, and pollination services in the city: the case of Chicago,IL (USA)

Despite the global trend in urbanization, little is known about patterns of biodiversity or provisioning of ecosystem services in urban areas. Bee communities and the pollination services they provide are important in cities, both for small-scale urban agriculture and native gardens. To better understand this important ecological issue, we examined bee communities, their response to novel floral resources, and their potential to provide pollination services in 25 neighborhoods across Chicago, IL (USA). In these neighborhoods, we evaluated how local floral resources, socioeconomic factors, and surrounding land cover affected abundance, richness, and community composition of bees active in summer. We also quantified species-specific body pollen loads and visitation frequencies to potted flowering purple coneflower plants (Echinacea purpurea) to estimate potential pollination services in each neighborhood. We documented 37 bee species and 79 flowering plant genera across all neighborhoods, with 8 bee species and 14 flowering plant genera observed on average along each neighborhood block. We found that both bee abundance and richness increased in neighborhoods with higher human population density, as did visitation to purple coneflower flower heads. In more densely populated neighborhoods, bee communities shifted to a suite of species that carry more pollen and are more active pollinators in this system, including the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) and native species such as Agapostemon virescens. More densely populated neighborhoods also had a greater diversity of flowering plants, suggesting that the positive relationship between people and bees was mediated by the effect of people on floral resources. Other environmental variables that were important for bee communities included the amount of grass/herbaceous cover and solar radiation in the surrounding area. Our results indicate that bee communities and pollination services can be maintained in dense urban neighborhoods with single-family and multi-family homes, as long as those neighborhoods contain diverse and abundant floral resources.     

Spatial variability in a plant–pollinator community across a continuous habitat: high heterogeneity in the face of apparent uniformity

Large‐scale spatial variability in plant–pollinator communities (e.g. along geographic gradients, across different landscapes) is relatively well understood. However, we know much less about how these communities vary at small scales within a uniform landscape. Plants are sessile and highly sensitive to microhabitat conditions, whereas pollinators are highly mobile and, for the most part, display generalist feeding habits. Therefore, we expect plants to show greater spatial variability than pollinators. We analysed the spatial heterogeneity of a community of flowering plants and their pollinators in 40 plots across a 40‐km² area within an uninterrupted Mediterranean scrubland. We recorded 3577 pollinator visits to 49 plant species. The pollinator community (170 species) was strongly dominated by honey bees (71.8% of the visits recorded). Flower and pollinator communities showed similar beta‐diversity, indicating that spatial variability was similar in the two groups. We used path analysis to establish the direct and indirect effects of flower community distribution and honey bee visitation rate (a measure of the use of floral resources by this species) on the spatial distribution of the pollinator community. Wild pollinator abundance was positively related to flower abundance. Wild pollinator visitation rate was negatively related to flower abundance, suggesting that floral resources were not limiting. Pollinator and flower richness were positively related. Pollinator species composition was weakly related to flower species composition, reflecting the generalist nature of flower–pollinator interactions and the opportunistic nature of pollinator flower choices. Honey bee visitation rate did not affect the distribution of the wild pollinator community. Overall, we show that, in spite of the apparent physiognomic uniformity, both flowers and pollinators display high levels of heterogeneity, resulting in a mosaic of idiosyncratic local communities. Our results provide a measure of the background of intrinsic heterogeneity within a uniform habitat, with potential consequences on low‐scale ecosystem function and microevolutionary patterns.     

The Potential Influence of Bumble Bee Visitation on Foraging Behaviors and Assemblages of Honey Bees on Squash Flowers in Highland Agricultural Ecosystems

Bee species interactions can benefit plant pollination through synergistic effects and complementary effects, or can be of detriment to plant pollination through competition effects by reducing visitation by effective pollinators. Since specific bee interactions influence the foraging performance of bees on flowers, they also act as drivers to regulate the assemblage of flower visitors. We selected squash (Cucurbita pepo L.) and its pollinators as a model system to study the foraging response of honey bees to the occurrence of bumble bees at two types of sites surrounded by a high amount of natural habitats (≥ 58% of land cover) and a low amount of natural habitats (≤ 12% of land cover) in a highland agricultural ecosystem in China. At the individual level, we measured the elapsed time from the departure of prior pollinator(s) to the arrival of another pollinator, the selection of honey bees for flowers occupied by bumble bees, and the length of time used by honey bees to explore floral resources at the two types of sites. At the community level, we explored the effect of bumble bee visitation on the distribution patterns of honey bees on squash flowers. Conclusively, bumble bee visitation caused an increase in elapsed time before flowers were visited again by a honey bee, a behavioral avoidance by a newly-arriving honey bee to select flowers occupied by bumble bees, and a shortened length of time the honey bee takes to examine and collect floral resources. The number of overall bumble bees on squash flowers was the most important factor explaining the difference in the distribution patterns of honey bees at the community level. Furthermore, decline in the number of overall bumble bees on the squash flowers resulted in an increase in the number of overall honey bees. Therefore, our study suggests that bee interactions provide an opportunity to enhance the resilience of ecosystem pollination services against the decline in pollinator diversity.     

Threats and benefits of invasive alien plant species on pollinators

Invasive alien plant species are usually disliked due to their high pressure on native communities. However, their ecological effects on pollinators are complex: some species provide abundant floral resources, boosting the number of pollinators, while they often disrupt plant-pollinator interactions by outcompeting native plants. Our direct knowledge is mainly based on single-species studies, while understanding the mechanism of these complex ecological interactions needs multi-species field-based approaches. It is also imperative to clarify the pros and cons of invasive plants and drivers of invasion from the perspective of pollinators. We conducted a standard protocol-driven regional study in Central and Eastern Europe, comparing 6-7 invaded and non-invaded sites of 12 herbaceous invasive plant species. We sampled floral resources, bees, and hoverflies before and during the flowering of the invasive plants. We analysed the effects of plant invasion at the invasive plant species level and in combined analyses, and tested whether the life span (perennial vs. annual) and flowering time (early-, middle-, and late-flowering) of invasive plants affect the abundance, species richness, diversity and species composition of native plants and pollinators. The combined analyses showed lower abundance and species richness of flowering plants and pollinators before, and higher abundance of both during the flowering of invasive plants in invaded sites. However, invasive plants had significant species-specific effects. Perennial invasive plants had a stronger negative impact on floral resources and pollinators already before their flowering compared to annuals. Flowering time of invasive plants affected the pollinator guilds differently. We suggest that in certain critical time periods of the year, invasive plants might provide the dominant foraging resources for pollinators in an invaded ecosystem. But, they also often cause significant losses in native floral resources over the year. Instead of simple eradication, careful preparation and consideration might be needed during removal of invasive plants.     

Hedgerows surrounding organic apple orchards in north‐west Spain: potential to conserve beneficial insects

相似文献   

Response of wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) to surrounding land cover in Wisconsin pickling cucumber

Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) is among the plants highly dependent on insect-mediated pollination, but little is known about its unmanaged pollinators. Both domestic and wild bee populations in central Wisconsin pickling cucumber fields were assessed using a combination of pan trapping and floral observations before and during bloom. Together with land cover analyses extending 2,000 m from field centers, the relationship of land cover components and bee abundance and diversity were examined. Over a 2-yr sample interval distributed among 18 experimental sites, 3,185 wild bees were collected representing >60 species. A positive association was found between both noncrop and herbaceous areas with bee abundance and diversity only during bloom. Response of bee abundance and diversity to land cover was strongest at larger buffers presumably because of the heterogeneous nature of the landscape and connectivity between crop and noncrop areas. These results are consistent with previous research that has found a weak response of wild bees to surrounding vegetation in moderately fragmented areas. A diverse community of wild bees is present within the fields of a commercial cucumber system, and there is evidence of floral visitation by unmanaged bees. This evidence emphasizes the importance of wild pollinators in fragmented landscapes and the need for additional research to investigate the effectiveness of individual species in pollen deposition.     

Forested landscapes promote richness and abundance of native bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) in Wisconsin apple orchards

Wild bees provide vital pollination services for many native and agricultural plant species, yet the landscape conditions needed to support wild bee populations are not well understood or appreciated. We assessed the influence of landscape composition on bee abundance and species richness in apple (Malus spp.) orchards of northeastern Wisconsin during the spring flowering period. A diverse community of bee species occurs in these apple orchards, dominated by wild bees in the families Andrenidae and Halictidae and the honey bee, Apis mellifera L. Proportion of forest area in the surrounding landscape was a significant positive predictor of wild bee abundance in orchards, with strongest effects at a GIS (Geographic Information Systems) buffer distance of 1,000 m or greater. Forest area also was positively associated with species richness, showing strongest effects at a buffer distance of 2,000 m. Nonagricultural developed land (homes, lawns, etcetera) was significantly negatively associated with species richness at buffer distances >750 m and wild bee abundance in bowl traps at all distances. Other landscape variables statistically associated with species richness or abundance of wild bees included proportion area of pasture (positive) and proportion area of roads (negative). Forest area was not associated with honey bee abundance at any buffer distance. These results provide clear evidence that the landscape surrounding apple orchards, especially the proportion of forest area, affects richness and abundance of wild bees during the spring flowering period and should be a part of sustainable land management strategies in agro-ecosystems of northeastern Wisconsin and other apple growing regions.     

Redundancy in wildflower strip species helps support spatiotemporal variation in wild bee communities on diversified farms

Wildflower strips are a management practice increasingly used to provide floral resources to wild bees in agroecosystems. Yet, despite known spatiotemporal variation in wild bee communities, the degree to which different wildflower strip species consistently support wild bee communities is poorly understood. Additionally, whether such consistency is related to the functional roles wildflower species play (e.g., in supporting diverse, rare, or unique suites of bee species) has not been considered. Over three years and on four diversified farms, we evaluated spatiotemporal variation in wild bee communities and bee-flower interactions in wildflower strips to better understand the roles of flower strip species in supporting bees. We documented spatiotemporal variation in the abundance, richness, and composition of local wild bee communities. Certain wildflower species consistently supported the highest richness of wild bees across years. These wildflower species were regularly core members of the bee-flower interaction network, visited by both generalist and specialist bees. By contrast, wildflower species supporting the most unique suites of bees were variable in this role among farms. In order to select plant species for wildflower strips that consistently support a high diversity of wild bee communities within farm landscapes, it is useful to consider several different functional roles that plants may play. Whereas a handful of wildflower species may be visited by the majority of local wild bee species, achieving support for the remaining, and perhaps rarer, bee species will require planting additional flower species, which may appear redundant until the spatiotemporal variation in wild bee communities is more thoroughly considered. This functional approach to selecting wildflower species for bee conservation efforts is important for making practical recommendations to land managers and for guiding best management practices in different regions and with diverse management goals.     

Larger patches of diverse floral resources increase insect pollinator density,diversity, and their pollination of native wildflowers

Native wildflower plantings can be used to provide nutritional resources to support pollinating insects, yet the effects of planting size and bloom richness on the density, diversity, and function of these insects are not well understood. We established stands of twelve native flowering perennial plant species in replicated plots ranging in size from 1 to 100 m². These plots were sampled for insect pollinators, bloom richness, and seed production by three wildflower species. Honeybees, wild bees, and hoverflies all responded positively to increasing flower richness, whereas particular insect pollinator groups responded differently to the size of the flowering plant area. The density of honeybees and hoverflies was not affected by increasing flowering patch size, whereas in general, wild bees were observed at higher density and diversity in the 30 and 100 m² patches. Increasing wildflower patch size, and thus wild bee density, resulted in greater seed set in the sampled wildflowers. These results indicate that wild bees are sensitive to the area and richness of floral resources in patches, even at relatively small scales. Therefore, larger wildflower plantings with more diverse flower species mixes are more suitable for the conservation of wild pollinators and reproduction of sown species.     

Bee visitation rates to cultivated sunflowers increase with the amount and accessibility of nectar sugars

Pollinators make foraging decisions based on numerous floral traits, including nectar and pollen rewards, and associated visual and olfactory cues. For insect‐pollinated crops, identifying and breeding for attractive floral traits may increase yields. In this study, we examined floral trait variation within cultivated sunflowers and its effects on bee foraging behaviours. Over 2 years, we planted different sunflower inbred lines, including male‐fertile and male‐sterile lines, and measured nectar volume, nectar sugar concentration and composition, and corolla length. During bloom, we recorded visits by both managed honey bees and wild bees. We then examined consistency in relative nectar production by comparing field results to those from a greenhouse experiment. Sunflower inbred lines varied significantly in all floral traits, including the amount and composition of nectar sugars, and in corolla length. Both wild bee and honey bee visits significantly increased with nectar sugar amount and decreased with corolla length, but appeared unaffected by nectar sugar composition. While wild bees made more visits to sunflowers providing pollen (male‐fertile), honey bees preferred plants without pollen (male‐sterile). Differences in nectar quantity among greenhouse‐grown sunflower lines were similar to those measured in the field, and bumble bees preferentially visited lines with more nectar in greenhouse observations. Our results show that sunflowers with greater quantities of nectar sugar and shorter corollas receive greater pollination services from both managed and wild bees. Selecting for these traits could thus increase sunflower crop yields and provide greater floral resources for bees.     

Competition between honey bees and wild bees and the role of nesting resources in a nature reserve

The European honey bee exploits floral resources efficiently and may therefore compete with solitary wild bees. Hence, conservationists and bee keepers are debating about the consequences of beekeeping for the conservation of wild bees in nature reserves. We observed flower-visiting bees on flowers of Calluna vulgaris in sites differing in the distance to the next honey-bee hive and in sites with hives present and absent in the Lüneburger Heath, Germany. Additionally, we counted wild bee ground nests in sites that differ in their distance to the next hive and wild bee stem nests and stem-nesting bee species in sites with hives present and absent. We did not observe fewer honey bees or higher wild bee flower visits in sites with different distances to the next hive (up to 1,229 m). However, wild bees visited fewer flowers and honey bee visits increased in sites containing honey-bee hives and in sites containing honey-bee hives we found fewer stem-nesting bee species. The reproductive success, measured as number of nests, was not affected by distance to honey-bee hives or their presence but by availability and characteristics of nesting resources. Our results suggest that beekeeping in the Lüneburg Heath can affect the conservation of stem-nesting bee species richness but not the overall reproduction either of stem-nesting or of ground-nesting bees. Future experiments need control sites with larger distances than 500 m to hives. Until more information is available, conservation efforts should forgo to enhance honey bee stocking rates but enhance the availability of nesting resources.     

Arid grassland bee communities: associated environmental variables and responses to restoration

In recent years restoration project efforts in arid grasslands of the Pacific Northwest have increased; however, little is known about the bee communities in these areas or how restoration affects them. Native bees provide an essential ecosystem service through pollination of crops and native plants and understanding their response to restoration is a high priority. To address this issue, we conducted a three‐year study in an arid bunchgrass prairie with three objectives: (1) describe the bee community of this unique grassland type and its temporal variability; (2) investigate environmental variables influencing the community; and (3) examine effects of restoration on the community. We identified 62 bee species and found strong seasonal and inter‐annual variation in bee abundance, richness, diversity, and species composition. Unexpectedly, these temporal trends did not correspond with patterns in floral resources; however, several variables were associated with variation in bee abundance, richness, and diversity among sites. Sites with high levels of litter cover had more bees, while sites with taller vegetation or more blooming flowers had greater species richness but lower diversity. We found no detectable effect of restoration on bee abundance, richness, diversity, or composition. Species composition at native sites differed from those in actively and passively restored sites, which did not differ from each other. Restored sites also had fewer flowers and differing floral composition relative to native sites. These results suggest that if grassland restoration is to benefit bees, efforts should focus on both expanding floral resources and enhancing variables that influence nesting habitat.     

Pollinator visitation to mass-flowering courgette and co-flowering wild flowers: Implications for pollination and bee conservation on farms

Managing the complex relationship between pollinators and their habitat requirements is of particular concern to growers of pollinator-dependent crop species, such as courgette (Cucurbita pepo). Naturally occurring wild flowers (i.e. agricultural weeds) offer a free, sustainable, and often underappreciated resource for pollinators, however, they may compete with crop flowers for visits. To understand the extent to which floral resources mediate pollinator visitation to courgette flowers and courgette fields, plant community and pollinator visitation data were collected at two spatial scales: field scale (in margins, and in the cropped area) and farm scale (500 m and 2000 m radii) for nine courgette fields across the UK. Apis mellifera (honeybees) and Bombus spp. (bumblebees) were the only pollinators observed to visit courgette flowers. Bumblebees were significantly more abundant on courgette flowers in fields with a greater species richness of wild flowers in the crop, whilst honeybees were significantly more abundant on courgette flowers in areas with less semi-natural habitat. For both honeybees and bumblebees, their abundance in field margins did not significantly reduce their abundance on courgette flowers, suggesting that wild flowers were not competing with courgette flowers for pollinator visitation. Although solitary bees were not observed to visit courgette flowers, their abundance and species richness in courgette fields were significantly greater with more semi-natural habitat and a greater species richness of wild flowers. Therefore, allowing uncultivated areas around the crop to be colonised by species-rich wild flowers is an effective way of boosting the abundance of bumblebees, which are important visitors to courgette flowers, as well as the abundance and species richness of solitary bees, thereby benefitting pollinator conservation.