BackgroundDespite the ecological and agricultural significance of bumble bees in Alaska, very little is known and published about this important group at the regional level. The objectives of this study were to provide baseline data on species composition, distribution, seasonal biology, and parasites of the genus Bombus at three major agricultural locations within Alaska: Fairbanks, Delta Junction, and Palmer, to lay the groundwork for future research on bumble bee pollination in Alaska.New informationA total of 8,250 bumble bees representing 18 species was collected from agricultural settings near Delta Junction, Fairbanks, and Palmer, Alaska in 2009 and 2010. Of the 8,250 specimens, 51% were queens, 32.7% were workers, and 16.2% were males. The species composition and relative abundances varied among sites and years. Delta Junction had the highest relative abundance of bumble bees, representing 51.6% of the specimens collected; the other two locations, Fairbanks and Palmer represented 26.5% and 21.8% of the overall catch respectively. The species collected were: Bombus bohemicus Seidl 1837 (= B. ashtoni (Cresson 1864)), B. balteatus Dahlbom 1832, B. bifarius Cresson 1878, B. centralis Cresson 1864, B. cryptarum (Fabricius 1775) (=B. moderatus Cresson 1863), B. distinguendus Morawitz 1869, B. flavidus Eversmann 1852 (=B. fernaldae Franklin 1911), B. flavifrons Cresson 1863, B. frigidus Smith 1854, B. insularis (Smith 1861), B. jonellus (Kirby 1802), B. melanopygus Nylander 1848, B. mixtus Cresson 1878, B. neoboreus Sladen 1919, B. occidentalis Greene 1858, B. perplexus Cresson 1863, B. rufocinctus Cresson 1863, and B. sylvicola Kirby 1837. Overall, the most common bumble bees near agricultural lands were B. centralis, B. frigidus, B. jonellus, B. melanopygus, B. mixtus, and B. occidentalis. Species' relative population densities and local diversity were highly variable from year to year. Bombus occidentalis, believed to be in decline in the Pacific Northwest states, represented 10.4% of the overall specimens collected from the three sites studied. Bumble bees were found to be infected by Nosema and nematodes with infection rates up to 2.1% and 16.7% respectively. Of the eight species infected by parasites, B. occidentalis displayed the highest Nosema infection, while B. centralis was the species with the highest infection of nematodes. To our knowledge this represents the first multi-year study on bumble bees from the main agricultural areas of Alaska to provide baseline data on species composition, distribution, seasonal biology, and parasites of the genus Bombus.
The newly published Conservation Practice Effectiveness (CoPE) Database compiles information on the effectiveness of a suite of conservation practices developed to treat contaminants in surface runoff and tile drainage water from agricultural landscapes. Traditional conservation practices such as no-tillage and conservation crop rotation are included in the CoPE Database, as well as novel practices such as drainage water management, blind inlets, and denitrification bioreactors. This will be particularly useful to conservation planners seeking new approaches to water quality problems associated with dissolved constituents, such as nitrate (NO 3) or soluble phosphorus (SP), and for researchers seeking to understand the circumstances in which such practices are most effective. Another novel feature of the database is the presentation of information on how individual conservation practices impact multiple water quality concerns. This information will be critical to enabling conservationists and policy makers to avoid (or at least be aware of) undesirable tradeoffs, whereby great efforts are made to improve water quality related to one resource concern (e.g., sediment) but exacerbate problems related to other concerns (e.g., NO 3 or SP). Finally, we note that the CoPE Database can serve as a source of the soft data needed to calibrate simulation models assessing the potential water quality tradeoffs of conservation practices, including those that are still being developed.
Excess nutrient loading from numerous sources (e.g., agricultural and urban runoff, treatment plant discharge, and streambank erosion) continues to adversely impact water resources, and determination of the cause(s) of accelerated nutrient enrichment has become a contentious and litigious issue in several US regions. This paper addresses one fundamental question: What are acceptable levels of nutrients in runoff from agricultural fields? It focuses on the field scale where farmers and ranchers make management decisions. Not answering this question limits the effectiveness of on-farm management and policy alternatives to address agriculture's contribution. To answer the question, some might suggest "direct comparison" with reference site data, existing criteria/standards, or measured data compilations. Alternatively, "indirect assessments" using soil test phosphorus (P) levels, P indices, field-scale models, or certainty programs might be suggested. Thus, to provide a scientific basis for policy debate and management decisions related to nutrient runoff from agricultural fields, we evaluated "direct comparisons" with measured data from case studies and evaluated "indirect assessment" alternatives. While acknowledging that scientific challenges and practical realities exist for each alternative, we concluded that certainty programs offer the most promise for ensuring acceptable nutrient runoff, and that field-scale models linked with watershed decision support tools are the most promising for assessing impacts on downstream water quality. Recognizing the reality that some nutrient loss is unavoidable from natural and anthropogenic sources, agriculture, industry, and municipalities are each encouraged to commit to implementing enhanced management where needed to minimize their sector's contribution to excess nutrients in our nation's waters.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.