Prescribed fire increases the number of ground‐nesting bee nests in tallgrass prairie remnants

Brokaw, Julia; Portman, Zachary M.; Bruninga‐Socolar, Bethanne; Cariveau, Daniel P.

doi:10.1111/icad.12628

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 89 publications

(158 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Patches of bare ground can also promote wasps and butterflies (Eilers et al 2013; Szczepko et al 2020). In many cases bare patches have less thatch and thus provide easier nest access for ground-nesting bees and wasps (Brokaw et al 2023) and perhaps easier access to soil nutrients needed by butterflies that exhibit puddling behavior (Ankola et al 2021). A second hypothesized explanation for positive response to bare ground is that less vegetative cover creates more favorable microclimates through increased sun exposure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floral visitors differentially respond to local and landscape grassland features

Lichtenberg,

Heiser,

Baum

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predicting how habitat composition alters communities of mobile ecosystem service providers remains a major challenge in community ecology. This is partially because separate taxonomic groups that provide the same service may respond uniquely to changes in habitat and associated resource availability. Further, the spatial scale at which habitat features impact each group can vary. Failure to account for these differences significantly limits the ability to quantify shared versus contrasting responses to habitat for important ecosystem service-providing groups.We investigated the impacts of local and landscape habitat features on groups of pollinating insects with different basic biologies: Coleoptera, Diptera, Hymenoptera, and Lepidoptera. Habitat features included local flower and shelter resources as well as landscape-scale semi-natural habitat. Relative to floral resource impacts on pollinators, the role of nesting or sheltering habitat has not been well studied.We found that bare ground supported more Hymenoptera and Lepidoptera but fewer Diptera, while more diverse flower communities supported more Hymenoptera but fewer Coleoptera. Interestingly, given that this study occurred in a grassland system, forest cover in the surrounding landscape more strongly affected flower visitor diversity than grassland cover did.Our results highlight that pollinator conservation and sustainable land management depend on understanding the habitat needs of diverse pollinators. Because taxa can have opposite responses to specific habitat features or scales, providing a range of grassland management practices (e.g., variety in the timing and type of biomass removal) may be the most effective approach to support the broader pollinator community.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Floral visitors differentially respond to local and landscape grassland features

Lichtenberg,

Heiser,

Baum

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To address this, we recommend broad conservation of the other pollinator taxa— A. helianthiformis , small‐dark bees, Halictus spp., and male Melissodes spp.—to help promote male fitness and pollinator diversity in these fragmented landscapes. For example, a promising recent study found that prescribed burns can increase the number of active ground‐nesting bee nest sites in prairie remnants (Brokaw et al, 2023).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pollinators differ in their contribution to the male fitness of a self‐incompatible composite

Pearson,

Zelman,

Hill

et al. 2023

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Premise: Reproductive fitness in plants is often determined by the quantity and quality of pollen transferred by pollinators. However, many fitness studies measure only female fitness or rely on proxies for male fitness. Here we assessed how five bee taxon groups affect male fitness in a prairie plant by quantifying pollen removal, visitation, and siring success using paternity assignments and a unique pollinator visitation experiment. Methods: In Echinacea angustifolia, we measured per-visit pollen removal for each pollinator taxon and estimated the number of pollen grains needed for successful ovule fertilization. Additionally, we directly measured pollinator influence on siring by allowing only one bee taxon to visit each pollen-donor plant, while open-pollinated plants acted as unrestricted pollen recipients. We genotyped the resulting offspring, assigned paternity, and used aster statistical models to quantify siring success. Results: Siring success of pollen-donor plants differed among the five pollinator groups. Nongrooming male bees were associated with increased siring success. Bees from all taxa removed most of the flowering head's pollen in one visit. However, coneflower-specialist bee Andrena helianthiformis removed the most pollen per visit. Female fitness and proxy measures of male fitness, such as pollinator visitation and pollen removal, did not align with our direct quantifications of male fitness. Conclusions: Our results illustrate the need for more studies to directly quantify male fitness, and we caution against using male fitness proxy measures. In addition, conservation efforts that preserve a diverse pollinator community can benefit plants in fragmented landscapes.

show abstract

“…Thinning is not the only method for creating bare ground to support ground-nesting bees; another option is prescribed fire (Sitters et al, 2016;Brokaw et al, 2023). Some plant and animal communities in North America have adaptations that enable them to thrive when exposed to periodic wildfires.…”

Section: Prescribed Firementioning

confidence: 99%

Native Bee Habitat Restoration- Key Ecological Considerations from Recent Literature

Payne,

Mazer,

Seltmann

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitat loss is a primary driver of global biodiversity decline, negatively impacting many species. Nevertheless, one approach to counteract the consequences of habitat loss is ecological restoration. Ecological restoration includes the transformation of degraded or damaged habitats to benefit threatened species, including native bees. In this review, we survey the ecological, biological, and conservation literature with the aim of consolidating current research for practical use in bee habitat restoration efforts. We delineate essential steps and applicable tools throughout the various stages of habitat restoration projects, categorizing them into pre-, during-, and postrestoration stages. We emphasize the importance of planning species and site-specific strategies to support bees, including providing floral and non-floral resources and increasing nest site availability. Lastly, we underscore the significance of conducting evaluations and long-term monitoring following restoration efforts. Through the identification of effective restoration methods, success indicators, and areas for future research, our study presents a comprehensive framework that can guide restoration managers, policymakers, and funding agencies during this urgent time for bee conservation.

show abstract

Prescribed fire increases the number of ground‐nesting bee nests in tallgrass prairie remnants

Cited by 9 publications

References 89 publications

Floral visitors differentially respond to local and landscape grassland features

Floral visitors differentially respond to local and landscape grassland features

Pollinators differ in their contribution to the male fitness of a self‐incompatible composite

Native Bee Habitat Restoration- Key Ecological Considerations from Recent Literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About