Vegetation composition and structure determine wild bee communities in a tropical dry forest

Diversity of Eusocial Bees in Natural and Anthropized Areas of a Tropical Dry Forest in the Parque da Sapucaia (Montes Claros, Minas Gerais, Brazil)

“…Our findings show that the community of bees also responds positively to the structure of vegetation, corroborating recent studies (e.g. Wu et al, 2018;Alvarenga et al, 2020). As expected, we found a positive effect of tree species richness on the abundance and species richness of bees.…”

“…The diversity of species recorded in the Parque do Sapucaia can be considered low when compared to other studies in similar vegetation. For example, Alvarenga et al (2020) recorded a total of 96 species of bees in areas of tropical dry forest of the Parque Estadual da Mata Seca, Minas Gerais. In other study, Milet-Pinheiro and Schlindwein ( 2008) recorded 79 species of bees in a transition area between dry and semi-deciduous forests in Pernambuco.…”

“…Thus, the more heterogeneous and diverse the vegetation, the greater the variety of resources offered, and consequently the greater the diversity of bee species (Tews et al, 2004;Wu et al, 2018). In addition, the type of vegetation is also an important determinant of the composition of the bee community (Sydenham et al, 2016;Wu et al, 2018), because the greater the composition of the plant community, the greater the dissimilarity of the bee community (Alvarenga et al, 2020). Thus, understanding how the structure of the vegetation influences the diversity of bees is an important step for planning the conservation of bees, especially in vegetations that have been little studied, such as the tropical dry forest, one of the least studied forests on the globe (Miles et al, 2016).…”

Hymenoptera functional groups’ shifts in disturbance gradients at Andean forests in Southern Ecuador

“…Furthermore, Malaise traps may not be the most appropriate sampling method for bees. Although showed as highly effective for parasitoids (Mazón and Bordera 2008) and aculeates in general (Volpato et al 2020), with some reported bias either towards males (Aguiar and Santos 2010) or females (Mazón et al 2020), scent-baited traps or entomological nets seem to work better for bees (Santos Júnior et al 2014;Ferronato et al 2018;Alvarenga et al 2020). Other sampling methods should be used to complement Malaise traps, especially when time for field work is brief (McGravy et al 2016;Saunders and Ward 2018).…”

“…No differences among conservation levels were found. Restoration may favour the presence of wild bees (Araújo et al 2018;Taki et al 2018;Alvarenga et al 2020) and parasitoids (Marrec et al 2018), but some hymenopteran assemblages from restored areas may be functionally similar to those from forests (Montoya-Pfeiffer et al 2020), and their diversity has been found to be lower in forests compared to more open areas (Pardo and Gonzalez 2007). Therefore, it seems that, even when the areas labeled as low conservation presented a high degree of perturbation, being embedded into a preserved area matrix helped to increase diversity in these areas, since the hymenopteran diversity is positively affected by the proximity to forest (Banks et al 2013).…”