Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology

Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits

Ignasi Bartomeus, John S. Ascher, Jason Gibbs, Bryan N. Danforth, David L. Wagner, Shannon M. Hedtke, and Rachael Winfree
PNAS March 19, 2013 110 (12) 4656-4660; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218503110
Ignasi Bartomeus
aDepartment of Entomology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901;bDepartment of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala SE-75007, Sweden;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: nacho.bartomeus@gmail.com
John S. Ascher
cDivision of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024-5192;dDepartment of Biological Sciences, Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117546;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jason Gibbs
eDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bryan N. Danforth
eDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David L. Wagner
fDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-3043; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shannon M. Hedtke
eDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Rachael Winfree
aDepartment of Entomology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901;gDepartment of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by May R. Berenbaum, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, and approved February 1, 2013 (received for review October 24, 2012)

  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Pollinators such as bees are essential to the functioning of terrestrial ecosystems. However, despite concerns about a global pollinator crisis, long-term data on the status of bee species are limited. We present a long-term study of relative rates of change for an entire regional bee fauna in the northeastern United States, based on >30,000 museum records representing 438 species. Over a 140-y period, aggregate native species richness weakly decreased, but richness declines were significant only for the genus Bombus. Of 187 native species analyzed individually, only three declined steeply, all of these in the genus Bombus. However, there were large shifts in community composition, as indicated by 56% of species showing significant changes in relative abundance over time. Traits associated with a declining relative abundance include small dietary and phenological breadth and large body size. In addition, species with lower latitudinal range boundaries are increasing in relative abundance, a finding that may represent a response to climate change. We show that despite marked increases in human population density and large changes in anthropogenic land use, aggregate native species richness declines were modest outside of the genus Bombus. At the same time, we find that certain ecological traits are associated with declines in relative abundance. These results should help target conservation efforts focused on maintaining native bee abundance and diversity and therefore the important ecosystems services that they provide.

  • bee declines
  • global change
  • pollination

Pollination is an essential ecosystem function because 87% of the world’s angiosperm species are pollinated by animals (1), including most of the leading global food crops (2). Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) are regarded as the most important pollinators, both for their efficiency and their ubiquity (3). However, despite concerns about pollinator declines and a global pollinator crisis (4), long-term data on the status of bee populations are scarce (5). Thus, a recent US National Academy of Sciences report concluded that “for most pollinator species, the paucity of long-term data and the incomplete knowledge of even basic taxonomy and ecology make definitive assessment of status exceedingly difficult” (6).

Heretofore, most studies reporting bee population declines have been focused on the bumble bee genus, Bombus. Some Bombus species are declining sharply in North America (7⇓–9) and elsewhere (10, 11), although others remain numerous (7) or are expanding their ranges (10). Furthermore, Bombus may not be representative of the world’s 442 other bee genera because they may have been impacted by recent pathogen introductions from managed Bombus colonies (7). Much less is known about the status of other genera, which account for >95% of the ∼20,000 described species of bees worldwide (12). The only long-term analysis to date that included species other than Bombus showed significant declines in estimated species richness in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands when comparing pre- versus post-1980 records (13). However, both study areas are characterized by particularly intensive land use and may not be representative of changes in the status of bees in other parts of the world. Thus, the existence of a widespread crisis in pollinator declines, as often portrayed in the media and elsewhere (4), rests on data of limited taxonomic or geographic scope.

Environmental change affects species differentially, creating “losers” that decline with increased human activity, but also “winners” that thrive in human-altered environments (14). Although there are likely winners and losers among bees, the identity of these species is largely unknown (6). In general, certain life-history traits are predicted to make species more vulnerable (15), such as having a small niche breadth (e.g., a specialized diet; 16). However, predictions for some other traits such as body size have resulted in contrasting predictions (17, 18). In bees, additional traits such as nest site location and brood parasitism or sociality also determine a species’ response to environmental change (19⇓–21).

Here we present a long-term study of relative rates of change for all 47 northeastern North American bee genera, comprising 438 species. To achieve a long-term (140-y) dataset, we databased, identified, and filtered >30,000 bee specimens from major collections of leading northeastern North American museums.

Results and Discussion

Changes in Species Richness.

We first binned the 30,138 specimens into 10 time periods, each containing a similar number of independent records. For the non-Bombus species, we found that the number of rarefied bee species per time period has declined by 15%, but the trend is not significant (permutation test P = 0.07; Fig. 1A and Fig. S1A). Modest richness declines are in accordance with the few field data available (22, 23). For Bombus, species richness declined by 30% over the 140-y period (permutation test P = 0.01; Fig. 1B and Fig. S1B). Our result confirms previous studies documenting North American declines in Bombus species richness (7⇓–9). Last, we identified 20 exotic species (i.e., not native to the United States) in our study area (Table S1) and found that the number of exotic species collected increased by a factor of 9 over time (permutation test P = 0.01; Fig. 1C).

Fig. 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1.

Trends in species richness over time. Number of bee species (± SE) in a standard number of independent specimen records per time period. Dashed line indicates a nonsignificant trend and solid line a significant trend. (A) All native bee species excluding Bombus (rarefied to 1,000 specimens). (B) Genus Bombus (rarefied to 400 specimens). (C) Exotic bee species (rarefied to 1,000 specimens).

A limitation of our study, and of previous published studies of long-term trends in pollinators (13), is that sampling effort is unknown, particularly in the earlier time periods. Although the rarefaction techniques we use partially correct for this, rarefied richness may reflect changes in species composition and dominance as well as changes in species richness; thus, our results should be interpreted as combining these two metrics. For example, one possible interpretation is that some species are becoming more common over time whereas other species are becoming less so.

Changes in Composition.

In a second, species-level analysis, only three of 187 species, all in the genus Bombus, exhibited a rapid and recent population collapse [generalized linear model (GLM) using presence-absence as response variable; P < 0.05]. Two of these species, Bombus affinis and Bombus pensylvanicus, have recently been identified as being of conservation concern based on data independent of ours (7), whereas Bombus ashtoni, a social parasite of B. affinis and the related B. terricola, was also identified as declining in our study. One additional species, Macropis patellata, stood out as being of conservation concern, having shown a gradual, historical (pre-1950) decline, and has not been collected in the region since 1991 (Table S1). In contrast to the paucity of steep declines, there have been large shifts in relative abundance over time, as indicated by the fact that 29% of the species decreased significantly, whereas 27% had significant increases (GLM using year as the predictor and the proportion of records per year as the response variable, with the response weighted by the total number of specimens collected in that year; P < 0.05; Table S1). For example, although we did not detect a rapid and drastic decline for Bombus terricola, which has been previously identified as of conservation concern (7), we do find a significant decline in its relative abundance. Although our data show steep declines for this species in the southern part of its range, recent records demonstrate persistence, especially in northern areas within the core of the species’ historic range. Many other species with significant declining trends are common and are still collected regularly, but nevertheless should be monitored because such slow declines could be taken as an early warning signal of imperilment. Last, nine of the 87 rare species (defined as having 10 < n < 30 specimens; all of these species were excluded in our species-level analysis because of inadequate sample size) have not been recorded from the past 10 years (these are listed in Table S1) (24). Furthermore, our failure to detect particular species in the most recent period is conservative because the greatest collection effort took place during this period (Fig. 1).

There are several important caveats to our species- and genus-level results, which stem from limitations of our dataset. First, small sample sizes prevented us from statistically analyzing trends for the rarest species, which are potentially of the greatest conservation concern. Second, our analyses measure relative changes in abundance with respect to other species in the collections, not absolute changes. Third, some groups (e.g., Nomada) are particularly difficult to identify; the most taxonomically problematic species are noted in Table S1.

Ecological Traits Associated with Species Responses.

Investigation of ecological traits that differ between increasing and decreasing species can provide a more mechanistic understanding of how biodiversity is affected by environmental changes. In our study system, during the past 140 y, human population density more than doubled, from 140 people/km2 in 1900 to 325 people/km2 in 2000, with associated increases in human land use (25). We first assessed the phylogenetic signal (λ) of species relative rates of change itself, but found that although they do differ across bee genera, the strength of this signal at the genus level is not strong (26; λ = 0.24, P < 0.001; Fig. 2). The best-fit phylogenetic generalized least squares model (PGLS) based on the Akaike Information Criterion shows that species with a small dietary breadth, narrow phenological breadth, and large body size are more likely to be in decline (dietary breadth estimate = 0.008 ± 0.002, P = 0.001; phenological breadth estimate = 0.00009 ± 0.00004, P = 0.01; body size estimate = −0.003 ± 0.001, P = 0.01; Fig. 3 A–C). The body size result holds when Bombus, which are unusually large and also may be declining for particular reasons (7), are excluded from the analysis (body size estimate = −0.003 ± 0.001, P = 0.06). In addition, species with lower northern latitude range boundaries are increasing in relative abundance within our study area (northern latitude estimate = −0.002 ± 0.0004, P < 0.001; Fig. 3D), a finding that may represent a positive response to climate change on the part of these species (27). Mean April temperature has increased by more than 1° during the past 40 y in our study region and climate-associated phenological advances for bees have been already demonstrated (28); climate change may also be affecting bee population abundances and distribution. Brood parasitic species are predicted to be more vulnerable to decline because they are dependent on particular host bees (19, 29; but see ref. 30). However, we found no differences between parasitic and nonparasitic species in terms of their rates of decline. We likewise did not detect any influence of sociality (31; Fig. S2A) or nest site location (Fig. S2B) on rate of decline. Overall, ecological traits explained a small proportion of the variation (F = 13.61 on 180 DF, P < 0.0001; λ = 0, r2 = 0.22), indicating that a diversity of responses exists among species with those traits. Last, species that have increased significantly in relative abundance over the 140-y period include some known to tolerate human disturbance (32) as well as exotic species (Table S1).

Fig. 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2.

Estimates of relative rate of change over the 140-y interval for different bee genera. Estimates are derived from logistic regression models. Negative values indicate declining trends. Boxplot width is proportional to the number of species sampled for each genus.

Fig. 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3.

Relationships among species traits, phylogeny, and rates of change in relative abundance over time. The three most speciose genera are colored to demonstrate how traits are often shared among species within a genus: Bombus (blue), Andrena (red), and Lasioglossum (green). (A) Dietary breadth (floral specialization); boxplot width is proportional to number of species and individual species values are indicated along each side. (B) Body size measured as the intertegular distance (mm). (C) Phenological breadth (days of adult activity per year). (D) Northern distributional limit (degrees latitude).

Methods

Bee Specimen Data.

We obtained our dataset by entering information from pinned bee specimens from the American Museum of Natural History and from collections maintained by the University of Connecticut, Cornell University, Rutgers University, Connecticut Agricultural Station, University of New Hampshire, University of Massachusetts, Vermont State Bee Database, New York State Museum, and the Bohart Museum of Entomology (University of California, Davis). To focus the geographic extent of our study area, we used records ranging from 38° to 45° N latitude and −85° to −70° W longitude (Fig. S3). This region has the most extensive historical collections of bees in the New World because of its early settlement and large number of universities. For each specimen, species identifications were made or verified by an expert taxonomist associated with our project (J.S.A. or J.G.), and full label data were captured into the Planetary Biodiversity Inventory database (33). Once databased, records were filtered, cleaned, and standardized in the following ways. We retained only specimens for which we had data on the locality and the year. Because the method used to collect bees in the field can affect the taxa collected (34), we excluded specimens known to be collected by methods other than hand netting. To ensure independence of samples, we used only one specimen of a given species from a given collection event, defined by unique combinations of collector, date, and location. Although this required removing ∼40% of the records from our analysis, it was an important step to minimize bias in our analyses. We removed taxa for which the species-level taxonomy is still unresolved (e.g., in the genus Nomada). We also excluded the honey bee Apis mellifera, because it is a managed species. For museum collections where complete databasing of all species was not possible, we avoided temporal bias in our dataset by deciding a priori which genera were most important to include (e.g., which had the smallest sample sizes in our existing dataset), and then fully databasing these genera across all time periods. We also excluded Bombus specimens held by Cornell University to ensure that our data were independent from those used in a previous study of Bombus declines (7). The data used in our final analysis consisted of 30,138 specimens, collected by at least 1,550 different known collector teams (with 3,708 specimens being collected by unknown collectors), in 11,295 different collection events.

Our final dataset included 438 species from 47 genera (Table S1). The frequency distribution of these is predictably skewed (35), such that only 80 species have more than 100 independent records, and 187 species more than 30 independent records. Fifty-four species are represented by a single specimen; however, because the number of singletons present show no trend by time period, they should not have a strong influence on measured changes in species richness over time (Fig. S4A). Species accumulation curves indicate that our databasing efforts captured nearly all of the species diversity present in the study area (36; Fig. S4B; see SI Text, Investigation of Potential Bias for investigation of potential bias in our data).

We compiled information on six ecological traits for the complete set of 187 species for which we ran individual species-level analyses (SI Text, Ecological Traits).

Changes in Aggregate Species Richness over Time.

To investigate changes in bee communities over time, we first binned the data such that they had a similar number of independent specimen records per bin. We created the bins using quantiles from the overall cumulative distribution function such that each bin represented an equal number of quantiles. Hence, each bin comprises a similar number of records, but different numbers of years (36). This approach allowed us to maximize the sample size of each bin; it also minimized the influence of periods with low collection effort. To assure that the number of bins chosen did not affect our conclusions, we performed a sensitivity analysis on the number of bins used. Results were similar across the range of 3–10 bins (Fig. S1). To estimate species richness changes over time, we first rarefied all bins to a common number of specimens (1,000 independently collected individuals for all non-Bombus species and 400 for Bombus, representing 82% and 79% of the specimens in the smallest bin, respectively), and then calculated the mean ± SE number of species per time period (36). The resampling method allowed us to standardize sampling effort across time periods and gave us SE estimates, thus correcting for the fact that true sampling efforts in museum collections are unknown. This method provided a relative rather than an absolute measure of species’ abundances, because an apparent decline in some species could in fact be due to an increase in abundance of another species. As such, although it is standard in the ecological literature to refer to this measure as “species richness,” it actually measures both evenness and richness. To estimate statistical significance, we used a permutation test to randomly reorder the time periods and then calculated the correlation between time period and species richness across 1,000 such permutations. Bin size was not equal and hence we were unable to evaluate whether the rates of change reported are linear or take some other form. The reported P value is equal to the fraction of these permutations that had higher or lower correlations compared with the correlation we observed using the chronological time period sequence. Rarefaction analysis was done with the package vegan in R (37).

Given the different collection, identification, and databasing efforts that have been focused on Bombus (as indicated by the nonparametric multidimensional scaling plot; Fig. S5), we analyzed this genus separately. All other genera were analyzed altogether. Exotic species were excluded from analyses, except when explicitly noted.

Changes in Relative Abundance.

To analyze relative trends in individual species over time, we selected all native bee species with more than 30 records (mean number of specimens per species = 143.2 ±11.7 SE) and investigated how the probability of finding a given species in the collection changes over time. For this analysis, we used a general linear model with a binomial distribution and a logit link. This analysis did not use resampling methods. Instead, each year was weighted by the total number of specimens collected that year to account for differential sampling effort among years. The logit link transforms the response to probabilities constrained between 0 and 1, and the directionality and magnitude of change is given by the model estimate. For species showing overdispersion, a quasibinomial distribution was used.

The analysis described is designed to find gradual, long-term declines. However, it has low power for detecting recent, steep declines. Thus, we used a second model for the latter purpose. The second model uses species presence/absence information for each year. This model is uninformative for species collected in most years, but can detect abrupt disappearances/extirpations. Again, Bombus was analyzed separately, using as the outcome variable the proportion of each Bombus species with respect to all Bombus collected in a given year. Likewise, exotic bee species were analyzed separately, using as the outcome the proportion of each exotic species with respect to all non-Bombus species collected in a given year. All other taxa were analyzed together.

Ecological Traits Associated with Species Responses.

To correct for phylogenetic nonindependence among traits, we inferred a phylogenetic tree (SI Text, Phylogenetic Tree; Fig. S6). We used this tree to determine whether ecological traits were correlated with relative change of abundance over time using a PGLS approach (38) as implemented in the R package Caper (39). Our outcome variable was the rate of change in relative abundance over time as estimated by the slope of the individual species models. Both the outcome variable and all traits included in the models show a significant phylogenetic signal (λ) when tested alone. Phylogenetic signal was calculated using packages Phytools (40) and Geiger (41) in R (Table S2). The variance-covariance between rate of change in abundance and each trait was then estimated simultaneously with λ and fitted to the generalized least squares models (42). The best model based on AIC is presented. Note that when the full model λ is estimated to be 0 (as the one we report), the estimate from the PGLS model is not identical to that of a standard linear model.

Potential Bias Due to Unknown Sampling Effort over Time.

All museum data—including ours—are subject to potential biases if collectors change their methodology over time. We discussed this issue with data providers and the main contemporary collectors to ensure a proper interpretation of the data. For example, our dataset includes records from a diverse array of land use types across all time periods, but early collectors (19th and early 20th century) may have been more prone to creating synoptic collections in which each species is represented by only one specimen, whereas contemporary collectors are more likely to be conducting ecological studies in which their goal is to collect each species in proportion to its abundance. Although there is no definitive way to resolve this issue, we were able to explore and minimize potential collecting bias. First, we filtered the data to use only one specimen of each species per collection event, thus largely removing the “redundant” specimens of common species. Second, the fact that we had 1,550 collectors and that 88% of these each contributed fewer than 20 specimens makes systematic bias in collector behavior over time less likely. Third, if the bias hypothesized existed, it would bias the results toward finding steeper declines in species richness than in fact occur. This is a bias against our main finding of relatively weak and nonsignificant richness declines, at least for taxa other than Bombus.

Acknowledgments

We thank all those who collected the bees used in our analyses and the museums for access to their collections, J. Pickering for maintaining www.discoverlife.org, R. T. Schuh for access to the Planetary Biodiversity Inventory database, and D. Sol and D. Cariveau for comments on the manuscript. Data capture was supported by National Science Foundation Division of Biological Infrastructure Grant 0956388 (to J.S.A.), with additional support from Robert G. Goelet and a state wildlife grant [09DEP10012AA (to D.L.W.)]. This work was also supported by a Postdoctoral Fellowship from the Spanish Education Ministry Grant EX2009-1017 (to I.B.) and a Rutgers University Pre-Tenure Career Enhancement Award (to R.W., I.B., and J.S.A.).

Footnotes

  • ↵1To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: nacho.bartomeus{at}gmail.com.
  • Author contributions: I.B., J.S.A., and R.W. designed research; I.B., J.S.A., J.G., and D.L.W. performed research; B.N.D. and S.M.H. contributed new reagents/analytic tools; I.B. analyzed data; and I.B. and R.W. wrote the paper.

  • The authors declare no conflict of interest.

  • This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

  • Data deposition: The data reported in this paper have been deposited in the DRYAD repository, http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.0nj49.

  • This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1218503110/-/DCSupplemental.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Ollerton J,
    2. Winfree R,
    3. Tarrant S
    (2011) How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120:321–326.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    1. Klein A-M,
    2. et al.
    (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc Biol Sci 274(1608):303–313.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Winfree R,
    2. Bartomeus I,
    3. Cariveau DP
    (2011) Native pollinators in anthropogenic habitats. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 42:1–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Potts SG,
    2. et al.
    (2010) Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol Evol 25(6):345–353.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Winfree R
    (2010) The conservation and restoration of wild bees. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1195:169–197.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. National Research Council
    (2007) Status of pollinators in North America (National Academy Press, Washington, DC), p 304.
  7. ↵
    1. Cameron SA,
    2. et al.
    (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(2):662–667.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Grixti JC,
    2. Wong LT,
    3. Cameron SA,
    4. Favret CDA
    (2009) Decline of bumble bees in the North American Midwest. Biol Conserv 142:75–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. ↵
    1. Colla S,
    2. Packer L
    (2008) Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special focus on Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodivers Conserv 17:1379–1391.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Williams P,
    2. Colla S,
    3. Xie Z
    (2009) Bumblebee vulnerability: Common correlates of winners and losers across three continents. Conserv Biol 23(4):931–940.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Goulson D,
    2. Hanley M,
    3. Darvill B,
    4. Ellis J
    (2006) Biotope associations and the decline of bumblebees (Bombus spp.) J Insect Conserv 10:95–103.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. ↵
    1. Ascher JS,
    2. Pickering J
    (2012) Bee species guide (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophora). Discover Life. Available at www.discoverlife.org. Accessed February 20, 2013.
  13. ↵
    1. Biesmeijer JC,
    2. et al.
    (2006) Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313(5785):351–354.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. McKinney ML,
    2. Lockwood JL
    (1999) Biotic homogenization: A few winners replacing many losers in the next mass extinction. Trends Ecol Evol 14(11):450–453.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Fisher DO,
    2. Owens IPF
    (2004) The comparative method in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol 19(7):391–398.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Boyles JG,
    2. Storm JJ
    (2007) The perils of picky eating: Dietary breadth is related to extinction risk in insectivorous bats. PLoS ONE 2(7):e672.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Biedermann R
    (2003) Body size and area-incidence relationships: Is there a general pattern? Glob Ecol Biogeogr 12:381–387.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    1. Ockinger E,
    2. et al.
    (2010) Life-history traits predict species responses to habitat area and isolation: A cross-continental synthesis. Ecol Lett 13(8):969–979.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Steffan-Dewenter I,
    2. et al.
    (2006) in Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization, Bee diversity and plant-pollinator interactions in fragmented landscapes, eds Waser NM, Ollerton J (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago), pp 387–407.
  20. ↵
    1. Williams NM,
    2. et al.
    (2010) Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol Conserv 143:2280–2291.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Bommarco R,
    2. et al.
    (2010) Dispersal capacity and diet breadth modify the response of wild bees to habitat loss. Proc Biol Sci 277(1690):2075–2082.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Marlin JC,
    2. LaBerge WE
    (2001) The native bee fauna of Carlinville, Illinois, revisited after 75 years: a case for persistence. Conserv. Ecol 5:Art9.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Grixti JC,
    2. Packer L
    (2006) Changes in the bee fauna (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of an old field site in southern Ontario, revisited after 34 years. Can Entomol 138:147–164.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. ↵
    1. Colla SR,
    2. et al.
    (2012) Documenting persistence of most eastern North American bee species (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) to 1990-2009. J Kans Entomol Soc 85:14–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    1. Ellis EC,
    2. Goldewijk KK,
    3. Siebert S,
    4. Lightman D,
    5. Ramankutty N
    (2010) Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19:589–606.
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    1. Lockwood JL,
    2. et al.
    (2002) A metric for analyzing taxonomic patterns of extinction risk. Conserv Biol 16:1137–1142.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. ↵
    1. Parmesan C
    (2006) Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 37:637–669.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. ↵
    1. Bartomeus I,
    2. et al.
    (2011) Climate-associated phenological advances in bee pollinators and bee-pollinated plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(51):20645–20649.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Koh LP,
    2. et al.
    (2004) Species coextinctions and the biodiversity crisis. Science 305(5690):1632–1634.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Dunn RR,
    2. Harris NC,
    3. Colwell RK,
    4. Koh LP,
    5. Sodhi NS
    (2009) The sixth mass coextinction: Are most endangered species parasites and mutualists? Proc Biol Sci 276(1670):3037–3045.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. ↵
    1. Chapman RE,
    2. Bourke AFG
    (2001) The influence of sociality on the conservation biology of social insects. Ecol Lett 4:650–662.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  32. ↵
    1. Matteson KC,
    2. Ascher JS,
    3. Langellotto GA
    (2008) Bee richness and abundance in New York city urban gardens. Ann Entomol Soc Am 101:140–150.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Schuh RT,
    2. Hewson-Smith S,
    3. Ascher JS
    (2010) Specimen databases: A case study in entomology using web-based software. Am. Entomologist 56:206–216.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Westphal C,
    2. et al.
    (2008) Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecol Monogr 78:653–671.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  35. ↵
    1. Preston FW
    (1962) The canonical distribution of commonness and rarity: Part I. Ecology 43:185–215.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  36. ↵
    1. Gotelli NJ,
    2. Colwell RK
    (2001) Quantifying biodiversity: Procedures and pitfalls in the measurement and comparison of species richness. Ecol Lett 4:379–391.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. R Development Core Team
    (2012) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Available at www.R-project.org.
  38. ↵
    1. Freckleton RP,
    2. Harvey PH,
    3. Pagel M
    (2002) Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: A test and review of evidence. Am Nat 160(6):712–726.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    1. Orme D
    (2012) Caper: Comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. Available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/caper/vignettes/caper.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2013.
  40. ↵
    1. Revell LJ
    (2012) Phytools: An R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things) Methods Ecol Evol 3(2):217–223.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    1. Harmon LJ,
    2. Weir JT,
    3. Brock CD,
    4. Glor RE,
    5. Challenger W
    (2008) GEIGER: Investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24(1):129–131.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Revell LJ
    (2010) Phylogenetic signal and linear regression on species data. Methods in Ecol. Evol 1:319–329.
    OpenUrl
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Historical changes in northeastern US bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Changes in northeastern US bee pollinators
Ignasi Bartomeus, John S. Ascher, Jason Gibbs, Bryan N. Danforth, David L. Wagner, Shannon M. Hedtke, Rachael Winfree
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2013, 110 (12) 4656-4660; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1218503110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Changes in northeastern US bee pollinators
Ignasi Bartomeus, John S. Ascher, Jason Gibbs, Bryan N. Danforth, David L. Wagner, Shannon M. Hedtke, Rachael Winfree
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2013, 110 (12) 4656-4660; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1218503110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (7)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Results and Discussion
    • Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Opinion: “Plan S” falls short for society publishers—and for the researchers they serve
Several aspects of the proposal, which aims to expand open access, require serious discussion and, in some cases, a rethink.
Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Core Concept: Solving Peto’s Paradox to better understand cancer
Several large or long-lived animals seem strangely resistant to developing cancer. Elucidating the reasons why could lead to promising cancer-fighting strategies in humans.
Image credit: Shutterstock.com/ronnybas frimages.
Featured Profile
PNAS Profile of NAS member and biochemist Hao Wu
 Nonmonogamous strawberry poison frog (Oophaga pumilio).  Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Putative signature of monogamy
A study suggests a putative gene-expression hallmark common to monogamous male vertebrates of some species, namely cichlid fishes, dendrobatid frogs, passeroid songbirds, common voles, and deer mice, and identifies 24 candidate genes potentially associated with monogamy.
Image courtesy of Yusan Yang (University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh).
Active lifestyles. Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.
Meaningful life tied to healthy aging
Physical and social well-being in old age are linked to self-assessments of life worth, and a spectrum of behavioral, economic, health, and social variables may influence whether aging individuals believe they are leading meaningful lives.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/MabelAmber.

More Articles of This Classification

Biological Sciences

  • Structural basis for activity of TRIC counter-ion channels in calcium release
  • PGC1A regulates the IRS1:IRS2 ratio during fasting to influence hepatic metabolism downstream of insulin
  • Altered neural odometry in the vertical dimension
Show more

Ecology

  • Regional neutrality evolves through local adaptive niche evolution
  • Climate-driven variation in mosquito density predicts the spatiotemporal dynamics of dengue
  • Morphogenesis of termite mounds
Show more

Related Content

  • No related articles found.
  • Scopus
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited by...

  • Invasive plants as novel food resources, the pollinators perspective
  • The broad footprint of climate change from genes to biomes to people
  • Modeling the status, trends, and impacts of wild bee abundance in the United States
  • Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents
  • Extinctions of aculeate pollinators in Britain and the role of large-scale agricultural changes
  • Museum specimens reveal loss of pollen host plants as key factor driving wild bee decline in The Netherlands
  • Scopus (162)
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490