DOCSLIB.ORG

BEE CONSERVATION: Evidence for the Effects of Interventions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
BEE CONSERVATION: Evidence for the Effects of Interventions BEE CONSERVATION: evidence for the effects of interventions Lynn V. Dicks, David A. Showler & William J. Sutherland Based on evidence captured at www.conservationevidence.com Advisory Board We thank the following people for advising on the scope and content of this synopsis. Professor Andrew Bourke, University of East Anglia, UK Dr Claire Carvell, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK Mike Edwards, Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society, UK Professor Dave Goulson, University of Stirling & Bumblebee Conservation Trust, UK Dr Claire Kremen, University of California, Berkeley, USA Dr Peter Kwapong, International Stingless Bee Centre, University of Cape Coast, Ghana Professor Ben Oldroyd, University of Sydney, Australia Dr Juliet Osborne, Rothamsted Research, UK Dr Simon Potts, University of Reading, UK Matt Shardlow, Director, Buglife, UK Dr David Sheppard, Natural England, UK Dr Nick Sotherton, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK Professor Teja Tscharntke, Georg‐August University, Göttingen, Germany Mace Vaughan, Pollinator Program Director, The Xerces Society, USA Sven Vrdoljak, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa Dr Paul Williams, Natural History Museum, London, UK About the authors Lynn Dicks is a Research Associate in the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. David Showler is a Research Associate in the School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia and the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge. William Sutherland is the Miriam Rothschild Professor of Conservation Biology at the University of Cambridge. 1 About this book The purpose of Conservation Evidence synopses This book, Bee Conservation, is the first in a series of synopses that will cover different species groups and habitats, gradually building into a comprehensive summary of evidence on the effects of conservation interventions for all biodiversity throughout the world. By making evidence accessible in this way, we hope to enable a change in the practice of conservation, so it can become more evidence‐based. We also aim to highlight where there are gaps in knowledge. Conservation Evidence synopses do Conservation Evidence synopses do not Bring together scientific evidence Include evidence on the basic ecology captured by the Conservation Evidence of species or habitats, or threats to project (over 2,000 studies so far) on them the effects of interventions to conserve wildlife List all realistic interventions for the Make any attempt to weight or species group or habitat in question, prioritise interventions according to regardless of how much evidence for their importance or the size of their their effects is available effects Describe each piece of evidence, Weight or numerically evaluate the including methods, as clearly as evidence according to its quality possible, allowing readers to assess the quality of evidence Work in partnership with conservation Provide answers to conservation practitioners, policymakers and problems. We provide scientific scientists to develop the list of information to help with decision‐ interventions and ensure we have making covered the most important literature 2 Who this synopsis is for If you are reading this, we hope you are someone who has to make decisions about how best to support or conserve biodiversity. You might be a land manager, a conservationist in the public or private sector, a farmer, a campaigner, an advisor or consultant, a policymaker, a researcher or someone taking action to protect your own local wildlife. Our synopses summarise scientific evidence relevant to your conservation objectives and the actions you could take to achieve them. We do not aim to make your decisions for you, but to support your decision‐making by telling you what evidence there is (or isn’t) about the effects that your planned actions could have. When decisions have to be made with particularly important consequences, we recommend carrying out a systematic review, as the latter is likely to be more comprehensive than the summary of evidence presented here. Guidance on how to carry out systematic reviews can be found from the Centre for Evidence‐Based Conservation at the University of Bangor (www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk). The Conservation Evidence project The Conservation Evidence project has three parts: 1. An online, open access journal Conservation Evidence publishes new pieces of research on the effects of conservation management interventions. All our papers are written by, or in conjunction with, those who carried out the conservation work and include some monitoring of its effects. 2. An ever‐expanding database of summaries of previously published scientific papers, reports, reviews or systematic reviews that document the effects of interventions. 3. Synopses of the evidence captured in parts one and two on particular species groups or habitats. Synopses bring together the evidence for each possible intervention. They are freely available online and available to purchase in printed book form. These resources currently comprise over 2,000 pieces of evidence, all available in a searchable database on the website www.conservationevidence.com. Alongside this project, the Centre for Evidence‐Based Conservation (www.cebc.bangor.ac.uk) and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (www.environmentalevidence.org)y carr out and compile systematic reviews of 3 evidence on the effectiveness of particular conservation interventions. These systematic reviews are included on the Conservation Evidence database. Of the 59 bee conservation interventions identified in this synopsis, one is the subject of a current systematic review (Systematic Review number 72: Does delaying the first mowing date increase biodiversity in European farmland meadows? http://www.environmentalevidence.org/SR72.html). We identify an immediate need for a systematic review in relation to one other set of interventions (agri‐environment schemes), and a potential need for systematic reviews for two further interventions, should they become more widely practised (nest boxes for solitary bees and captive rearing of bumblebees). Scope of the Bee Conservation synopsis This synopsis covers evidence for the effects of conservation interventions for native, wild bees. It is restricted to evidence captured on the website www.conservationevidence.com. It includes papers published in the journal Conservation Evidence, evidence summarised on our database and systematic reviews collated by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. It does not include evidence from the substantial literature on husbandry methods for the largely domesticated honey bee Apis mellifera. It does include husbandry methods where they are relevant to native, wild bee species that are declining or threatened, such as bumblebees (Bombus spp.) and stingless bees (Meliponinae). Although the number of managed honey bee colonies is known to have declined in Europe and America, it is seldom the native subspecies that is kept and so we consider this to be outside the remit of Conservation Evidence. We do include some interventions and evidence relating to the conservation of subspecies of Apis mellifera in areas where they are native. Evidence from all around the world is included. If there appears to be a bias towards evidence from northern European or North American temperate environments, this reflects a current bias in the published research that is available to us. How we decided which bee conservation interventions to include Our list of interventions has been agreed in partnership with an Advisory Board made up of international conservationists and academics with expertise in bee conservation. Although the list of interventions may not be exhaustive, we have tried to include all actions that have been carried out or advised to support populations or communities of wild bees. 4 How we reviewed the literature In addition to evidence already captured by the Conservation Evidence project, we have searched the following sources for evidence relating to bee conservation: four specialist bee or insect conservation journals, from their first publication date to the end of 2009 (Apidologie, Journal of Apicultural Research, Insect Conservation and Diversity, Journal of Insect Conservation); ISI Web of Knowledge searched for papers with ‘bee’ as a search term, from 1997 to 2009 inclusive; all reports concerning bees published by Natural England or the UK Bumblebee Working Group up to 2009; other relevant papers or books frequently cited within the bee conservation literature, going back to 1912. In total, 168 individual studies are covered in this synopsis, all included in full or in summary on the Conservation Evidence website. The criteria for inclusion of studies in the Conservation Evidence database are as follows: There must have been an intervention that conservationists would do Its effects must have been monitored quantitatively In some cases, where a body of literature has strong implications for conservation of a particular species group or habitat, although it does not directly test interventions for their effects, we refer the reader to this literature. For example, the proportion of natural habitat in farmland has often been shown to affect bee diversity, but no studies have yet intervened by restoring natural or semi‐natural habitat and monitoring the effect on bees in surrounding farmland. In cases such as these, we briefly refer to the relevant literature, but present no evidence. How the evidence is summarised Conservation interventions are grouped primarily
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pollinators: First Global Risk Index for Species Declines and Effects on Humanity 16 August 2021
    Pollinators: First global risk index for species declines and effects on humanity 16 August 2021 ecosystems, including many that humans and other animals rely on for nutrition. If they go, we may be in serious trouble." Dicks assembled a 20-strong team of scientists and indigenous representatives to attempt an initial evaluation of the drivers and risks for pollinator declines worldwide. The research is published today in Nature Ecology & Evolution. The top three global causes of pollinator loss are habitat destruction, followed by land management—primarily the grazing, fertilizers and crop monoculture of farming—and then widespread pesticide use, according to the study. The effect of Credit: CC0 Public Domain climate change comes in at number four, although data are limited. Perhaps the biggest direct risk to humans across all Disappearing habitats and use of pesticides are regions is "crop pollination deficit": falls in quantity driving the loss of pollinator species around the and quality of food and biofuel crops. Experts world, posing a threat to "ecosystem services" that ranked the risk of crop yield "instability" as serious provide food and wellbeing to many or high across two-thirds of the planet—from Africa millions—particularly in the Global South—as well asto Latin America—where many rely directly on billions of dollars in crop productivity. pollinated crops through small-holder farming. This is according to an international panel of "Crops dependent on pollinators fluctuate more in experts, led by the University of Cambridge, who yield than, for example, cereals," said Dicks. used available evidence to create the first "Increasingly unusual climatic phenomena, such as planetary risk index of the causes and effects of extreme rainfall and temperature, are already dramatic pollinator declines in six global regions.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERSITY of READING Delivering Biodiversity and Pollination Services on Farmland
    UNIVERSITY OF READING Delivering biodiversity and pollination services on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife- friendly farming schemes Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Agri-Environmental Research School of Agriculture, Policy and Development Chloe J. Hardman June 2016 Declaration I confirm that this is my own work and the use of all material from other sources has been properly and fully acknowledged. Chloe Hardman i Abstract Gains in food production through agricultural intensification have come at an environmental cost, including reductions in habitat diversity, species diversity and some ecosystem services. Wildlife- friendly farming schemes aim to mitigate the negative impacts of agricultural intensification. In this study, we compared the effectiveness of three schemes using four matched triplets of farms in southern England. The schemes were: i) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (ELS: a flexible widespread government scheme, ii) organic agriculture and iii) Conservation Grade (CG: a prescriptive, non-organic, biodiversity-focused scheme). We examined how effective the schemes were in supporting habitat diversity, species diversity, floral resources, pollinators and pollination services. Farms in CG and organic schemes supported higher habitat diversity than farms only in ELS. Plant and butterfly species richness were significantly higher on organic farms and butterfly species richness was marginally higher on CG farms compared to farms in ELS. The species richness of plants, butterflies, solitary bees and birds in winter was significantly correlated with local habitat diversity. Organic farms supported more evenly distributed floral resources and higher nectar densities compared to farms in CG or ELS. Compared to maximum estimates of pollen demand from six bee species, only organic farms supplied sufficient pollen in late summer.
    [Show full text]
  • What Works in Conservation
    What Works in Conservation 2017 EDITED BY WILLIAM J. SUTHERLAND, LYNN V. DICKS, NANCY OCKENDON AND REBECCA K. SMITH To access digital resources including: blog posts videos online appendices and to purchase copies of this book in: hardback paperback ebook editions Go to: https://www.openbookpublishers.com/product/552 Open Book Publishers is a non-profit independent initiative. We rely on sales and donations to continue publishing high-quality academic works. What Works in Conservation 2017 Edited by William J. Sutherland, Lynn V. Dicks, Nancy Ockendon and Rebecca K. Smith http://www.openbookpublishers.com © 2017 William J. Sutherland This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0). This license allows you to share, copy, distribute and transmit the work; to adapt the work and to make commercial use of the work providing attribution is made to the authors (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Attribution should include the following information: Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., and Smith, R.K. What Works in Conservation 2017. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0109 In order to access detailed and updated information on the license, please visit http://www.openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783743087#copyright Further details about CC BY licenses are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All links were active at the time of publication unless otherwise stated. Digital material and resources associated with this volume are available at http://www.openbookpublishers.com/isbn/9781783743087#resources and http://www.conservationevidence.com ISSN 2059-4232 (Print) ISSN 2059-4240 (Online) ISBN Paperback: 978-1-78374-308-7 ISBN Hardback: 978-1-78374-309-4 ISBN Digital (PDF): 978-1-78374-310-0 ISBN Digital ebook (epub): 978-1-78374-311-7 ISBN Digital ebook (mobi): 978-1-78374-312-4 DOI: 10.11647/OBP.0109 Funded by Arcadia, Synchronicity Earth, ESRC, NERC, Natural England and Waitrose Ltd.
    [Show full text]
  • Clear Plastic Bags of Bark Mulch Trap and Kill Female Megachile (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) Searching for Nesting Sites
    JOURNAL OF THE KANSAS ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY 92(4), 2019, pp. 649-654 SHORT COMMUNICATION Clear Plastic Bags of Bark Mulch Trap and Kill Female Megachile (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) Searching for Nesting Sites Casey M. Delphia1*, Justin B. Runyon2, and Kevin M. O’Neill3 ABSTRACT: In 2017, we found 17 dead females of Megachile frigida Smith in clear plastic bags of com- posted bark mulch in a residential yard in Bozeman, Montana, USA. Females apparently entered bags via small ventilation holes, then became trapped and died. To investigate whether this is a common source of mortality, we deployed unmodified bags of mulch and those fitted with cardboard tubes (as potential nest sites) at three nearby sites in 2018. We found two dead M. frigida females and five completed leaf cells in one of these bags of mulch fitted with cardboard tubes; two male M. frigida emerged from these leaf cells. In 2018, we also discovered three dead female M. frigida and three dead females of a second leafcutter bee species, Megachile gemula Cresson, in clear bags of another type of bark mulch. Both mulches emitted nearly identical blends of volatile organic compounds, suggesting their odors could attract females searching for nesting sites. These findings suggest that more research is needed to determine how common and wide- spread this is for Megachile species that nest in rotting wood and if there are simple solutions to this problem. KEYWORDS: Leafcutter bees, solitary bees, cavity-nesting bees, Apoidea, wild bees, pollinators, Megachile frigida, Megachile gemula The leafcutter bees Megachile frigida Smith, 1853 and Megachile gemula Cresson, 1878 (Megachilidae) are widespread in North America (Mitchell 1960; Michener, 2007; Sheffield et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Support for Successful Implementation of the Natura 2000 Network
    Scientific support for successful implementation of the Natura 2000 network Focus Area B Guidance on the application of existing scientific approaches, methods, tools and knowledge for a better implementation of the Birds and Habitat Directives Environment FOCUS AREA B SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL i IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATURA 2000 NETWORK Imprint Disclaimer This document has been prepared for the European Commis- sion. The information and views set out in the handbook are Citation those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the Van der Sluis, T. & Schmidt, A.M. (2021). E-BIND Handbook (Part B): Scientific support for successful official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not implementation of the Natura 2000 network. Wageningen Environmental Research/ Ecologic Institute /Milieu guarantee the accuracy of the data included. The Commission Ltd. Wageningen, The Netherlands. or any person acting on the Commission’s behalf cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information Authors contained therein. Lead authors: This handbook has been prepared under a contract with the Anne Schmidt, Chris van Swaay (Monitoring of species and habitats within and beyond Natura 2000 sites) European Commission, in cooperation with relevant stakehold- Sander Mücher, Gerard Hazeu (Remote sensing techniques for the monitoring of Natura 2000 sites) ers. (EU Service contract Nr. 07.027740/2018/783031/ENV.D.3 Anne Schmidt, Chris van Swaay, Rene Henkens, Peter Verweij (Access to data and information) for evidence-based improvements in the Birds and Habitat Kris Decleer, Rienk-Jan Bijlsma (Guidance and tools for effective restoration measures for species and habitats) directives (BHD) implementation: systematic review and meta- Theo van der Sluis, Rob Jongman (Green Infrastructure and network coherence) analysis).
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Alternative Pollinators a Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists
    Managing Alternative Pollinators A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists ERIC MADER • MARLA SPIVAK • ELAINE EVANS Fair Use of this PDF file of Managing Alternative Pollinators: A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists, SARE Handbook 11, NRAES-186 By Eric Mader, Marla Spivak, and Elaine Evans Co-published by SARE and NRAES, February 2010 You can print copies of the PDF pages for personal use. If a complete copy is needed, we encourage you to purchase a copy as described below. Pages can be printed and copied for educational use. The book, authors, SARE, and NRAES should be acknowledged. Here is a sample acknowledgement: ----From Managing Alternative Pollinators: A Handbook for Beekeepers, Growers, and Conservationists, SARE Handbook 11, by Eric Mader, Marla Spivak, and Elaine Evans, and co- published by SARE and NRAES.---- No use of the PDF should diminish the marketability of the printed version. If you have questions about fair use of this PDF, contact NRAES. Purchasing the Book You can purchase printed copies on NRAES secure web site, www.nraes.org, or by calling (607) 255-7654. The book can also be purchased from SARE, visit www.sare.org. The list price is $23.50 plus shipping and handling. Quantity discounts are available. SARE and NRAES discount schedules differ. NRAES PO Box 4557 Ithaca, NY 14852-4557 Phone: (607) 255-7654 Fax: (607) 254-8770 Email: [email protected] Web: www.nraes.org SARE 1122 Patapsco Building University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742-6715 (301) 405-8020 (301) 405-7711 – Fax www.sare.org More information on SARE and NRAES is included at the end of this PDF.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A
    s l a m m a y t T i M S N v I i A e G t A n i p E S r a A C a C E H n T M i THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity The Humane Society of the United State s/ World Society for the Protection of Animals 2009 1 1 1 2 0 A M , n o t s o g B r o . 1 a 0 s 2 u - e a t i p s u S w , t e e r t S h t u o S 9 8 THE CASE AGAINST Marine Mammals in Captivity Authors: Naomi A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons, and Richard Farinato, 4th edition Editors: Naomi A. Rose and Debra Firmani, 4th edition ©2009 The Humane Society of the United States and the World Society for the Protection of Animals. All rights reserved. ©2008 The HSUS. All rights reserved. Printed on recycled paper, acid free and elemental chlorine free, with soy-based ink. Cover: ©iStockphoto.com/Ying Ying Wong Overview n the debate over marine mammals in captivity, the of the natural environment. The truth is that marine mammals have evolved physically and behaviorally to survive these rigors. public display industry maintains that marine mammal For example, nearly every kind of marine mammal, from sea lion Iexhibits serve a valuable conservation function, people to dolphin, travels large distances daily in a search for food. In learn important information from seeing live animals, and captivity, natural feeding and foraging patterns are completely lost.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pollination Deficit Towards Supply Chain Resilience in the Face of Pollinator Decline
    The pollination deficit Towards supply chain resilience in the face of pollinator decline Acknowledgements This resource is an output of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI), supported by the Arcadia Fund. We are grateful for the inputs of all the companies, interviewees and workshop attendees who contributed their time and expertise. Particular thanks go to Dr Alexandra-Maria Klein and Dr Virginie Boreux, to Mars, The Jordans & Ryvita Company, Sustainable Agriculture Network and The Body Shop for inputting into this report. Thanks also to Dr Chloe Montes for her work in shaping this project and to Professor Simon Potts and Dr Tom Breeze. Project partners The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL) www.cisl.cam.ac.uk The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership empowers business and policy leaders to make the necessary adjustments to their organisations, industries and economic systems in light of this challenge. By bringing together multidisciplinary researchers with influential business and policy practitioners across the globe, we foster an exchange of ideas across traditional boundaries to generate new solutions- oriented thinking. Fauna & Flora International (FFI) www.fauna-flora.org Fauna & Flora International (FFI) protects threatened species and ecosystems worldwide, choosing solutions that are sustainable, based on sound science and that take account of human needs. Operating in more than 50 countries worldwide, FFI saves species from extinction and habitats from destruction, while improving the livelihoods of local people. Founded in 1903, FFI is the world’s longest established international conservation body and a registered charity. UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) www.unep-wcmc.org UNEP-WCMC is the specialist biodiversity assessment arm of United Nations Environment, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollination of Cultivated Plants in the Tropics 111 Rrun.-Co Lcfcnow!Cdgmencle
    ISSN 1010-1365 0 AGRICULTURAL Pollination of SERVICES cultivated plants BUL IN in the tropics 118 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO 6-lina AGRICULTUTZ4U. ionof SERNES cultivated plans in tetropics Edited by David W. Roubik Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Balboa, Panama Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations F'Ø Rome, 1995 The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. M-11 ISBN 92-5-103659-4 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. Applications for such permission, with a statement of the purpose and extent of the reproduction, should be addressed to the Director, Publications Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100 Rome, Italy. FAO 1995 PlELi. uion are ted PlauAr David W. Roubilli (edita Footli-anal ISgt-iieulture Organization of the Untled Nations Contributors Marco Accorti Makhdzir Mardan Istituto Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria Universiti Pertanian Malaysia Cascine del Ricci° Malaysian Bee Research Development Team 50125 Firenze, Italy 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Stephen L. Buchmann John K. S. Mbaya United States Department of Agriculture National Beekeeping Station Carl Hayden Bee Research Center P.
    [Show full text]
  • Children's Perceptions of Rainforest Biodiversity
    Children’s Perceptions of Rainforest Biodiversity: Which Animals Have the Lion’s Share of Environmental Awareness? Jake L. Snaddon1., Edgar C. Turner1,2.*, William A. Foster1 1 Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom, 2 Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough Wildlife Trusts, Bedford, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom Abstract Globally, natural ecosystems are being lost to agricultural land at an unprecedented rate. This land-use often results in significant reductions in abundance and diversity of the flora and fauna as well as alterations in their composition. Despite this, there is little public perception of which taxa are most important in terms of their total biomass, biodiversity or the ecosystem services they perform. Such awareness is important for conservation, as without appreciation of their value and conservation status, species are unlikely to receive adequate conservation protection. We investigated children’s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity by asking primary-age children, visiting the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge to draw their ideal rainforest. By recording the frequency at which children drew different climatic, structural, vegetative and faunal components of the rainforest, we were able to quantify children’s understanding of a rainforest environment. We investigated children’s perceptions of rainforest biodiversity by comparing the relative numbers of the taxa drawn with the actual contributions made by these taxa to total rainforest biomass and global biodiversity. We found that children have a sophisticated view of the rainforest, incorporating many habitat features and a diverse range of animals. However, some taxa were over-represented (particularly mammals, birds and reptiles) and others under-represented (particularly insects and annelids) relative to their contribution to total biomass and species richness.
    [Show full text]
  • Differential Evolutionary History in Visual and Olfactory Floral Cues of the Bee-Pollinated Genus Campanula (Campanulaceae)
    plants Article Differential Evolutionary History in Visual and Olfactory Floral Cues of the Bee-Pollinated Genus Campanula (Campanulaceae) Paulo Milet-Pinheiro 1,*,† , Pablo Sandro Carvalho Santos 1, Samuel Prieto-Benítez 2,3, Manfred Ayasse 1 and Stefan Dötterl 4 1 Institute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein Allee, 89081 Ulm, Germany; [email protected] (P.S.C.S.); [email protected] (M.A.) 2 Departamento de Biología y Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos-ESCET, C/Tulipán, s/n, Móstoles, 28933 Madrid, Spain; [email protected] 3 Ecotoxicology of Air Pollution Group, Environmental Department, CIEMAT, Avda. Complutense, 40, 28040 Madrid, Spain 4 Department of Biosciences, Paris-Lodron-University of Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstrasse 34, 5020 Salzburg, Austria; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † Present address: Universidade de Pernambuco, Campus Petrolina, Rodovia BR 203, KM 2, s/n, Petrolina 56328-900, Brazil. Abstract: Visual and olfactory floral signals play key roles in plant-pollinator interactions. In recent decades, studies investigating the evolution of either of these signals have increased considerably. However, there are large gaps in our understanding of whether or not these two cue modalities evolve in a concerted manner. Here, we characterized the visual (i.e., color) and olfactory (scent) floral cues in bee-pollinated Campanula species by spectrophotometric and chemical methods, respectively, with Citation: Milet-Pinheiro, P.; Santos, the aim of tracing their evolutionary paths. We found a species-specific pattern in color reflectance P.S.C.; Prieto-Benítez, S.; Ayasse, M.; and scent chemistry.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Bees in the Hoeksche Waard
    Wild bees in the Hoeksche Waard Wilson Westdijk C.S.G. Willem van Oranje Text: Wilson Westdijk Applicant: C.S.G. Willem van Oranje Contact person applicant: Bart Lubbers Photos front page Upper: Typical landscape of the Hoeksche Waard - Rotary Hoeksche Waard Down left: Andrena rosae - Gert Huijzers ​ ​ Down right: Bombus muscorum - Gert Huijzers ​ ​ Table of contents Summary 3 Preface 3 Introduction 4 Research question 4 Hypothesis 4 Method 5 Field study 5 Literature study 5 Bee studies in the Hoeksche Waard 9 Habitats in the Hoeksche Waard 11 Origin of the Hoeksche Waard 11 Landscape and bees 12 Bees in the Hoeksche Waard 17 Recorded bee species in the Hoeksche Waard 17 Possible species in the Hoeksche Waard 22 Comparison 99 Compared to Land van Wijk en Wouden 100 Species of priority 101 Species of priority in the Hoeksche Waard 102 Threats 106 Recommendations 108 Conclusion 109 Discussion 109 Literature 111 Sources photos 112 Attachment 1: Logbook 112 2 Summary At this moment 98 bee species have been recorded in the Hoeksche Waard. 14 of these species are on the red list. 39 species, that have not been recorded yet, are likely to occur in the Hoeksche Waard. This results in 137 species, which is 41% of all species that occur in the Netherlands. The species of priority are: Andrena rosae, A. labialis, A. wilkella, Bombus ​ jonellus, B. muscorum and B. veteranus. Potential species of priority are: Andrena pilipes, A. ​ ​ ​ gravida Bombus ruderarius B. rupestris and Nomada bifasciata. ​ ​ Threats to bees are: scaling up in agriculture, eutrophication, reduction of flowers, pesticides and competition with honey bees.
    [Show full text]