• <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

    97在线视频观看| 美女福利国产在线| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 老熟女久久久| 亚洲成色77777| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 一区二区三区乱码不卡18| 一级av片app| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 午夜福利视频精品| 午夜91福利影院| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 九色成人免费人妻av| 久久久久久伊人网av| 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产av精品麻豆| 色94色欧美一区二区| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区| 五月开心婷婷网| 国产亚洲5aaaaa淫片| 国产精品免费大片| 久久午夜福利片| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 精品一区二区三卡| 亚洲成人一二三区av| av播播在线观看一区| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 午夜影院在线不卡| 夜夜爽夜夜爽视频| 中文字幕久久专区| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 亚洲av免费高清在线观看| 欧美3d第一页| 丁香六月天网| 97超碰精品成人国产| 免费av不卡在线播放| 成人免费观看视频高清| 黄色配什么色好看| 成人免费观看视频高清| 九草在线视频观看| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 99精国产麻豆久久婷婷| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品视频女| 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 青春草国产在线视频| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 伊人久久国产一区二区| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 综合色丁香网| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 国产极品天堂在线| 国产综合精华液| 韩国av在线不卡| 久热这里只有精品99| 寂寞人妻少妇视频99o| 亚洲av男天堂| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国产成人精品一,二区| 日本免费在线观看一区| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 国产美女午夜福利| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 国产毛片在线视频| 岛国毛片在线播放| 久久免费观看电影| 观看av在线不卡| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 天堂8中文在线网| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲av在线观看美女高潮| 观看免费一级毛片| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 欧美精品高潮呻吟av久久| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 国产黄频视频在线观看| 美女大奶头黄色视频| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 亚洲av.av天堂| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 欧美精品人与动牲交sv欧美| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 国产91av在线免费观看| 日本免费在线观看一区| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 久久久久国产精品人妻一区二区| 成年女人在线观看亚洲视频| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 国产永久视频网站| 视频区图区小说| 国产亚洲午夜精品一区二区久久| 精品少妇内射三级| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 中文字幕人妻熟人妻熟丝袜美| 午夜福利,免费看| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 在线观看三级黄色| av卡一久久| 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 乱人伦中国视频| 亚洲国产精品999| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 久久ye,这里只有精品| 高清欧美精品videossex| 国产一级毛片在线| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 国产毛片在线视频| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 国产精品国产三级专区第一集| 免费久久久久久久精品成人欧美视频 | 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 日韩视频在线欧美| 色5月婷婷丁香| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 精品久久久久久电影网| 黄色视频在线播放观看不卡| 内射极品少妇av片p| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区 | 国产日韩欧美视频二区| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| www.色视频.com| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 少妇丰满av| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 国产毛片在线视频| 视频区图区小说| 亚洲综合精品二区| 国产色婷婷99| 精品国产一区二区三区久久久樱花| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 亚洲性久久影院| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 亚洲精品国产av成人精品| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| av在线观看视频网站免费| 欧美性感艳星| 亚洲图色成人| 亚洲精品视频女| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 国产亚洲一区二区精品| 在线天堂最新版资源| 国产精品免费大片| 中文字幕制服av| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91 | 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区 | 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 老司机亚洲免费影院| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 久久久久久久精品精品| tube8黄色片| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 色网站视频免费| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 欧美日韩av久久| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 观看av在线不卡| 性色avwww在线观看| 精品一区二区三卡| 午夜av观看不卡| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 美女中出高潮动态图| 最新的欧美精品一区二区| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站| 丰满迷人的少妇在线观看| 如何舔出高潮| 亚洲精品aⅴ在线观看| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 免费看日本二区| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 人人澡人人妻人| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 五月天丁香电影| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 26uuu在线亚洲综合色| 六月丁香七月| 午夜视频国产福利| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 亚洲av国产av综合av卡| 嫩草影院入口| 18+在线观看网站| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 狂野欧美激情性bbbbbb| 欧美区成人在线视频| 伦理电影免费视频| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频| 丝袜喷水一区| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 美女国产视频在线观看| 免费看av在线观看网站| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人 | 国产成人aa在线观看| 少妇人妻 视频| 久久免费观看电影| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 成人无遮挡网站| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 人人妻人人爽人人添夜夜欢视频 | 国产av码专区亚洲av| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 亚洲欧美日韩另类电影网站| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 男女免费视频国产| 免费不卡的大黄色大毛片视频在线观看| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 伊人亚洲综合成人网| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 一级a做视频免费观看| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 精品久久久久久电影网| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 夫妻午夜视频| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久| 久热这里只有精品99| 少妇高潮的动态图| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 中文欧美无线码| 久久久久久久久大av| 欧美少妇被猛烈插入视频| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 成年av动漫网址| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| av免费在线看不卡| 国产综合精华液| 在线 av 中文字幕| 国产91av在线免费观看| 久热这里只有精品99| 国产精品.久久久| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 精品一区二区免费观看| 国产亚洲最大av| 亚洲综合精品二区| 免费看日本二区| 秋霞伦理黄片| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 亚洲美女黄色视频免费看| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 天堂8中文在线网| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产深夜福利视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 免费观看av网站的网址| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 高清av免费在线| 久久6这里有精品| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 国产淫语在线视频| 老司机影院毛片| 只有这里有精品99| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 久久 成人 亚洲| 国产乱来视频区| 男人添女人高潮全过程视频| 成人免费观看视频高清| 久久99精品国语久久久| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 卡戴珊不雅视频在线播放| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 美女脱内裤让男人舔精品视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| av免费在线看不卡| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 日韩 亚洲 欧美在线| 一级爰片在线观看| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| www.色视频.com| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 麻豆精品久久久久久蜜桃| 日韩精品免费视频一区二区三区 | 亚洲精品日韩av片在线观看| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 色婷婷av一区二区三区视频| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 欧美日韩av久久| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产男女超爽视频在线观看| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| av天堂久久9| 国产成人aa在线观看| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲 | 天美传媒精品一区二区| 亚洲精品第二区| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 大话2 男鬼变身卡| 中国三级夫妇交换| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 亚洲国产成人一精品久久久| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 女人久久www免费人成看片| 久久热精品热| 在线观看三级黄色| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| 18禁裸乳无遮挡动漫免费视频| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 高清视频免费观看一区二区| xxx大片免费视频| 欧美3d第一页| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 久久久久人妻精品一区果冻| 婷婷色av中文字幕| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| videos熟女内射| 一区在线观看完整版| 老司机影院成人| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 日日撸夜夜添| 99久国产av精品国产电影| av视频免费观看在线观看| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久| 六月丁香七月| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 欧美亚洲 丝袜 人妻 在线| 一级毛片我不卡| 成年人免费黄色播放视频 | 久久ye,这里只有精品| 亚洲av综合色区一区| 高清午夜精品一区二区三区| 精品一区在线观看国产| 一个人免费看片子| 日韩伦理黄色片| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 午夜免费男女啪啪视频观看| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看 | 中文欧美无线码| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 国产极品粉嫩免费观看在线 | 国产日韩一区二区三区精品不卡 | 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放 | 成人特级av手机在线观看| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 午夜影院在线不卡| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 搡老乐熟女国产| 久久久久久久国产电影| 国产成人精品无人区| 欧美性感艳星| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 五月开心婷婷网| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 精品一区二区三卡| 日本vs欧美在线观看视频 | 久久精品国产自在天天线| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 免费高清在线观看视频在线观看| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 男女免费视频国产| 夜夜骑夜夜射夜夜干| 久久久久国产网址| 成人影院久久| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 99久久中文字幕三级久久日本| 特大巨黑吊av在线直播| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 少妇的逼水好多| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 少妇 在线观看| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 一二三四中文在线观看免费高清| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免| 777米奇影视久久| 亚洲图色成人| 男人舔奶头视频| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 国产在线免费精品| 在线观看国产h片| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 超碰97精品在线观看| av网站免费在线观看视频| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 国产男女内射视频| 如何舔出高潮| 成年美女黄网站色视频大全免费 | 在线观看国产h片| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 国产免费一区二区三区四区乱码| 久久影院123| 色视频www国产| 男女免费视频国产| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产成人午夜福利电影在线观看| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看 | 久久久久久久久大av| 午夜影院在线不卡| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产探花极品一区二区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 少妇高潮的动态图| 人妻人人澡人人爽人人| 国产成人精品福利久久| 在线观看三级黄色| 国产淫语在线视频| 搡老乐熟女国产| 久久婷婷青草| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 国产精品欧美亚洲77777| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 国产精品免费大片| 国产毛片在线视频| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 五月开心婷婷网| 黑人高潮一二区| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 高清毛片免费看| 日日啪夜夜撸| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 欧美日韩av久久| 最近中文字幕2019免费版| 一区二区三区四区激情视频| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 国产一区二区在线观看av| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 插逼视频在线观看| 六月丁香七月| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 人人妻人人添人人爽欧美一区卜| 午夜视频国产福利| 精品国产一区二区久久| 丝袜在线中文字幕| 欧美精品一区二区免费开放| 九九爱精品视频在线观看| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 久久免费观看电影| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 亚洲精品一二三| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 如何舔出高潮| 在线观看三级黄色| 亚洲,欧美,日韩| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 免费看av在线观看网站| 97超视频在线观看视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 免费观看性生交大片5| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 国产亚洲av片在线观看秒播厂| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| av有码第一页| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 69精品国产乱码久久久| 国产高清三级在线| av天堂久久9| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 人妻少妇偷人精品九色| 国产黄色免费在线视频| 国产91av在线免费观看| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 国产成人精品福利久久| 久久久久精品性色| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 色网站视频免费| 亚洲精品第二区| 亚洲国产av新网站| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院 | 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 亚洲va在线va天堂va国产| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 99久久人妻综合| 男女国产视频网站| 久久久久久久久久人人人人人人| 99热6这里只有精品| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 极品教师在线视频| 国产成人精品婷婷| 国产成人freesex在线| 在现免费观看毛片| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 黑人猛操日本美女一级片| 亚洲成色77777| av女优亚洲男人天堂| 少妇丰满av| 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品| 日日爽夜夜爽网站| 久久热精品热| 内地一区二区视频在线| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 亚洲国产日韩一区二区| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 一级爰片在线观看| 人人澡人人妻人| 日本免费在线观看一区| 超碰97精品在线观看| 777米奇影视久久| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产成人a∨麻豆精品| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 精品一区二区免费观看| 啦啦啦在线观看免费高清www| 免费看日本二区| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 国产免费视频播放在线视频| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 9色porny在线观看| av在线app专区| 成人国产av品久久久| 国产爽快片一区二区三区| 日韩不卡一区二区三区视频在线| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 久久久精品免费免费高清| 美女xxoo啪啪120秒动态图| 欧美人与善性xxx| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| .国产精品久久| 性色avwww在线观看| 边亲边吃奶的免费视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片 | 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 日韩伦理黄色片| 97在线人人人人妻| 日日撸夜夜添| 国产乱人偷精品视频| 又粗又硬又长又爽又黄的视频| 日韩视频在线欧美| 亚洲欧洲日产国产|