Premium
One‐size does not fit all: at‐risk bumble bee habitat management requires species‐specific local and landscape considerations
Author(s) -
Liczner Amanda R.,
Colla Sheila R.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
insect conservation and diversity
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.061
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1752-4598
pISSN - 1752-458X
DOI - 10.1111/icad.12419
Subject(s) - ecology , habitat , biology , overwintering , pollinator , threatened species , species richness , geography , pollination , pollen
Declining bumble bees are threatened by habitat loss, pathogens and climate change. Despite policy and management recommendations to create pollinator habitat, the habitat requirements for at‐risk bumble bees remains unclear. Most studies on bumble bee habitat are descriptive, focus on floral resources, occur at one spatial scale, or do not examine at‐risk species. We provide the first thorough habitat description for two North American bumblebee species ( Bombus terricola and Bombus pensylvanicus ) at‐risk of extinction. We asked the following questions: (i) What characterises B. terricola and B. pensylvanicus habitat? (ii) Are landscape variables, local variables, or flowering plant species more important determinants of habitat? (iii) do important variables change throughout the season? Surveys were conducted at 25 sites with a recent occurrence of either B. terricola , B. pensylvanicus , or both species across southern Ontario, Canada. Landscape variables were extracted from a 1‐km buffer around each site. Local variables related to bumble bee resource requirements (floral, nesting and overwintering) and flowering species cover were measured in spring, mid‐summer, and late‐summer. We found that the proportion of different land cover classes at 1 km was a more important predictor of B. terricola and B. pennsylvanicus presence than local transect based variables such as floral richness or the patchiness of floral cover. We did not find any evidence of important variables changing temporally, but floral resources were consistently important throughout the season. Our results highlight that management of at‐risk pollinator species requires consideration of species‐specific habitat requirements.