Advertisement

Anthidium manicatum, an invasive bee, excludes a native bumble bee, Bombus impatiens, from floral resources

  • Kelsey K. Graham
  • Katherine Eaton
  • Isabel Obrien
  • Philip T. Starks
Original Paper

Abstract

Anthidium manicatum is an invasive pollinator reaching widespread distribution in North America. Male A. manicatum aggressively defend floral territories, attacking heterospecific pollinators. Female A. manicatum are generalists, visiting many of the same plants as native pollinators. Because of A. manicatum’s rapid range expansion, the territorial behavior of males, and the potential for female A. manicatum to be significant resource competitors, invasive A. manicatum have been prioritized as a species of interest for impact assessment. But despite concerns, there have been no empirical studies investigating the impact of A. manicatum on North American pollinators. Therefore, across a two-year study, we monitored foraging behavior and fitness of the common eastern bumble bee (Bombus impatiens) in response to A. manicatum presence. We found that B. impatiens avoided foraging near A. manicatum in both years; but despite this resource exclusion, we found no evidence of fitness consequences for B. impatiens. These results suggest A. manicatum pose as significant resource competitors, but that B. impatiens are likely able to compensate for this resource loss by finding available resources elsewhere.

Keywords

Exotic species Resource competition Interspecific competition Foraging behavior Pollination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Sean Boyden, Kevin Lindell, Luke O’Connor, and Luca Guadagno for their help with field site maintenance and data collection.

Author contributions

K.K.G. conceived of the experiment and methods, did data collection, data analysis and manuscript preparation. K.E. and I.O. assisted with data collection. P.S. advised on methods, data interpretation and edited the manuscript.

Funding

This project was funded through the National Science Foundation Research Experience for Undergraduates (2015: NSF DBI 1263030, 2016: NSF DBI 1560380; Awarded to PS), Sigma Xi Grants-in-Aid of Research (ID: G20141015702880; Awarded to KG), Tufts Graduate Student Research Competition (2014 & 2016; Awarded to KG); Tufts Summer Scholars Program (Awarded to IO), and generous donations from project backers through Experiment.com ( https://doi.org/10.18258/5029; Awarded to KG).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Supplementary material

10530_2018_1889_MOESM1_ESM.docx (32 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32 kb)
10530_2018_1889_MOESM2_ESM.png (953 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PNG 953 kb)
10530_2018_1889_MOESM3_ESM.png (2.4 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PNG 2448 kb)

References

  1. Barfield AS, Bergstrom JC, Ferreira S et al (2015) An economic valuation of biotic pollination services in Georgia. J Econ Entomol 108:388–398.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tou045 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron SA, Lozier JD, Strange JP et al (2011) Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:662–667.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014743108 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Colla SR (2016) Status, threats and conservation recommendations for wild bumble bees (Bombus spp.) in Ontario, Canada: a review for policymakers and practitioners. Nat Areas J 36:412–426.  https://doi.org/10.3375/043.036.0408 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Colla SR, 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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-008-9340-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Drummond F (2012) Commercial bumble bee pollination of lowbush blueberry. Int J Fruit Sci 12:54–64.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2011.619120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elbgami T, Kunin WE, Hughes WOH, Biesmeijer JC (2014) The effect of proximity to a honeybee apiary on bumblebee colony fitness, development, and performance. Apidologie 45:504–513.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13592-013-0265-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibbs J, Sheffield CS (2009) Rapid range expansion of the wool-carder bee, Anthidium manicatum (Linnaeus) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae), in North America. J Kansas Entomol Soc 82:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.2317/JKES805.27.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goulson D (2003) Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 34:1–26.  https://doi.org/10.1146/132355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goulson D, Lye GC, Darvill B (2008) Decline and conservation of bumble bees. Annu Rev Entomol 53:191–208.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.53.103106.093454 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Graham KK, MacLean MG (2018) Presence-only modeling is ill-suited for a recent generalist invader, Anthidium manicatum. Ecol Indic 89:56–62.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GraphPad Software (2017) GraphPad PrismGoogle Scholar
  13. Grixti JC, Wong LT, Cameron SA, Favret C (2009) Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biol Conserv 142:75–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haas A (1960) Vergleichende Verhaltensstudien zum Paarungsschwarm solitärer Apiden. Z Tierpsychol 17:402–416.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1960.tb00398.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaycox ER (1967) An adventive Anthidium in New York State (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J Kansas Entomol Soc 40:124–126Google Scholar
  16. Kenis M, Auger-Rozenberg MA, Roques A et al (2009) Ecological effects of invasive alien insects. Biol Invasions 11:21–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9680-8_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kenta T, Inari N, Nagamitsu T et al (2007) Commercialized European bumblebee can cause pollination disturbance: an experiment on seven native plant species in Japan. Biol Conserv 134:298–309.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.07.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 4:133–142.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pechuman LL (1967) Observations on the behavior of the bee Anthidium manicatum (L.). J N Y Entomol Soc 75:68–73Google Scholar
  20. Pelletier L, McNeil JN (2003) The effect of food supplementation on reproductive success in bumblebee field colonies. Oikos 103:688–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  22. Ricciardi A, Hoopes M, Marchetti M, Lockwood J (2013) Progress toward understanding the ecological impacts of nonnative species. Ecol Monogr 83:263–282.  https://doi.org/10.1890/13-0183.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Russo L (2016) Positive and negative impacts of non-native bee species around the world. Insects 7:69.  https://doi.org/10.3390/insects7040069 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Severinghaus LL, Kurtak BH, Eickwort GC (1981) The reproductive behavior of Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and the significance of size for territorial males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 9:51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00299853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Soper J, Beggs J (2013) Assessing the impact of an introduced bee, Anthidium manicatum, on pollinator communities in New Zealand. N Z J Bot 51:213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825X.2013.793202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Starks PT, Reeve HK (1999) Condition-based alternative reproductive tactics in the wool-carder bee, Anthidium manicatum. Ethol Ecol Evol 11:71–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Strange JP, Koch JB, Gonzalez VH et al (2011) Global invasion by Anthidium manicatum (Linnaeus) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): assessing potential distribution in North America and beyond. Biol Invasions 13:2115–2133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-011-0030-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomson D (2004) Competitive interactions between the invasive European honey bee and native bumble bees. Ecology 85:458–470.  https://doi.org/10.1890/02-0626 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomson DM (2006) Detecting the effects of introduced species: a case study of competition between Apis and Bombus. Oikos 114:407–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2017) Rusty patched bumble bee Bombus affinis Google Scholar
  31. Weissmann JA, Picanço A, Borges PAV, Schaefer H (2017) Bees of the Azores: an annotated checklist (Apidae, Hymenoptera). Zookeys 642:63–95.  https://doi.org/10.3897/zookeys.642.10773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williamson M, Brown K (1986) The analysis and modelling of British invasions. Philos Trans R Soc B 314:505–522.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0098 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson ME, Skinner JA, Wszelaki AL, Drummond F (2016) Plant-insect interactions using nonmetric multidimensional scaling to analyze bee visitation in east tennessee crops as an indicator of pollination services provided by honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and native bees. Environ Entomol 45:390–396.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv216 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wirtz P, Szabados M, Pethig H, Plant J (1988) An extreme case of interspecific territoriality: male Anthidium manicatum (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae) wound and kill intruders. Ethology 78:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  2. 2.Fitchburg State UniversityFitchburgUSA
  3. 3.Department of EntomologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations