Wild bee community recovery in restored grassland-wetland complexes of prairie North America

Purvis, Emily E.N.; Vickruck, Jess; Best, Lincoln; Devries, James H.; Galpern, Paul

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108829

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(c) Bee community composition differed between restored and remnant prairies (p = 0.01), with NMDS representing community dissimilarity in multivariate space. NMDS was calculated in three dimensions but only the first two were plotted for simplicity of work supporting the concept that β-diversity and composition are important metrics for understanding diversity in conservation (Denning & Foster, 2018a;Griffin et al, 2017;Haley, 2018;Purvis et al, 2020;Tonietto et al, 2017).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in bee community composition between restored and remnant prairies are more strongly linked to forb community differences than landscape differences

Lane

Portman

Herron-Sweet

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Grassland restoration is an important tool for conserving bee biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. Restorations foster increases in local bee abundance and α-diversity; however, these measures are insufficient for understanding whether remnant communities are being conserved. We compared native bee α-diversity, β-diversity and community composition between restored and remnant prairies in Minnesota, USA. We then investigated two potential drivers of bee community dissimilarity between restored and remnant prairies: proportion of agricultural land surrounding a restoration and differences in floral community between restored and remnant prairies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in bee community composition between restored and remnant prairies are more strongly linked to forb community differences than landscape differences

Lane

Portman

Herron-Sweet

et al. 2021

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Passive restoration of the flowering plant community in grassland–wetland complexes—as is most commonly done in this region—can return bee and flower species diversity to a reference state over time, but the process is likely to be slow (i.e. from 5 to 10 years for bee species to 20 or more years for flowering plants; Purvis et al ., 2020b). Additionally, bee species composition has been found to be related to flower species composition (Warzecha et al ., 2018; Purvis et al ., 2020b), making the identity of flowering plants an essential consideration when tailoring restoration for conserving wild bees.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…from 5 to 10 years for bee species to 20 or more years for flowering plants; Purvis et al ., 2020b). Additionally, bee species composition has been found to be related to flower species composition (Warzecha et al ., 2018; Purvis et al ., 2020b), making the identity of flowering plants an essential consideration when tailoring restoration for conserving wild bees. Selecting plants for restoration is especially relevant when recovery planning for species that are endangered or expected to become so, such as B. terricola or its cleptoparasite B. bohemicus , since resources can be targeted towards including preferred plant species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The three selected quarter sections were all remnant grassland–wetland complexes that have been managed approximately every 2–3 years with haying or grazing. Remnant prairie sites, rather than restored prairie sites, were selected as they have been previously found to contain the highest diversity of wild bees and flowering plants (Purvis et al ., 2020b), which will allow for a better estimation of the potential interactions between these taxa.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Restoration has been used as a means of mitigating habitat loss within agroecosystems through incorporating semi‐natural and natural areas on the landscape. Restoration in the PPR typically occurs by removing land from crop production and reseeding with a grass‐based seed mix that is primarily intended to support waterfowl breeding and nesting habitat (Devries & Armstrong, 2011; Doherty et al ., 2016); however, studies have highlighted the resulting benefits to non‐target organisms, such as wild bees (Vickruck et al ., 2019), especially as restored sites mature over time, though the process of passive bee recovery is slow (Purvis et al ., 2020b). Additionally, there are data to suggest the use of PPR grassland–wetland habitats by the at‐risk bee species, Bombus terricola Kirby (P. Galpern, unpubl.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identifying key forage plants to support wild bee diversity and a species at risk in the Prairie Pothole Region

Purvis

Best

Galpern

2021

Insect Conserv Diversity

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Global wild bee declines have been well documented in recent decades, with a regularly cited driver being habitat loss and the associated reduction of food and nesting resources. In North America's Prairie Pothole Region, habitat loss is largely attributed to agricultural intensification, resulting in the reduction of once common native grasslands surrounding wetlands.2. Although restoration of these grassland-wetland complexes has been implemented across the region, wild bees are not often the primary target for recovery. Restoration efforts may better support wild bees by including specific flowering plants (i.e. food resources) intended to provision the highest diversity of taxa; however, very little information is available specific to this region, which covers over 700 000 km 2 in Canada and the United States.3. Our objective is to inform habitat restoration intended to support wild bee conservation through the addition of targeted flowering plant species at restored sites. As such, we used a model-based approach to identify 16 key flowering plants present in remnant grassland-wetland complexes that are highly visited by diverse wild bee species, as well as by Bombus terricola Kirby, which is a species at risk in this region. The key plants represented eight families and supported approximately 82% of all visits from 69 out of the 75 observed bee species.4. By incorporating the recommended floral resources into restoration practices in the Prairie Pothole Region, practitioners can more efficiently mitigate the habitat loss that is thought to be a major driver of wild bee decline.

show abstract

Dominance of non-wetland-dependent pollinators in a plant community in a small natural wetland in Shimane, Japan

Watazu,

Hiraiwa,

Inoue

et al. 2024

J Plant Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many wetland plants rely on insects for pollination. However, studies examining pollinator communities in wetlands remain limited. Some studies conducted in large wetlands (> 10 ha) have suggested that wetland-dependent flies, which spend their larval stage in aquatic and semi-aquatic habitats, dominate as pollinators. However, smaller wetlands surrounded by secondary forests are more prevalent in Japan, in which pollinators from the surrounding environment might be important. Additionally, information regarding floral traits that attract specific pollinator groups in wetland communities is scarce. Therefore, this study aimed to understand the characteristics of insect pollinators in a small natural wetland (2.5 ha) in Japan. We examined the major pollinator groups visiting 34 plant species and explored the relationship between the flower visitation frequency of each pollinator group and floral traits. Overall, flies were the most dominant pollinators (42%), followed by bees and wasps (33%). Cluster analysis indicated that fly-dominated plants were the most abundant among 14 of the 34 target plant species. However, 85% of the hoverflies, the most abundant flies, and 82% of the bees were non-wetland-dependent species, suggesting that these terrestrial species likely originated from the surrounding environment. Therefore, pollinators from the surrounding environment would be important in small natural wetlands. Flies tend to visit open and white/yellow flowers, whereas bees tended to visit tube-shaped flowers, as in forest and grassland ecosystems. The dominance of flies in small wetlands would be due to the dominance of flowers preferred by flies (e.g., yellow/white flowers) rather than because of their larval habitats.

show abstract

Wild bee community recovery in restored grassland-wetland complexes of prairie North America

Cited by 16 publications

References 34 publications

Differences in bee community composition between restored and remnant prairies are more strongly linked to forb community differences than landscape differences

Differences in bee community composition between restored and remnant prairies are more strongly linked to forb community differences than landscape differences

Identifying key forage plants to support wild bee diversity and a species at risk in the Prairie Pothole Region

Dominance of non-wetland-dependent pollinators in a plant community in a small natural wetland in Shimane, Japan

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About