Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:26:05.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bee diversity and abundance in an urban setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2012

Désirée Tommasi ,
Alice Miro ,
Heather A. Higo  and
Mark L. Winston
Désirée Tommasi*
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Alice Miro
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Heather A. Higo
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
Mark L. Winston
Affiliation:
Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6
*
1Corresponding author (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We assessed bee diversity and abundance in urban areas of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, to determine how urban environments can support bees. Habitats examined were community and botanical gardens, urban wild areas, Naturescape flower beds and backyards, and traditional flower beds and backyards. A total of 56 bee species (Hymenoptera), including species of the genera Andrena Fabr. (Andrenidae), Bombus Latr. (Apidae), Osmia Panzer and Megachile Latr. (Megachilidae), and Halictus Latr. and Dialictus Pauly (Halictidae), were collected. Abundance exhibited strong seasonal variation. Wild bees were most abundant during late spring, whereas honey bees peaked at the end of the summer. The most abundant species seen was the managed honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Apidae), followed by wild Bombus flavifrons Cresson. Community and botanical gardens, and plants such as cotoneaster (Cotoneaster Medik. sp.) and blackberry (Rubus discolor Weihe & Nees) (Rosaceae), centaurea (Centaurea L. sp.; Asteraceae), buttercup (Ranunculus L. sp.; Ranunculaceae), and foxglove (Digitalis L. sp.; Scrophulariaceae), had the highest abundance of bees, while bee populations in wild areas were the most diverse. Weeds such as dandelions (Taraxacum officinale G.H. Weber ex Wiggers; Asteraceae) dominated these wild areas and had one of the highest diversities of bee visitors. Traditional flower beds with tulips (Tulipa L. sp.; Liliaceae) and petunias (Petunia Juss. sp.; Solanaceae) had relatively poor diversity and abundance of bees throughout the year. Our study suggests that urban areas have the potential to be important pollinator reservoirs, especially if both bloom and habitat heterogeneity are maintained and enhanced through sustainable urban planning.

Résumé

Nous avons estimé la diversité et l'abondance d'abeilles dans différents biotopes urbains de la ville de Vancouver, Colombie-Britannique, Canada, afin de déterminer comment les environnements urbains peuvent supporter les abeilles. Les habitats examinés incluent les jardins potagers et botaniques, les environs urbains sauvages, les parterres et les arrière-cours dits Naturescape, et les parterres et les arrière-cours traditionnels. Nous avons ressemblé un total de 56 espèces d'abeilles (Hymenoptera) dont Andrena Fabr. (Andrenidae), Bombus Latr. (Apidae), Osmia Panzer et Megachile Latr. (Megachilidae), Halictus Latr. et Dialictus Pauly (Halictidae). L'abondance a présenté une forte variation saisonnière. Les abeilles féeriques étaient considérablement plus abondantes pendant la dernière moitié du printemps, tandis que les abeilles d'élevage étaient plus abondantes pendant la dernière moitié de l'été. L'espèce la plus abondante était l'abeille d'élevage, Apis mellifera L. (Apidae), suivie de l'espèce féerique Bombus flavifrons Cresson. Les jardins potagers et botaniques des plantes telles que Cotoneaster Medik sp. et Rubus discolor Wehie & Ness (Rosaceae), Centaurea L. sp. (Asteraceae), Ranunculus L. sp. (Ranunculaceae), et Digitalis L. sp. (Scrophulariaceae) ont présenté la plus élevée abondance d'abeilles alors que les environs urbains sauvages ont exhibé les plus diverses populations d'abeilles. « Mauvaise herbes », comme les Taraxacum officinale G.H. Weber ex Wiggers (Asteraceae), dominaient ces habitats et présentaient la diversité d'abeilles visiteuses las plus élevée. Les parterres traditionnels, avec fleures telles que les Tulipa L. sp. (Liliaceae) et les Petunia Juss. sp. (Solanaceae), présentaient une diversité d'abeilles relativement pauvre tout au cour de l'an. Notre étude suggère que les zones urbaines ont du potentiel comme important réservoir de pollinisation, surtout quand et l'hétérogénéité d'habitat et hétérogénéité de fleures sont maintenues et accrues à travers le développement urbain durable.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 136 , Issue 6 , December 2004 , pp. 851 - 869
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen-Wardell, G., Bernhardt, P., Bitner, R., Burquez, A., Buchmann, S., Cane, J., Cox, P., Dalton, P., Feinsinger, P., Ingram, M., Inouye, D., Jones, C., Kennedy, K., Kevan, P., Koopowitz, H., Medellin, R., Medellin-Morales, S., Nabhan, G., Pavlik, B., Tepedino, V., Torchio, P., Walker, S. 1998. The potential consequences of pollinator declines on the conservation of biodiversity and stability of food crop yields. Conservation Biology 12: 8–17Google Scholar
Bortoli, C., Laroca, S. 1997. Relative abundance of wild bees (Apoidea) in an urban biotrope of Guarapuava (PR, Brazil). Acta Biologica Paranaense 26(1–4): 51–8Google Scholar
Buchmann, S.L., Nabhan, G.P. 1996. The forgotten pollinators. Washington, District of Columbia: Island PressGoogle Scholar
Cane, J.H. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and native bees: a premature verdict? Conservation Ecology [online] 5(1): 3. Available from http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art3 [cited 6 January 2003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cane, J.H., Tepedino, V.J. 2001. Causes and extent of declines among native North American invertebrate pollinators: detection, evidence, and consequences. Conservation Ecology [online] 5(1): 1. Available from http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art1 [cited 6 January 2003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collinge, S.K. 1998. Spatial arrangement of habitat patches and corridors: clues from ecological field experiments. Landscape and Urban Planning 42: 157–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Freitas Barbola, I., Laroca, S. 1993. The Apoidea (Hymenoptera) community of the Reserva Passa Dois (Lapa, Paraná, Brazil). I. Diversity, relative abundance and seasonal activity. Acta Biologica Paranaense 22(1–4): 91–112Google Scholar
Frankie, G.W., Vinson, S.B., Rizzardi, M.A., Griswold, T.L., O'Keefe, S., Snelling, R.R. 1997. Diversity and abundance of bees visiting a mass flowering tree species in disturbed seasonal dry forest in Costa Rica. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 70(4): 281–96Google Scholar
Frankie, G.W., Thorp, R.W., Newstrom-Lloyd, L.E., Rizzardi, M.A., Barthell, J.F., Griswold, T.L., Kim, J., Kappagoda, S. 1998. Monitoring wild bees in modified wildland habitats: implications for bee ecology and conservation. Environmental Entomology 27(5): 1137–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankie, G.W., Vinson, B.S., Thorp, R.W., Rizzardi, M.A., Tomkins, M., Newstrom-Lloyd, L.E. 2002. Monitoring: an essential tool in bee ecology and conservation. pp 187–98 in Kevan, P., Fonseca, VL Imperatriz (Eds), Pollinating bees — the conservation link between agriculture and nature. Brasilia, Brasil: Ministry of EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
Gayubo, S.F., Torres, F. 1991. Urban pressure effect on bees and wasps (Hymenoptera: Aculeata) in Salamanca. IV. Boletin de la Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural Seccion Biologica 87(1–4): 73–92Google Scholar
Gotelli, N.J., Entsminger, G.L. 2001. EcoSim: null models software for ecology [online]. Version 7.0 [computer program]. Burlington, Vermont: Acquired Intelligence Inc. and Kesey-Bear. Available from http://homepages.together.net/~gentsmin/ecosim.htmGoogle Scholar
Goulson, D., Hughes, W.O.H., Derwent, L.C. 2002. Colony growth of the bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, in improved and conventional agricultural and suburban habitats. Oecologia 130: 267–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graf, L.H., Winston, M.L. 1982. Native bee pollinators of berry crops in the Fraser Valley of British Columbia. Journal of the Entomological Society of British Columbia 79: 14–20Google Scholar
Greater Vancouver Regional District. 2001. GVRD Land Use 2001 [online]. Burnaby, British Columbia: GVRD Policy and Planning Department. Available from http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/publications/file.asp?ID=594 [cited 30 July 2004]Google Scholar
Haeseler, V. 1972. Man-made habitats (deforested areas, gravel pits, city gardens and parks) as refuge for insects, exemplified by the Hymenoptera: Aculeata. Zoologische Jahrbuecher Abteilung fuer Systematik Oekologie und Geographie de Tiere 99: 133–212Google Scholar
Jacob-Remacle, A. 1984. Ecological study of the aculeate Hymenoptera population living in the most urbanized zone of the city of Liege Belgium. Bulletin et Annales de la Societe Royale d'Entomologie de Belgique 120(7–8): 241–62Google Scholar
Kerr, J.T. 2001. Butterfly species richness patterns in Canada: energy, heterogeneity, and the potential consequences of climate change. Conservation Ecology [online] 5(1): 10. Available from http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art10 [cited 6 January 2003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevan, P.G., Phillips, T. 2001. The economic impacts of pollinator declines: an approach to assessing the consequences. Conservation Ecology [online] 5(1): 8. Available from http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art8 [cited 6 January 2003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, A., Klatt, M. 1989. Bee species of ruderal sites in the city of Freiburg in Breisgau, West Germany — submediterranean elements in mosaic habitats with high persistence. Zoologische Jahrbuecher Abteilung fuer Systematik Oekologie und Geographie der Tiere 116(4): 379–89Google Scholar
Lancaster, R.K., Rees, W.E. 1979. Bird communities and the structure of urban habitats. Canadian Journal of Zoology 57(12): 2358–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magurran, A.E. 1988. Ecological diversity and its measurement. 1st edition. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melles, S., Glenn, S., Martin, K. 2003. Urban bird diversity and landscape complexity: species–environment associations along a multiscale habitat gradient. Conservation Ecology [online] 7(1): 5. Available from http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss1/art5 [cited 17 December 2003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morse, R.A., Calderone, N.W. 2000. The value of honeybees as pollinators of U.S. crops in 2000. Bee Culture March 2000: 2–15Google Scholar
Osborne, J.L., Williams, I.H. 2001. Site constancy of bumble bees in an experimentally patchy habitat. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 83: 129–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Toole, C., Raw, A. 1991. Bees of the world. New York: Facts on FileGoogle Scholar
Richards, K.W., Kevan, P.G. 2002. Aspects of bee biodiversity, crop pollination, and conservation in Canada. pp 77–94in Kevan, P., Fonseca, VL Imperatriz (Eds), Pollinating bees — the conservation link between agriculture and nature. Brasilia, Brasil: Ministry of EnvironmentGoogle Scholar
Risch, S. 1996. On the bee fauna of Cologne — described on the example of selected city sites. Decheniana Beihefte 35: 273–303Google Scholar
Roubick, W.D. 1989. Ecology and natural history of tropical bees. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS Institute Inc. 1990. SAS/STAT user's guide. Version 6, 4th edition. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute IncGoogle Scholar
Saure, C. 1996. Urban habitats for bees: the example of the city of Berlin. pp 47–54in Matheson, A., Buchmann, S.L., O'Toole, C., Westrich, P., Williams, I. (Eds), The conservation of bees. Linnean Society Symposium Series 11. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Schaefer, V. 1994. Urban biodiversity. pp 307–18 in Harding, L.E., McCullum, E. (Eds), Biodiversity in British Columbia: our changing environment. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Wildlife ServiceGoogle Scholar
Scott-upree, C.D., Winston, M.L., Hergert, G., Jay, S.C., Nelson, D., Gates, J., Termeer, B., Otis, G. (Editors). 1995. A guide to managing bees for crop pollination. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Canadian Association of Professional ApiculturistsGoogle Scholar
Schick, B., Sukopp, H. 1998. Blumen-Bestäuber-Systeme in urbanen Grünflächen: Über Blütenbesuche der Großen Wollbiene (Anthidium manicatum L.) im Botanischen Gaten Berlin-Dahlem. Zeitschrift fuer Oekologie und Naturschutz 7(2): 73–83Google Scholar
Stork, N.E., Srivastava, D.S., Watt, A.D., Larsen, T.B. 2003. Butterfly diversity and silvicultural practices in lowland rainforests of Cameroon. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 387–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westrich, P. 1996. Habitat requirements of Central European bees and the problems of partial habitats. pp 1–16in Matheson, A., Buchmann, S.L., O'Toole, C., Westrich, P., Williams, I. (Eds), The conservation of bees. Linnean Society Symposium Series 11. London: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Williams, N.M., Minckley, R.L., Silveira, F.A. 2001. Variation in native bee faunas and its implications for detecting community changes. Conservation Ecology [online] 5(1): 7. Available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss1/art7 [cited 6 January 2003]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynn, G., Oke, T. (Editors). 1992. Vancouver and its region. Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia PressGoogle Scholar