• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Wild bee distribution near forested landscapes is dependent on successional state

    2020-07-16 07:19:14KatherineOdanakaandSandraRehan
    Forest Ecosystems 2020年2期

    Katherine A.Odanaka and Sandra M.Rehan*

    Abstract

    Keywords: Pollinator, Forest margin,Bee habitat, Nesting biology,Wild bees

    Background

    Within the past 10 years, our collective knowledge regarding the biology, behavior, and evolutionary history of wild bees has greatly expanded. As central place foragers, bees are highly dependent on the availability of resources near their nest and without access to acceptable forage or nesting risk extirpation from these environments (Greenleaf et al. 2007; Williams and Kremen 2007; Ferreira et al. 2013; Blaauw and Isaacs 2014). Human mediated environmental change is now a constant process and modifications in land use, especially agricultural expansion, are among the most damaging to wild bee communities, as former habitat and nesting resources are converted to pasture and farm land(Williams and Kremen 2007; Quintero et al. 2009;M’Gonigle et al. 2015; Newbold et al. 2015; Mallinger et al. 2016; Harrison et al. 2017). However, there are contrasting reactions by different bee communities to the varied types of landscape modification (such as but not limited to urbanization, agricultural expansion, or setting aside land for conservation) indicating that wild bees are responding to landscape level changes in local resources (Kremen et al. 2002; Bengtsson et al. 2005;Morandin and Winston 2005;Williams and Kremen 2007;Potts et al. 2010; Power and Stout 2011; Winfree et al.2011; Senapathi et al. 2015; Tucker and Rehan 2018).Furthermore, these varied reactions are largely dictated by biological traits (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2010; Bartomeus et al. 2013; Tucker and Rehan 2018) and certain traits for nesting (stem and cavity)and behavior (cleptoparasitism) constrain certain bee guilds to specific environments (Tscharntke et al. 1998;Sheffield et al. 2013).

    Forested environments, including forest margins, provide ample resources that bees may not find in agriculturally intensive areas. This includes spring foraging sources, such as understory flowers and herbaceous plants, as well as nesting habitats in tree cavities and dead broken sticks and in bare ground (Aizen and Feinsinger 1994; De Marco and Coelho 2004; Taki et al.2007; Winfree et al. 2007; Farwig et al. 2009; Taki et al.2013; Bailey et al. 2014; Hanula et al. 2015; Joshi et al.2016). Additionally, forests and forest margins provide many important ecosystem services, including the exportation of beneficial arthropods into surrounding areas(Decocq et al. 2016). Prior research has indicated that farms located close to forest margins have increased pollination and yield as they benefit from the movement of bees and other pollinators from the forest environment to the farms in search of forage (Blanche et al. 2006;Mitchell et al. 2014). The effect of forests and other seminatural areas exporting these critical pollination services has been shown in both tropical (Ricketts 2004;Ferreira et al. 2015) and temperate regions (Watson et al. 2011; Schüepp et al. 2013; Bailey et al. 2014). Furthermore, as distance from forest margins increases, pollination and yield on farms decrease, demonstrating how forest margins influence pollinator contribution near agricultural landscapes (De Marco and Coelho 2004;Chacoff and Aizen 2006; Carvalheiro et al. 2010; Mitchell et al. 2014). Although bees are known to be capable of flying hundreds of meters (Gathmann & Tscharntke 2002), this may be an exception as bees were found to forage much closer to their nests despite having large foraging distances (Zurbuchen et al. 2010a, 2010b). If this is the case, subtle differences in where bees distribute themselves from a forest edge could be detected at finer scales, yet this remains largely unexplored.

    Although forests and forest margins remain an important resource for wild bees, not all forested environments are able to support abundant and diverse bee communities, and this largely depends upon the stage of succession it is currently in. Research has focused on either the early or late stages of forest succession and those phases that lie in between have often been ignored.Mature forests(late stage succession), characterized by old growth and containing closed canopies, are less favorable to bees than forests in earlier stages of succession (Taki et al. 2007;Swanson et al. 2011; Hanula et al. 2015). These earlier successional stages, which emulate the grassland habitats favorable for bees, are critical for the survival of solitary native bee populations as they provide essential floral resources and nesting habitat (Taki et al. 2013; Hanula et al.2015;Roberts et al.2017).Environments that are able to maintain states of early forest succession, through various means such as fires, grazing, or management will often have a more diverse and abundant native bee population (Potts et al. 2003a, b; Rubene et al. 2015; Kimoto et al. 2012; Noy-Meir 1995; Vulliamy et al. 2006). As forests continue to age and mature, shifts in the bee community occur and are dictated by various functional traits such as their behavior or nesting;solitary species give way to social species and ground nesters decline overall (Taki et al.2013; Hanula et al. 2015; Rubene et al. 2015). However,little is currently known regarding how forests in the midstage of succession affect wild bee populations or the extent of how functional traits dictate where wild bees distribute themselves across these mid successional stages.

    Wild bee populations continue to decline while knowledge of their habitat requirements remain poorly documented (Winfree 2010; Burkle et al. 2013; Kerr et al.2015), resulting in a need for understanding how forest successional stages influence and shape bee communities. Deeper insight into the effects of forest succession and habitat requirements can ultimately inform different agricultural management schemes that can double as a means of wild bee conservation. We examined the effects of four unique stages of forest succession in order to 1) investigate the effects of successional stage and distance from forest margins on wild bee abundance and richness, 2) identify how nesting and behavioral traits create specificity for wild bee species in different successional stages, and 3) describe the wild bee community in New England forest systems for the first time.

    Methods

    Study sites and sampling

    This study was conducted in Strafford County, New Hampshire (43.2383° N, 71.0236° W). Collection locations were in and around mixed eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and white pine (Pinus strobus) forests. Wild bees were sampled every 2 weeks starting the first week in May through the end of September 2017. Four different forest successional stages (clear-cut=forest after disturbance; closed canopy=pine and hemlock mixed forest with no canopy gaps; pasture=initial plant colonization of the gap; silvopasture=pine only and canopy gaps between trees), were surveyed including: closed canopy forest, clear-cut where trees had been completely removed with 0% canopy cover, silvopasture where selected trees were removed to allow 30% canopy cover for cattle to graze between the remaining trees, and pasture adjacent to forests. Both the clear-cut and silvopasture were created in 2015. Each rectangular site was approximately 1 hectare in area and all had at least one edge that was shared with the surrounding closed canopy forest. Pastures were mowed monthly and had no canopy cover. Ten cows were released at each of the pasture, silvopasture and clear-cut biweekly (alternating weeks to bee collection). Each site represented one successional stage and had three replicate 120 m transects;one of each transects were located at 10, 20, and 30 m from forest edges into each site. These transects were standardized to the forest edge so that 10, 20, or 30 m from the forest edge was the same distance regardless of the successional type.

    We collected bees using colored pan traps that were either blue, white, or yellow following standard procedure(Tucker and Rehan 2016; 2018). We placed twelve pan traps (7-cm diameter, 100 mL) alternating in blue, white,yellow pattern on the ground along each 120-m transect allowing for 10 m between each cup and filled each one with soapy water. Traps were deployed before 8 AM and were collected the same day after 4 PM, allowing for a total of 8 h collection.When emptying pan traps,contents of each trap were poured through a sieve and any collected specimens were placed in a vial containing 70%ethanol and a collection tag. Additionally, we recognize that pan traps have been shown to be biased against social and larger bee species, and are particularly favorable to those in the Halictidae(Droege et al.2010).

    Bee identification

    Following the protocols in Droege (2015) we washed bee specimens and dried them with a hair drier. Once dry,specimens were then pinned, labeled with relevant location information and a unique QR code, and identified to species using online keys found on Discover Life(http://www.discoverlife.org/) as well as previously published taxonomic keys (Mitchell 1960, 1962; Gibbs 2011;Rehan and Sheffield 2011; Gibbs et al. 2013; all specimens are housed in the Rehan Lab at York University).After identification, we grouped species by their behavior type (social, solitary, cleptoparasitic) and their nesting biology (ground, stem). Bees that were classified as preferring only cavities or alternating between stems and cavities were grouped into the stems category. For behavior, bees exhibiting communal behavior were grouped into the solitary category (Matteson et al. 2008;Ascher et al. 2014; Selfridge et al. 2017). A list of all bees in this study, including their behavior and nesting biology, can be found in the supplement (S1).

    Statistical analyses

    Similarity coefficients and initial rarefactions were completed for each of the successional states to determine sampling adequacy (S2, S3). We then used generalized linear mixed models with negative binomial distribution to analyze the effects of forest distance and successional type on wild bee abundance and richness (Zuur et al.2007). Both collection month and distance nested within site were used as random effect variables in our models.Fixed variables included site, distance from the forest edge, behavior type, and nesting biology. Analyses of deviance using type II Wald chi square tests were then conducted on our models in order to test for overall significance of treatments; followed by post hoc Tukey tests. All statistical analyses were conducted using R ver.(3.5.2) (R Core Team) and the packages ‘multcomp’(Hothorn et al. 2008), iNEXT (Chao et al. 2014; Hsieh et al. 2016), vegan (Oksanen et al. 2013) and lme4 (Bates et al. 2015).

    Results

    A total of 297 bees, representing 63 species and 18 genera were collected. The clear-cut maintained the highest total wild bee abundance (mean±SD; n=114±14.5),followed by the silvopasture (n=89±13.0), then the pasture (n=82±14.3), and finally the forest (n=12±2.7).When successional states were examined individually,the clear-cut, silvopasture, and pasture all had significantly higher bee abundance than the forest (Χ2=33.85,df=3, p ≤0.001).

    Succession stage (forest, pasture, silvopasture, clear-cut)

    Overall, species abundance differed significantly among successional stage and distances from the forest edge(Χ2=543.85, df=6, p ≤0.001; Fig.1a). The clear-cut (z=3.321; p=0.005), silvopasture (z=5.021; p <0.001), and pasture (z=4.481; p <0.001) all show significantly more wild bee abundance than the forest but are not different from each other. Additionally, there were significant differences in species abundance between 20 and 30 m(z=-22.39; p <0.001) as well as between 10 and 30 m(z=-19.46; p <0.001).

    Bee species richness also differed significantly among successional states (Χ2=30.8, df=3, p ≤0.001),but not by distance (Χ2=0.05, df=2, p=0.975).Clear-cut (z=5.470; p <0.001), silvopasture (z=4.230;p <0.001), and pasture (z=4.498; p <0.001) were all significantly richer than the forest, but there was no difference in richness among the former three states.The clear-cut had the highest overall species richness(n=38±5.3), the pasture and silvopasture maintained equal amounts of species richness (pasture: n=32±6.4; silvopasture: n=32±13.0), while the forest had the least species richness (n=9±1.9). Species richness significantly varied among successional state by distance (Χ2=456.47 df=6, p ≤0.001; Fig.1b).

    The interaction of succession type and bee behavior on wild bee abundance was significant (Χ2=15.44, df=6, p=0.02; Fig.2a). We found that solitary (z=5.15; p <0.001) and social (z=4.82; p <0.001) species were more abundant than cleptoparasitic species. No cleptoparasites were found at the forest. Overall,solitary bees were most abundant (n=164±26.8), followed by social bees (n=122±18.1), then cleptoparasites (n=11±2.3). Individuals from solitary species were most common in the pasture (n=62±12.5) and least common in the forest(n=7±2.1). The number of solitary individuals collected was second and third highest in the clear-cut and silvopasture respectively (clear-cut: n=58±7.4; silvopasture:n=37±6.5). Social bees were most common in the clear-cut (n=51±8.5) and least common in the forest(n=5±0.7). The silvopasture had more social individuals (n=49±8.2) than the pasture (n=17±5.4). Cleptoparasitic individuals were most frequent in the clear-cut sites (n=5±1). Cleptoparasitic bees were equally collected within the pasture and silvopasture sites(n=3±0.9).

    The effect of species behavior on overall richness was significant (Χ2=60.4; df=2, p <0.001; Fig.2b). Total richness among behavioral categories indicated that solitary bees were the most species rich (n=32±6.4). Species richness of cleptoparasitic bees was almost as high as social species (n=11±2.3 and n=20±4.1 respectively). Across four different successional states, solitary bees were most diverse in the clear-cut (n=21±3.7)with far fewer species collected in the forest (n=5±1.6).The pasture sites were the second highest in solitary bee richness (n=21±4.7) and this was followed by the silvopasture sites (n=15±1.8). Social bee richness was highest in the silvopasture sites (n=14±2.3), followed by clear-cut (n=12±2.5), then pasture (n=8±1.9), and fewest in the forest sites (n=4±0.4). The clear-cut sites had the most cleptoparasite species (n=5±0.45). The pasture and silvopasture sites (n=3±0.4) each had cleptoparasitic species, and the forest had no observed cleptoparasites.

    Overall, ground nesters were more abundant (n=202±28.5) than stem nesters (n=95±16.1; Χ2=27.88;df=1; p ≤0.001). Successional state (forest, pasture, silvopasture, clear-cut) was also found vary significantly among nesting biologies (Χ2=27.11; df=3; p <0.001;Fig.3a). Ground (n=76±10.3) and stem (n=38±5.5)nesting individuals were most abundant in the clear-cut sites. Abundance of ground and stem nesters (n=59±8.61, n=30±5.0 respectively) were second highest in the silvopasture sites. In the pasture sites,ground nesters(n=58±9.4) comprised 71% of the bees captured and the remaining 29% were stem nesters (n=24±5.4).Three quarters (75%) of the individuals collected from the forest sites were ground nesters (n=9±1.5) and the remaining 25%were stem nesters (n=3±1.3).

    Species richness varied significantly between nesting biology categories (Χ2=27.34, df=1, p ≤0.001; Fig.3b).Overall, ground nesting bees had higher species richness than stem nesters (n=45±6.8 and n=19±4.9 respectively; Χ2=27.34, df=1, p ≤0.001). At the successional state level, ground nesters were most species rich within clear-cut sites (n=28±4.2), followed by the pasture and silvopasture sites (n=23±4.2, n=21±2.5 respectively).The forest sites had the least ground nesting species richness (n=7±1.4). Species richness of stem nesting bees was highest in both the clear-cut and silvopasture sites (clear-cut: n=10±2.3; silvopasture: n=11±1.2).The pasture sites contained the third highest (n=9±2.44) and the forest sites had the least number of species(n=2±0.9).

    Distance

    When examined together, the effects of distance on total bee abundance (both ground and stem nesters) was not significant (Χ2=0.524, df=2, p=0.77). However, there was a significant interaction between nesting biology and distance to forest margins (Χ2=10.18; df=2; p <0.006; Fig.4a). Ground nesting bee abundance increased about 36% from 10 to 20 m and remained constant at 30 m. For stem nesters, bee abundance was highest at 10 m and significantly lower at 20 m.At 30 m,stem nesting bee abundance is significantly higher than abundance at 20 m, but also lower than bee abundance at 10 m. Interactions between distance and nesting biology were significant (Χ2=6.64, df=2, p=0.04; Fig.4b).Ground nesting bees increased by 56% in species richness from 10 to 20 m and remained consistently high at 30 m away from forest margins. Stem nesters had a significant difference in species richness at 20 m from forest margins (z=-3.164; p=0.002).

    Each distance was also found to have specific bee species. Of 63 bee species, 33 (52%) were only found at certain distances from the forest margin (Table 1). Most of the distance specific species were found 30 m from forest margins (n=15) and the least were found closest to forest margins at 10 m transects (n=7). Of the total distance specific bees, 81% were found to be ground nesters (n=27) and six of these species, all in the genus Lasioglossum, were found to be social. Half of all distance specific species were members of the family Halictidae and of those 18 species, nine occurred solely 30 m from forest margins. These include the only Augochlora species (A. pura) and the only Agapostemon species (A.sericeus) found solely at 30 m from forest margins. In total, 12 of the 18 (67%) species from the family Halictidae were from the genus Lasioglossum. Half of those Lasioglossum species (n=6) were collected 20 m from forest margins and those species comprised 46% of the total specific species to that distance. Additionally, the only Anthidium species (A. manacatum) found in this study was captured at 20 m from a forest margin. Although transects 10 m from the forest margin contained the least specific species these include the lone specimens of Hoplitis (H. spoliata) and Melissodes (M.druriellus).

    Successional state specificity

    Three species were collected in all four successional states: Agapostemon virescens, Calliopsis antenniform,and Lasioglossum coriaceum. Conversely, each successional state was found to have species not collected in the other sites. In total, 34 of the 63 (54%) bee species collected in this study were present in only one of the four successional states (Table 2). The clear-cut and pasture both contained the highest number of stage specific species (n=11). The clear-cut contained the most halictid species, the only species of Augochlora (A. pura), and Anthidium (A. oblongatum) found in this study. Thepasture contained the most species of the family Megachilidae captured in one site (n=4). Included in these four species were the only species of Hoplitis (H. spoliata), the only Megachile (M. companulae, M. latimanus), and one Osmia (O. albiventris) species.Furthermore, the only Melissodes (M. druriellus) was found at a pasture site.

    Table 1 Species specific to distances from forest edge. Species include five bee families (bold)and 11 genera.Nesting biology indicated with:*=ground nesting, and Δ=stem/cavity nesting species. Social behavior indicated in parentheses with:(sol)=solitary,(soc)=social, and (par)=cleptoparasitic species

    Although the forest and silvopasture both are comprised of mixed forest, they did not have any similarities in community composition or number of stage-specific species. Only two species were found only in the forest:Andrena nigrihirta and Lasioglossum pilosum. The silvopasture however, contained ten stage-specific species,half of which were Lasioglossum species, which was the most for any successional stage and includes L.platyparium, the only social parasitic species of this genus collected in this study. The silvopasture sites also contained the most successional state specific Osmia (n=2) species: O. atriventris and O. collinsiae.

    Discussion

    This study investigated and documented the effects of four different successional states and three different distances from forest margins on wild bee communities.Here we determined successional stage specificity among wild bees as a product of set traits such as species behavior and nesting biology. Our study reveals that wild bees in forested environments are affected by distance from forest margins and by nesting habitat. Within each successional state, we found bees assorted by their behavior and nesting biology while nesting biology alone revealed different niches at 10 versus 20 and 30 m from forest margins. Findings from our study further support the need for heterogeneous landscape composition to bolster diverse wild bee communities.

    Succession type (forest, pasture, silvopasture, clear-cut)

    Wild bee behavior and nesting biology was significantly associated with successional state. We found thatenvironments containing little to no canopy cover supported the most abundant and rich bee communities in comparison to the forest dominated by dense stands of trees which is consistent with previous findings (Winfree et al. 2007; Hanula et al. 2015; Roberts et al. 2017).Dense forests lack many of the resources important for bee habitat, such as nesting substrate, suitable sunlight,and consistent forage (Swanson et al. 2011; Hanula et al.2015, 2016). This is especially critical once the spring blooming period has ended and trees begin to produce leaves which block sunlight from reaching the understory and prohibit the growth of additional forage (Taki et al. 2007; Schüepp et al. 2013). Moreover, foraging by bees and other hymenopterans is reduced in the presence of shade and thus cooler temperatures (Herrera 1995; McKinney and Goodell 2010; Polatto et al. 2014).The majority of wild bees found in the forest were solitary ground nesters and were located close to forest margins. This observation provides evidence further supporting the notion that solitary bees will build their nests at forest edges where there is less canopy shade and more open ground(Klein et al. 2003).

    Table 2 Species specific to the four different successional states examined in this study. Species include five bee families (bold) and 11 genera.Nesting biology indicated with:*=ground nesting, and Δ=stem/cavity nesting species. Social behavior indicated in parentheses with:(sol)=solitary, (soc)=social,and (par)=cleptoparasitic species

    The pasture, clear-cut, and silvopasture states all represent different stages of deforestation allowing for insight into how wild bee populations respond to disturbance.Previous research has shown that bees respond favorably to disturbance from forested environments and will be found consistently in greater numbers where disturbance has occurred (Hanula and Horn 2011;Fiedler et al. 2012; Hudson et al. 2013). The most disturbed of our states studied were the clear-cut sites,which maintained the highest bee community abundance and species richness in this study. Since disturbance reverts sections of forest back to early stage succession, our clear-cut sites may be able to generate an abundance of essential foraging and nesting resources, which are essential for attracting and retaining populations of solitary bees (Taki et al. 2013; Roberts et al. 2017).Local factors,such as the availability of nesting resources, can impact wild bee community composition by increasing species diversity (Murray et al. 2012)which can explain the highly taxon and habitat specific differences in the wild bee communities found between our silvopasture and pasture sites. Both silvopasture and pasture sites had nearly equal richness and abundance of wild bees, but each successional state provided habitat to different species based on nesting biology and behavior.Where the pasture sites contained more bare ground and thus catered more towards solitary ground nesting bees, the silvopasture, which lacked exposed soil, housed more stem nesting bees and more species exhibiting social behavior.

    Distance

    Our results indicate that the overall distribution of wild bees across different distances near forest margins is determined by nesting biology and perhaps the availability of specific nesting resources. Bailey et al. (2014) found that distance from the forest margin was one of the most important factors in explaining variance in wild bee communities. We found that distance from forest margins explained differences in bee abundance and richness only when the community was grouped by nesting guild.Stem nesting bees were mostly found at 10 m, while ground nesting species were much more common at 20 and 30 m from forest margins. These variances were likely due to the location of appropriate nesting substrate, as stems and twigs were most abundantly located closest to forest margins, while exposed bare ground increased as distance from forests increased. Furthermore,our results support research by Cane et al. (2006) and Potts et al. (2003a, b, 2005), who suggest that the availability of nesting resources exert enough pressure to shape bee communities based on their specific nesting guilds.

    The effect of distance from forest margins on wild bee communities is a topic of increasing interest, especially in regards to agriculture; yet very few of these distance studies detail changes in specific bee species as distance from forest margins increase (Chacoff and Aizen 2006;Taki et al. 2007; Bailey et al. 2014; Joshi et al. 2016).Many of these studies are in agriculture settings and show overall declines in species richness and floral visitation rates as distance increases (Klein et al. 2003;Kohler et al. 2008; Carvalheiro et al. 2010; Schüepp et al.2013). Unlike earlier distance studies, whose maximum distance from the forest edge was 100 m or more (Taki et al. 2007; Watson et al. 2011; Bailey et al. 2014; Joshi et al. 2016), the spatial scale of our project was much finer, focusing on 10 to 30 m. This reduced scale allows us to detect narrower nuances in the distribution of wild bees across shorter distances and examine how species composition changes as distance increases. We found that over half of recorded bee species were distance specific and that distance specificity is a product of bee nesting biology. Our conclusion further corroborates the notion that nesting resources are able to shape bee communities (Potts et al. 2005; Cane et al. 2006), but our result suggest this might occur at a much finer scale.Unlike nesting biology, we did not detect clear distance specificity among behavioral categories. Prior distance analyses that differentiate between the bee behavior classes focus mainly on honey bees or bumble bees or both as social representatives (Bailey et al. 2014; Joshi et al.2016). Consequently, little is currently known regarding the responses of social species outside of the Apidae,such as those in the genus Lasioglossum, to distances from forest margins.Future studies documenting all species are needed, especially to gain insights into the habitat requirements of the greatly understudied social halictids and the wide range of speciose solitary bees.

    Successional state specificity

    Our results corroborate previous findings regarding the importance of heterogeneous landscapes for diverse wild bee populations in larger ecosystems, especially agroecosystems where homogeneous landscapes are common(Steckel et al. 2014; Mallinger et al. 2016; Tucker and Rehan 2018). Both Tucker and Rehan (2018) and Svensson et al. (2000) found that landscape specificity affects species within genera differently and our results mirror those findings. This effect can best be seen in the genus Lasioglossum, the most species rich genus captured in our study, where half of the species captured (10 spp.)were specific to one type of landscape. As indicated by our data, loss of heterogeneous landscapes (such as different successional states across a largely forested landscapes) may extirpate those species that require unique habitats, thus reducing wild bee diversity and community resilience to environmental change. The implementation of wildflower plantings, hedgerows and increasing seminatural habitats within homogeneous landscapes provides a way to generate the heterogeneous environment that may offer the refuge for those bees that are landscape specific (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2002; Williams and Kremen 2007; Le Féon et al. 2010; Kremen and M’Gonigle 2015; Decocq et al. 2016). Due to the regional nature of this study, future research is needed in order to replicate and compare our findings across New England and beyond.

    Conclusions

    It is critical to understand how habitat requirements influence wild bee distribution within landscapes so that decisions regarding conservation will have the most positive impact. We found that overall wild bee abundance and richness in forested landscapes exhibiting multiple states of different forest successional stages were influenced by the amount of canopy cover present.Our results are consistent with the findings of other studies in forested environments which indicate the negative relationship between wild bee abundance and diversity and canopy cover (Grundel et al. 2010; Roberts et al. 2017; Breland et al. 2018; Odanaka et al. 2020).Successional states that maintained higher bee abundance and richness had less canopy and abundant bare ground. Our data further indicates that wild bee conservation practices and current means of forest management could be complimentary. Both aim to reduce tree density in forested areas, while opening the canopy and raising understory temperatures, which benefit both wild bee communities and understory plants (Taki et al.2013, 2007; Hudson et al. 2013; Hanula et al. 2015). Reduction of tree density, through managed burns or manual thinning, exposes more ground, allowing for usage by ground nesting bees (Hanula et al. 2015, 2016). Our data suggests that maintaining heterogenous landscapes through supporting multiple successional states aids in promoting wild bee diversity especially in areas that are prone to lacking diversity, such as agriculturally dominant areas.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-020-00241-4.

    Acknowledgements

    We thank Jacob Withee, Wyatt Shell, Molly Jacobson, Stephanie Gardner,Erika Tucker, and Minna Mathiasson (University of New Hampshire) for their help with fieldwork, specimen processing, identifications and databasing.

    Authors’contributions

    KAO analyzed data and drafted manuscript; SMR conceived study, assisted with data analyses and edited manuscript. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

    Funding

    USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch Project 1004515 and Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research Pollinator Health fund 549038.

    Availability of data and materials

    All specimens are housed in the Rehan lab at York University, data and specimens will be made available upon request.

    Ethics approval and consent to participate

    Not applicable.

    Consent for publication

    Not applicable.

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

    Received: 8 January 2020 Accepted: 7 April 2020

    成人手机av| av福利片在线| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 欧美色视频一区免费| 天堂√8在线中文| 最好的美女福利视频网| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 黄色 视频免费看| 99热这里只有是精品50| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看 | 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 久久精品人妻少妇| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 十八禁人妻一区二区| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲激情在线av| 免费在线观看完整版高清| 午夜福利在线在线| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 久久中文看片网| 两个人看的免费小视频| 香蕉久久夜色| 精品福利观看| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| av欧美777| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲色图av天堂| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 香蕉av资源在线| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 国产成人av教育| 成人18禁高潮啪啪吃奶动态图| 看免费av毛片| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| bbb黄色大片| 国模一区二区三区四区视频 | 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩 | 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 999精品在线视频| 欧美中文综合在线视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 全区人妻精品视频| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产三级在线视频| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 无遮挡黄片免费观看| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 国产97色在线日韩免费| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 中文资源天堂在线| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 在线a可以看的网站| 国产精品野战在线观看| 久久九九热精品免费| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 制服人妻中文乱码| 亚洲av成人av| 搡老岳熟女国产| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 在线观看66精品国产| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 国产免费av片在线观看野外av| 国产av在哪里看| 不卡一级毛片| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 久久香蕉精品热| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 亚洲第一电影网av| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 色播亚洲综合网| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 男女床上黄色一级片免费看| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 午夜激情福利司机影院| 亚洲五月天丁香| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 一区福利在线观看| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 国产成人精品无人区| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 精品久久久久久久末码| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| ponron亚洲| 在线国产一区二区在线| 国产高清videossex| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 舔av片在线| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 久久中文字幕人妻熟女| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 午夜福利18| 又粗又爽又猛毛片免费看| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 国产69精品久久久久777片 | 99久久精品热视频| 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 精品福利观看| 日本黄大片高清| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 成年版毛片免费区| 精品高清国产在线一区| 精品日产1卡2卡| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 狂野欧美白嫩少妇大欣赏| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| a级毛片在线看网站| 久久人妻福利社区极品人妻图片| 国产亚洲精品久久久久5区| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 在线免费观看的www视频| 美女大奶头视频| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| av中文乱码字幕在线| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 伦理电影免费视频| 可以免费在线观看a视频的电影网站| 国产精品久久视频播放| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 国产成年人精品一区二区| 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 最好的美女福利视频网| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 国产在线观看jvid| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| xxx96com| 怎么达到女性高潮| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 老司机福利观看| 少妇的丰满在线观看| 在线播放国产精品三级| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 99热这里只有是精品50| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 在线观看66精品国产| 国内精品一区二区在线观看| 免费在线观看视频国产中文字幕亚洲| 91在线观看av| 脱女人内裤的视频| 一本综合久久免费| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 成年免费大片在线观看| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 丁香欧美五月| 欧美成人午夜精品| 色在线成人网| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 欧美日韩乱码在线| cao死你这个sao货| 黄频高清免费视频| 香蕉丝袜av| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 一级作爱视频免费观看| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 日韩欧美在线二视频| aaaaa片日本免费| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 免费在线观看完整版高清| av有码第一页| 亚洲五月天丁香| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 精品久久久久久久毛片微露脸| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| or卡值多少钱| 久9热在线精品视频| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 精品人妻1区二区| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| www.精华液| 一级毛片精品| 制服人妻中文乱码| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 欧美大码av| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 美女黄网站色视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 久99久视频精品免费| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 制服诱惑二区| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| av福利片在线| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国产成人av教育| 91国产中文字幕| 性欧美人与动物交配| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 日韩 欧美 亚洲 中文字幕| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 亚洲五月天丁香| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 久久久久国内视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 免费在线观看日本一区| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 麻豆av在线久日| 日韩国内少妇激情av| 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 中文字幕久久专区| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 曰老女人黄片| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆 | 日本a在线网址| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看 | 最近最新中文字幕大全免费视频| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 看片在线看免费视频| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产三级在线视频| 午夜精品在线福利| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 黄色 视频免费看| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 男女之事视频高清在线观看| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看 | 人人妻,人人澡人人爽秒播| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| 777久久人妻少妇嫩草av网站| 香蕉av资源在线| 两性夫妻黄色片| 国产精品野战在线观看| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲 国产 在线| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 一夜夜www| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 亚洲色图av天堂| 91字幕亚洲| www日本黄色视频网| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 黄频高清免费视频| 久久久国产成人免费| 国产片内射在线| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| av在线天堂中文字幕| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 日本 欧美在线| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产 | 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 午夜精品在线福利| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 久久香蕉精品热| 亚洲国产看品久久| 他把我摸到了高潮在线观看| 给我免费播放毛片高清在线观看| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 免费看十八禁软件| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 丰满的人妻完整版| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 黄色视频不卡| 禁无遮挡网站| 两个人看的免费小视频| av免费在线观看网站| 久久天堂一区二区三区四区| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 一区福利在线观看| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 亚洲欧美日韩东京热| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | 999精品在线视频| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 久久久久国产一级毛片高清牌| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 成在线人永久免费视频| 亚洲av电影不卡..在线观看| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| av在线天堂中文字幕| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 美女黄网站色视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产乱人伦免费视频| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 久久香蕉精品热| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 日本熟妇午夜| 在线免费观看的www视频| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 中文资源天堂在线| 1024香蕉在线观看| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 91国产中文字幕| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 亚洲五月天丁香| 观看免费一级毛片| 日本五十路高清| 两个人视频免费观看高清| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 国产精品野战在线观看| 99re在线观看精品视频| 国产av又大| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 香蕉国产在线看| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| a在线观看视频网站| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 久久这里只有精品19| 嫩草影视91久久| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 看黄色毛片网站| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 一级片免费观看大全| 欧美大码av| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 免费看十八禁软件| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 97碰自拍视频| 香蕉国产在线看| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 一级a爱片免费观看的视频| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 欧美日本视频| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| 日韩成人在线观看一区二区三区| 青草久久国产| 一级毛片高清免费大全| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频 | 久久久久久久久久黄片| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 香蕉丝袜av| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 亚洲成人免费电影在线观看| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 波多野结衣高清无吗| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 国产成人系列免费观看| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 国产三级黄色录像| 老司机在亚洲福利影院| 久久性视频一级片| 亚洲全国av大片| 成人手机av| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 欧美一区二区国产精品久久精品 | x7x7x7水蜜桃| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 极品教师在线免费播放| 日韩欧美在线乱码| www.999成人在线观看| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 免费高清视频大片| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 最近视频中文字幕2019在线8| 国产午夜精品论理片| 日本免费a在线| 不卡av一区二区三区| 香蕉丝袜av| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 国产三级黄色录像| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美 | 在线a可以看的网站| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 亚洲中文日韩欧美视频| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 免费看a级黄色片| 99热6这里只有精品| av天堂在线播放| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 精品福利观看| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 男女那种视频在线观看| 精品国产美女av久久久久小说| 久久草成人影院| 不卡一级毛片| av超薄肉色丝袜交足视频| 一本综合久久免费| 免费观看人在逋| 国产午夜精品论理片| 日本a在线网址| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 欧美在线黄色| 一区二区三区国产精品乱码| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 亚洲全国av大片| 1024手机看黄色片| 日本成人三级电影网站| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清 | 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 国产精品久久久av美女十八| bbb黄色大片| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 俺也久久电影网| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 不卡一级毛片| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看 | 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| av中文乱码字幕在线| 制服诱惑二区| 男人舔女人的私密视频| 女警被强在线播放| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| av福利片在线| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 黄频高清免费视频| 9191精品国产免费久久| АⅤ资源中文在线天堂| 亚洲av成人一区二区三|