Category: News feed

  • What Have We Learned From 6 Years of Monitoring Wild Bees?

    What Have We Learned From 6 Years of Monitoring Wild Bees?

    There are around 4,000 bee species in the US and over 400 in Pennsylvania (Figure 1). With so many species it’s very difficult to know what’s going on with each species and any collection of species that co-occur at any given location. There’s growing concern that bees are declining because of a variety of stressors such as habitat loss, pesticides, invasive species, and climate change. While there is good evidence that some bumble bee species in the US are declining, the status and trends for most other species are largely unknown due to a lack of data. This is why there’s an ongoing effort to establish a US nationwide bee monitoring program. In our recently published paper we looked at changes in populations of many bee species using data from 6 years of intensive bee monitoring.

     

    A grid of 12 bee photos sitting on flowers. The bees vary in size, shape, and color.
    Figure 1. A variety of bees found in Pennsylvania, photos by Nash Turley CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    We’ve been working to understand how populations of bees in-and-around several apple orchards in Southern Pennsylvania are changing over time. To do this we’ve been monitoring bees for the last 6 years using Blue Vane Traps (Figure 2), a type of trap that attracts and captures a wide variety of bees. With these we’ve collected data on what bees are active every single week between April and October for 6 years in a row. So far we’ve collected 144 species! This is 33% of the species found in the whole state. As is the case in all collections of species in nature, most species were rare, for half of the species we collected 5 or fewer individuals. However, we did have 40 species with enough observations to be able to look at population trends over time.

     

    A photo of a blue vane trap hanging from a pole with green vegetation in the background. The trap is about 1 foot tall with bright blue top with vanes and a funnel leading into a yellow tub at the bottom
    Figure 2. Blue Vane Trap, a type of insect trap that attracts and captures a wide variety of bees and other pollinating insects. Photo by Nash Turley CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.

    We found that 26 species were stable over time, that is, no detectable change in abundance between 2014-2019 (Figure 3). However, 13 species, or about ⅓ of the species we could measure, declined in abundance over time. Many of the declining species were bumble bees and sweat bees. By contrast, only 1 species increased in abundance over time. In addition to changes in species’ abundances, we also saw declines in the number of species observed. At the peak year we found an average of 46 species at each collection site which dropped to an average of 30 species per site at the end of our study.

     

    Three graphs with bee abundance on the y axis and years on the x axis with points and trend lines. These show the abundance of bees between 2014 and 2019. The first graph there is no trend, no change over time, which is the pattern for 26 species in the study. The second graph shows straight line declining over time, these declines were seen in 13 species. The last graph shows a curvy line that increases sharply in the last two years, only one species (Melissodes bimaculata) increased in this way.
    Figure 3. Changes in abundance of three bee species between 2014 and 2016. These three species are representative of categories of species that were stable, declining, and increasing.

    Our collections were at 4 orchards all within a few miles of each other, so we don’t know if the patterns of declines we saw are happening in other areas. Also, 6 years of data are probably not enough to provide strong evidence of longer-term trends. Rather our patterns could be a product of year-to-year fluctuations that by random chance happened to show declines during our 6-year snapshot. Others have suggested at least 10 years of data are needed to detect long-term patterns of declines in insect populations. We are continuing our collections of hopes that we can provide more concrete evidence of population trends in the future.   

    In addition to studying changes in abundance over time (across years), we also looked at seasonal changes (within years). We wanted to understand how bee communities (the combination of species active at any given time) change from month to month. We found that bee communities in April, May, June, and July are all distinct. That means that each month you go out and look at bees between April and July you will see new species and unique combinations of species flying around. We also looked at seasonal patterns of abundance for our 40 focal species and that there were 3 types of life history strategies which are shown in Figure 4: 1) species are are active for just a short time in the spring such as mason bees and mining bees (pink), 2) those that are active for a short time just in the summer such as squash bees and long-horned bees (purple), and 3) species with a broad period of activity that are likely to be flying about from May all the way to September like bumble bees and most sweat bees (blue). Non-native honey bees had the widest period of activity, they are always around. 

     

    A grid with months April to October on the top and seven types of bees on the side. For each bee the squares are filled in for the month that most of the bees were captured. On the right are photos of each type of bee, high detailed photos of specimens with black backgrounds.
    Figure 4. Seasonal patterns of activity for seven types of bees in Pennsylvania. Filled in squares represent months in which the majority of bees were captured. See main text for further explanation of the patterns.

    Our analysis of bee monitoring data over 6 years helped us learn a great deal about the natural history of bee communities and species-level insight for 40 co-occurring species. Our results are concerning because they suggest there could be declines in species’ abundances and community-wide biodiversity in recent years, but further study is needed to know if this is part of an ongoing pattern. We hope that data like this will be helpful in identifying species of conservation concern, or species that could be good indicators for detecting threats to other bees or insects more generally. We also hope that basic natural history data on many species will be useful for guiding conservation and habitat restoration efforts focused on helping bees and other pollinators. You can read more about this research in our open access paper published in Ecology and Evolution: 

    Turley NE, Biddinger DJ, Joshi NK, López-Uribe MM. Six years of wild bee monitoring shows changes in biodiversity within and across years and declines in abundance. Ecology and Evolution.  

     

  • Food for thought: Using an evidence-based approach to manage honey bees in light of wild bee declines

    Food for thought: Using an evidence-based approach to manage honey bees in light of wild bee declines

    Honey bees are critical for crop pollination in the United States. The US is the first global producer of almonds and blueberries, and both of these crops require large numbers of managed honey bee colonies to maximize yields. In California, almond trees cover 1.4 million acres that supply about 70% of the demands worldwide. In Michigan, the acreage of blueberries has reached over 20,000 acres that produce about 100 million pounds of blueberries every year. The intensification of these (and many other) agricultural systems has increased the demands of honey bee colonies that need to be available for pollination services at times of the year when large acreages of these crops are in bloom. However, managed honey bee colonies in the US are dying at unsustainable rates of around 40% every year. The high number of honey bee colonies that beekeepers lose yearly has turned on the alarms about the drivers of these losses and what strategies can be used to improve the survival of managed honey bee colonies.

    One of the major drivers of the decline of honey bee colonies in the United States is the lack of sufficient high-quality forage. The transformation of large amounts of acreage from natural habitat into field crops, such as corn and soy, has led to (1) increasing amounts of pesticides in the environment—which are used to control major pests that attack these crops planted in monoculture—, and (2) the decreasing availability of foraging areas for honey bees because most field crops do not provide nutritious pollen and nectar for honey bees (Otto et al. 2016 PNAS). As a result of the managed honey bee crisis, the Obama administration in 2015 wrote a Presidential Memorandum directing the creation of a Task Force to “Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators”. Two of the main goals of this task force included the reduction of honey bee colony losses to economically sustainable levels and the restoration of millions of acres of land for pollinators through combined public and private action. The mandate for increasing the amount of high-quality forage for managed honey bees has led to conflicts between managers of lands for conservation purposes who are concerned about competition between manage honey bees and wild bees.

    Why would owners of conservation lands be concerned about supporting honey bees? After all, honey bees are in decline and we need to help them, right? Well, it is not that simple. Honey bees are an introduced species in the United States. They were first introduced a long time ago (early 18th Century) and have since then been naturalized in many of our ecosystems (especially in the southern US). As mentioned before, we rely on them for the pollination of many of our crops. However, honey bees have some biological traits that make very good competitors and help them be very successful species wherever they are introduced. First, honey bees use floral resources from many many different types of plants, so they can easily find food anywhere they go. Unlike many of the native bees in North America that have narrow diets, honey bees are considered food generalists. Second, honey bees are social organisms that live in large colonies (up to 80,000 individuals per colony; Figure 1) and use complex ways to communicate with nestmates and recruit them to effectively find where food is located. Every time one honey bee colony is placed in any given landscape, tens of thousands of individuals go out to forage and will collect pollen from flowers that could be used to feed 100,000 solitary wild bees (Cane and Tepedino 2017 Conservation Letters). Having a large number of bees available to pollinate flowers is precisely what an almond grower wants from managed honey bee colonies because millions of flowers are waiting to be pollinated in their farms. However, lands that are managed for conservation purposes have a different goal—supporting native bees and native plants—and even the temporary placement of honey bees into these landscapes may create a conflict.


    Figure 1. Nests of social and solitary bee species. (Left) A social honey bee colony can hold up to 80,000 worker bees (Photo: Nick Sloff). (Right) A solitary mason bee nest only has one adult female per nest (Photo: Scott Famous, DoD, Bugwood.org ).

    But, what does the data say? Is there scientific data supporting concerns of competition between managed honey bees and wild bees? A recent paper published in 2017, summarized all the existing data from studies that have investigated the question of competition between managed and wild bees (Mallinger et al 2017 Plos One). The authors of the study reviewed 146 peer-reviewed papers that investigated effects of managed bees on wild bees looking at three potential types of negative responses: (1) less available food for wild bees (direct competition for floral resources), (2) preference for pollination of exotic plants (driving the decline of native plant species), and (3) the spread of pathogens from managed to wild bees. Including all the studies published around the world, the authors found negative effects of managed bees on wild bees in 53% of the studies while 28% reported no effects and 19% reported mixed effects. The evidence from studies in the United States—where honey bees are not native—indicate that honey bees negatively impacted the availability of floral resources for wild bees in 70% of the studies. The second group of studies investigating the impact of managed bees on native plant communities reported both positive (36%) and negative (36%) effects, with the remainder reporting no or mixed effects. Finally, 70% of the studies on pathogen transmission reported negative effects of managed bees on wild bees. Since that study was published in 2017, there have been additional studies on the subject in the US indicating that honey bees disproportionately impact the most abundant floral resources, which may cause wild bee species to forage on lower-abundance resources to avoid competition (Hung et al. 2019 Proceedings of the Royal Society B).

     

    Overall, the evidence supports that managed bees can have negative effects on wild bees via competition for floral resources and pathogen transmission (see also Wojcik et al. 2018 Environmental Entomology). Even though most of these studies have not investigated the effects of competition on wild bee reproductive success—which would assess the long-term effects of competition, the data collected so far call for taking precautions when deciding to place high densities of honey bees in any given landscape, especially high-quality natural areas. On the other hand, there is no strong evidence to support claims about honey bees having a direct negative impact on the reproduction of native plants. Indeed, honey bees seem to provide pollination services to both crops and native plant communities.

     

    In summary, the use of conservation lands as foraging habitat for managed honey bees should be restricted or be decided with precautions. For example, if the goal of conserving the land is to conserve native plant communities, introducing honey bees may not interfere with this goal in the short term (even though the long term consequences of wild bee decline on plant biodiversity have not been properly studied). However, if the conservation purpose of the land encompasses broader goals to preserve biodiversity, the introduction of managed bees may lead to direct competition with wild bee populations. New initiatives such as using cover crops and wildflower field margins near agricultural areas or planting habitat for honey bee foraging near solar panels may provide better solutions to the existing need for foraging habitat for managed honey bees (Figure 2). The high losses of honey bee colonies in the US is a problem for agricultural production but it is not a conservation problem (Colla and MacIvor 2017 Conservation Biology). Therefore, mechanisms to solve honey bee decline should not interfere with conservation efforts to protect wild bee populations.


    Figure 2. Initiatives to create foraging habitat for managed honey bees. (A) Agricultural landscape with buckwheat used as a summer smother crop in a mixed vegetable rotation (Photo: Mary Barbercheck). (B) Pollinator habitat created to support forage for honey bee colonies near solar panels in Minnesota (Photo: Rob Davis)


    Facebook


    Twitter


    Google-plus

  • IPM tactics to manage varroa mites

    IPM tactics to manage varroa mites

    Are you using IPM tactics to manage varroa mites?

    When it comes to keeping levels of parasitic mites low, there are numerous options available. In our latest Penn State Extension article, we outline the options and how they fit on the IPM pyramid (figure 1).

    IPM stands for Integrated Pest Management. The pest is the varroa mite and the main idea is to try integrate various practices to manage their population, from choosing hygienic bees to screened bottom boards, before moving on to chemical miticides. Then, if the mite population grows too large, utilizing safer, more sustainable chemical options before considering synthetic alternatives.  In addition, rotating chemicals, instead of using the same thing repeatedly, is key to avoiding the development of resistance. Check out the article to learn more, Methods to Control Varroa Mites: An Integrated Pest Management Approach. 

    We would also love it if you would fill in a very short survey at Beekeeping IPM Initial Survey

    Figure 1. IPM pyramid outlining different managerial practices to control for varroa mites. Image by Nick Sloff.
  • Morning sting, Spring Newsletter 2019

    Morning sting, Spring Newsletter 2019

    López-Uribe Lab at Penn State University

    Spring has arrived and there is much to be excited about. Check out our research and local events from the Center for Pollinator Research and Penn State Extension. Our research and extension programs aim to integrate basic research with citizen science to understand how agricultural practices impact pollinator populations. Using these methods, we are helping inform sustainable practices and crop management strategies to both preserve bee biodiversity and increase farmers’ profits on a local scale.

    Bee Facts

    What’s blooming in Pennsylvania during the Spring?

    Maple (Acer spp.)

    Blueberries (Vaccinium spp.)

    Sage (Salvia spp.)

    Violets (Viola spp.)

    Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora)

    Black Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)

    Eastern Redbud (Cercis canadensis)

    Cornelian-cherry Dogwood (Cornus mas)

    American Plum (Prunus americana)

    Black Willow (Salix nigra)

    Japanese Quince (Chaenomeles japonica)

    Identify the trees in your backyard with the Common Trees of Pennsylvania guide

    For a list of pollinator friendly flowers for the northeast go to: https://xerces.org/pollinator-conservation/plant-lists/

     

    Research & Extension

    Checklist of Bees of PA

    As of January 2019, 83 new species records have been recorded for Pennsylvania. These results bring up the total number of species for the state to at least 450, read more.

    Feral Bee Health of PA

    Since 2016 we have been leading a citizen science project to map the location of feral colonies and characterize the health status of these unmanaged bees across Pennsylvania. Our results suggest that feral colonies have stronger immune systems than their managed counterparts. We are continuing our feral bee survey and asking interested citizen scientists to collect samples of feral colonies, read more.

    Installation video

    Spring is a busy time of year for beekeepers; it marks the arrival of packages. Packages arrive as early as April in Pennsylvania. Here is a video that will walk beekeepers through a step-by-step protocol of how to install package bees, read more.

    COMB, Conventional and Organic Management of Bees

    Project COMB aims to determine the impacts of management practices on honey bee colony health. Specifically, we will compare conventional, organic, and chemical free management beekeeping systems, read more.

    Spotlight

    Congratulations to Shelby Kilpatrick. She won second place in the Educational Digest (ED) Talk Competition at the 2019 Eastern Branch Meeting of the Entomological Society of America for her talk on “Collections, Checklists, & Changes: My studies in bees”. She is also a 2019 recipient of the Apes Valentes Research Award for her project: “Form and Function: examining coevolution between specialist pollinators and their host plants through comparison of bee pollen-collection/transport and pollen grain structures”.

     

     

     

    Congratulations to Brooke Lawrence who was awarded the “Extension Graduate Student Fellowship” and is a 2019 recipient of the Apes Valentes Research Award for her project: “Maintaining the colony pantry: Impact of pesticides on pollen preservation in honey bee colonies”. She is going to be leading research efforts to investigate how in-hive chemicals impact honey bee health while working with teachers, beekeepers, and researchers to develop curriculum to teach 4-H students about biological processes using honey bees as a model system.

     

    Bombus ternarius, the orange-belted bumblebee or tricoloured bumblebee, is common throughout the NE US and parts of Canada.

    Publications & Events

    Penn State to bring pollinator garden that will last ‘forever’ to the Arboretum The Center for Pollinator Research has been working with the Arboretum to renovate to the Arboretum pollinator garden, which is to be ready for students in the fall of 2020, read more.

    Certified Bee Campus

    Penn State became the 55th educational institute in the nation to become a certified Bee Campus as an affiliate of the Bee Campus USA program. The University Park campus joins more than 100 other cities and campuses across the country united in improving their landscapes for pollinators, read more.

    What’s the buzz? Pennsylvania plans to help save the bees

    The Pennsylvania Pollinator Protection Plan (P4) was released in September. It dives into threats facing the state’s pollinating species and describes methods shown to protect the insects that support both the state’s natural biodiversity and its $260 million fruit and vegetable growing industry, read more. 

    What Can Bees Teach Us About Building Better Urban Ecosystems?

    Bees love cities, but what can cities offer bees? Vacant land and urban agriculture are rejuvenating wild bee populations, read more. 

    Introducing Beescape: A new online tool that supports bees

    A new online tool and community, called Beescape, enables beekeepers, or anyone interested in bees, to understand the specific stressors to which the bees in their managed hives, home gardens or farms are exposed, according to researchers at Penn State, read more.

    Bee dispersal ability may influence conservation measures

    The abilities of various bee species to disperse influences their population genetic structure, which, in turn, can constrain how they respond to environmental change, as reported by an international team of researchers, read more.

    Protecting Bees

    Want to start a pollinator garden or create a customized plant list? Try the new search engine, Find Plants, for finding plant most suitable for your location, ranked according to their attractiveness for different groups of pollinators, read more.

    Checking out Pollinators in Pennsylvania

    With insect species declining and agriculturally-important pollinators at risk, it’s important to know what species are present in an area to help protect them. Ph.D. student Shelby Kilpatrick is trying to find out what bees are present in Pennsylvania and is creating a list that could help with future conservation efforts, read more.


    IPM News and Events

    Native Mycorrhizal Fungi and Whitebark Pine Restoration
    Tuesday, May 14, 2019, 12 pm (MDT) by Dr. Cathy Cripps, Professor & Mycologist, Montana State University. Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) is an iconic, five-needle, high-elevation pine whose existence is threatened by an exotic rust, mountain pine beetles, fire suppression, and climate change. Its distribution is limited to western North America and populations have declined 90% in recent decades.

    New Entry Sustainable Farming 20 week Crop Production Course

    This is a great course for anyone looking to develop skills and knowledge growing vegetable crops organically and using soil health and conservation principles. We tailor the course to be informative and useful for anyone interested in producing food, particularly for those with goals of growing commercially who need “hands-in-the-dirt” skills training.  The course meets in person 10 times on Sunday afternoons, with supplemental instruction in online course modules to learn at your own pace and to supplement on-farm instruction. You can also gain additional experience helping out on the incubator farm and supporting production in the class demonstration plot. $600 starts May 5.


    Peer-reviewed

    López-Uribe MM, Jha S, Soro A. (Accepted) A trait-based approach to predict population genetic structure in bees. Molecular Ecology.

    Underwood RM, Traver BE, López-Uribe MM. (2019) Beekeeping management practices are associated with operation size and beekeepers’ philosophy towards in-hive chemicals. Insects 2019, 10, 10. doi.org/10.3390/insects10010010 [link]

    López-Uribe MM, Simone-Finstrom (2019) Special Issue: Honey bee research in the US: Current state and solutions to beekeeping problems. Insects 10, 22. doi.org/10.3390/insects10010022 [link].


    Grants, 2019

    Breeding tolerance for DWV in Honey Bees from North American Pollinator Protection Campaign

    Conserving and Enhancing Pollinator Populations and Ensuring Pollination: Professional Development for Extension Educators in Northeastern United States; from Penn State College of Ag – Multistate Research and Extension Program

    Partnering with beekeepers to breed for tolerance to DWV in honey bees; from Penn State College of Ag – Multistate Research and Extension Program

    Posts

     

    López-Uribe Lab
    Penn State University
    Twitter @lopezuribelab
    Facebook Lopez-Uribe Lab
  • Windbreaks and wind breaks

    Windbreaks and wind breaks

    Photo by Larry Mutti

    Wind is common in winter in the northeast. This winter, there was a particularly distressing wind event that blasted the northeast Sunday into Monday 24-25 February 2019.  Strong eastward winds whipped through the area causing downed trees, destroyed fences, partial building collapses, and lost power to many residents and businesses. With wind gusts often breaking 50 mph, windbreaks built by beekeepers to protect hives over the winter were ineffective.  A visit to the various sites of the COMB project revealed many thrown lids, despite the placement of heavy rocks on each. In one apiary in central PA, almost half the hives were blown over. Two of the 5 colonies in toppled hives succumbed to the cold, while the other three were alive (and very angry!) as they were set upright. As the wind subsided, the only thing to do was pick up the pieces, put things back together again, and hope for the best.

    This event removed two otherwise thriving colonies from the COMB project. We are sad for the loss, but we are determined to learn from it.  What lesson can we share from this experience? Placement of hives is of utmost importance in all seasons. Considerations for the best locations in cold weather are distance from the beekeeper’s residence, road conditions, and wind breaks.

    1. Consider the distance between you and your hives.  In our case, the distance of some of the COMB sites is a two-hour drive, and in this situation, it was difficult to get to them all in a timely manner. Perhaps all of the toppled colonies could have been saved if they were discovered and set upright more quickly. If your hives are far from home, enlist the help of someone who lives close, so you can be alerted when there is a problem.
    2. Consider road conditions carefully. A few of the COMB apiaries are best reached using a 4 wheel drive vehicle. This is not ideal and makes access difficult at times.
    3. While each apiary was assessed for the possible effects of wind, it is clear that a few of them were too exposed.  Hay bales were put in place to block the majority of the wind but it was not enough the protect the hives from strong gusts.  If this might be a problem in your apiary, consider tightly strapping the hive bodies together. If you do so, a hive can topple, but remain intact. This will protect the bees until the equipment can be put upright. In our case, it likely would have made a big difference.

    Beekeepers are constantly being taught lessons by the bees and nature.  If we pay attention and learn from our mistakes, we will become better beekeepers and have happier healthier bees.

    Photo by Larry Mutti

    Written by Robyn Underwood

    Assistant Research Professor

    Penn State University