Biodiversity Data Journal :
Taxonomic Paper
|
Corresponding author: Casey M. Delphia (casey.delphia@montana.edu)
Academic editor: Matthew Yoder
Received: 25 Sep 2018 | Accepted: 21 Dec 2018 | Published: 28 Jan 2019
© 2019 Casey Delphia, Terry Griswold, Elizabeth Reese, Kevin O'Neill, Laura Burkle
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
Delphia C, Griswold T, Reese E, O'Neill K, Burkle L (2019) Checklist of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) from small diversified vegetable farms in south-western Montana. Biodiversity Data Journal 7: e30062. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e30062
|
Over three years (2013-2015), we sampled bees using nets and bowl traps on four diversified vegetable farms in Gallatin County, Montana, USA, as part of a study evaluating the use of wildflower strips for supporting wild bees and crop pollination services on farmlands (
We provide a species list of wild bees associated with diversified farmlands in Montana and increase the number of published bee species records in the state from 374 to at least 399. The list includes new distributional records for 25 wild bee species, including two species that represent considerable expansions of their known ranges, Lasioglossum (Dialictus) clematisellum (Cockerell 1904) with previously published records from New Mexico, Arizona, California and Utah and Melissodes (Eumelissodes) niveus Robertson 1895 which was reported to range from New York to Minnesota and Kansas, south to North Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi.
wild bees, native bees, pollinators, biodiversity, range expansion, farmlands, agroecosystems, Rocky Mountains, Intermountain West, wildflower strips, bee conservation
Native bees are important pollinators of wild and cultivated plants in natural habitats and agricultural systems (e.g.
Montana’s bee fauna is one of the least-studied amongst US states (but see
We report a checklist of bee species from a three-year study surveying the bee community on diversified vegetable farms in south-western Montana. This is the second study (along with
Study Sites
This research was conducted at four diversified farms located in south-western Montana USA within a 24 km radius of Bozeman (
Site number, site name, latitude, longitude and elevation of farms sampled in 2013-2015 within a 24 km radius of Bozeman, Montana in Gallatin County.
Site Number |
Study Site |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Elevation (m) |
1 |
Gallatin Grown |
|
|
1350 |
2 |
Gallatin Valley Botanical |
|
|
1511 |
3 |
Rocky Creek Farm |
|
|
1508 |
4 |
Towne’s Harvest Garden |
|
|
1490 |
Collection Methods
We collected bees on each farm from May-September in 2013-2015; all sampling took place on calm, sunny days between 0900 and 1700 h MDT. We net-collected bees visiting the reproductive parts of flowers of species blooming in: 1) the established wildflower strips (Campanula rotundifolia L., Erigeron speciosus (Lindl.) DC., Gaillardia aristata Pursh, Geranium viscosissimum Fisch. & C.A. Mey. Ex C.A. Mey., Helianthus maximiliani Schrad., Heterotheca villosa (Pursh) Shinners, Monarda fistulosa L., Penstemon confertus Douglas ex Lindl. and Phacelia hastata Douglas ex Lehm.) during weekly timed observations in 2014 and 2015; 2) crops (acorn winter squash, Cucurbita pepo and sunflower, Helianthus annuus L.) during timed observations every other week in 2013 or weekly in 2014 and 2015; and 3) other prolific bloomers, which included primarily agricultural weeds (e.g. common tansy, Tanacetum vulgare L. and Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.), during timed observations once or twice a month, depending on the amount of surrounding vegetation and time availability. We collected for a total of ca. 23 hours in 2013, 104 hours in 2014 and 85 hours in 2015. In all three years, the same experienced netter (15 years) was paired with a less-experienced netter (≤1 year) for bee collections with both contributing equal amounts of time to collecting; in 2015 the same netter from 2014 assisted with bee collections. Bees were freeze-killed, pinned, and labelled. We also collected bees weekly using yellow, 350-ml Solo bowls filled with soapy water. Six bowls were deployed approximately 6 m apart along each of four, 33-m linear transects (24 bowls per farm) located at different distances from the wildflower strips and left out for approximately six hours during the height of bee activity. Samples were collected into 70% EtOH and later removed from the alcohol, washed, blow-dried, pinned and labelled. We used EstimateS (
Species Identification
We identified bees to the lowest taxonomic level possible using published keys (Table
List of published keys used for species identification. Genus-level identifications were done using
Family |
References |
Andrenidae |
|
Apidae |
|
Colletidae |
|
Halictidae |
|
Megachilidae |
|
For genera where no taxonomic literature was available for species-level identifications, we grouped bees that appeared morphologically distinct into morphospecies. We assigned each morphospecies a unique number and the letter “F” for females and “M” for males. However, because we could not reliably associate male and female morphospecies as a single “species” and to avoid inflating species numbers, we included only female morphospecies in this checklist. Species names with aff. (‘has affinity with’) are also treated as morphospecies.
As females of Agapostemon angelicus Cockerell and Agapostemon texanus Cresson are indistinguishable from one another (
Due to a paucity of regional keys and an inability to discern any distinctive characters amongst individuals, except for one morphospecies, bees in the genus Sphecodes were only identified to genus. Similarly, Lasioglossum of the subgenus Evylaeus were identified only to subgenus. Due to time and resource constraints, a randomly-chosen subsample of 66 of the 4,173 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) collected in this study were identified to species.
Voucher specimens will be deposited in the Montana Entomology Collection (MTEC) at Montana State University, Bozeman, MT USA.
Range
To determine whether a species was a new state record, we compared our checklist with other published checklists and literature focused on Montana fauna (
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
New species record for Montana (
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Bidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Bidentate; Table
Bidentate; Table
Bidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Unidentate; Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
New species record for Montana (
New species record for Montana (
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Formerly, subgenus Acanthosmioides Ashmead (
Table
Table
Table
New species record for Montana (
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Over 3 years (2013-2015), we collected 12,203 bees representing 202 species and morphospecies from 32 genera and five families; the list includes wild native, wild non-native and managed non-native bee species (reviewed in
Our study provides information on the wild bee species associated with diverse, small-scale agricultural farmlands in south-western Montana, expands the known distribution of several bee species to Montana and adds to a growing state list. The 25 new state records reported in this study brings the total number of published species records in the state to 399. Coupled with other recently published works (
It is not currently possible to accurately compare the number of bee species in Montana to other US states and Canadian provinces, since we are far from a statewide inventory. In addition, few species lists have been published for western US states, though lists have been published for several mid-western and north-eastern US states. The closest, comprehensive, statewide bee list is from Colorado which has 946 species (
Many of the bee species we document as new state records have distributions predicted to include Montana or records from states and provinces that either border Montana or are reasonably close to Montana (and with similar ecosystems). We highlight two bee species on this checklist, L. clematisellum and M. niveus, whose known distributions are considerably increased with their documentation in Montana. The south-western US distribution of L. clematisellum previously included New Mexico, Arizona, California and Utah (
In addition to wild, native bee species, we also documented four non-native species, including two economically important, commercially-managed species intentionally introduced for crop pollination and two wild, non-managed species accidentally introduced to the US (
Our results underestimate the actual bee richness from this study. Though the vast majority of bees were identified to species in our study, the absence of revisionary studies for several genera or subgenera precluded morphospecies sorts for some and, for others, the morphospecies counts may be low because male morphospecies, some of which might not be conspecific with any of the female morphospecies, were not counted. Bees in one genus, Nomada, could only be designated as morphospecies and bee species of Sphecodes and Lasioglossum (subgenus Evylaeus) were classified only to the generic or subgeneric level. In addition, only a fraction of the Lasioglossum subgenus Dialictus, which accounted for about 25% of the specimens collected in our study, were identified to species. Bees in the subgenus Dialictus are very abundant in studies using bowl traps (
Different habitats throughout the state, particularly farmlands versus wildland habitats, are likely to support different suites of bee species. For example, between 33-43% of species were unique to our study when compared to all species (excluding morphospecies) documented in each of two studies conducted in montane wildland habitats in Montana (
In contrast, when we compared our study to another conducted in a highly-simplified, small grains-wheat farming system in north central (Chouteau County) Montana (i.e. the drylands of the Northern Great Plains), we found 73% of bee species were unique to our study compared to those reported by
This project was supported by a Western Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education grant (SW13-043) awarded to Burkle, Delphia and O’Neill. Funding was also provided by an NSF-DEB (1256819) to Burkle and two Montana Department of Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grants (1450691 and 18SC007084). We thank participating farmers Jacy and Matt Rothschiller, Nancy and Pete Fay, Conni and John Mahoney, Charles Holt and Macdonald Burgess; field and laboratory assistants Jess Monte, Cecilia Welch, Joe Wood and Simone Durney for help collecting and processing bees and Joshua Botti-Anderson for adding naming authorities. We thank Skyler Burrows, Michael Orr, Harold Ikerd, Zach Portman, Karen Wright, Jason Gibbs and Joel Gardner for help with bee identifications and verifications as well as helpful discussions. We thank Justin Runyon for technical support, Amelia Dolan for help reviewing the Catalogue of Hymenoptera in American North of Mexico and compiling an initial species list as a starting point for literature searches, Michael Ivie for advice on searching the literature for new state records, Frank Etzler for help using EstimateS for the analysis and Vinicius Ferreira for help using QGIS to make the map in Figure 1. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Delphia, Burkle and O’Neill conceived the ideas, designed methodology and secured funding. Delphia collected, processed and identified bee specimens and reviewed the published literature for new state records. Burkle and O’Neill collected specimens. Griswold and Reese identified bee specimens. All authors participated in writing the manuscript, contributed to drafts and gave final approval for publication.
Raw data for Chao1 analysis.