Geographic Biases in Bee Research Limits Understanding of Species Distribution and Response to Anthropogenic Disturbance

Abstract

Habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural intensification and urbanization are key threats facing wild pollinators, especially bees. However, data on the distribution and abundance of most of the world's 20,000+ bee species is lacking, making it difficult to assess the effects of anthropogenic disturbance through time. Moreover, there are geographic biases in the study of bees creating gaps in our understanding of species distributions and regional patterns of diversity. Research efforts are often focused around cities or field stations associated with universities and other research institutions. In this perspectives paper, we provide examples of geographic bias in knowledge regarding bee species distributions using recently collected data from Michigan and Colorado, USA-two states with published species checklists. We illustrate how a limited sampling effort can advance knowledge about bee species distributions, yielding species occurrence records at local and regional scales. Given the implications of geographic biases, we recommend future research efforts focus on poorly sampled geographic regions, especially those affected by anthropogenic disturbance, in order to expand our understanding of human impacts on wild bee species. Sampling across a broader geographic area will provide critical information for taxonomy and predictive models of bee species distributions and diversity. We encourage researchers to plan future studies with consideration of strategies to avoid oversampling local bee populations, the taxonomic expertise required to identify specimens, and resources necessary to voucher specimens.

Gradual replacement of wild bees by honeybees in flowers of the Mediterranean Basin over the last 50 years

“…Critical elements of ecological knowledge will thus be closely tied to the particular location where it is attained, and attempts at extrapolations which are based on limited, spatially biased ecological data may produce distorted or erroneous inferences (Martin et al 2012, Culumber et al 2019). For instance, unawareness of geographical sampling biases has been pointed out as one possible weakness of generalizations on “pollinator decline” and “pollination crisis” (Ghazoul 2005, Archer 2014, Herrera 2019, Jamieson et al 2019), two topics that have recently elicited considerable academic and societal interest because of the importance of animal pollination for the reproduction of many wild and crop plants (Ollerton et al 2014, Senapathi et al 2015, Breeze et al 2016, Ollerton 2017). Evidence for the view of a generalized pollinator decline is strongly biased geographically, as it mostly originates from a few mid-latitude regions in Europe and North America (Rodger et al 2004, Ghazoul 2005, Winfree et al 2009, Archer 2014, Hung et al 2018, Nicholson and Egan 2019).…”

“…Evidence for the view of a generalized pollinator decline is strongly biased geographically, as it mostly originates from a few mid-latitude regions in Europe and North America (Rodger et al 2004, Ghazoul 2005, Winfree et al 2009, Archer 2014, Hung et al 2018, Nicholson and Egan 2019). Mounting evidence indicates, however, that pollinator declines are not universal; that the sign and magnitude of temporal trends in pollinator abundance may differ among pollinator groups, continents or regions; and that taxonomic and geographical biases in pollinator studies are bound to limit a realistic understanding of the potentially diverse pollinator responses to environmental changes and the associated causal mechanisms (Aizen and Harder 2009a,b, Potts et al 2010, vanEngelsdorp and Meixner 2010, Hofmann et al 2018, Herrera 2019, Jamieson et al 2019).…”

Why bees are critical for achieving sustainable development

“…Data source: Ascher and Pickering (2014). Information for this figure was sourced from Michener 1979;Michener 2000;Michez and Patiny 2007;Litman et al 2011;Cappellari et al 2013;Peters et al 2017;Meiners et al 2019 (Goulson et al 2015;Jamieson et al 2019). The global conservation status of just 483 bee species has been assessed by the IUCN, most of which were 'data deficient' (IUCN 2019).…”

Bee species checklist of the San Francisco Peaks, Arizona

“…Genuslevel identifications were done using the Bee Genera IDnature guide from DiscoverLife.org (Ascher and Pickering 2011) and The Bee Genera of North and Central America (Michener et al 1994). Species-level identification was done using published literature (Sandhouse 1924, Michener 1938, Michener 1939, Michener 1947, Hurd and Linsley 1951, Timberlake 1952, Stephen 1954, Timberlake 1954, Hurd and Michener 1955, Snelling 1966, LaBerge 1967, LaBerge 1969, Roberts 1972, Daly 1973, McGinley 1986, LaBerge 1986, Michener et al 1994, Michener 2000, Sipes 2002, Rightmyer 2008, Gibbs 2010, Rightmyer et al 2010, Sheffield et al 2011 For those genera or subgenera where taxonomic information was lacking, we classified bees with similar morphological distinctions into morphospecies. Each morphospecies is classified by the genus (and subgenus if determined) followed by a unique three-digit number.…”

“…This is the first checklist published for the Peaks and is of special interest because it includes distributions of native bees along an elevational gradient with diverse habitats. More localized studies are necessary in order to obtain baseline knowledge on distributions and species richness of North American bee communities (Jamieson et al 2019). If species trends and distributions are known regionally, we can better predict how native bee ranges and population statuses may be affected with changing climate.…”