DOCSLIB.ORG

The Contributions of Insect Pollinators to the Reproductive Fitness of 12 Rare Plants on Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Contributions of Insect Pollinators to the Reproductive Fitness of 12 Rare Plants on Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Final Report ASH MEADOWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE The Contributions of Insect Pollinators to the Reproductive Fitness of 12 Rare Plants on Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Final Report February 2012 David A. Tanner, Nicole F. Boehme, Catherine M. Clark, and James P. Pitts Department of Biology, Utah State University, Logan, Utah Submitted to: Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge c/o Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex 4701 N Torrey Pines Las Vegas, NV 89130 Submitted by: BIO-WEST, Inc. 1063 West 1400 North Logan, UT 84321 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1 2.0 RARE PLANTS OF ASH MEADOWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE USED IN THE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Arctomecon merriamii .................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 2 2.1.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 3 2.2 Astragalus phoenix........................................................................................................ 3 2.2.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 3 2.2.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 4 2.3 Calochortus striatus ...................................................................................................... 4 2.3.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 4 2.3.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 4 2.4 Centaurium namophilum .............................................................................................. 5 2.4.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 5 2.4.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 5 2.5 Cordylanthus tecopensis ............................................................................................... 5 2.5.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 5 2.5.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 6 2.6 Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata .......................................................................... 6 2.6.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 6 2.6.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 6 2.7 Grindelia fraxino-pratensis .......................................................................................... 7 2.7.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 7 2.7.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 7 2.8 Ivesia kingii var. eremica .............................................................................................. 7 2.8.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 7 2.8.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 8 2.9 Mentzelia leucophylla ................................................................................................... 8 2.9.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 8 2.9.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 8 2.10 Nitrophila mohavensis .................................................................................................. 9 2.10.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 9 2.10.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 9 2.11 Sisyrinchium spp. .......................................................................................................... 9 2.11.1 General Information ................................................................................................ 9 2.11.2 Importance to Pollinators ........................................................................................ 9 2.12 Spiranthes infernalis ................................................................................................... 10 2.12.1 General Information .............................................................................................. 10 2.12.2 Importance to Pollinators ...................................................................................... 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contributions of Insect Pollinators Ash Meadows NWR i to the Reproductive Fitness of 12 Rare Plants 3.0 TASK 4: IDENTIFY RARE PLANT POLLINATORS AT ASH MEADOWS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE .................................................................................. 10 3.1 Methods....................................................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Study Sites ............................................................................................................ 10 3.1.2 Pollinator Observations and Collections ............................................................... 11 3.1.3 Pollen Reference Library ...................................................................................... 11 3.1.4 Pollen Quantification ............................................................................................ 12 3.1.5 Pollinator Classification ........................................................................................ 12 3.2 Results ......................................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Arctomecon merriamii .......................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Astragalus phoenix................................................................................................ 14 3.2.3 Calochortus striatus .............................................................................................. 15 3.2.4 Centaurium namophilum ...................................................................................... 17 3.2.5 Cordylanthus tecopensis ....................................................................................... 19 3.2.6 Enceliopsis nudicaulis var. corrugata .................................................................. 20 3.2.7 Grindelia fraxino-pratensis .................................................................................. 22 3.2.8 Ivesia kingii var. eremica ...................................................................................... 24 3.2.9 Mentzelia leucophylla ........................................................................................... 25 3.2.10 Nitrophila mohavensis .......................................................................................... 27 3.2.11 Sisyrinchium spp. .................................................................................................. 28 3.2.12 Spiranthes infernalis ............................................................................................. 28 3.3 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 29 3.3.1 Is There a Guild of Pollinators Uniquely Important to the Rare Plants of the Refuge? ....................................................................................................... 32 4.0 TASK 5: IDENTIFY THE POLLINATORS OF OTHER CONCURRENTLY BLOOMING FLOWERS .................................................................................................. 35 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 35 4.2 Methods....................................................................................................................... 35 4.2.1 Plant Identification ................................................................................................ 35 4.2.2 Insect Collection ................................................................................................... 36 4.2.3 Insect Preservation and Identification ................................................................... 36 4.3 Results ......................................................................................................................... 36 4.3.1 Asclepias ............................................................................................................... 36 4.3.2 Creosote ................................................................................................................ 37 4.3.3 Enceliopsis ...........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Plant Press the ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY
    The Plant Press THE ARIZONA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Volume 36, Number 1 Summer 2013 In this Issue: Plants of the Madrean Archipelago 1-4 Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Conference 5-8 Abstracts of Botanical Papers Presented in the Madrean Archipelago Conference Southwest Coralbean (Erythrina flabelliformis). Plus 11-19 Conservation Priority Floras in the Madrean Archipelago Setting for Arizona G1 Conference and G2 Plant Species: A Regional Assessment by Thomas R. Van Devender1. Photos courtesy the author. & Our Regular Features Today the term ‘bioblitz’ is popular, meaning an intensive effort in a short period to document the diversity of animals and plants in an area. The first bioblitz in the southwestern 2 President’s Note United States was the 1848-1855 survey of the new boundary between the United States and Mexico after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848 ended the Mexican-American War. 8 Who’s Who at AZNPS The border between El Paso, Texas and the Colorado River in Arizona was surveyed in 1855- 9 & 17 Book Reviews 1856, following the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Besides surveying and marking the border with monuments, these were expeditions that made extensive animal and plant collections, 10 Spotlight on a Native often by U.S. Army physicians. Botanists John M. Bigelow (Charphochaete bigelovii), Charles Plant C. Parry (Agave parryi), Arthur C. V. Schott (Stephanomeria schotti), Edmund K. Smith (Rhamnus smithii), George Thurber (Stenocereus thurberi), and Charles Wright (Cheilanthes wrightii) made the first systematic plant collection in the Arizona-Sonora borderlands. ©2013 Arizona Native Plant In 1892-94, Edgar A. Mearns collected 30,000 animal and plant specimens on the second Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Sensitive Plant Species
    SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES Barneby Woody Aster (Aster kingii var. barnebyana) Barneby’s woody aster is a member of the sunflower family (Asteraceae) and it grows from a well-developed taproot. There are persistent blackish or dark brown, old leaf bases at the base of the plant. The stems are short (3-12 cm long) and the herbage is covered with glandular hairs. The leaves are basal, 0.8-12 cm long, and oblanceolate to spatulate in shape with 1-10 pronounced teeth. Flowers occur in clusters of 1-5, standing 8-11 mm high. The inner bracts are often purplish and at least the outer tips are bent backward. The ray flowers are white, often fading to pale pink. This plant flowers between August and September. This species is found in mountain mahogany and oak communities on rock outcrops composed of Precambian quartzite. This endemic species of the Canyon Mountains in Millard and Juab Counties, Utah has been reported in 15 element occurrence records as of 2002 (Madsen 2002). These scattered occurrences indicate a total population of 600+ plants. The range of elevation is between 7,500 and 9640. Major associated species are Holodiscus dumosus (Mountain spray), Huechera rubescens (Red alumroot), Symphoricarpos oreophilus (Mountain snowberry), Quercus gambelii (Gambel’s oak), and Eriogonum brevicaule (Shortstem buckwheat) (Franklin 1990). To date there are 15 known occurrences of this species on the Fillmore Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest (Franklin 1990). Plants are harbored from threats such as livestock grazing by their occurrence on steep rock outcrops. 40 Bicknell milkvetch (Astragalus consobrinus) The Bicknell milkvetch is a member of the pea family (Fabaceae).
    [Show full text]
  • Las Abejas Del Género Agapostemon (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) Del Estado De Nuevo León, México
    Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad 83: 63-72, 2012 Las abejas del género Agapostemon (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) del estado de Nuevo León, México Bees of the genus Agapostemon (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) of the state of Nuevo León, Mexico Liliana Ramírez-Freire1 , Glafiro José Alanís-Flores1, Ricardo Ayala-Barajas2, Humberto Quiroz -Martínez1 y Carlos GerardoVelazco-Macías3 1Facultad de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Cd. Universitaria. Apartado postal 134-F, 66450 San Nicolás de los Garza, Nuevo León, México. 2Estación de Biología Chamela (Sede Colima) Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Apartado postal 21, 48980 San Patricio, Jalisco, México. 3Parques y Vida Silvestre. Av. Alfonso Reyes norte s/n, interior del Parque Niños Héroes, lateral izquierda, acceso 3, 64290 Monterrey, Nuevo León, México. [email protected] Resumen. Se realizó un estudio faunístico de las abejas del género Agapostemon (Halictidae) en el estado de Nuevo León, México para conocer las especies presentes, su distribución, relación con la flora y tipos de vegetación del estado. La metodología se basó en la revisión de literatura y de bases de datos de colecciones entomológicas, y en muestreos en campo donde se utilizó red entomológica y platos trampa de colores amarillo, azul, rosa (tonos fluorescentes) y blanco. Sólo en 20 de los 35 muestreos que se realizaron se obtuvieron ejemplares del género. Se recolectaron 11 especies, 2 de las cuales son registros nuevos para el estado (A. nasutus y A. splendens). El 12.31% de los ejemplares se obtuvo mediante el uso de red y el 87.84% con los platos trampa; el color amarillo fue el preferido por las abejas.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Decades of Native Bee Biodiversity Surveys at Pinnacles National Park Highlight the Importance of Monitoring Natural Areas Over Time
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All PIRU Publications Pollinating Insects Research Unit 1-17-2019 Decades of Native Bee Biodiversity Surveys at Pinnacles National Park Highlight the Importance of Monitoring Natural Areas Over Time Joan M. Meiners University of Florida Terry L. Griswold Utah State University Olivia Messinger Carril Independent Researcher Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/piru_pubs Part of the Life Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Meiners JM, Griswold TL, Carril OM (2019) Decades of native bee biodiversity surveys at Pinnacles National Park highlight the importance of monitoring natural areas over time. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0207566. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0207566 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Pollinating Insects Research Unit at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All PIRU Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RESEARCH ARTICLE Decades of native bee biodiversity surveys at Pinnacles National Park highlight the importance of monitoring natural areas over time 1 2 3 Joan M. MeinersID *, Terry L. Griswold , Olivia Messinger Carril 1 School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States of a1111111111 America, 2 USDA-ARS Pollinating Insects Research Unit (PIRU), Utah State University, Logan, Utah, United States of America, 3 Independent Researcher, Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States of America a1111111111 a1111111111 * [email protected] a1111111111 a1111111111 Abstract Thousands of species of bees are in global decline, yet research addressing the ecology OPEN ACCESS and status of these wild pollinators lags far behind work being done to address similar impacts on the managed honey bee.
    [Show full text]
  • Wild Bee Declines and Changes in Plant-Pollinator Networks Over 125 Years Revealed Through Museum Collections
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Spring 2018 WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS Minna Mathiasson University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Mathiasson, Minna, "WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS" (2018). Master's Theses and Capstones. 1192. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/1192 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WILD BEE DECLINES AND CHANGES IN PLANT-POLLINATOR NETWORKS OVER 125 YEARS REVEALED THROUGH MUSEUM COLLECTIONS BY MINNA ELIZABETH MATHIASSON BS Botany, University of Maine, 2013 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences: Integrative and Organismal Biology May, 2018 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences: Integrative and Organismal Biology by: Dr. Sandra M. Rehan, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Carrie Hall, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. Janet Sullivan, Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology On April 18, 2018 Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School.
    [Show full text]
  • Components of Nest Provisioning Behavior in Solitary Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)*
    Apidologie 39 (2008) 30–45 Available online at: c INRA/DIB-AGIB/ EDP Sciences, 2008 www.apidologie.org DOI: 10.1051/apido:2007055 Review article Components of nest provisioning behavior in solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)* John L. Neff Central Texas Melittological Institute, 7307 Running Rope, Austin, Texas 78731, USA Received 13 June 2007 – Revised 28 September 2007 – Accepted 1 October 2007 Abstract – The components of nest provisioning behavior (resources per cell, transport capacity, trip dura- tion, trips per cell) are examined for a data set derived from the literature and various unpublished studies. While there is a trade-off between transport capacity and trips required per cell, the highest provisioning rates are achieved by bees carrying very large pollen loads at intermediate trip durations. Most solitary bees appear to be either egg or resource limited, so sustained provisioning rates over one cell per day are unusual. Provisioning rate / body size / transport capacity / solitary bees / trip duration 1. INTRODUCTION tradeoffs between provisioning one large cell or two small cells direct, indirect, or nonex- There is a vast literature on the foraging tac- istent? Are provisioning rates related to body tics of bees: what kinds of flowers to visit, how size? long to spend on a flower, how many flowers Provisioning rate is a general term and can in an inflorescence to visit, when to turn, and simply refer to the rate (mass per unit time) so forth. Much of this work is done within a at which foragers bring various food items framework of whether a forager should max- (pollen, nectar, oils, carrion, or whatever) to imize harvesting rate or foraging efficiency their nests.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    PDF file from Evenhuis, N.L. & D.J. Greathead, 1999, World Catalog of Bee Flies (Diptera: Bombyliidae). Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. xlviii + ix 756 pp. INTRODUCTION Bombyliids, or bee flies as they are commonly called, comprise a diverse and speciose assemblage of brachycerous flies. With more than 4,500 species known worldwide, they are one of the largest families of Diptera, surpassed in numbers of species only by the Tipulidae (14,000), Tachinidae (9,200), Syrphidae (5,800), Asilidae (5,600), Ceratopogonidae (5,300), and Dolichopodidae (5,100). They occur in a variety of habitats and ecosystems (from ca. 10 km from the Arctic Ocean in Canada through all latitudes as far south as Tierra del Fuego; and at altitudes from over 3500 m in the Himalayas to 200 m below sea level at the shores of the Dead Sea). They are found on all continents except Antarctica and also many oceanic islands. The family has a remarkable range in size (from some Exoprosopa with wingspans of more than 60 mm to the tiny Apolysis that can be as small as 1.5 mm in length) and variety of shapes (e.g., Systropus mimicking ammophiline wasps; Bombomyia mimic- king bumblebees). The adults of the larger species are powerful and agile fliers, rivaling the syrphid flies in their ability to hover and move in all directions while in flight. With many species possessing colorful patterns of stripes and spots on the wings and bodies, bee flies are often some of the most striking in appearance of all the Diptera. Individuals can often be seen either resting in the open on trails or on rocks or twigs sunning themselves, or feeding on a variety of flowering plants.
    [Show full text]
  • Changes in the Insect Fauna of a Deteriorating Riverine Sand Dune
    ., CHANGES IN THE INSECT FAUNA OF A DETERIORATING RIVERINE SAND DUNE COMMUNITY DURING 50 YEARS OF HUMAN EXPLOITATION J. A. Powell Department of Entomological Sciences University of California, Berkeley May , 1983 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 HISTORY OF EXPLOITATION 4 HISTORY OF ENTOMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS 7 INSECT FAUNA 10 Methods 10 ErRs s~lected for compar"ltive "lnBlysis 13 Bio1o~ica1 isl!lnd si~e 14 Inventory of sp~cies 14 Endemism 18 Extinctions 19 Species restricted to one of the two refu~e parcels 25 Possible recently colonized species 27 INSECT ASSOCIATES OF ERYSIMUM AND OENOTHERA 29 Poll i n!ltor<'l 29 Predqt,.n·s 32 SUMMARY 35 RECOm1ENDATIONS FOR RECOVERY ~4NAGEMENT 37 ACKNOWT.. EDGMENTS 42 LITERATURE CITED 44 APPENDICES 1. T'lbles 1-8 49 2. St::ttns of 15 Antioch Insects Listed in Notice of 75 Review by the U.S. Fish "l.nd Wildlife Service INTRODUCTION The sand dune formation east of Antioch, Contra Costa County, California, comprised the largest riverine dune system in California. Biogeographically, this formation was unique because it supported a northern extension of plants and animals of desert, rather than coastal, affinities. Geologists believe that the dunes were relicts of the most recent glaciation of the Sierra Nevada, probably originating 10,000 to 25,000 years ago, with the sand derived from the supratidal floodplain of the combined Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers. The ice age climate in the area is thought to have been cold but arid. Presumably summertime winds sweeping through the Carquinez Strait across the glacial-age floodplains would have picked up the fine-grained sand and redeposited it to the east and southeast, thus creating the dune fields of eastern Contra Costa County.
    [Show full text]
  • Bee Species Checklist of the San Francisco Peaks, Arizona
    Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e49285 doi: 10.3897/BDJ.8.e49285 Taxonomic Paper Bee species checklist of the San Francisco Peaks, Arizona Lindsie M McCabe‡, Paige R Chesshire‡§, David R Smith , Atticus Wolf‡, Jason Gibbs |, Terry L Griswold¶, Karen W Wright#‡, Neil S Cobb ‡ Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, United States of America § U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Forest Science Complex, Flagstaff, United States of America | Department of Entomology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada ¶ USDA-ARS, Pollinating Insects Research Unit, Logan, United States of America # Department of Entomology, Texas A&M, College Station, United States of America Corresponding author: Lindsie M McCabe ([email protected]) Academic editor: Dominique Zimmermann Received: 11 Dec 2019 | Accepted: 25 Mar 2020 | Published: 02 Apr 2020 Citation: McCabe LM, Chesshire PR, Smith DR, Wolf A, Gibbs J, Griswold TL, Wright KW, Cobb NS (2020) Bee species checklist of the San Francisco Peaks, Arizona. Biodiversity Data Journal 8: e49285. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.8.e49285 Abstract Background Here we present a checklist of the bee species found on the C. Hart Merriam elevation gradient along the San Francisco Peaks in northern Arizona. Elevational gradients can serve as natural proxies for climate change, replacing time with space as they span multiple vegetation zones over a short geographic distance. Describing the distribution of bee species along this elevation gradient will help predict how bee communities might respond to changing climate. To address this, we initiated an inventory associated with ecological studies on pollinators that documented bees on the San Francisco Peaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Crop and Semi-Natural Habitat Configuration Affects
    insects Article Crop and Semi-Natural Habitat Configuration Affects Diversity and Abundance of Native Bees (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) in a Large-Field Cotton Agroecosystem Isaac L. Esquivel 1,2,*, Katherine A. Parys 3 , Karen W. Wright 1, Micky D. Eubanks 1, John D. Oswald 1, Robert N. Coulson 1 and Michael J. Brewer 1,2 1 Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA; [email protected] (K.W.W.); [email protected] (M.D.E.); [email protected] (J.D.O.); [email protected] (R.N.C.); [email protected] (M.J.B.) 2 Department of Entomology, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Corpus Christi, TX 78406, USA 3 Pollinator Health in Southern Crop Ecosystems Research Unit, USDA-ARS, Stoneville, MS 38732, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Simple Summary: Commercial cotton growing systems are one of the most intensely managed, economically, and culturally important fiber cropping systems worldwide. The composition and configuration of crop species and semi-natural habitat can have significant effects on ecosystem ser- vices such as pollination. Here, we investigated the local-scale effect on the arrangement of different Citation: Esquivel, I.L.; Parys, K.A.; crop fields and surrounding semi-natural habitat in a large-field commercial cotton system on the Wright, K.W.; Eubanks, M.D.; Oswald, diversity and abundance of native bee pollinators. Using bee bowl traps at crop interfaces (cotton J.D.; Coulson, R.N.; Brewer, M.J. Crop grown next to cotton, sorghum, or semi-natural habitat along with a natural habitat comparator), and Semi-Natural Habitat we found a total of 32 bee species in 13 genera across 3 families.
    [Show full text]