EFFECTS of LAND USE on NATIVE BEE DIVERSITY Byron
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE BEES OF THE AMERICAN AND COSUMNES RIVERS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: EFFECTS OF LAND USE ON NATIVE BEE DIVERSITY Byron Love B.S., California State University, Humboldt, 2003 THESIS Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (Biological Conservation) at CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO SUMMER 2010 © 2010 Byron Love ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii THE BEES OF THE AMERICAN AND COSUMNES RIVERS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: EFFECTS OF LAND USE ON NATIVE BEE DIVERSITY A Thesis by Byron Love Approved by: __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Shannon Datwyler __________________________________, Second Reader Dr. Patrick Foley __________________________________, Third Reader Dr. Jamie Kneitel __________________________________, Fourth Reader Dr. James W. Baxter Date:____________________ iii Student: Byron Love I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis. ______________________,Graduate Coordinator _________________ Dr. James W. Baxter Date Department of Biological Sciences iv Abstract of THE BEES OF THE AMERICAN AND COSUMNES RIVERS IN SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA: EFFECTS OF LAND USE ON NATIVE BEE DIVERSITY by Byron Love A survey of the bees in semi-natural habitat along the American and Cosumnes rivers in Sacramento County, California, was conducted during the flower season of 2007. Although the highly modified landscapes surrounding the two rivers is distinctly different, with urban and suburban development dominant along the American River, and agriculture along the Cosumnes River, there is no difference in the proportion of modified landscape between the two rivers. The proportion of semi-natural habitat is also similar between rivers. Sixty four species of plants provided floral resources for bees, dominated by nonnative species. Over half of the bee diversity were associated with 3 nonnative plants—Hirschfeldia incana, Centaurea solstitialis, and Cichorium intybus—indicating the importance of nonnative plants in providing floral resources A total of 122 bee species were identified in five families from 7910 specimens collected or observed. Bee abundance was dominated by the Halictidae family, v with 50% coming from 4 species. Apidae was the most specious family, and Andrenidae and Colletidae accounted for less than 5% of bee abundance. A surprising 17% of bee diversity included specialist bees, with the Cosumnes river accounting for higher richness, abundance, and number of unique species. Five species of nonnative bee species were identified, but there were no indications of nonnative bees exhibiting preferences for nonnative plants. Similarity measurements reveal that bee communities are generally associated by river, with the exception of one site on the American river at the confluence with the Sacramento river, indicating the possibility of river systems providing uniquely similar bee communities. __________________________________, Committee Chair Dr. Shannon Datwyler ________________________ Date vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Whether or not my path would have ultimately led to bees without their introduction by my undergraduate advisor Mick Mesler is beside the point; your passion is now mine. I have been lucky to meet so many kind and helpful people during my time at Sac State, and have made many lifelong friends. I am forever indebted for the guidance, advice, and most of all patience, of Patrick Foley, but I’m still not certain if I should thank or curse you for introducing me to R. My advisor Shannon Datwyler provided much more than academic support. Your help and advice in navigating academia has made me a better scholar and teacher. Jamie Kneitel and Jim Baxter provided much needed assistance in working out the bugs (or should I say bees?) in the design, analysis, and manuscript. The resolution of bee identification could not have been possible without the infinite patience of Robbin Thorp; and Mike Baad and Jim Alford assisted with plant identification. So many people blurred the line between cohorts, staff, and friends. Many thanks to Larry Cabral, Carrie Lessin-Cabral, Sulie Harney, Melissa Schlenker, and Erika Holland. Finally, a special thanks to my family who have put up with that crazy son, brother, uncle. Your love and support has provided almost as much solice as your unwaivering belief. And to Ida, a most special thanks for giving me the vii encouragement, push, and opportunity to explore my curiosity of the natural world. I am forever grateful. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. vii List of Tables ........................................................................................................ xi List of Figures ...................................................................................................... xii Introduction ............................................................................................................1 Pollinator Declines ......................................................................................2 Land Conversion in the Sacramento Valley .................................................4 Bee Diversity ...............................................................................................7 Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................8 Materials and Methods .......................................................................................... 10 Study Area................................................................................................. 10 Experimental Design ................................................................................. 12 Landscape Analysis ................................................................................... 14 Sampling Bee Richness, Abundance, and Floral Preferences ..................... 15 Sampling Floral Resources ........................................................................ 18 Data Analysis ............................................................................................ 19 Results .................................................................................................................. 21 Landscape Analysis ................................................................................... 21 Bee Communities ...................................................................................... 21 ix Bee Abundance, Richness, and Diversity ................................................... 27 Floral Resources ........................................................................................ 33 The Influence of Plants on Bees ................................................................. 41 Non-native Bees and Plants ....................................................................... 41 Comparison of Hand Netting and Pan Trapping ......................................... 48 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 50 Urban and Agricultural Habitats as Bee Refugia ........................................ 52 Implications of Nonnative Bees ................................................................. 56 Bee Sampling Considerations .................................................................... 58 Conclusion ................................................................................................ 61 Appendix A: Species list of bees and numbers of individuals collected in semi-natural habitat along the American and Cosumnes Rivers in Sacramento County, California in 2007. ............................ 63 Appendix B: Bee-visited plant list in semi-natural habitat along the American and Cosumnes Rivers in Sacramento County, California in 2007. ........................................................................... 68 Literature Cited ..................................................................................................... 76 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sampling Site description, code, latitude and longitude, and elevation (in meters) of sampling locations along the American and Cosumnes Rivers in Sacramento, California ..................... 13 Table 2. Comparison of bee abundance (# of individuals), richness (# of species), diversity, and several community measures between each river .................................................................................. 23 Table 3. Abundance (number of individuals), nesting and social habits of the most widespread bee species (occurring at all 8 sites) .................................................................................................... 28 Table 4. ANOVA summary for the comparison of bee abundance (# of individuals), bee species richness, diversity (Simpson’s reciprocal index), and community evenness (Simpson’s reiciprocal index/richness) between the American and Cosumnes Rivers during May through September 2007 .......................... 29 Table 5. List of plant species, family, native/non-native status, and occurence, observed at study sites along the American and/or Cosumnes Rivers in Sacramento County, California .................... 36 Table 6. Abundance (% cover) and richness (# of species) of plants in flower along each river between May and September 2007