Six years of wild bee monitoring shows changes in biodiversity within and across years and declines in abundance

Wild bees form diverse communities that pollinate plants in both native and agricultural ecosystems making them both ecologically and economically important. The growing evidence of bee declines has sparked increased interest in monitoring bee community and population dynamics using standardized methods. Here, we studied the dynamics of bee biodiversity within and across years by monitoring wild bees adjacent to four apple orchard locations in Southern Pennsylvania, USA. We collected bees using passive Blue Vane traps continuously from April to October for 6 years (2014–2019) amassing over 26,000 bees representing 144 species. We quantified total abundance, richness, diversity, composition, and phylogenetic structure. There were large seasonal changes in all measures of biodiversity with month explaining an average of 72% of the variation in our models. Changes over time were less dramatic with years explaining an average of 44% of the variation in biodiversity metrics. We found declines in all measures of biodiversity especially in the last 3 years, though additional years of sampling are needed to say if changes over time are part of a larger trend. Analyses of population dynamics over time for the 40 most abundant species indicate that about one third of species showed at least some evidence for declines in abundance. Bee family explained variation in species‐level seasonal patterns but we found no consistent family‐level patterns in declines, though bumble bees and sweat bees were groups that declined the most. Overall, our results show that season‐wide standardized sampling across multiple years can reveal nuanced patterns in bee biodiversity, phenological patterns of bees, and population trends over time of many co‐occurring species. These datasets could be used to quantify the relative effects that different aspects of environmental change have on bee communities and to help identify species of conservation concern.     

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.     

Short-term effects of experimental boreal forest &;logging disturbance on bumble bees,bumble &;bee-pollinated flowers and the bee–flower match

This study examines how, over the short term, logging affects the density of bumble bees (Apidae: Bombus), the understory plants commonly visited by bumble bees, and the numerical relationship between bumble bees and flowers. In the summers before and after winter logging, bumble bees and plants were surveyed in 50 deciduous stands (each of 8–10 ha) in the boreal forest of northern Alberta, Canada. Logging was replicated at three different intensities: 0, 10–20, and 50–75% of trees remaining. There were generally more bumble bees, species of bumble bee-visited plants, and flowers in moderately (50–75%) logged sites, but this pattern depended on the time of year. Before logging, bumble bees matched resources according to an ideal free distribution (IFD). Logging affected the distribution of bumble bees across floral resources: the slope of the regression relating bumble bee and flower proportions was less than one for clearcut and control treatments (i.e., undermatching), with too many bumble bees in the flower-poor compartments and too few in the flower-rich ones. Deviations from an IFD were negative in control sites, such that fewer bumble bees occurred here than warranted by flower numbers. Controlling for flower density, bumble bee density was significantly greater in clearcuts than in the other treatments. By disproportionately visiting plants in clearcuts (relative to flower density), and by undermatching, bumble bees in clearcuts should experience higher levels of competition. Conversely, the fewer (and undermatching) bumble bees in control sites (relative to flower abundances there) may cause these plants to obtain diminished pollination service. The proximity of clearcut logging to pristine areas may therefore negatively impact plants and bumble bees in the pristine areas, at least in the season immediately following logging.     

Bumble bee abundance and richness improves honey bee pollination behaviour in sweet cherry

Pollination service in agricultural crops increases significantly with pollinator diversity and wild pollinator abundance. Differences in the foraging behaviour of pollinating insects are one of the reasons why pollinator diversity and abundance enhances crop pollination. Here, we focused on the foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumble bees in sweet cherry orchards. In addition, we studied the influence of bee diversity and abundance on the foraging behaviour of honey bees and bumble bees. Honey bees were found to visit fewer flowers than bumble bees. Bumble bees also showed a higher probability of changing trees between rows than honey bees. Both visitation rate and probability of row changes of honey bees increased with bumble bee diversity and with bumble bee abundance. We also found that the probability of row changes of honey bees increased with increasing bumble bee abundance. These effects of bumble bee richness and abundance on the pollination behaviour of honey bees can improve the pollination performance of honey bees in crops that depend on cross pollination. Our results highlight the higher pollination performance of bumble bees and the facilitative effect of wild pollinators to crop pollination.     

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

     

Inter‐assemblage facilitation: the functional diversity of cavity‐producing beetles drives the size diversity of cavity‐nesting bees

Inter‐specific interactions are important drivers and maintainers of biodiversity. Compared to trophic and competitive interactions, the role of non‐trophic facilitation among species has received less attention. Cavity‐nesting bees nest in old beetle borings in dead wood, with restricted diameters corresponding to the body size of the bee species. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the functional diversity of cavity‐producing wood boring beetles ‐ in terms of cavity diameters ‐ drives the size diversity of cavity‐nesting bees. The invertebrate communities were sampled in 30 sites, located in forested landscapes along an elevational gradient. We regressed the species richness and abundance of cavity nesting bees against the species richness and abundance of wood boring beetles, non‐wood boring beetles and elevation. The proportion of cavity nesting bees in bee species assemblage was regressed against the species richness and abundance of wood boring beetles. We also tested the relationships between the size diversity of cavity nesting bees and wood boring beetles. The species richness and abundance of cavity nesting bees increased with the species richness and abundance of wood boring beetles. No such relationship was found for non‐wood boring beetles. The abundance of wood boring beetles was also related to an increased proportion of cavity nesting bee individuals. Moreover, the size diversity of cavity‐nesting bees increased with the functional diversity of wood boring beetles. Specifically, the mean and dispersion of bee body sizes increased with the functional dispersion of large wood boring beetles. The positive relationships between cavity producing bees and cavity nesting bees suggest that non‐trophic facilitative interactions between species assemblages play important roles in organizing bee species assemblages. Considering a community‐wide approach may therefore be required if we are to successfully understand and conserve wild bee species assemblages in forested landscapes.     

Habitat structure components are effective predictors of trap-nesting Hymenoptera diversity

Habitat heterogeneity can be the major factor affecting species diversity in a community and measuring bee and wasp community habitat preferences in natural systems may provide insights for biodiversity management and conservation. In the present study, we investigate the effects of habitat structure components on solitary bee and wasp species richness and abundance. The research was conducted in an urban forest remnant in southeast Brazil. Our main questions were: (1) is similarity in habitat structure mirrored by similarity in Aculeate assemblage composition? and (2) what are the vegetation features that could be used as predictors of solitary bee and wasp richness and abundance? Aculeate bees and wasps were sampled using trap nests from February to November 2004. Trap nests were placed in sampling units located in 6 ha of secondary mesophytic forest. One hundred and thirty-seven trap nests were occupied by four species of wasps and seven species of bees. Altogether, our sampling units had a mean capture rate (relative to expected richness) of 72% during all the study period. The more similar sampling units were in terms of vegetation structure, the more similar they were in solitary bee and wasp species composition. The variance of tree abundance, shrub height and the abundance of wood logs were good predictors of solitary bee and wasp species richness and abundance in the study area. We demonstrate that even in a small scale it is possible to detect significant influences of habitat features on alpha diversity and that some of them are effective as predictors of trap-nesting Hymenoptera richness and abundance.     

Mite‐y bees: bumble bees (Bombus spp., Hymenoptera: Apidae) host a relatively homogeneous mite (Acari) community,shaped by bee species identity but not by geographic proximity

1. Parasites can affect the communities of their hosts; and hosts, in turn, shape communities of parasites and other symbionts. This makes host–symbiont relationships a key but often overlooked aspect of community ecology. 2. Mites associated with bees have a range of lifestyles; however, little is known about mites associated with wild bees or about factors influencing the make‐up of bee‐associated mite communities. This study investigated how mite communities associated with bumble bees (Bombus spp.) are shaped by the Bombus community and geographic proximity. 3. Bees were collected from 15 sites in Ontario, Canada, and examined for mites. Mite abundance and species richness increased with local bee abundance. Several bee species also differed in mite abundance, species richness, prevalence, and diversity. Locally uncommon species tended to have more mites than other bees. Queen bees had the most mites, and males had more mites than workers. 4. Spatial proximity was not a predictor of mite community composition, despite a strong effect of proximity on bee community similarity. 5. On the 11 Bombus spp. examined, 33 mite species were found. Whereas nearly half of these mite species are obligate associates of bumble bees, none was restricted to particular Bombus species. 6. The best predictor of mite community composition was bee identity. Although many parasite communities show strong geographic patterns, the communities of primarily commensalistic bee‐mites in this study did not. These findings have implications for bumble bee conservation, given that pollen‐feeding commensals might become harmful at high densities or act as disease vectors.     

Bumble Bees (Bombus spp) along a Gradient of Increasing Urbanization

Background

Bumble bees and other wild bees are important pollinators of wild flowers and several cultivated crop plants, and have declined in diversity and abundance during the last decades. The main cause of the decline is believed to be habitat destruction and fragmentation associated with urbanization and agricultural intensification. Urbanization is a process that involves dramatic and persistent changes of the landscape, increasing the amount of built-up areas while decreasing the amount of green areas. However, urban green areas can also provide suitable alternative habitats for wild bees.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We studied bumble bees in allotment gardens, i.e. intensively managed flower rich green areas, along a gradient of urbanization from the inner city of Stockholm towards more rural (periurban) areas. Keeping habitat quality similar along the urbanization gradient allowed us to separate the effect of landscape change (e.g. proportion impervious surface) from variation in habitat quality. Bumble bee diversity (after rarefaction to 25 individuals) decreased with increasing urbanization, from around eight species on sites in more rural areas to between five and six species in urban allotment gardens. Bumble bee abundance and species composition were most affected by qualities related to the management of the allotment areas, such as local flower abundance. The variability in bumble bee visits between allotment gardens was higher in an urban than in a periurban context, particularly among small and long-tongued bumble bee species.

Conclusions/Significance

Our results suggest that allotment gardens and other urban green areas can serve as important alternatives to natural habitats for many bumble bee species, but that the surrounding urban landscape influences how many species that will be present. The higher variability in abundance of certain species in the most urban areas may indicate a weaker reliability of the ecosystem service pollination in areas strongly influenced by human activity.     

Survey of bumble bee (Bombus) pathogens and parasites in Illinois and selected areas of northern California and southern Oregon

Pathogens have been implicated as potential factors in the recent decline of some North American bumble bee (Bombus) species, but little information has been reported about the natural enemy complex of bumble bees in the United States. We targeted bumble bee populations in a state-wide survey in Illinois and several sites in California and Oregon where declines have been reported to determine presence and prevalence of natural enemies. Based on our observations, most parasites and pathogens appear to be widespread generalists among bumble bee species, but susceptibility to some natural enemies appeared to vary.     

Tailoring your bee sampling protocol: Comparing three methods reveals the best approaches to capturing bees

1. Bees are prolific, vital pollinators in agricultural and natural settings, but some taxa are declining. Surveying bees is crucial to understand the needs of these taxa; however, we lack a fine-grained understanding of assemblages associated with different sampling methods that would enable us to analyse data range-wide.
2. Here we examine the difference in abundance and richness of bees (bee bowls and vane traps only) and bumble bees (genus Bombus; bee bowls, blue vane traps and target netting) sampled with these methods from mixed-grass prairie to alpine habitats in Wyoming, USA.
3. We collected four times more bees and twice as many genera of bees in vane traps than bee bowls. Vane traps captured more individuals of abundant genera than bee bowls.
4. Bombus species abundance did not vary between vane traps and target netting; however, richness was higher in vane traps. Bee bowls captured few Bombus species.
5. Overall, we recommend using vane traps to sample most bees, and a combination of vane traps and target netting to collect bumble bees. We evaluated how three sampling techniques perform when surveying for wild bees, which will aid in identifying declining species as well as monitoring species of conservation concern.

     

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.     

Monitoring the conservation status of bumble bee populations across an elevation gradient in the Front Range of Colorado

Bumble bees are important pollinators of native flowers and crop plants. Consequently, declines in bumble bee populations in many regions around the globe are cause for concern. We monitored abundance of 22 bumble bee species at multiple elevations over 5 years in Boulder County, Colorado. While no declines in abundance of any species were apparent over the course of the study, such a finding does not preclude prior declines in abundance. This study provides current baseline abundance data that can be used for future monitoring projects.     

Pollinator guilds respond contrastingly at different scales to landscape parameters of land‐use intensity

Land‐use intensification is the main factor for the catastrophic decline of insect pollinators. However, land‐use intensification includes multiple processes that act across various scales and should affect pollinator guilds differently depending on their ecology. We aimed to reveal how two main pollinator guilds, wild bees and hoverflies, respond to different land‐use intensification measures, that is, arable field cover (AFC), landscape heterogeneity (LH), and functional flower composition of local plant communities as a measure of habitat quality. We sampled wild bees and hoverflies on 22 dry grassland sites within a highly intensified landscape (NE Germany) within three campaigns using pan traps. We estimated AFC and LH on consecutive radii (60–3000 m) around the dry grassland sites and estimated the local functional flower composition. Wild bee species richness and abundance was positively affected by LH and negatively by AFC at small scales (140–400 m). In contrast, hoverflies were positively affected by AFC and negatively by LH at larger scales (500–3000 m), where both landscape parameters were negatively correlated to each other. At small spatial scales, though, LH had a positive effect on hoverfly abundance. Functional flower diversity had no positive effect on pollinators, but conspicuous flowers seem to attract abundance of hoverflies. In conclusion, landscape parameters contrarily affect two pollinator guilds at different scales. The correlation of landscape parameters may influence the observed relationships between landscape parameters and pollinators. Hence, effects of land‐use intensification seem to be highly landscape‐specific.     

Are native and non‐native pollinator friendly plants equally valuable for native wild bee communities?

Bees rely on floral pollen and nectar for food. Therefore, pollinator friendly plantings are often used to enrich habitats in bee conservation efforts. As part of these plantings, non‐native plants may provide valuable floral resources, but their effects on native bee communities have not been assessed in direct comparison with native pollinator friendly plantings. In this study, we performed a common garden experiment by seeding mixes of 20 native and 20 non‐native pollinator friendly plant species at separate neighboring plots at three sites in Maryland, USA, and recorded flower visitors for 2 years. A total of 3,744 bees (120 species) were collected. Bee abundance and species richness were either similar across plant types (midseason and for abundance also late season) or lower at native than at non‐native plots (early season and for richness also late season). The overall bee community composition differed significantly between native and non‐native plots, with 11 and 23 bee species being found exclusively at one plot type or the other, respectively. Additionally, some species were more abundant at native plant plots, while others were more abundant at non‐natives. Native plants hosted more specialized plant–bee visitation networks than non‐native plants. Three species out of the five most abundant bee species were more specialized when foraging on native plants than on non‐native plants. Overall, visitation networks were more specialized in the early season than in late seasons. Our findings suggest that non‐native plants can benefit native pollinators, but may alter foraging patterns, bee community assemblage, and bee–plant network structures.     

Reduced abundance and earlier collection of bumble bee workers under intensive cultivation of a mass‐flowering prairie crop

One of the most commonly seeded crops in Canada is canola, a cultivar of oilseed rape (Brassica napus). As a mass‐flowering crop grown intensively throughout the Canadian Prairies, canola has the potential to influence pollinator success across tens of thousands of square kilometers of cropland. Bumble bees (Bombus sp.) are efficient pollinators of many types of native and crop plants. We measured the influence of this mass‐flowering crop on the abundance and phenology of bumble bees, and on another species of social bee (a sweat bee; Halictus rubicundus), by continuously deploying traps at different levels of canola cultivation intensity, spanning the start and end of canola bloom. Queen bumble bees were more abundant in areas with more canola cover, indicating that this crop is attractive to queens. However, bumble bee workers were significantly fewer in these locations later in the season, suggesting reduced colony success. The median collection dates of workers of three bumble bee species were earlier near canola fields, suggesting a dynamic response of colonies to the increased floral resources. Different species experienced this shift to different extents. The sweat bee was not affected by canola cultivation intensity. Our findings suggest that mass‐flowering crops such as canola are attractive to bumble bee queens and therefore may lead to higher rates of colony establishment, but also that colonies established near this crop may be less successful. We propose that the effect on bumble bees can be mitigated by spacing the crop more evenly with respect to alternate floral resources.     

Patch utilization and flower visitations by wild bees in a honey bee‐dominated,grassland landscape

Understanding habitat needs and patch utilization of wild and managed bees has been identified as a national research priority in the United States. We used occupancy models to investigate patterns of bee use across 1030 transects spanning a gradient of floral resource abundance and richness and distance from apiaries in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of the United States. Estimates of transect use by honey bees were nearly 1.0 during our 3.5‐month sampling period, suggesting honey bees were nearly ubiquitous across transects. Wild bees more frequently used transects with higher flower richness and more abundant flowers; however, the effect size of the native flower abundance covariate (β^native = 3.90 ± 0.65 [1SE]) was four times greater than the non‐native flower covariate (β^non‐native = 0.99 ± 0.17). We found some evidence that wild bee use was lower at transects near commercial apiaries, but the effect size was imprecise (β^distance = 1.4 ± 0.81). Honey bees were more frequently detected during sampling events with more non‐native flowers and higher species richness but showed an uncertain relationship with native flower abundance. Of the 4039 honey bee and flower interactions, 85% occurred on non‐native flowers, while only 43% of the 738 wild bee observations occurred on non‐native flowers. Our study suggests wild bees and honey bees routinely use the same resource patches in the PPR but often visit different flowering plants. The greatest potential for resource overlap between honey bees and wild bees appears to be for non‐native flowers in the PPR. Our results are valuable to natural resource managers tasked with supporting habitat for managed and wild pollinators in agroecosystems.     

Ecological meta‐networks integrate spatial and temporal dynamics of plant–bumble bee interactions

Bumble bees can forage on a large number of wild plants and crops. The survival of a colony depends on the availability of suitable food resources within foraging range and throughout their forage season. We studied the spatial and temporal use of floral resources by bumble bees in a set of 30 local plant communities and used these data to model colony survival under different combinations of patch size and bumble bee flight distance. Floral resources vary spatially and temporally at the landscape level, and bumble bees track these resources across the landscape during the season. The simulation model showed that different patterns of resources availability could affect the survival and distribution of bumble bee nests across the landscape. This model can be used to generate hypotheses explaining bumble bee richness and abundance that can be tested in real landscapes. Integrating the spatial and temporal dynamics of the flower resources used by bumble bees provides a new perspective that can be used to inform bumble bee conservation, particularly in the context of their widespread decline in recent decades.     

Distribution and pollination services of wild bees and hoverflies along an altitudinal gradient in mountain hay meadows

Extensively managed and flower‐rich mountain hay meadows, hotspots of Europe''s biodiversity, are subject to environmental and climatic gradients linked to altitude. While the shift of pollinators from bee‐ to fly‐dominated communities with increasing elevation across vegetation zones is well established, the effect of highland altitudinal gradients on the community structure of pollinators within a specific habitat is poorly understood. We assessed wild bee and hoverfly communities, and their pollination service to three plant species common in mountain hay meadows, in eighteen extensively managed yellow oat grasslands (Trisetum flavescens) with an altitudinal gradient spanning approx. 300 m. Species richness and abundance of pollinators increased with elevation, but no shift between hoverflies and wild bees (mainly bumblebees) occurred. Seedset of the woodland cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum) increased with hoverfly abundance, and seedset of the marsh thistle (Cirsium palustre) increased with wild bee abundance. Black rampion (Phyteuma nigrum) showed no significant response. The assignment of specific pollinator communities, and their response to altitude in highlands, to different plant species underlines the importance of wild bees and hoverflies as pollinators in extensive grassland systems.     

Wild bee pollination networks in northern New England

Conserving and maintaining a diverse assemblage of wild bees is essential for a healthy and functioning ecosystem, as species are uniquely evolved to deliver specific plant–pollination requirements. Understanding the biology and ecology of bees in poorly studied regions is the first step towards conservation. Detailed surveys in New Hampshire reveal a broad diversity of 118 species of wild bees in different guilds and habitats including 17 bee species representing new state records. Network analyses reveal a complex community structure and relatively poorly connected plant–pollinator associations, thus species may be susceptible to disturbance. Phenological analyses document that at least one representative of five native bee families was present throughout the foraging season and both abundance and diversity were highest in June and July. This study provides important baseline information on bee abundance, diversity, phenology, and host plant associations necessary for future conservation efforts.