A complete table of the data is available from Leo Shapiro (email@example.com), Sam Droege (firstname.lastname@example.org), or the refuge biologist.
Below is a table of the site numbers and a brief site description followed by a table of results.
|ERIENWR Field 1 (Trial Run) ;Sugar Lake Division||5601|
|ERIENWR Field 2 (Site 1);Office driveway;Sugar Lake Division||5602|
|ERIENWR Field 3 (Site 2);Pools C D Dike;Sugar Lake Division||5603|
|ERIENWR Field 4 (Site 3);Service Rd near Pool C;Sugar Lake Division||5604|
|ERIENWR Field 5 (Site 4);Service Rd near Pool D;Sugar Lake Division||5605|
|Lasioglossum viridatum group||1||1|
Note that field 5601 was a trial run and not part of the collection of the other 4 fields. Interestingly, this field has a bit of a different bee fauna than the cluster of sites for the main study, having a couple of the Eucerine species (P. pruinosa, and M. druriella) that did not show up in the other fields as well as 5 additional species that either did not show up at all in the other surveys or were at much lower numbers. So, your neighborhood appears to count when you are a bee.
Overall, a not unexpected group of bees from northwestern Pennslyvania. The one exceptional species is L. albipenne which is an uncommon and rarely seen sweat bee. Not much is know about it other than it seems to show up here and there. Numbers of bees are rather low compared to some of the other refuges, but, as always, there are always bees present.
Sam and Leo
To make a prairie it takes a clover
and one bee,--
One clover, and a bee,
The revery alone will do
If bees are few.
- Emily Dickinson