@phdthesis{Seitz2020,
  author    = {Seitz, Nicola},
  title     = {Bee demise and bee rise: From honey bee colony losses to finding measures for advancing entire bee communities},
  doi       = {10.25972/OPUS-18418},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-184180},
  school      = {Universit{\"a}t W{\"u}rzburg},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {My dissertation comprises three studies: (1) an assessment of honey bee colony losses in the USA between 2014 and 2015, (2) an exploration of the potential of reclaimed sand mines as bee habitat, and (3) an evaluation of native and non-native pollinator friendly plants in regard to their attraction to bees. While the first study focuses on honey bees, the latter two studies primarily take wild bees or entire bee communities in focus. The study on honey bee colony losses was conducted within the framework of the Bee Informed Partnership (BIP, beeinformed.org) and aligns with the annual colony loss surveys which have been conducted in the USA since the winter of 2006/2007. It was the fourth year for which summer and annual losses were calculated in addition to winter losses. Among participants, backyard beekeepers were the largest group (n = 5690), although sideline (n = 169) and commercial (n = 78) beekeepers managed the majority (91.7 \%) of the 414 267 surveyed colonies. Overall, 15.1 \% of the estimated 2.74 million managed colonies in the USA were included in the study. Total honey bee colony losses (based on the entirety of included colonies) were higher in summer (25.3 \%) than in winter (22.3 \%) and amounted to 40.6 \% for the entire 2014/2015 beekeeping year. Average colony losses per beekeeper or operation were higher in winter (43.7 \%) than in summer (14.7 \%) and amounted to 49 \% for the entire 2014/2015 beekeeping year. Due to the dominance of backyard beekeepers among participants, average losses per operation (or unweighted loss) stronger reflected this smaller type of beekeeper. Backyard beekeepers mainly named colony management issues (e.g., starvation, weak colony in the fall) as causes for mortality, while sideline and commercial beekeepers stronger emphasized parasites or factors outside their control (e.g., varroa, nosema, queen failure). The second study took place at reclaimed sand mines. Sand mines represent anthropogenically impacted habitats found worldwide, which bear potential for bee conservation. Although floral resources can be limited at these habitats, vegetation free patches of open sandy soils and embankments may offer good nesting possibilities for sand restricted and other bees. We compared bee communities as found in three reclaimed sand mines and at adjacent roadside meadows in Maryland, USA, over two years. Both sand mines and roadsides hosted diverse bee communities with 111 and 88 bee species, respectively. Bee abundances as well as richness and Shannon diversity of bee species were higher in sand mines than at roadsides and negatively correlated with the percentage of vegetational ground cover. Species composition also differed significantly between habitats. Sand mines hosted a higher proportion of ground nesters, more uncommon and more 'sand loving' bees similar to natural sandy areas of Maryland. Despite the destruction of the original pre-mining habitat, sand mines thus appear to represent a unique habitat for wild bees, particularly when natural vegetation and open sand spots are encouraged. Considering habitat loss, the lack of natural disturbance regimes, and ongoing declines of wild bees, sand mines could add promising opportunities for bee conservation which has hitherto mainly focused on agricultural and urban habitats. The third study was an experimental field study on pollinator friendly plants. Bees rely on the pollen and nectar of plants as their food source. Therefore, pollinator friendly plantings are often used for habitat enhancements in bee conservation. Non-native pollinator friendly plants may aid in bee conservation efforts, but have not been tested and compared with native pollinator friendly plants in a common garden experiment. In this study, we seeded mixes of 20 native and 20 non-native pollinator friendly plants in two separate plots at three sites in Maryland, USA. For two years, we recorded flower visitors to the plants throughout the blooming period and additionally sampled bees with pan traps. A total of 3744 bees (120 species) were sampled in the study. Of these, 1708 bees (72 species) were hand netted directly from flowers for comparisons between native and non-native plants. Depending on the season, bee abundance and species richness was either similar or lower (early season and for richness also late season) at native plots compared to non-native plots. Additionally, the overall bee community composition differed significantly between native and non-native plots. Furthermore, native plants were associated with more specialized plant-bee visitation networks compared to non-native plants. In general, visitation networks were more specialized in the early season than the later seasons. Four species (Bombus impatiens, Halictus poeyi/ligatus, Lasioglossum pilosum, and Xylocopa virginica) out of the five most abundant bee species (also including Apis mellifera) foraged more specialized on native than non-native plants. Our study showed that non-native plants were well accepted by a diverse bee community and had a similar to higher attraction for bees compared to native plants. However, we also demonstrated alterations in foraging behavior, bee community assemblage, and visitation networks. As long as used with caution, non-native plants can be a useful addition to native pollinator friendly plantings. This study gives a first example of a direct comparison between native and non-native pollinator friendly plants.},
  subject      = {Biene},
  language  = {en}
}