Characterization of wild bee communities in apple and blueberry orchards

1. Wild bees provide invaluable ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes such as pollination. However, in recent decades, pollinator biodiversity, especially in wild bees, is declining on a global scale, with potentially far‐reaching consequences for crop production. Thus, there is an urgent need to determine whether wild bees are present in agricultural systems, such as fruit orchards.
2. In the present study, we examined the wild bee fauna at species and community levels during the period of bee activity (May to August) in apple and high‐bush blueberry orchards in New England.
3. Bee communities are crop‐specific and dominated by very few species, which fluctuate according to crop and season. The blueberry associated bee fauna was more diverse. In apple, communities were phylogenetically clustered at the genus level and dominated by solitary ground nesting bees within the genus Andrena. Species fluctuated widely in presence and abundance throughout the season, leading to differences in community composition and functional trait structure.
4. The results obtained in the present study show that apple and blueberry harbour a distinct and diverse bee fauna that performs vital pollination services in orchards. Our results provide essential baseline data for wild bees in blueberry and apple orchards and this can be used to improve management and conservation strategies for wild bee preservation in these crops.

     

Proximity to wildflower strips did not boost crop pollination on small,diversified farms harboring diverse wild bees

The yield of many agricultural crops depends on pollination services provided by wild and managed bees, many of which are experiencing declines due to factors such as reductions in floral resources. Thus, improving pollinator habitat on farmlands using management strategies like planting wildflower strips is vital for wild bee conservation and sustainable crop pollination. Yet, few studies have examined whether and at what spatial scales wildflower strips enhance crop pollination and yields, and most research has been conducted in large-scale commercial agriculture. Therefore, we investigated the effects of wildflower strips on crop pollination on small, diversified farms (i.e., those growing a variety of crop species) where wild bee diversity and abundance is predicted to be comparatively high. Over three years, on four diversified farms in Montana USA, we tested the hypothesis that distance (20, 60, and 180 m) of crops from native perennial wildflower strips planted alongside crop fields affected wild bee visitation, pollination, and yields of squash and sunflower crop plants. We found that distance to wildflower strips did not affect bee visitation or pollination in crops. Squash yield was pollen-limited in the growing season prior to wildflower strip establishment, and in one of the two years after wildflower strip establishment, but proximity to wildflower strips did not influence the magnitude of pollen limitation. Sunflower seed production was not pollen-limited in any year. Our findings demonstrate that even on diverse farms with wildflower strips and a demonstrated high diversity of bees, some crops do not necessarily receive maximum pollination, regardless of distance from the wildflower strips. However, the value of wildflower strips for supporting wild bee diversity, and other ecological or economic benefits, needs consideration for a full understanding of this pollinator habitat management strategy.     

Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses

One of the values of biodiversity is that it may provide 'biological insurance' for services currently rendered by domesticated species or technology. We used crop pollination as a model system, and investigated whether the loss of a domesticated pollinator (the honey bee) could be compensated for by native, wild bee species. We measured pollination provided to watermelon crops at 23 farms in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA, and used a simulation model to separate the pollen provided by honey bees and native bees. Simulation results predict that native bees alone provide sufficient pollination at > 90% of the farms studied. Furthermore, empirical total pollen deposition at flowers was strongly, significantly correlated with native bee visitation but not with honey bee visitation. The honey bee is currently undergoing extensive die-offs because of Colony Collapse Disorder. We predict that in our region native bees will buffer potential declines in agricultural production because of honey bee losses.     

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.     

Bee Species Diversity Enhances Productivity and Stability in a Perennial Crop

Wild bees provide important pollination services to agroecoystems, but the mechanisms which underlie their contribution to ecosystem functioning—and, therefore, their importance in maintaining and enhancing these services—remain unclear. We evaluated several mechanisms through which wild bees contribute to crop productivity, the stability of pollinator visitation, and the efficiency of individual pollinators in a highly bee-pollination dependent plant, highbush blueberry. We surveyed the bee community (through transect sampling and pan trapping) and measured pollination of both open- and singly-visited flowers. We found that the abundance of managed honey bees, Apis mellifera, and wild-bee richness were equally important in describing resulting open pollination. Wild-bee richness was a better predictor of pollination than wild-bee abundance. We also found evidence suggesting pollinator visitation (and subsequent pollination) are stabilized through the differential response of bee taxa to weather (i.e., response diversity). Variation in the individual visit efficiency of A. mellifera and the southeastern blueberry bee, Habropoda laboriosa, a wild specialist, was not associated with changes in the pollinator community. Our findings add to a growing literature that diverse pollinator communities provide more stable and productive ecosystem services.     

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.     

Pollination efficiency of wild bees and hoverflies provided to oilseed rape

• 1 Declining numbers in honeybees and various wild bee species pose a threat to global pollination services. The identification and quantification of the pollination service provided by different taxa within the pollinator guild is a prerequisite for the successful establishment of nature conservation and crop management regimes.
• 2 Wild bees and hoverflies are considered to be valuable pollinators in agricultural and natural systems. Although some information on pollination efficiency of individual pollinator species is available, comparative studies of both taxa at different densities are rare. In the present study, the efficiency of the solitary mason bee Osmia rufa and two hoverfly species (Eristalis tenax and Episyrphus balteatus) as pollinators of oilseed rape Brassica napus was examined in a standardized caged plant breeding regime. Honeybee Apis mellifera colonies were used as a reference pollinator taxon.
• 3 Yield parameters responded differently to pollinator density and identity. Fruit set and number of seeds per pod increased with increasing pollinator density, although these were stronger in the mason bee than the hoverfly treatment. Weight per 1000 seeds did not respond to any pollinator treatment, indicating that seed quality was not affected. Oilseed rape yield in the highest tested densities of both pollinator taxa resulted in yield values close to the efficiency of small honeybee colonies.
• 4 Hoverflies required approximately five‐fold densities of the red mason bees to reach a similar fruit set and yield. Thus, mason bees are more efficient in plant breeding and managed pollination systems. Both natural pollinator taxa, however, are of potential value in open and closed crop production systems.

     

Negative effects of pesticides on wild bee communities can be buffered by landscape context

Wild bee communities provide underappreciated but critical agricultural pollination services. Given predicted global shortages in pollination services, managing agroecosystems to support thriving wild bee communities is, therefore, central to ensuring sustainable food production. Benefits of natural (including semi-natural) habitat for wild bee abundance and diversity on farms are well documented. By contrast, few studies have examined toxicity of pesticides on wild bees, let alone effects of farm-level pesticide exposure on entire bee communities. Whether beneficial natural areas could mediate effects of harmful pesticides on wild bees is also unknown. Here, we assess the effect of conventional pesticide use on the wild bee community visiting apple (Malus domestica) within a gradient of percentage natural area in the landscape. Wild bee community abundance and species richness decreased linearly with increasing pesticide use in orchards one year after application; however, pesticide effects on wild bees were buffered by increasing proportion of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape. A significant contribution of fungicides to observed pesticide effects suggests deleterious properties of a class of pesticides that was, until recently, considered benign to bees. Our results demonstrate extended benefits of natural areas for wild pollinators and highlight the importance of considering the landscape context when weighing up the costs of pest management on crop pollination services.     

Impacts of the use of nonnative commercial bumble bees for pollinator supplementation in raspberry

Evidence for pollinator declines has led to concern that inadequate pollination services may limit crop yields. The global trade in commercial bumble bee (Bombus spp.) colonies provides pollination services for both glasshouse and open-field crops. For example, in the United Kingdom, commercial colonies of nonnative subspecies of the bumble bee Bombus terrestris L. imported from mainland Europe are widely used for the pollination of raspberries, Rubus idaeus L. The extent to which these commercial colonies supplement the services provided by wild pollinators has not been formally quantified and the impact of commercial bumble bees on native bees visiting the crop is unknown. Here, the impacts of allowing commercially available bumble bee colonies to forage on raspberry canes are assessed in terms of the yield of marketable fruit produced and the pollinator communities found foraging on raspberry flowers. No differences were found in the abundance, diversity, or composition of social bee species observed visiting raspberry flowers when commercial bumble bees were deployed compared with when they were absent. However, weight of marketable raspberries produced increased when commercial bees were present, indicating that wild pollinator services alone are inadequate for attaining maximum yields. The findings of the study suggests that proportional yield increases associated with deployment of commercial colonies may be small, but that nevertheless, investment in commercial colonies for raspberry pollination could produce very significant increases in net profit for the grower. Given potential environmental risks associated with the importation of nonnative bumble bees, the development of alternative solutions to the pollination deficit in raspberry crops in the United Kingdom may be beneficial.     

The area requirements of an ecosystem service: crop pollination by native bee communities in California

Managing ecosystem services is critical to human survival, yet we do not know how large natural areas must be to support these services. We investigated how crop pollination services provided by native, unmanaged, bee communities varied on organic and conventional farms situated along a gradient of isolation from natural habitat. Pollination services from native bees were significantly, positively related to the proportion of upland natural habitat in the vicinity of farm sites, but not to any other factor studied, including farm type, insecticide usage, field size and honeybee abundance. The scale of this relationship matched bee foraging ranges. Stability and predictability of pollination services also increased with increasing natural habitat area. This strong relationship between natural habitat area and pollination services was robust over space and time, allowing prediction of the area needed to produce a given level of pollination services by wild bees within this landscape.     

Response diversity to land use occurs but does not consistently stabilise ecosystem services provided by native pollinators

More diverse biological communities may provide ecosystem services that are less variable over space or time. However, the mechanisms underlying this relationship are rarely investigated empirically in real‐world ecosystems. Here, we investigate how a potentially important stabilising mechanism, response diversity, the differential response to environmental change among species, stabilises pollination services against land‐use change. We measured crop pollination services provided by native bees across land‐use gradients in three crop systems. We found that bee species responded differentially to increasing agricultural land cover in all three systems, demonstrating that response diversity occurs. Similarly, we found response diversity in pollination services in two of the systems. However, there was no evidence that response diversity, in general, stabilised ecosystem services. Our results suggest that either response diversity is not the primary stabilising mechanism in our system, or that new measures of response diversity are needed that better capture the stabilising effects it provides.     

Restoration of Nontarget Species: Bee Communities and Pollination Function in Riparian Forests

Nontarget species such as pollinators may be of great importance to the restoration process and the long‐term functioning of restored habitats, but little is known about how such groups respond to habitat restoration. I surveyed bee communities at five equal‐aged restored sites, paired with five reference sites (riparian remnants) along the Sacramento River, California, United States. Flower availability and bee visitation patterns were also measured to examine the restoration of pollination function. Restoration of structural vegetation allowed diverse and abundant native bee communities to establish at the restoration sites; however, the composition of these important pollinator communities was distinct from that in the remnant riparian sites. Differences did not arise primarily from differences in the composition of the flowering‐plant community; rather there must be other physical characteristics of the restored sites or differences in nesting site availability that led to the different pollinator communities. Because sites were spatially paired, the differences are unlikely to be driven by landscape context. Bee life‐history and other biological traits may partially explain the differences between bee communities at restored and remnant sites. Patterns of visitation to native plant species suggest that pollination function is restored along with pollinator abundance and richness; however, function may be less robust in restored habitats. An examination of interaction networks between bees and plant species found at both restored and remnant riparian sites showed less redundancy of pollinators visiting some plants at restored habitats.     

Variation in composition of two bumble bee species across communities affects nectar robbing but maintains pollinator visitation rate to an alpine plant,Salvia przewalskii

1. In many flowering plants, bumble bees may forage as both pollinators and nectar robbers. This mixed foraging behaviour may be influenced by community context and consequently, potentially affect pollination of the focal plant. 2. Salvia przewalskii is both pollinated and robbed exclusively by bumble bees. In the present study area, it was legitimately visited by two species of bumble bees with different tongue length, Bombus friseanus and Bombus religiosus, but it was only robbed by Bombus friseanus, the shorter‐tongued bumble bee. The intensity of nectar robbing and pollinator visitation rate to the plant were investigated across 26 communities in the Hengduan Mountains in East Himalaya during a 2‐year project. For each of these communities, the floral diversity, and the population size and floral resource of S. przewalskii were quantified. The abundances of the two bumble bee species were also recorded. 3. Both nectar robbing and pollinator visitation rate were influenced by floral diversity. However, pollinator visitation rate was not affected by nectar robbing. The results revealed that relative abundance of the two bumble bee species significantly influenced the incidence of nectar robbing but not the pollinator visitation rate. Increased abundance of B. religiosus, the legitimate visitors, exacerbated nectar robbing, possibly by causing B. friseanus to shift to robbing; however, pollinator visitation remained at a relatively high level. 4. The results may help to explain the persistence of both nectar robbing and pollination, and suggest that, in comparison to pollination, nectar robbing is a more unstable event in a community.     

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.     

Mismatched outcomes for biodiversity and ecosystem services: testing the responses of crop pollinators and wild bee biodiversity to habitat enhancement

Supporting ecosystem services and conserving biodiversity may be compatible goals, but there is concern that service‐focused interventions mostly benefit a few common species. We use a spatially replicated, multiyear experiment in four agricultural settings to test if enhancing habitat adjacent to crops increases wild bee diversity and abundance on and off crops. We found that enhanced field edges harbored more taxonomically and functionally abundant, diverse, and compositionally different bee communities compared to control edges. Enhancements did not increase the abundance or diversity of bees visiting crops, indicating that the supply of pollination services was unchanged following enhancement. We find that actions to promote crop pollination improve multiple dimensions of biodiversity, underscoring their conservation value, but these benefits may not be spilling over to crops. More work is needed to identify the conditions that promote effective co‐management of biodiversity and ecosystem services.     

Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?

Pollination by bees and other animals increases the size, quality, or stability of harvests for 70% of leading global crops. Because native species pollinate many of these crops effectively, conserving habitats for wild pollinators within agricultural landscapes can help maintain pollination services. Using hierarchical Bayesian techniques, we synthesize the results of 23 studies – representing 16 crops on five continents – to estimate the general relationship between pollination services and distance from natural or semi-natural habitats. We find strong exponential declines in both pollinator richness and native visitation rate. Visitation rate declines more steeply, dropping to half of its maximum at 0.6 km from natural habitat, compared to 1.5 km for richness. Evidence of general decline in fruit and seed set – variables that directly affect yields – is less clear. Visitation rate drops more steeply in tropical compared with temperate regions, and slightly more steeply for social compared with solitary bees. Tropical crops pollinated primarily by social bees may therefore be most susceptible to pollination failure from habitat loss. Quantifying these general relationships can help predict consequences of land use change on pollinator communities and crop productivity, and can inform landscape conservation efforts that balance the needs of native species and people.     

Bumble bees exhibit daily behavioral patterns in pollen foraging

In response to global declines in bee populations, several studies have focused on floral resource provisioning schemes to support bee communities and maintain their pollination services. Optimizing host-plant selection for supplemental floral provisioning requires an understanding of bee foraging behavior and preferences for host-plant species. However, fully characterizing these preferences is challenging due to multiple factors influencing foraging, including the large degree of spatiotemporal variability in floral resources. To understand bee pollen foraging patterns, we developed a highly controlled mechanistic framework to measure pollen foraging preferences of the bumble bee Bombus impatiens to nine plant species native to Pennsylvania. We recorded continuous observations of foraging behavior of the experimental bee community and individual bees, while simultaneously standardizing for the number of foragers in the environment and differences in floral display of each plant species, while controlling for flowering phenology such that bees only foraged when all plant species’ flowers were open. Our results demonstrate that B. impatiens exhibit predictable daily patterns in their pollen foraging choices, and their preferences are dominated by the host-plants they visit first. We hypothesize that these patterns at the community and individual levels are driven by the interplay between pollen abundance and quality. We recommend that daily cycles of host-plant visitation be considered in future studies to ensure precise and accurate interpretations of host-plant preference. Such precision is critical for comprehensive analyses of the proximate and ultimate mechanisms driving bee foraging behavior and the selection of host-plant species to use in habitat restoration protocols.     

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.     

Hedgerow presence does not enhance indicators of nest‐site habitat quality or nesting rates of ground‐nesting bees

A major challenge in habitat restoration is targeting the key aspects of a species' niche for enhancement, particularly for species that use a diverse set of habitat features. However, restoration that focuses on limited aspects of a species' niche may neglect other resources that are critical to population persistence. We evaluated the ability of native plant hedgerows, planted to increase pollen and nectar resources for wild bees in agricultural landscapes, to provide suitable nesting habitat and enhance nesting rates of ground‐nesting bees. We found that, when compared to unmanaged field edges (controls), hedgerows did not augment most indicators of nest habitat quality (bare ground, soil surface irregularity, and soil hardness), although coarser soils were associated with higher incidence and richness of nesting bees. Hedgerows did not augment nesting rates when compared to control edges. Although all the bee species we detected nesting were also found foraging on floral resources, the foraging versus nesting assemblages found within a site were highly dissimilar. These results may reflect sampling error; or, species found foraging but not nesting in hedgerows could be utilizing hedgerows as “partial habitats,” nesting outside hedgerow plantings but foraging on the floral resources they provide. We conclude that although hedgerows are known to provide critical floral resources to wild bees especially in resource‐poor intensive agricultural landscapes, simply increasing vegetative diversity and structure may not be simultaneously enhancing nesting habitat for ground‐nesting bees.