Test

This will translate this blog to speech.

A blog that will gradually post the results of a study of the bees found by refuge biologists and volunteers using bee bowls traps on USFWS Region 5 National Wildlife Refuges in the Northeastern United States.

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge

This is a summary of bee data from 4 fields from the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and 4 fields from Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge collected in August 2008. Each field was sampled with 5 fluorescent yellow, 5 fluorescent blue, and 5 white 3.25 ounce bowl traps.

A complete table of the data is available from Leo Shapiro (lshapiro@umd.edu), Sam Droege (sdroege@usgs.gov), or the refuge biologist.

Below is a table of the site numbers and a brief site description followed by a table of results.


Site Description
5567 GDSNWR Site 1 (=Middle W-E)
5568 GDSNWR Site 2 (=Jericho N-S)
5569 GDSNWR Site 3 (=Hudnell W-E)
5570 GDSNWR Site 4 (=East N S-N)
5571 NNWR Site 1;Collectors' waypoint 042
5572 NNWR Site 2;Collectors' waypoint 041
5573 NWR Site 3;Collectors' waypoint 040
5574 NNWR Site 4;Collectors' waypoint 039

Species
5567 5568 5569 5570 5571 5572 5573 5574 Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens




1 12 16 29
Apis mellifera




1 1 3 5
Augochlorella aurata





6 1 7
Bombus auricomus




1

1
Bombus impatiens
5



1
6
Calliopsis andreniformis

2 1



3
Ceratina calcarata
5
1


1 7
Ceratina dupla



2 1 3 2 8
Ceratina strenua



4 1 5 2 12
Lasioglossum bruneri

1 1
1 1
4
Lasioglossum coreopsis


1



1
Lasioglossum pectorale





4
4
Lasioglossum rohweri


1



1
Lasioglossum subviridatum
1





1
Lasioglossum tegulare



1 1 2
4
Lasioglossum versatum
1
1



2
Lasioglossum versatumsensuMitchell





4
4
Lasioglossum viridatum group
1





1
Megachile brevis





1
1
Melissodes bimaculata
3

3
2 3 11
Melissodes comptoides





2
2
Svastra atripes 1




1 1 3
Grand Total 1 16 3 6 10 7 45 29 117

With the exception of the Svastra atripes, the Great Dismal Swamp sites are characterized by a fairly standard set of bee species, ones that are likely to be found in most fields. Of note is that these sites were within the interior of the refuge along woodland roads with a small amount of herbaceous growth along the sides. After leaf-out there are few to no bees found within woodlands and thus the low numbers here make a great deal of sense in the context of the landscape being largely a wooded one. A possible additional exception is Lasioglossum subviridatum, which is a species with a taxonomically difficult background and we aren't that certain about its distribution and commoness due to other, similar, species being confused with it in the past.

The Nansemond sites are quite the contrast. Here the habitat is almost entirely open fields in what appears to be an old military installation. There are more species and higher numbers of those species. Of note is a single Bombus auricomus, an uncommon bumblebee species which we see only very sporadically. As mentioned in other posts, the Lasioglossum versatum sensu Mitchell species is a distinct species which is in the process of being renamed due to a name mix-up. It is very characteristic of sandy, southern, coastal plain sites. The Melissodes comptoides and Svastra atripes are both indicators of good quality field habitat.

While these two refuge units clearly contrast in their species lists and abundance, that role could easily reverse in the spring when it would be very interesting to see what the Dismal Swamp forests had to offer in terms of bee diversity.


Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge


Nansemond National Wildlife Refuge (the area in the center of the photo)



Thursday, January 15, 2009

Long Island National Wildlife Refuge

This is a summary of bee data from 8 fields from the Long Island National Wildlife Refuge collected in late Summer/early Fall 2008. Each field was sampled with 5 fluorescent yellow, 5 fluorescent blue, and 5 white 3.25 ounce bowl traps.

A complete table of the data is available from Leo Shapiro (lshapiro@umd.edu), Sam Droege (sdroege@usgs.gov), or the refuge biologist.

Below is a table of the site numbers and the brief site description.

Site

Description
5550LINWR Site 1;Wertheim: Pine Barrens Region
5551LINWR Site 2;Wertheim: Pine Barrens Region
5552LINWR Site 3;Wertheim: Pine Barrens Region
5553LINWR Site 4;Wertheim: Pine Barrens Region
5554LINWRC Site 5;Sayville Unit;Field with federally endangered Agalinis acuta
5555LINWRC Site 6;Sayville Unit;Field with federally endangered Agalinis acuta
5556LINWRC Site 7;Sayville Unit;Field with federally endangered Agalinis acuta
5557LINWRC Site 8;Sayville Unit;Field with federally endangered Agalinis acuta

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species55505551555255535554555555565557Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens431332218
Anthidium manicatum11
Augochlorella aurata4226317
Bombus citrinus11
Ceratina calcarata123
Ceratina dupla28836
Halictus confusus112
Halictus ligatus134
Hylaeus affinis/modestus88
Hylaeus illinoisensis/sp.A336
Hylaeus schwarzii11
Lasioglossum tegulare11
Lasioglossum leucozonium11
Lasioglossum near rohweri134
Lasioglossum pectorale11
Lasioglossum pilosum31127
Megachile mendica112
Megachile rotundata11
Megachile species11
Triepeolus lunatus11
Grand Total48353633810116

Interpretation: Pretty standard field bee list, some good numbers (anything more than 1 bee per bowl is "good") in some of the Pine Barrens sites. Hylaeus schwarzii is a relatively uncommon bee, one that we usually associate with the coasts, so it was nice to see it here. Bombus citrinus is a bumblebee that parasitizes other species of bumblebees and therefore fairly uncommon. Triepeolus lunatus is an uncommon parasite of Melissodes, again something not regularly encountered. For some reason the Ceratina's were isolated in just the first 2 sites...often they are associated with areas of high scrub/woody stems with a great deal of dear browse. Despite the different numbers all the sites appear fairly similar in terms of their base bee populations.

Sam and Leo

Friday, January 9, 2009

Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge

This is a summary of bee data from 4 fields from the Edwin B. Forsythe NWR collected on August 26th and 27th 2008. Each field was sampled with 5 fluorescent yellow, 5 fluorescent blue, and 5 white 3.25 ounce bowl traps.

A complete table of the data is available from Leo Shapiro (lshapiro@umd.edu), Sam Droege (sdroege@usgs.gov), or the refuge biologist.

Below is a table of the site numbers and the brief site description.

DescriptionSite
EBFNWR Site 15591
EBFNWR Site 25592
EBFNWR Site 35593
EBFNWR Site 45594

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species5594559155925593Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens1


1
Apis mellifera11

2
Augochlorella aurata

13
13
Ceratina calcarata1


1
Colletes mitchelli


11
Epeolus lectoides1


1
Epeolus scutellaris23

5
Halictus ligatus/poeyi11

2
Lasioglossum bruneri
1

1
Lasioglossum tegulare


7
7
Lasioglossum pilosum
3
25
Lasioglossum planatum
27
9
Megachile mendica1


1
Melissodes bimaculata

415
Melissodes denticulata
1

1
Ptilothrix bombiformis41
27
Grand Total121331662

These 4 fields are located on the mainland side of the refuge in fields near or adjacent to the Sound's salt marshes. You can see the marsh influence in the presence of Ptilothrix bombiformis, a hibiscus specialist. You can also clearly see the influence of very deep sand deposits in the presence of Colletes mitchelli and its nest parasite Epeolus lectoides. Both of these species only occur in dune systems or in sandhill areas such as those found at Carolina Sandhills NWR and as such they are quite uncommon and localized. It's interesting to see that they occur in the open fields on the mainland side away from the actual dune line. These occurrences provide strong support, in our opinion, for keeping these fields open.

The map below shows records in yellow for Epeolus lectoides and in blue for Colletes mitchelli.

Here is Epeolus cruciger taken by Nigel Jones in the U.K. to give you a feel for what Epeolus looks like.



Numbers of bees were on the low side and there was less uniformity among the lists of species from the different fields compared to some of the other refuges, but it's not obvious how to interpret this.


Sam and Leo

Happy insect! what can be
In happiness compared to thee?

Fed with nourishment divine,

They dewy morning's gentle wine,

Nature waits upon thee still,

And thy verdant cup does fill;

'Tis filled wherever thou dost tread,
Nature's self thy Ganymede


-Cowley

Thursday, January 8, 2009

Rappahhannock River Valley NWR

This is a summary of bee data from 5 fields on the Rappahannock River Valley NWR collected on August 13th and 14th 2008. Each field was sampled with 5 fluorescent yellow, 5 fluorescent blue, and 5 white 3.25 ounce bowl traps.

A complete table of the data is available from Leo Shapiro (lshapiro@umd.edu), Sam Droege (sdroege@usgs.gov), or the refuge biologist.

Below is a table of the site numbers and the brief site description.

Description Site
Wilna Unit 1 5607
Wilna Unit 2 5608
Wilna Unit B 5609
Wilna Unit 4 5610
Wilna Unit 7 5611

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species
5607 5608 5609 5610 5611 Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens 5 1 2 1 5 14
Augochlora pura



1 1
Augochlorella aurata

2

2
Bombus griseocollis



1 1
Halictus ligatus/poeyi 1 1 1

3
Hylaeus affinis/modestus

1

1
Lasioglossum bruneri



1 1
Lasioglossum coreopsis

2

2
Lasioglossum creberrimum


1
1
Lasioglossum versatumsensumitchell 1
2

3
Melissodes bimaculata



1 1
Melissodes comptoides 1
3 4 31 39
Melisssodes denticulata



1 1
Ptilothrix bombiformis



1 1
Svastra atripes

1

1
Triepeolus lunatus
1


1
Grand Total 8 3 14 6 42 73

Another interesting set of fields. Note all the Eucerine species (Melissodes and Svastra), which are usually good indicators of high quality habitat with plenty of large composites available in the landscape (especially true for Svastra). Also note that one of their relatively uncommon nest parasites was also caught (Triepeolus lunatus).

Two additional species worth noting, Lasioglossum creberrimum and Ptilothrix bombiformis, are both good indicators that wetlands are in the area. Lasioglossum creberrimum is usually associated with low wet coastal areas (ding!) and P. bombiformis is usually associated with Hibiscus plants, which I imagine must line the tidal wetlands nearby. Interestingly, you can also get P. bombiformis in the city, where they hang out on streetcorners sipping sweet drinks from other mallow plants such as Rose of Sharon.

Lasioglossum versatum sensu Mitchell is a species that likes southern coastal plain habitats. Its odd name comes from the fact that its taxonomic identity is being challenged and recent (but unpublished findings) indicate that this thing matches what Mitchell described as L. versatum but in actuality does not match the type specimen of L. versatum. The taxonomists will work it out in the near future and a new name will be given.

With respect to patterns among fields, there is a lot of conformity among these neighboring fields as far as species types and numbers go. No field appears much different from the others except that Field 5611 has pumped up numbers of M. comptoides for some unknowable reason. All and all I think this refuge is a keeper.

We are in luck in that Sandy has provided some pictures of these fields. They are posted below...


Sam Droege and Leo Shapiro

Listen to six mockingbirds
Flinging follies of O-be-joyful
Over the marshes and uplands.
- Carl Sandburg: Prairie



Followers

About Me

My photo
With Natural History there is no need to go to the moon or Madagascar; there is more to find in your woodlot than in our entire solar system.