Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 139–147 | Cite as

Pollen specialization by solitary bees in an urban landscape

Article

Abstract

Many polylectic bee species are known to specialize locally on one or a few pollen types to increase foraging efficiency. What is relatively unknown is how different landscapes influence foraging decisions, and whether habitat alteration, such as that resulting from urbanization, influences broad-scale foraging activities of bees. This study evaluates the type and diversity of pollen collected by two solitary bees that are common in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the native Osmia pumila and the exotic O. caerulescens, sampled in trap nests set up in urban parks and gardens. We found that the dominant pollen in every successful brood cell was either of one widespread, cosmopolitan lawn-invasive plant species (Trifolium repens) or one of two wind-pollinated tree genera (Quercus spp. and Betula spp.). In combination, these three represented more than 90 % of all pollen collected by each bee species. Despite considerable overlap in the dominant pollen types collected by each bee species, the exotic O. caerulescens was significantly more specialized than the native O. pumila. Brood cells with Betula as the dominant pollen type were more pollen species-rich than those cells having Trifolium or Quercus as dominant, perhaps a result of the comparatively low protein content in Betula pollen.

Keywords

Osmia Exotic species Trap nests Pollen nutritional content Wind pollination 

References

  1. Banaszak-Cibicka W, Zmihorski M (2011) Wild bees along an urban gradient: winners and losers. J Insect Conserv 16:331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bosch J, Martin González AM, Rodrigo A, Navarro D (2009) Plant-pollinator networks: adding the pollinator’s perspective. Ecol Lett 12:409–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cane J (2005) Bees, pollination, and the challenges of sprawl. In: Johnson EA, Klemens MW (eds) Nature in fragments: the legacy of sprawl. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 109–124Google Scholar
  4. Cane JH, Sipes S (2006) Characterizing floral specialization by bees: Analytical methods and a revised lexicon for oligolecty. In: Waser NM (ed) Plant-pollinator interactions: from specialization to generalization. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 99–112Google Scholar
  5. Cane JH, Griswold T, Parker FD (2007) Substrates and materials used for nesting by North American Osmia bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes: Megachilidae). Ann Entomol Soc Am 100:350–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chittka L, Thomson JD, Waser NM (1999) Flower constancy, insect psychology, and plant evolution. Naturwissenschaften 86:361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. City of Toronto (2007) Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable Energy Action Plan. Available at: http://www.toronto.ca/changeisintheair/pdf/clean_air_action_plan.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2012
  8. City of Toronto (2012) Native trees for Naturalization. City of Toronto parks, Forestry and Recreation, Urban Forestry. Available at: www.toronto.ca/trees/pdfs/Tree_List.pdf. Accessed 20 November 2012
  9. Cripps C, Rust RW (1989) Pollen foraging in a community of Osmia Bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Environ Entomol 18:582–589Google Scholar
  10. Crompton CW, Wojtas WA (1993) Pollen Grains of Canadian Honey Plants. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1892/E, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson LN, Evans EW (2010) Frass analysis of diets of aphidophagous lady beetles (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) in Utah alfalfa fields. Environ Entomol 39:576–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. R Development Core Team (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available at: http://www.R-project.org
  13. Dreistadt SH, Dahlsten DL, Frankie GW (1990) Urban forests and insect ecology: complex interactions among trees, insects, and people. BioScience 40:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drescher AW (2004) Food for the cities: urban agriculture in developing countries. Acta Hortic 643:227–231Google Scholar
  15. Dwyer F, McPherson EG, Schder HW, Rowntree RA (1992) Assessing the benefits and costs of the urban forest. J Arboric 18:227–234Google Scholar
  16. Eltz T, Bruehl CA, van der Kaars S, Linsenmair KE (2001) Assessing stingless bee pollen diet by analysis of garbage pellets: a new method. Apidologie 32:341–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Everaars J, Strohbach MW, Gruber B, Dormann CF (2011) Microsite conditions dominate habitat selection of the red mason bee (Osmia bicornis, Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in an urban environment: a case study from Leipzig, Germany. Landscape Urban Plann 103:15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feinsinger P, Spears E, Poole RW (1981) A simple measure of niche breadth. Ecology 62:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fetridge ED, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) The bee fauna of residential gardens in a suburb of New York City (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:1067–1077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fontaine C, Dajoz I, Meriguet J, Loreau M (2006) Functional diversity of plant-pollinator interaction webs enhances the persistence of plant communities. PLoS Biol 4:129–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Free JB, Williams IH (1970) Preliminary investigations on occupation of artificial nests by Osmia rufa L (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). J Appl Ecol 7:559–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giovanetti M, Aronne G (2011) Honey bee interest in flowers with anemophilous characteristics: first notes on handling time and routine on Fraxinus ornus and Castanea sativa. B Insectol 64:77–82Google Scholar
  23. Goodell K (2003) Food availability affects Osmia pumila (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) foraging, reproduction, and brood parasitism. Oecologia 134:518–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goulson (2000) Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hennig EI, Ghazoul J (2011) Plant-pollinator interactions within the urban environment. Perspect Plant Ecol 13:137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hernandez JL, Frankie GW, Thorp RW (2009) Ecology of urban bees: a review of current knowledge and directions for future study. CATE 2:1–15Google Scholar
  27. Jones GD, Jones SD (2001) The uses of pollen and its implication for entomology. Neotrop Entomol 30:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kearns CA, Inouye DW (1997) Pollinators, flowering plants, and conservation biology: much remains to be learned about pollinators and plants. BioScience 47:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kraemer ME, Favi FD (2005) Flower phenology and pollen choice of Osmia lignaria (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Central Virginia. Environ Entomol 34:1593–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krombein KV (1967) Trap nesting wasps and bees: life histories, nests and associates. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mader E, Spivak M, Evans E (2010) Managing alternative pollinators: a handbook for beekeepers, growers and conservationists. NRAES, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Matteson KC, Ascher JS, Langellotto GA (2008) Bee richness and abundance in New York City urban gardens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:140–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McAndrews JH, Berti AB, Norris G (1973) Key to the quaternary pollen and spores of the great lakes region. Royal Ontario Museum, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  34. McDonnell M, Pickett S, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat R, Zipperer W, Parmelee R, Carreiro M, Medley K (1997) Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosyst 1:21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Molina RT, Rodriquez AM, Palaciso IS, Lopez FG (1996) Pollen production in anemophilous trees. Grana 35:38–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Müller A, Diener S, Schnyder S, Stutz K, Sedivy C, Dorn S (2006) Quantitative pollen requirements of solitary bees: implications for bee conservation and the evolution of bee-flower relationships. Biol Conserv 130:604–615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Niemela J, Kotze J, Ashworth A (2000) The search for common anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity: a global network. J Insect Conserv 4:3–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ollerton J, Winfree R, Tarrant S (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pleasants JM (1980) Competition for bumblebee pollinators in rocky mountain plant communities. Ecology 61:1446–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Praz CJ, Müller A, Dorn S (2008) Specialized bees fail to develop on non-host pollen: do plants chemically protect their pollen? Ecology 89:795–804PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Radmacher S, Strohm E (2010) Factors affecting offspring body size in the solitary bee Osmia bicornis (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Apidologie 41:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raw A (1974) Pollen preferences of three Osmia species (Hymenoptera). Oikos 25:54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ricketts TH (2001) The matrix matters: Effective isolation in fragmented landscapes. Am Nat 158:87–99PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rosenthal JK, Brechwald D (2013) Climate adaptive planning for preventing heat-related health impacts in New York City. Clim Change Govern 2:205–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roulston TH, Cane JH (2000) The effect of diet breadth and nesting ecology on body size variation in bees (Apiformes). J Kansas Ent Soc 73:129–142Google Scholar
  46. Roulston TH, Cane JH, Buchmann SL (2000) What governs protein content of pollen: pollinator preferences, pollen-pistil interactions, or phylogeny? Ecol Monogr 70:617–643Google Scholar
  47. Rust RW (1990) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of pollen foraging in Osmia lignaria propinqua (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Environ Entomol 19:332–338Google Scholar
  48. Sheffield CS, Kevan PG, Westby SM, Smith RF (2008) Diversity of cavity-nesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) within apple orchards and wild habitats in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, Canada. Can Entomol 140:235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smit J, Nasr J (1992) Urban agriculture for sustainable cities: using wastes and idle land and water bodies as resources. Environ Urban 4:41–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith RM, Warren PH, Thompson K, Gaston KJ (2006) Urban domestic gardens (VI): environmental correlates of invertebrate species richness. Biodivers Conserv 15:2415–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strickler K (1979) Specialization and foraging efficiency of solitary bees. Ecology 60:998–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Teper D (2007) Food plants of the red mason bee (Osmia rufa L.) determined based on a palynological analysis of faeces. J Apic Sci 51:55–62Google Scholar
  53. Tommasi D, Miro A, Higo HA, Winston ML (2004) Bee diversity and abundance in an urban setting. Can Entomol 136:851–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Torchio PF (1976) Use of Osmia lignaria say (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Megachilidae) as a pollinator in an apple and prune orchard. J Kansas Entomol Soc 49:475–482Google Scholar
  55. Turkington R, Burdon JJ (1983) The biology of Canadian weeds, 57: Trifolium repens L. Can J Plant Sci 63:243–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vicens N, Bosch J (2000) Weather-dependent pollinator activity in an apple orchard, with special reference to Osmia cornuta and Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae and Apidae). Environ Entomol 29:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Williams NM, Tepedino VJ (2003) Consistent mixing of near and distant resources in foraging bouts by the solitary mason bee Osmia lignaria. Behav Ecol 14:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams NM, Crone EE, Roulston TH, Minckley RL, Packer L, Potts SG (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol Conserv 143:2280–2291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Winfree R, Aguilar R, Vazquez DP, LeBuhn G, Aizen MA (2009) A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 90:2068–2076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Zanette LRS, Martins RP, Ribeiro SP (2005) Effects of urbanization on neotropical wasp and bee assemblages in a Brazilian metropolis. Landscape Urban Plann 71:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biology DepartmentYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations