Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge

This is a summary of bee data from 4 fields from Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge, Delaware 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
5587	BHNWR Site 1;=Refuge Field #33
5588	BHNWR Site 2;=Refuge Field #403
5589	BHNWR Site 3;=Refuge Field #1-W
5590	BHNWR Site 4;=Refuge Field #11

Site Locations taken from a shot of Google Maps


Table of Results:

Species	5589	5590	5588	5587	Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens	2	1	1		4
Apis mellifera			2		2
Augochlorella aurata	24	4	1	5	34
Ceratina dupla	2	2	5	3	12
Halictus ligatus/poeyi	2	11	5	6	24
Lasioglossum bruneri			1		1
Lasioglossum coreopsis	2			11	13
Lasioglossum nymphaearum				1	1
Lasioglossum rohweri	1	3		1	5
Lasioglossum tegulare	1	3			4
Lasioglossum viridatum group		2	2	2	6
Melissodes bimaculata	2		1		3
Melissodes comptoides			1	2	3
Melissodes desponsa	2		2		4
Peponapis pruinosa	1				1
Ptilothrix bombiformis		2			2
Sphecodes sp.			1		1
Triepeolus cressonii		1			1
Grand Total	39	29	22	31	121

A set of high quality bee fields. Note that there are 3 species of Melissodes present along with one of their uncommon nest parasites (Triepeolus cressonii). Again we have the refuge bee Ptilothrix bombiformis here on the refuge, reflecting the native mallows in the brackish and fresh water portions of the marshes. Number of individuals and species totals fall within what would be expected from the region.

sam and leo

Where the Yellow-crown'd heron comes to the edge of the marsh
at night and feeds upon small crabs;

- Walt Whitman

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)

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

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species	5550	5551	5552	5553	5554	5555	5556	5557	Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens	4	3	1	3		3	2	2	18
Anthidium manicatum	1								1
Augochlorella aurata	4	2			2		6	3	17
Bombus citrinus			1						1
Ceratina calcarata	1	2							3
Ceratina dupla	28	8							36
Halictus confusus		1			1				2
Halictus ligatus		1						3	4
Hylaeus affinis/modestus		8							8
Hylaeus illinoisensis/sp.A	3	3							6
Hylaeus schwarzii	1								1
Lasioglossum tegulare				1					1
Lasioglossum leucozonium								1	1
Lasioglossum near rohweri	1	3							4
Lasioglossum pectorale		1							1
Lasioglossum pilosum	3	1	1	2					7
Megachile mendica	1	1							2
Megachile rotundata	1								1
Megachile species								1	1
Triepeolus lunatus		1							1
Grand Total	48	35	3	6	3	3	8	10	116

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

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.

Description	Site
EBFNWR Site 1	5591
EBFNWR Site 2	5592
EBFNWR Site 3	5593
EBFNWR Site 4	5594

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species	5594	5591	5592	5593	Grand Total
Agapostemon virescens	1				1
Apis mellifera	1	1			2
Augochlorella aurata			13		13
Ceratina calcarata	1				1
Colletes mitchelli				1	1
Epeolus lectoides	1				1
Epeolus scutellaris	2	3			5
Halictus ligatus/poeyi	1	1			2
Lasioglossum bruneri		1			1
Lasioglossum tegulare			7		7
Lasioglossum pilosum		3		2	5
Lasioglossum planatum		2	7		9
Megachile mendica	1				1
Melissodes bimaculata			4	1	5
Melissodes denticulata		1			1
Ptilothrix bombiformis	4	1		2	7
Grand Total	12	13	31	6	62

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

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

Parker River NWR

This is a summary of data from 6 fields from the Parker River NWR Complex during late August 2008.

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
PRNWR Site 1 ;North Pool Field;Trial Run	5595
PRNWR Site 2 ;Dunes@Lot3	5596
PRNWR Site 3 ;North Pool Overlook	5597
PRNWR Site 4 ;BF Bird Blind	5598
PRNWR Site 5 ;BF Field	5599
PRNWR Site 6 ;Dunes@Lot 5	5600

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species	5595	5596	5597	5598	5599	5600	Grand Total
Agapostemon splendens		3				2	5
Agapostemon texanus			2				2
Agapostemon virescens	1						1
Augochlorella aurata	8			1			9
Bombus fervidus		1	2	1	1	1	6
Bombus impatiens		1					1
Ceratina calcarata		1	5		1		7
Ceratina dupla	1	3		1			5
Halictus confusus	1		1		1		3
Halictus ligatus			2	1			3
Heriades leavitti					1		1
Lasioglossum bruneri						1	1
Lasioglossum coreopsis	1						1
Lasioglossum coriaceum		1					1
Lasioglossum ellisiae					1		1
Lasioglossum JG-3		4	21	4		1	30
Lasioglossum marinum						2	2
Lasioglossum pilosum	4	1		4		1	10
Lasioglossum vierecki				4			4
Megachile brevis	1	1	2				4
Grand Total	17	16	35	16	5	8	97

Interpretation of the results: The bees here indicate a classic dune/deep sand site. There are two species that rarely occur outside of deep sand areas: A. splendens, and L vierecki and there are several species that are restricted to dune sites such as L. marinum and L. JG_3. L. marinum is a well known species that occurs in dune sites along the Atlantic and Gulf Coast seaboards.

Lasioglossum marinum collection localities

L. JG_3 is an undescribed species that Jason Gibbs at York University discovered hiding among specimens we had collected from the end of Long Island and at Chincoteague NWR. Only 4 or so specimens were known before so this is a significant addition to what is known about that species (and a state record) and we have sent several specimens to Jason for DNA extraction.

The other species found at this site are around regionally, but some, such as L. pilosum, H. leavitti, and M. brevis tend toward drier sites. Heriades leavitti is potentially a state record too and we have also found them on Assateague Island, but the females are difficult to ID and there is controversy about it possibly be the same as H. variolosus so we will likely send it off too for DNA barcoding. So, the fields in this refuge represent some high quality dune habitats that are nice to see.

Sam and Leo

Furue beach in the rain:

Gray water and gray sand

Blend without an edge.

- Buson

Rhode Island NWR Complex

All:

This is a summary of data from 8 fields from the Rhode Island NWR Complex during late August 2008.

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
5558	RINWRC Site 1;Ninigret NWR
5559	RINWRC Site 2;Ninigret NWR
5560	RINWRC Site 3;Ninigret NWR
5561	RINWRC Site 4;Ninigret NWR
5562	RINWRC Site 5;Trustom Pond NWR
5563	RINWRC Site 6;Trustom Pond NWR
5564	RINWRC Site 7;Trustom Pond NWR
5565	RINWRC Site 8;Trustom Pond NWR

Below is a table of the results by site:

Species	5558	5559	5560	5561	5562	5563	5564	5565	Grand Total
Agapostemon texanus	1	1							2
Agapostemon virescens		3		2	11	9	7	1	33
Andrena brevipalpis	1								1
Anthidium manicatum					2				2
Apis mellifera					1			1	2
Augochlorella aurata		1	1		1		2	4	9
Augochloropsis metallica								1	1
Bombus impatiens						1			1
Ceratina calcarata			1				1	3	5
Ceratina calcarata/dupla		1							1
Ceratina dupla	3	1	1	1	1	2	1	2	12
Coelioxys sayi								1	1
Colletes americanus							1		1
Halictus confusus					1				1
Halictus ligatus	6	12	1	6	1	1	1	1	29
Hylaeus affinis/modestus	1				3	1	1	3	9
Lasioglossum anomalum								1	1
Lasioglossum cressonii							2		2
Lasioglossum ellisiae	11	10	7	10	1				39
Lasioglossum imitatum		1							1
Lasioglossum nymphaearum						1		1	2
Lasioglossum pectorale		1					1		2
Lasioglossum pilosum	14	5	2	7	1		1	1	31
Lasioglossum rohweri	2	9	1		12	2	11	1	38
Lasioglossum sp.					1	2	2		5
Megachile brevis					1			1	2
Megachile latimanus						1			1
Megachile montivaga						1			1
Melissodes bimaculata		1							1
Sphecodes atlantis	1			2					3
Sphecodes davisii								1	1
Sphecodes dichrous					1				1
Grand Total	40	46	14	28	38	21	31	23	241

Interpretation of the results: Excellent number of bees and diversity in these fields! 30 species, 241 specimens, which comes to about 2 bees on average per bowl. First let's note a set of new state records for Rhode Island based on the list maintained by John Ascher at the American Museum: Augochloropsis metallica, Lasioglossum anomalum, Anthidium manicatum, Megachile montivaga, and Coelioxys sayi. Now before the refuge's head gets too swollen, the list of bees for the Rhode Island is low and all these species have been found in neighboring states, but on the other hand it shows the type of contribution that can be made in light of a general lack of understanding of bees....so good work!

Anthidium manicatum is an interesting new arrival to the U.S. Here's the current distribution (and a few West Coast records that are not shown). Moving north and west it will likely soon cover the region. It is particularly fond of nice gardens that have Stachys, which it uses to line its nests.

Anthidium manicatum by imarsman from creative commons

Lasioglossum ellisiae would have been called L. tegulare in the recent past, but there is a paper in review that splits these two apart. The Lasioglossum sp. are all males that at this point I can't identify to species. There are an interesting number of nest parasites in this group of bees (these are bees that lay their eggs in the nests of other bee species rather than providing for their young themselves). The 3 Sphecodes are parasites of Lasioglossum species and the Coelioxys sayi is a parasite of Megachile bees.

Ninigret fields have many more H. ligatus, L. ellisiae, and L. pilosum than Trustom pond, which is more characterized by higher numbers of Agapostemon virescens and Hylaeus. Based on the species list it looks like the Ninigret fields are more open and potentially sandy, but they don't have any of the species that are characteristic of deep sand. The species diversity at Ninigret is much lower at 15 species to Trustom's 26. Again, a nice set of bees for this refuge complex.

Sam and Leo

Bee Song



Bees in the late summer sun

Drone their song

Of yellow moons

Trimming black velvet

Droning, droning a sleepysong.




- Carl Sandburg

Site 5565

Site 5564

Site 5563

Site 5562

Site 5561

Site 5560

Site 5559

Site 5558