Next Article in Journal
Minimizing Adverse Effects of Pb on Maize Plants by Combined Treatment with Jasmonic, Salicylic Acids and Proline
Next Article in Special Issue
Wild Blueberry Fruit Drop: A Consequence of Seed Set?
Previous Article in Journal
Genetic Analysis of Leaf Traits in Small-Flower Chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum × morifolium Ramat.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Profitability of Artificial Pollination in ‘Manzanillo’ Olive Orchards
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/agronomy10050698
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Native Pollinators (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) in Cotton Grown in the Gulf South, United States

by
Katherine A. Parys
1,*,
Isaac L. Esquivel
2,3,
Karen W. Wright
3,
Terry Griswold
4 and
Michael J. Brewer
2
1
USDA-ARS, Southern Insect Management Research Unit, Stoneville, MS 38732, USA
2
Department of Entomology, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Corpus Christi, TX 78406, USA
3
Department of Entomology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
4
USDA-ARS, Pollinating Insects Research Unit, Logan, UT 84322, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(5), 698; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050698
Submission received: 24 March 2020 / Revised: 30 April 2020 / Accepted: 8 May 2020 / Published: 14 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pollinator Diversity and Pollination in Agricultural Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Native bees (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) were sampled using bee bowls in two states to determine biodiversity in commercial cotton fields of the southern United States. In both states, native bee communities found in cotton fields were dominated by generalist pollinators in the genera Agapostemon, Augochloropsis, Halictus, and Lasioglossum (Hymenoptera: Halictidae), and Melissodes (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Melissodes tepaneca (Cresson) was the most abundant species found in cotton fields in both states. Some species collected are known specialists on other plant taxa, suggesting they may be tourist species. Here we provide a baseline species list of native bees found in cotton. Ordination indicated separation between the communities found in the two states when pooled by genus, but these differences were not significant. While cotton is grown in highly managed and disturbed landscapes, our data suggest that a community of common generalist native pollinators persists. Many of these species are also found in other cropping systems across North America.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The availability of mass flowering crops across the landscape in agricultural areas can have a positive impact on the density of generalist native pollinators [1]. Cotton is an important agronomic crop, planted on 13.4 million acres in 17 states across the southern United States in 2018 [2]. Insect pest management in commercial cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) production has changed in the past few decades due to the eradication of the boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis Boheman) and introduction of varieties expressing toxins derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Berliner) for the control of heliothine pests (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) [3]. As heliothine pests have decreased, various plant bugs and stink bugs (Hemiptera: Miridae and Pentatomidae) have emerged as primary pests across cotton growing regions [4,5,6,7,8]. Although these events have led to a substantial overall reduction in total insecticide use, there remains an average of two spray applications of broad-spectrum insecticide to control insect pests on cotton each year [2,3].
Much of the available literature on pollinators in cotton grown in the United States is over 30 years old, prior to changes in cotton production mentioned above. In that time, cotton acreage in the state of Mississippi has fluctuated annually, with highs of over a million acres to a low of approximately 300,000 acres in 2013, with acreage increasing every year since that low [9]. Texas upland cotton acreages also fluctuate, with between 5 and 7 million acres planted annually [9]. Much of the historical work on pollinators in cotton was done either in the Texas panhandle or in Arizona as part of a larger effort to identify potential native pollinators for economically feasible hybrid cotton seed production [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. More recent research from southern Texas showed that native bee abundance and diversity increases with cotton bloom density and the abundance of semi-natural habitat [18]. Additional studies have shown that historical land usage often has long-lasting effects on bee community composition [19].
Many methods can be used to collect and sample native bees in various habitats, and each of these potential methods have inherent biases. Bee bowls, also commonly referred to as modified pan traps, have been used across a wide variety of plant communities and crops in varying geographic regions to examine bee communities [20,21,22,23]. While these traps are efficient and easy to use, they often exhibit bias in the species they collect, often failing to collect larger bodied bees like carpenter bees (Xylocopa spp.) and bumblebees (Bombus spp.) [24]. Bee bowls also collect some groups of native bees less often than their perceived or visually confirmed abundance, especially honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) and cellophane bees (Colletes spp.) [25,26]. Given these considerations, bee bowls are the most effective and cost-efficient trap for targeting native bees in agricultural cropping systems [24,27].
While it is apparent that cotton is widely planted across the southern United States and is an economically important crop with abundant pollen through its growing season, knowledge of the biodiversity within the community of native bees utilizing this resource remains unknown. Understanding the community of native bees in this region can inform management decisions by providing baseline data with modern agricultural practices. Our research goals for this project were to document the native bee fauna present in commercially managed cotton fields and present a checklist of species as a foundation for future research studies. Here we characterize and compare the current communities of bees visiting cotton fields in two states along the Gulf Coast of the United States.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Systems

Collections of native bees in the Mississippi Delta were made in commercial cotton fields during the summers of 2015 and 2016. Producers in the region typically plant a mixture of cotton, corn (Zea mays L.), and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Moench.). Many also plant smaller acreages of sunflowers (Helianthus annuus L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.), rice (Oryza sativa L.), and sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.). In 2015, two commercial cotton fields in Sunflower County near the town of Indianola, Mississippi [MS] were sampled. In 2016, one cotton field near Indianola, MS (Sunflower County), and one located near the town of Charleston, MS (Tallahatchie County), were sampled for bees.
Collections made in South Texas were also in large commercial cotton fields located near the town of Kingsville, Texas in Kleberg County. Fields that were sampled spanned a total area of roughly 175 km2. This region’s commercial farms are generally composed of a rotation of dryland cotton and sorghum with natural coastal prairie habitat intermixed throughout the region. These samples were part of a larger project examining native pollinator communities at the interface of cotton fields with sorghum, semi-natural habitat, or other cotton fields. Therefore, for both regions, data were taken from cotton fields within areas with mixed croplands and semi-natural habitats.

2.2. Bee Collections

In Mississippi, commercial cotton fields were sampled starting at first bloom in July for nine weeks during the summer of 2015. In 2016, two locations were sampled beginning in July for six to eight weeks. Locations were sampled both years only while there were blooms in the field. At each location, ten bee bowl units per field were placed in two parallel transects 10 m apart, with each transect containing five bee bowl units each 5 m apart. Each unit consisted of three 3.25 oz solo cups, one of each painted a flat white, fluorescent blue, and fluorescent yellow (Figure 1). A total of 30 individual bowls (10 of each color) were collected at each location weekly. Each bowl was filled two thirds full of soapy water and placed in the field for 24 h at each sampling date.
In Texas, similar collections were made during the summers of 2017 and 2018. In 2017, three bee bowl units were placed in cotton at each of three sampling locations for a total of nine units per week. Traps were placed out in May at the first week of bloom for approximately six weeks, totaling 86 collection events in 2017. Some weeks, not all traps could be collected due to weather or road conditions and were collected as soon as possible at the next available date. In 2018, the sampling effort was increased to five bee bowl units in five locations for a total of 25 traps per collection week. Again, bee bowls were placed out at first bloom in July for four weeks for a total of 188 collection events.

2.3. Specimen Identification

All specimens were temporarily stored in 70% ethanol, then pinned and preserved following previously published guidelines [28]. Insect specimens were processed by sorting specimens to morphospecies, and specimens were identified to genus using general keys [29,30,31,32]. Following is a list of genera and corresponding primary literature used for identifications: Agapostemon [33], Anthophora [34], Augochlora and Augochloropsis [30,35], Augochlorella [35,36,37], Bombus [38], Ceratina [39,40], Diadasia [41], Halictus and Hylaeus [30], Lasioglossum [42,43], Megachile [31,44], Melissodes and Svastra [45,46], Nomia [47], and Xylocopa [48].

2.4. Data Analyses

Analyses were completed in R version 3.6.0 “Planting of a Tree” using VEGAN and ggplot2 [49]. Abundances were pooled by genus (all species within a genus combined) to account for variation in native ranges of many species across the data set for these analyses. All data was organized in a matrix containing total abundances of each genus by yearly collection location. Data ordination to determine variation between pollinators visiting cotton in the two states was conducted using non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) of Bray–Curtis similarities using VEGAN and graphed in GGPLOT2 [50,51]. A one-way non-parametric analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) test of the Bray–Curtis similarity data obtained from 999 permutations was also performed using VEGAN to compare the similarity of the communities [50].

3. Results

3.1. Species Richness

The 1200 individual specimens collected from Mississippi [MS] were collected over two years. These specimens represent at least 33 species (as Lasioglossum (Dialictus) were not identified past subgenus), which includes 21 genera in four families (Table 1). A total of 5246 individuals were collected in Texas (TX) cotton fields over two years. These specimens represent 41 (23 species are included in Table 1, with an additional 18 morphospecies of Lasioglossum (Dialictus)) species in three families. Apidae was the most abundant family in both locations (1028 individuals in MS and 4145 individuals in TX), including 10 genera in each state with 16 species in MS and 11 species in TX, followed by Halictidae (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Anthophora and Diadasia were not collected in Mississippi, while Xenoglossa and Ptilothrix were not collected in TX. Members of the genus Melissodes were the most abundant and dominant taxa in both locations (Table 1). In particular, Melissodes tepaneca (Cresson) was the most abundant species found in both states.

3.2. Similarity of Fauna between Locations

The nMDS analyses indicated two group of samples when species were pooled to the genus level. Samples from Mississippi and Texas were separated and formed distinct groups on the plot (Figure 4). Each point on the plot represents a yearly collection location, and each color represents a state. The reasonably low stress level (0.012) indicates a good representation of multidimensional space. However, the ANOSIM test showed only weak differences (r = 0.1452) and was overall non-significant (0.144) indicating that while populations separate in the nMDS plot, there is no statistically significance between the communities found in cotton fields in Mississippi and Texas. This lack of significance indicates that the space in Figure 4 between the locations from the two states is not as great as the distance within a given state.

4. Discussion

Global declines of pollinators and/or other insects have been reported in recent decades, but a lack of both historical and current documentation about pollinator abundance and community structure limits the assumptions that can be made in many geographic areas and specialized habitats [59,60]. Mass flowering crops, like cotton and soybean, can support generalist pollinator populations by providing floral and other resources [1], but these commonly grown southern row crops also pose risks to bees (including honey bees), notably insecticide exposure [61]. Baseline data on community structure is important for monitoring landscape level changes and risk to populations that frequent these areas [62]. Native bee communities that share those habitats likely are exposed to similar benefits and risks, making information about the biodiversity and community structure in these areas essential.
Similar to older studies from cotton producing regions of Arizona, native bees in the genus Melissodes dominate the cotton community in both states during this study [10,63,64,65]. Visual observations of floral visitation were made in cotton grown in the state of Georgia, and of those observations 83.9% were bees in the genus Melissodes, and most of those were of a distinctive species, Melissodes bimaculatus (Lepeltier) [66,67]. Studies from the high plains of Texas suggested that Agapostemon was the most abundant genus, but Melissodes thelypodii Cockerell was also abundant in the fields [13,14]. No species of Agapostemon was dominant in our study, and the most frequently encountered species in MS only made up 2.2% of the total specimens collected. While this study utilized bee bowls for sampling, additional recently published data demonstrates that M. tepaneca and A. mellifera co-dominate collections made by hand netting in cotton fields in southern TX [68], suggesting that Melissodes dominance is not limited by observational or collecting methodologies. These observations do also suggest that using bee bowls in cotton undersampled A. mellifera in these fields. This dominance within the community by Melissodes is not limited to the United States, as Melissodes nigroaenea (Smith) is an important pollinator in Brazilian cotton fields [69].
Several of the species collected in both states during this study are known to be oligolectic (floral specialists) or kleptoparasites that are likely tourist species attracted to the bee bowls. Bees in the genus Xenoglossa are known specialists on cucurbits [58], which grow on field edges in many parts of the south. Ptilothrix bombiformis (Cresson) is a malvaceous specialist on native wild Hibiscus sp. [57], a genus closely related to cotton, and these bees were frequently seen in cotton fields in Mississippi. Diadasia rinconis are oligolectic on Opuntia spp. cacti [55]. While these species, and others listed in Table 1, are not known pollinators of cotton, they were exposed to similar potential risks by regularly traversing fields and their regular presence should be investigated further in the future.
Even though a variety of agricultural practices in crops, including pesticide applications and tilling can negatively impact pollinator populations, a community of native bees persists across and within these landscapes [70,71,72,73,74]. Many of the same cosmopolitan generalist groups that are found here are also found in other agricultural crops in North America including corn and soybeans, suggesting that these species may be adapted to living with the risks in agricultural landscapes [20,75,76,77]. Similar to the results presented here, abundant pollinators in crop fields often consist of a few common genera of native bees, while species that are threatened or more rarely observed are infrequently or never observed in crop fields. This suggests that potential management programs focused on pollinator conservation in these regions should differ for common generalist agricultural pollinators and those more rarely encountered or oligolectic species that are not frequently observed in fields [78].
Native pollinators offer potential benefits to producers, in spite of risks they face in agricultural fields. While cotton is known to self-pollinate, there are also many benefits to increasing cotton pollination by both native and honey bees [79]. Floral visitation by pollinators in cotton can increase boll set, seed weight, and lint weight [79,80,81,82,83]. Intensive visitation by honey bees in particular increased yield in some cotton experiments by up to 15.8% [84]. For example, of 26 native bee species collected in cotton fields in Burkina Faso, not all species provided similar pollination services and six species did not cause fruit set and were excluded as pollinators. Visitation by both honeybees and Tetralonia fraterna Friese (Hymenoptera: Eucerini) significantly increased both seed weight and fiber weight, suggesting similar patterns could exist in other cotton growing regions of the world [85]. Future studies in both states involving native bees in cotton should focus on potential benefits of these native bees, including abundant species in the genera Melissodes, that are visiting and pollinating cotton in the United States. As the communities of native bees are not significantly different between Mississippi and Texas, this baseline data taken with modern agricultural practices can be utilized for future studies and used to refine management recommendations in cotton production systems across the southern United States.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A.P., I.L.E. and M.J.B.; data curation and taxonomic expertise, K.A.P., I.L.E., K.W.W. and T.G.; formal analysis, K.A.P.; investigation, K.A.P., I.E. and M.J.B.; methodology, K.A.P., I.L.E., K.W.W., T.G. and M.J.B.; resources, K.A.P. and M.J.B.; writing—original draft, K.A.P. and I.L.E.; writing—review and editing, K.A.P., I.L.E., K.W.W., T.G. and M.J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially conducted by K.A.P. as a component of a National Program 304 Plant Protection and Quarantine project of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (Project 6066-22000-084-00D Integrated Insect Pest and Resistance Management in Corn, Cotton, Sorghum, Soybean and Sweet Potato), which also paid the APC. Partial support was provided to IE by USDA NIFA, Southern IPM Center, Enhancement Grant Program.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Harold Ikerd, Leslie Price, C. Chad Roberts, Lou Adams, Raven Allison, Travis Ahrens, Miles Arcenauex, KeAndrea Brown, Raksha Chatakondi, Megan Clark, Mamadou Fadiga, Shawnee Gundry, Elizabeth Hanson, Megan Holley, and Sharilyn Taylor for assistance in the lab and the field. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture, an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Westphal, C.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Tscharntke, T. Mass flowering crops enhance pollinator densities at a landscape scale. Ecol. Lett. 2003, 6, 961–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cook, D.; Cutts, M. Cotton Insect Losses 2018. Available online: https://www.biochemistry.msstate.edu/resources/2018loss.php (accessed on 5 January 2020).
  3. Luttrell, R.G.; Teague, T.G.; Brewer, M.J. Cotton insect pest management. In Ag Monograph 57; Cotton Fang, D.D., Percey, R.G., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society, Soil Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA,, 2015; pp. 509–546. [Google Scholar]
  4. Parys, K.A.; Luttrell, R.G.; Snodgrass, G.L.; Portilla, M. Patterns of tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) resistance to pyrethroid insecticides in the lower Mississippi Delta for 2008–2015: Linkage to pyrethroid use and cotton insect management. J. Insect Sci. 2018, 18, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Parys, K.A.; Luttrell, R.G.; Snodgrass, G.L.; Portilla, M.; Copes, J.T. Longitudinal measurements of tarnished plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae) susceptibility to insecticides in the Delta Region of Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi: Associations with insecticide use and insect control recommendations. Insects 2017, 8, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Naranjo, S.E. Impact of Bt transgenic cotton on integrated pest management. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 5842–5851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lu, Y.; Wu, K.; Jiang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Desneux, N. Widespread adoption of Bt cotton and insecticide decrease promotes biocontrol services. Nature 2012, 487, 362–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Brewer, M.J.; Anderson, D.J.; Armstrong, J.S. Plant growth stage-specific injury and economic injury level for verde plant bug, Creontiades signatus (Hemiptera: Miridae), on cotton: Effect of bloom period of infestation. J. Econ. Entomol. 2013, 106, 2077–2083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service: Quick Stats. Available online: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Lite/ (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  10. Moffett, J.O.; Stith, L.S.; Burkardt, C.C.; Shipman, C.W. Insect visitors to cotton flowers. J. Arizona Acad. Sci. 1976, 11, 47–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Moffett, J.O.; Stith, L.S.; Curkhardt, C.C.; Shipman, C.W. Fluctuation of wild bee and wasp visits to cotton flowers. Ibid 1976, 11, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berger, L.A. Agapostemon Angelicus Cockerell and Other Wild Bees of Potential Pollinators of Male-Sterile Cotton on the Texas High Plains. Master’s Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  13. Moffett, J.O.; Cobb, H.B.; Rummel, D.R. Bees of potential value as pollinators in the production of hybrid cottonseed on the High Plains of Texas. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf. 1980, 268–270. [Google Scholar]
  14. Berger, L.A.; Moffett, J.O.; Rummel, D.R. Seasonal cycles of Agapostemon angelicus Cockerell relative to hybrid cottonseed production in Texas (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 1985, 58, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  15. Waller, G.D.; Vaissiere, B.E.; Moffett, J.O.; Martin, J.H. Comparison of carpenter bees (Xylocopa varipuncta Patton) (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae) and honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as pollinators of male-sterile cotton in cages. J. Econ. Entomol. 1985, 78, 558–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Berger, L.A.; Vassiére, B.E.; Moffett, J.O.; Merritt, S.J. Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) as pollinators of male-sterile upland cotton on the Texas High Plains. Environ. Entomol. 1988, 17, 789–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vaissière, B.E. Honey bee stocking rate, pollinator visitation, and pollination effectiveness in upland cotton grown for hybrid seed production. In VI International Symposium on Pollination, Tilburg, Netherlands; Heemert, C.V., Ruijter, A.D., Eds.; Acta Horticulturae 288: Tilburg, The Netherlands, 1991; pp. 359–363. [Google Scholar]
  18. Cusser, S.; Grando, C.; Zucchi, M.I.; López-Uribe, M.M.; Pope, N.S.; Ballare, K.; Luna-Lucena, D.; Almeida, E.A.B.; Neff, J.L.; Young, K.; et al. Small but critical: Semi-natural habitat fragments promote bee abundance in cotton agroecosystems across both Brazil and the United States. Landsc. Ecol. 2019, 34, 1825–1836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cusser, S.; Neff, J.L.; Jha, S. Land-use history drives contemporary pollinator community similarity. Landsc. Ecol. 2018, 33, 1335–1351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wheelock, M.J.; Rey, K.P.; O’Neal, M.E. Defining the insect pollinator community found in Iowa corn and soybean fields: Implications for pollinator conservation. Environ. Entomol. 2016, 45, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Tuell, J.K.; Isaacs, R. Community and species-specific responses of wild bees to insect pest control programs applied to a pollinator-dependent crop. J. Econ. Entomol. 2010, 103, 668–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Le Féon, V.; Poggio, S.L.; Torretta, J.P.; Bertrand, C.; Molina, G.A.R.; Burel, F.; Baudry, J.; Ghersa, C.M. Diversity and life-history traits of wild bees (Insecta: Hymenoptera) in intensive agricultural landscapes in the Rolling Pampa, Argentina. J. Nat. Hist. 2015, 50, 1175–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Le Féon, V.; Burel, F.; Chifflet, R.; Henry, M.; Ricroch, A.; Vaissière, B.E.; Baudry, J. Solitary bee abundance and species richness in dynamic agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013, 166, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wilson, J.S.; Griswold, T.; Messinger, O.J. Sampling bee communities (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in a desert landscape: Are pan traps sufficient? J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 2008, 81, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roulston, T.H.; Smith, S.A.; Brewster, A.L. A comparison of pan trap and intensive net sampling techniques for documenting a bee (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) fauna. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 2007, 80, 179–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Toler, T.R.; Evans, E.W.; Tepedino, V.J. Pan-trapping for bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Utah’s West Desert: The importance of color diversity. Pan Pac. Entomol. 2005, 81, 103–113. [Google Scholar]
  27. Westphal, C.; Bommarco, R.; Carré, G.; Lamborn, E.; Morison, N.; Petanidou, T.; Potts, S.G.; Roberts, S.P.M.; Szentgyörgyi, H.; Tscheulin, T.; et al. Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecolog. Monogr. 2008, 78, 653–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Droege, S. The Very Handy Manual: How to Catch and Identify Bees and Manage a Collection. Available online: https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nativebees/Handy%20Bee%20Manual/The%20Very%20Handy%20Manual%20-%202015.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2017).
  29. Michener, C.D. The Bees of the World; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mitchell, T.B. Bees of the Eastern United States (I). North Carolina Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. 1960, 141, 1–538. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mitchell, T.B. Bees of the Eastern United States (II). North Carolina Ag. Exp. Sta. Bull. 1962, 152, 1–557. [Google Scholar]
  32. Michener, C.D.; McGinley, R.J.; Danforth, B.N. The bee genera of North and Central America; Hymenoptera Apoidea; Smithsonian Inst Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994; p. 304. [Google Scholar]
  33. Roberts, R.B. Revision of the bee genus Agapostemon (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 1972, 49, 437–590. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cresson, E.T. A list of the North American species of the genus Anthophora, with descriptions of new species. Trans. Am. Entomol. Soc. 1868, 2, 289–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sandhouse, G.A. The bees of the genera Augochlora, Augochloropsis, and Augochlorella (Hymenoptera: Apoidae) occurring in the United States. J. Wash. Acad Sci. 1937, 27, 65–79. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ordway, E. Systematics of the genus Augochlorella (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) North of Mexico. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 1966, 46, 509–624. [Google Scholar]
  37. Coelho, B.W.T. A review of the bee genus Augochlorella (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Augochlorini). Syst. Entomol. 2004, 29, 282–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Williams, P.H.; Thorp, R.W.; Richardson, L.L.; Colla, S.R. Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2014; p. 208. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rehan, S.M.; Sheffield, C.S. Morphological and molecular delineation of a new species in the Ceratina dupla species-group (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Xylocopinae) of eastern North America. Zootaxa 2011, 2873, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Daly, H.V. Bees of the genus Ceratina in America north of Mexico (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Univ. Calif. Pub. Entomol. 1973, 74, 1–131. [Google Scholar]
  41. Sipes, S. Phylogenetic Relationships, Taxonomy, and Evolution of Host Choice in Diadasia (Hymenoptera: Apidae); Utah State University: Logan, UT, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  42. Gibbs, J.; Packer, L.; Dumesh, S.; Danforth, B.N. Revision and reclassification of Lasioglossum (Evylaeus), L. (Hemihalictus) and L. (Sphecodogastra) in eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). Zootaxa 2013, 3672, 1–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Gibbs, J. Revision of the metallic Lasioglossum (Dialictus) of eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini). Zootaxa 2011, 3073, 1–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Sheffield, C.S.; Ratti, S.; Packer, L.; Griswold, T. Leafcutter and mason bees of the genus Megachile Laterille (Hymenoptera: Megachidae) in Canada and Alaska. Can. J. Arthropod Ident. 2011, 18, 1–107. [Google Scholar]
  45. LaBerge, W.E. A revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes in North and Central America. Part I. (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 1956, 37, 911–1194. [Google Scholar]
  46. LaBerge, W.E. A revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes in North and Central America. (Part II) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 1956, 38, 533. [Google Scholar]
  47. Cockerell, T.D.A. The North American bees of the genus Nomia. Proc. United States Nat. Mus. 1910, 38, 289–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Hurd, P.D., Jr. The carpenter bees of California (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Bull. Calif. Insect Surv. 1955, 4, 35–72. [Google Scholar]
  49. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  50. Oksanen, J.; Blanchet, F.G.; Friendly, M.; Kindt, R.; Legendre, P.; McGlinn, D.; Minchin, P.R.; O’Hara, R.B.; Simpson, G.L.; Solymos, P.; et al. VEGAN: Community Ecology Package. R Package Version 2, 5–6. 2019. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=vegan (accessed on 14 May 2020).
  51. Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  52. Sheffield, C.S.; Frier, S.D.; Dumesh, S. The bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea, Apiformes) of the prairies ecozone with comparison to other grasslands of Canada. In Arthropods of Canadian Grasslands (Volume 4): Biodiversity and Systematics Part 2; Giberson, D.J., Cárcamo, H.A., Eds.; Biological Survey of Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2014; pp. 427–467. [Google Scholar]
  53. Hannon, L.E.; Sisk, T.D. Hedgerows in an agri-natural landscape: Potential habitat value for native bees. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2140–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Roulston, T.H.; Cane, J.H. The effect of diet breadth and nesting ecology on body size variation in bees (Apiformes). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 2000, 73, 129–142. [Google Scholar]
  55. Ordway, E. The Life History of Diadasia rinconis Cockerell (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 1987, 60, 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  56. Fowler, J.; Droege, S. Pollen Specialist Bees of the Eastern United States. Available online: https://jarrodfowler.com/specialist_bees.html (accessed on 16 April 2020).
  57. Rust, R.W. The biology of Ptilothrix bombiformis (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 1980, 53, 427–436. [Google Scholar]
  58. Hurd, P.D., Jr.; Linsley, E.G.; Whitaker, T.W. Squash and gourd bees (Peponapis, Xenoglossa) and the origin of the cultivated Cucurbita. Evol. App. 1971, 25, 218–234. [Google Scholar]
  59. Lebuhn, G.; Droege, S.; Connor, E.F.; Gemmill-Herren, B.; Potts, S.G.; Minckley, R.L.; Griswold, T.; Jean, R.; Kula, E.; Roubik, D.W.; et al. Detecting insect pollinator declines on regional and global scales. Conserv. Biol. 2013, 27, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hallmann, C.A.; Sorg, M.; Jongejans, E.; Siepel, H.; Hofland, N.; Schwan, H.; Stenmans, W.; Müller, A.; Sumser, H.; Hörren, T.; et al. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, 0185809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Zawislak, J.; Adamczyk, J.; Johnson, D.R.; Lorenz, G.; Black, J.; Hornsby, Q.; Stewart, S.D.; Joshi, N. Comprehensive survey of area-wide agricultural pesticide use in southern United States row crops and potential impact on honey bee colonies. Insects 2019, 10, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Schindler, M.; Diestelhorst, O.; Haertel, S.; Saure, C.; Scharnowski, A.; Schwenninger, H.R. Monitoring agricultural ecosystems by using wild bees as environmental indicators. BioRisk 2013, 8, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Butler, G.D., Jr.; Todd, F.E.; MacGregor, S.E.; Werner, F.G. Melissodes bees in Arizona cotton fields. Ariz. Ag. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 1960, 139, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kearney, T.H. Self-fertilization and cross-fertilization in pima cotton. USDA Dept. Bull. No. 1923, 1134, 1–68. [Google Scholar]
  65. McGregor, S.E.; Rhyne, C.; Worley, S., Jr.; Todd, F.E. The role of honey bees in cotton pollination. Agron. J. 1955, 47, 23–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Allard, H.A. Some experimental observations concerning the behavior of various bees in their visits to cotton blossoms II. Am. Nat. 1911, 45, 668–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Allard, H.A. Some experimental observations concerning the behavior of various bees in their visits to cotton blossoms I. Am. Nat. 1911, 45, 607–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Cusser, S.; Neff, J.L.; Jha, S. Natural land cover drives pollinator abundance and richness, leading to reductions in pollen limitation in cotton agroecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 226, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Grando, C.; Amon, N.D.; Clough, S.J.; Guo, N.; Wei, W.; Azevedo, P.; López-Uribe, M.M.; Zucchi, M.I. Two Colors, one species: The case of Melissodes nigroaenea (Apidae: Eucerini), an important pollinator of cotton fields in Brazil. Sociobiology 2018, 65, 645–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Krupke, C.H.; Hunt, G.J.; Eitzer, B.D.; Andino, G.; Given, K. Multiple routes of pesticide exposure for honey bees living near agricultural fields. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 29268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Williams, N.M.; Crone, E.E.; Roulston, T.H.; Minckley, R.L.; Packer, L.; Potts, S.G. Ecological and life-history traits predict bee species responses to environmental disturbances. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2280–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Hodgson, E.W.; Pitts-Singer, T.L.; Barbour, J.D. Effects of the insect growth regulator, novaluron on immature alfalfa leafcutting bees, Megachile rotundata. J. Insect. Sci. 2011, 11, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Hladik, M.L.; Vandever, M.; Smalling, K.L. Exposure of native bees foraging in an agricultural landscape to current-use pesticides. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 542, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Samson-Robert, O.; Labrie, G.; Mercier, P.-L.; Chagnon, M.; Derome, N.; Fournier, V. Increased acetylcholinesterase expression in bumble bees during neonicotinoid-coated corn sowing. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 12636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Gill, K.A.; O’Neal, M.E. Survey of soybean insect pollinators: Community identification and sampling method analysis. Environ. Entomol. 2015, 44, 488–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Wheelock, M.J.; O’Neal, M.E. Insect pollinators in Iowa cornfields: Community identification and trapping method analysis. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 0143479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Gardiner, M.A.; Tuell, J.K.; Isaacs, R.; Gibbs, J.; Ascher, J.S.; Landis, D.A. Implications of three biofuel crops for beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Bio. Energy Res. 2010, 3, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Kleijn, D.; Winfree, R.; Bartomeus, I.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Henry, M.; Isaacs, R.; Klein, A.-M.; Kremen, C.; M’Gonigle, L.K.; Rader, R.; et al. Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Cunningham, S.A. Honey Bee Visitors to Cotton Flowers and their Role in Crop Pollination: A Literature Review; CSIRO Report: 2014; CSIRO: Canberra, Australia, 2014; p. 22.
  80. Pires, V.C.; Silveira, F.A.; Sujii, E.R.; Torezani, K.R.S.; Rodrigues, W.A.; Alburquerque, F.A.; Rodrigues, S.M.M.; Salomāo, A.N.; Pires, C.S.S. Importance of bee pollination for cotton production in conventional and organic farms in Brazil. J. Pollinat. Ecolog. 2014, 13, 151–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Rhodes, J. Cotton pollination by honey bees. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2002, 42, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Keshlaf, M.H. An Assessment of Honey Bee Foraging Activity and Pollination Efficacy in Australian Bt Cotton; University of Western Sydney: Penrith, Australia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  83. Tanda, A.S. Bee pollination increases yield of 2 interplanted varieties of Asiatic cotton (Gossypium arboretum L.). Am. Bee J. 1984, 124, 539–540. [Google Scholar]
  84. Tanda, A.S.; Goyal, N.P. Insect pollination in Asiatic cotton (Gossypium arboreum). J. Apic. Res. 1979, 18, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Stein, K.; Coulibaly, D.; Stenchly, K.; Goetze, D.; Porembski, S.; Lindner, A.; Konate, S.; Linsenmair, E.K. Bee pollination increases yield quantity and quality of cash crops in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 17691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Agronomy 10 00698 g001 550
Figure 1. Example of modified pan traps, also called bee bowls, placed in a cotton field.
Figure 1. Example of modified pan traps, also called bee bowls, placed in a cotton field.
Agronomy 10 00698 g001
Agronomy 10 00698 g002 550
Figure 2. Some of the members of the family Apidae observed in cotton fields: (A) Melissodes (Melissodes) bimaculatus; (B) Melissodes (Melissodes) tepaneca; (C) Melissodes (Melissodes) communis; (D) Apis mellifera; (E) Ptilothrix bombiformis; (F) Florilegus condignus; (G) Xylocopa (Schonnherria) micans (female); (H) Xylocopa (Schonnherria) micans (male); (I) Xylocopa (Notoxylocopa) tabaniformis parkinsonae.
Figure 2. Some of the members of the family Apidae observed in cotton fields: (A) Melissodes (Melissodes) bimaculatus; (B) Melissodes (Melissodes) tepaneca; (C) Melissodes (Melissodes) communis; (D) Apis mellifera; (E) Ptilothrix bombiformis; (F) Florilegus condignus; (G) Xylocopa (Schonnherria) micans (female); (H) Xylocopa (Schonnherria) micans (male); (I) Xylocopa (Notoxylocopa) tabaniformis parkinsonae.
Agronomy 10 00698 g002
Agronomy 10 00698 g003 550
Figure 3. Some of the members of the family Halictidae observed in cotton fields: (A) Nomia (Acunomia) nortoni; (B) Lasioglossum (Dialictus) spp.; (C) Halictus (Odontalictus) ligatus; (D) Halictus (Nealictus) parallelus; (E) Augochloropsis metallica; (F) Augochlorella aurata; (G) Agapostemon virescens; (H) Agapostemon splendens; (I) Augochlora pura pura.
Figure 3. Some of the members of the family Halictidae observed in cotton fields: (A) Nomia (Acunomia) nortoni; (B) Lasioglossum (Dialictus) spp.; (C) Halictus (Odontalictus) ligatus; (D) Halictus (Nealictus) parallelus; (E) Augochloropsis metallica; (F) Augochlorella aurata; (G) Agapostemon virescens; (H) Agapostemon splendens; (I) Augochlora pura pura.
Agronomy 10 00698 g003
Agronomy 10 00698 g004 550
Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) of Bray–Curtis similarity data performed on total abundance by genera. Individual points are a representation of a collection location in a given year.
Figure 4. Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) of Bray–Curtis similarity data performed on total abundance by genera. Individual points are a representation of a collection location in a given year.
Agronomy 10 00698 g004
Table
Table 1. Native bees (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) collected in cotton fields in several locations in both Mississippi and Texas. Sampling efforts and times varied among years and locations.
Table 1. Native bees (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) collected in cotton fields in several locations in both Mississippi and Texas. Sampling efforts and times varied among years and locations.
Species of Bees Collected by FamilyAbundance
in MS		% of Pop in MSAbundance in TX% of Pop in TXOligolectic
COLLETIDAE
Hylaeinae
Hylaeus (Prosopis) nelumbonis (Robertson)1<1-0No [30]
HALICTIDAE
Augochlorini
Augochlora aurifera Cockerell-01<1No [30]
Augochlora pura pura (Say)191.6-0No [30]
Augochlorella aurata (Smith)11<19<1No [30]
Augochloropsis metallica (F.)161.3-0No [30]
Halictini
Agapostemon melliventris Cresson-036<1No [52]
Agapostemon sericeus (Forster)4<1-0No [30]
Agapostemon splendens (Lepeletier)-017<1No [30]
Agapostemon texanus Cresson2<139<1No [30]
Agapostemon virescens (F.)262.2-0No [30]
Halictus (Nealictus) parallelus (Say)8<1-0No [30]
Halictus (Odontalictus) ligatus Say231.97<1No [30]
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) nr. coactum (Cresson)-018<1Unknown
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) connexum (Cresson)-024<1Unknown
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) disparile (Cresson)-035<1No [43]
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) hartii (Robertson)3<1-0No [43]
Lasioglossum (Dialictus) spp.*494.188316.8-
Lasioglossum (Evyleaus) nelumbonis (Robertson)2<1-0Nymphaeaceae [42]
Nomiini
Nomia (Acunomia) nortoni Cresson1<16<1No [30]
MEGACHILIDAE
Megachilini
Coelioxys (Boreocoelioxys) sayi Robertson1<1-0No [31]
Megachile (Leptorachis) petulans Cresson4<1-0No [31]
Megachile (Litomegachile) brevis Say1<126<1No [31]
Megachile (Litomegachile) lippiae Cockerell-027<1No [44]
Megachile (Litomegachile) gentilis Cresson-026<1No [53]
Megachile (Litomegachile) mendica Cresson1<1-0No [31]
Megachile (Sayapis) policaris Say-01322.5No [31]
APIDAE
Anthophorini
Anthophora californica Cresson-01<1No [54]
Apini
Apis mellifera L.11<147<1No [31]
Bombini
Bombus pensylvanicus (DeGeer)1<1-0No [31]
Ceratini
Ceratina (Zadontomerus) dupla Say1<1-0No [31]
Ceratina (Zadontomerus) sp. -021<1-
Emphorini
Diadasia rinconis Cockerell-014<1Opuntia spp. [55]
Melitoma taurea (Say)2<1-0Ipomoea spp.
Calystigia spp. [56]
Melitoma sp. -01<1-
Ptilothrix bombiformis (Cresson)332.8-0Hibiscus spp.
[56,57]
Eucerini
Florilegus condignus (Cresson)8<112<1Pondenteria spp. [56]
Melissodes (Eumelissodes) boltoniae Robertson1<1-0Asteraceae [56]
Melissodes (Eumelissodes) trinodis Robertson2<1-0Asteraceae [56]
Melissodes (Melissodes) bimaculatus (Lepeletier)12910.8-0No [31]
Melissodes (Melissodes) communis Cresson2<119<1No [31]
Melissodes (Melissodes) comptoides Robertson242-0No [31]
Melissodes (Melissodes) tepaneca Cresson80366.9398776No [31]
Svastra (Epimelissodes) obliqua (Say)4<127<1Asteraceae [56]
Svastra (Epimelissodes) petulca (Cresson)-014<1Asteraceae [56]
Xenoglossa strenua (Cresson)5<1-0Cucurbita spp. [56,58]
Xylocopini
Xylocopa (Notoxylocopa) tabaniformis Smith-02<1No [47]
Xylocopa (Schonnherria) micans Lepeletier1<1-0No [31]
Xylocopa (Xylocopoides) virginica (L.)1<1-0No [31]
* Lasioglossum (Dialictus) spp. includes multiple species at both locations (18 spp. in Texas and an unknown number in Mississippi) that often cannot be reliably identified using available keys.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Parys, K.A.; Esquivel, I.L.; Wright, K.W.; Griswold, T.; Brewer, M.J. Native Pollinators (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) in Cotton Grown in the Gulf South, United States. Agronomy 2020, 10, 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050698

AMA Style

Parys KA, Esquivel IL, Wright KW, Griswold T, Brewer MJ. Native Pollinators (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) in Cotton Grown in the Gulf South, United States. Agronomy. 2020; 10(5):698. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050698

Chicago/Turabian Style

Parys, Katherine A., Isaac L. Esquivel, Karen W. Wright, Terry Griswold, and Michael J. Brewer. 2020. "Native Pollinators (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) in Cotton Grown in the Gulf South, United States" Agronomy 10, no. 5: 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050698

APA Style

Parys, K. A., Esquivel, I. L., Wright, K. W., Griswold, T., & Brewer, M. J. (2020). Native Pollinators (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) in Cotton Grown in the Gulf South, United States. Agronomy, 10(5), 698. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10050698

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop