Forest bees are replaced in agricultural and urban landscapes by native species with different phenologies and life‐history traits

Harrison, Tina; Gibbs, Jason; Winfree, Rachael

doi:10.1111/gcb.13921

Cited by 120 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study contributes to evidence that land use drives large changes in species composition that are not necessarily accompanied by species homogenization (Norden et al, ). A previous analysis of our same data set found strong compositional differences among the three land use types, including clear shifts in trait distributions (Harrison, Gibbs, & Winfree, ) consistent with findings from other studies that winners tend to be characterized by small body size, high dispersal ability, dietary generalism, and large range sizes (Horner‐Devine et al, ; Mayfield et al, ; Ranganathan et al, ). These common characteristics are also associated with high occupancy rates, motivating the hypothesis that compositional turnover driven by land use change should be accompanied by loss of beta diversity (Tabarelli et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Phylogenetic homogenization of bee communities across ecoregions

Harrison

Gibbs

Winfree

2018

Global Ecol Biogeogr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Land use change reorganizes local communities, resulting in complex changes in biodiversity at larger scales. The biotic homogenization hypothesis predicts that the replacement of sensitive loser species with widespread winner species will lead to loss of beta diversity and ultimately loss of regional diversity at multiple levels of ecological organization. We ask if land use is associated with biotic homogenization patterns in bee communities at two large spatial scales, using both species and phylogenetic dissimilarity indices. Location North‐eastern USA (New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania). Time period 2013–2015. Major taxa studied Superfamily Apoidea (bees). Methods We sampled bee communities from replicated sites in forest, agriculture and urban land use types within a large spatial extent spanning four distinct ecoregions. We compared pairwise compositional dissimilarity within and between ecoregions, using both species and phylogenetic dissimilarity indices. We also investigated how compositional difference is related to geographic distance between sites. Results Forested, agricultural and urban landscapes did not differ detectably in either mean pairwise species dissimilarity or slope of distance‐decay. Dissimilarity among both agricultural and urban bee communities increased with geographic distance. However, urban landscapes had significantly lower phylogenetic pairwise dissimilarity, indicating strong phylogenetic homogenization at within‐ and between‐ecoregion scales. Main conclusions We did not detect bee species homogenization in agricultural or urban land use types. However, urban land use was associated with phylogenetic homogenization across a large regional extent. Urban bee communities are dominated by closely related species that maintain beta diversity at the species level, but contribute to low phylogenetic beta diversity relative to forest and agricultural bee communities. We observed similar levels of homogenization at landscape and regional spatial extents, despite inter‐site distances differing by an order of magnitude between these scales. Further urbanization could result in loss of bee biodiversity and evolutionary history at multiple spatial scales.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Phylogenetic homogenization of bee communities across ecoregions

Harrison

Gibbs

Winfree

2018

Global Ecol Biogeogr

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Past research into bee community composition similarly shows that anthropogenic landscapes do not affect bee species richness (Harrison et al. ), while species richness can remain constant from forest edge to the interior (Coswosk et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Despite their small size, remnant urban forests contain unique assemblages of bees, different but no less rich than larger habitats or those in more forested landscapes (Harrison et al. , Proesmans et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Local landscapes and microhabitat characteristics are important determinants of urban–suburban forest bee communities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their diversity and abundance, the importance of native, forest bee communities to pollination services and inherent biological diversity conservation is often overlooked. We studied forest bee communities in Delaware and Pennsylvania, USA, to better understand how forest bee community structure varies with changing land use and microhabitat quality among small, urban and suburban forest fragments in the mid‐Atlantic United States. Our hypotheses were that (1) microhabitat quality would affect relative abundance of bee taxa, (2) surrounding landscape composition would drive local patch colonization–extinction dynamics, and (3) forest patch size would not affect community structure and composition. We found a lack of spatial autocorrelation among forest patches, indicating the importance of individual fragments in the autonomous generation and/or maintenance of bee communities. Community analyses revealed the importance of both landscape context and microhabitat quality in defining forest bee communities. By partitioning beta diversity into its constituent components, we also found that landscape composition drove changes in the relative abundance of taxa, while both landscape and microhabitat characteristics significantly influenced species turnover. Neither landscape composition nor quality of the microhabitat influenced initial site occupancy or colonization–extinction dynamics. Bisected by highways, suburban neighborhoods, agricultural lands, and urban development, many urban and suburban forest patches in the eastern United States are similar in composition to our study sites. As many native forest bees have limited capacity for long‐range movement between forest patches, these remaining forest fragments are critical to the conservation of unique and speciose forest bee communities.

show abstract

“…Natural hazards could disrupt pollination mutualisms by affecting plants, pollinators, or their interactions (Figure ). Impacts to plants or pollinators could manifest across several levels of biological organization; from individual physiological responses (Scaven & Rafferty, ) and shifts in the taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic composition of communities (Gámez‐Virués et al, ; Harrison, Gibbs, & Winfree, ; Ponisio, M'Gonigle, & Kremen, ), to the rewiring of plant–pollinator networks (Burkle & Alarcon, ). While the impacts of anthropogenic drivers on pollinators and pollination (e.g., pesticide use, habitat conversion, and the spread of disease and invasive species) have received considerable attention (Potts et al, ; Winfree, Aguilar, Vazquez, LeBuhn, & Aizen, ), knowledge has yet to be synthesized on natural hazard impacts, including the biological factors responsible for modulating vulnerability or resilience in the face of exposure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural hazard threats to pollinators and pollination

Nicholson

Egan

2019

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural hazards are naturally occurring physical events that can impact human welfare both directly and indirectly, via shocks to ecosystems and the services they provide. Animal‐mediated pollination is critical for sustaining agricultural economies and biodiversity, yet stands to lose both from present exposure to natural hazards, and future climate‐driven shifts in their distribution, frequency, and intensity. In contrast to the depth of knowledge available for anthropogenic‐related threats, our understanding of how naturally occurring extreme events impact pollinators and pollination has not yet been synthesized. We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine the potential impacts of natural hazards on pollinators and pollination in natural and cultivated systems. From a total of 117 studies (74% of which were observational), we found evidence of community and population‐level impacts to plants and pollinators from seven hazard types, including climatological (extreme heat, fire, drought), hydrological (flooding), meteorological (hurricanes), and geophysical (volcanic activity, tsunamis). Plant and pollinator response depended on the type of natural hazard and level of biological organization observed; 19% of cases reported no significant impact, whereas the majority of hazards held consistent negative impacts. However, the effects of fire were mixed, but taxa specific; meta‐analysis revealed that bee abundance and species richness tended to increase in response to fire, differing significantly from the mainly negative response of Lepidoptera. Building from this synthesis, we highlight important future directions for pollination‐focused natural hazard research, including the need to: (a) advance climate change research beyond static “mean‐level” changes by better incorporating “shock” events; (b) identify impacts at higher levels of organization, including ecological networks and co‐evolutionary history; and (c) address the notable gap in crop pollination services research—particularly in developing regions of the world. We conclude by discussing implications for safeguarding pollination services in the face of global climate change.

show abstract

Forest bees are replaced in agricultural and urban landscapes by native species with different phenologies and life‐history traits

Cited by 120 publications

References 85 publications

Phylogenetic homogenization of bee communities across ecoregions

Phylogenetic homogenization of bee communities across ecoregions

Local landscapes and microhabitat characteristics are important determinants of urban–suburban forest bee communities

Natural hazard threats to pollinators and pollination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About