Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
227
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
227 results for “wild bees”
Figure 2 in Contributions to the wild bee fauna in Argentina (Hymenoptera: Anthophila)
Figure 2. (A, B) Trichocerapis mirabilis (Smith) female. (C, D) Hylaeus bertonii (Schrottky) female. (E, F) Hy. paradoxus (Schrottky) female. (G, H) Hy. polybiaeformis (Schrottky) female. A, G = head in frontal view. B, D, F, H = lateral view. C, E = mesoscutum in dorsal view. Scale bars: 1 mm.
Reconciling community-level responses of wild bees to highly anthropized landscapes
<p>Data and source code for the analyses described in the manuscript.</p>
Low toxicity crop fungicide (Fenbuconazole) impacts reproductive male quality signals leading to a reduction of mating success in a wild solitary bee
<p>Recent reports on bee health suggest that sub-lethal doses of pesticides have negative effects on wild bee reproduction and ultimately on their population growth.</p> <p>Females of the solitary horned mason bee, Osmia cornuta, evaluate thoracic vibrations and odours of males to assess male quality. When certain criteria are met, the female accepts the male and copulates. However, these signals were found to be modified by sub-lethal doses of pesticides in other hymenopterans. Here, we tested whether sub-lethal doses of a commonly used fungicide (Fenbuconazole) impact male quality signals and mating success in O. cornuta.</p> <p>Males exposed to Fenbuconazole exhibited reduced thoracic vibrations and an altered cuticular hydrocarbon profile compared to the control bees. Moreover, males exposed to the fungicide were less successful in mating than control males.</p> <p>Synthesis and applications: Our results indicate that a low toxicity fungicide can negatively affect male reproductive success by altering behavioural and chemical cues. This could explain the decreasing pollinator populations in a pesticide-polluted environment. This study highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach, including behaviour and chemical cues, when testing new pesticides and a more cautionary approach to the pesticides already used on crops.</p>
Flower plantings support wild bee reproduction and may also mitigate pesticide exposure effects
<p>1. Sustainable agriculture relies on pollinators, and wild bees benefit yield of multiple crops. However, the combined exposure to pesticides and loss of flower resources, driven by agricultural intensification, contribute to declining diversity and abundance of many bee taxa. Flower plantings along the margins of agricultural fields offer diverse food resources not directly treated with pesticides.</p> <p>2. To investigate the potential of flower plantings to mitigate bee pesticide exposure effects and support bee reproduction, we selected replicated sites in intensively farmed landscapes where half contained flower plantings. We assessed solitary bee <em>Osmia lignaria</em> and bumble bee <em>Bombus vosnesenskii</em> nesting and reproduction throughout the season in these landscapes. We also quantified local and landscape flower resources and used bee-collected pollen to determine forage resource use and pesticide exposure and risk.</p> <p>3. Flower plantings, and their local flower resources, increased <em>O. lignaria</em> nesting probability. <em>Bombus vosnesenskii</em> reproduction was more strongly related to landscape than local flower resources.</p> <p>4. Bees at sites with and without flower plantings experienced similar pesticide risk, and the local flowers, alongside flowers in the landscape, were sources of pesticide exposure particularly for <em>O. lignaria</em>. However, local flower resources mitigated negative pesticide effects on <em>B. vosnesenskii</em> reproduction.</p> <p>5. <em>Synthesis and applications</em>. Bees in agricultural landscapes are threatened by pesticide exposure and loss of flower resources through agricultural intensification. Therefore, finding solutions to mitigate negative effects of pesticide use and flower deficiency is urgent. Our findings point towards flower plantings as a potential solution to support bee populations by mitigating pesticide exposure effects and providing key forage. Further investigation of the balance between forage benefits and added pesticide risk is needed to reveal contexts where net benefits occur.</p>
Data from: Wild bee abundance declines with urban warming, regardless of floral density
<p>As cities expand, conservation of beneficial insects is essential to maintaining robust urban ecosystem services such as pollination. Urban warming alters insect physiology, fitness, and abundance, but the effect of urban warming on pollinator communities has not been investigated. We sampled bees at 18 sites encompassing an urban warming mosaic within Raleigh, NC, USA. We quantified habitat variables at all sites by measuring air temperature, percent impervious surface (on local and landscape scales), floral density, and floral diversity. We tested the hypothesis that urban bee community structure depends on temperature. We also conducted model selection to determine whether temperature was among the most important predictors of urban bee community structure. Finally, we asked whether bee responses to temperature or impervious surface depended on bee functional traits. Bee abundance declined by about 41% per °C urban warming, and temperature was among the best predictors of bee abundance and community composition. Local impervious surface and floral density were also important predictors of bee abundance, although only large bees appeared to benefit from high floral density. Bee species richness increased with floral density regardless of bee size, and bee responses to urban habitat variables were independent of other life-history traits. Although we document benefits of high floral density, simply adding flowers to otherwise hot, impervious sites is unlikely to restore the entire urban pollinator community since floral resources benefit large bees more than small bees.</p>
Six years of wild bee monitoring collections data using Blue Vane traps in Southern Pennsylvania, USA
<p><span><span>Turley NE, Biddinger DJ, Joshi NK, López-Uribe MM. 2022. Six years of wild bee monitoring shows changes in biodiversity within and across years and declines in abundance. Ecology and Evolution. </span></span></p> <p><span>Wild bees form diverse communities that pollinate plants in both native and agricultural ecosystems making them both ecologically and economically important. The growing evidence of bee declines has sparked increased interest in monitoring bee community and population dynamics using standardized methods. Here, we studied the dynamics of bee biodiversity within and across years by monitoring wild bees adjacent to four apple orchard locations in Southern Pennsylvania, USA. We collected bees using passive Blue Vane traps continuously from April to October for six years (2014-2019) amassing over 26,000 bees representing 144 species. We quantified total abundance, richness, diversity, composition, and phylogenetic structure. There were large seasonal changes in all measures of biodiversity with month explaining an average of 72% of the variation in our models. Changes over time were less dramatic with years explaining an average of 44% of the variation in biodiversity metrics. We found declines in all measures of biodiversity especially in the last 3 years, though additional years of sampling are needed to say if changes over time are part of a larger trend. Analyses of population dynamics</span> <span>over time for the 40 most abundant species indicate that about one third of species showed at least some evidence for declines in abundance. Bee family explained variation in species-level seasonal patterns but we found no consistent family-level patterns in declines, though bumble bees and sweat bees were groups that declined the most. Overall, our results show that season-wide standardized sampling across multiple years can reveal nuanced patterns in bee biodiversity, phenological patterns of bees, and population trends over time of many co-occurring species. These datasets could be used to quantify the relative effects that different aspects of environmental change have on bee communities and to help identify species of conservation concern</span><span>. </span></p>
Different types of semi-natural habitat are required to sustain diverse wild bee communities across agricultural landscapes
<p><span>1. Semi-natural habitats provide important resources for wild bees in agricultural landscapes. Landscapes under management are dynamic and floral resources fluctuate in space and time. Thus, promoting different semi-natural habitat types within landscapes could be key to support diverse bee meta-communities throughout the season.</span></p> <p><span>2. Here, we integrate analyses of </span><span>a</span><span>-diversity (species richness) and </span><span>b</span><span>-diversity and species-habitat networks to examine the relative contribution of all major semi-natural habitats to wild bee meta-communities in agricultural landscapes. We sampled extensively and conventionally managed meadows, flower strips, hedgerows and forest edges in spring, early and late summer in 25 landscapes in Switzerland. </span></p> <p><span>3. Habitat types varied in their importance for wild bees throughout the season: While extensively managed meadows supported more rare species, habitat specialists and bee species overall than the other habitat types, flower strips were most important later in the season. Each of the five investigated habitat types harboured relatively unique sets of species with different habitats generally acting as distinct modules in the overall bee-habitat network. </span></p> <p><span>4. Not only flower richness in a habitat per se, but also flower-habitat network properties (habitat strength and functional complementarity) were good predictors of wild bee richness. In addition to local floral richness, landscape composition and configuration interactively influenced </span><span>b</span><span>-diversity patterns across habitats.</span></p> <p><span>5. Synthesis and applications</span><span>. Our study highlights the value of pollinator-habitat network analysis to inform pollinator conservation management at the landscape scale, especially when combined with information on floral resources and flower-habitat networks. Maintaining different types of semi-natural habitats offers diverse and complementary resources throughout the season, which are crucial to sustain diverse wild bee meta-communities in agricultural landscapes. Particularly meadow extensification schemes can play a key role in safeguarding rare and specialist species in these landscapes. While locally a high flower richness promoted bee abundance and richness in general, our results indicate that increasing connectivity between habitat patches in landscapes dominated by arable crops appears to improve species exchange between local bee communities of different habitats, thereby possibly increasing their resilience to disturbances.</span></p>
Data for: Wild bee communities benefit from temporal complementarity of hedges and flower strips in apple orchards
<p><span>1. </span>Wild bees importantly pollinate both crop and wild plants. Yet, in <span>intensive agricultural landscapes, wild bees are rare due to resource limitations of nectar and pollen. Flower strips and hedges are often used as resource enhancements for wild bees to overcome this shortage, but provide floral resources only during specific time periods. To sustain diverse and stable bee communities, bee-attractive flowers need to be available during the entire growing season. This may be achieved by combining flower strips and hedges to complement each other and provide continuous floral resources. </span></p> <p><span>2. </span><span>Over three subsequent years, we compared the phenology of flower and wild bee communities in perennial flower strips, hedges and improved hedges (complemented with a sown herb layer) in conventional apple orchards in Southern Germany, a pollination-dependent crop-system. </span></p> <p><span>3. </span><span>Hedges provided floral resources in the early season while the flower strips took over later in the season. </span></p> <p><span>4. </span><span>Bees visited the hedges mostly from March to June, whereas they visited the flower strips from June to August (first year), and in the second year already from April onwards. Flower strips were visited with an overall higher abundance and species richness than the improved and not modified hedges. </span></p> <p><span>5. </span><span>Synthesis and application</span><span>: For enhancing wild bees in intensive apple orchards, hedges and perennial flower strips are complementary in providing flower resources. Yet, flower strips bloom more constantly and during periods of flower scarcity, and thus attract more bees than hedges. Perennial flower strips of different age classes should be preferred over annual strips, at best in a network with some well-maintained hedges, as perennial flower strips of different age attract different bee communities and thus potentially a higher bee diversity on the landscape level. </span></p>
Fig. 4 in Wild bees (Anthophila) of Porto Santo (Madeira Archipelago) and their habitats: species diversity, distribution patterns and bee-plant network *
Fig. 4: Bipartite graph of the bee-plant network of Porto Santo.
Data for: Honey bees (Apis mellifera) modify plant-pollinator network structure, but do not alter wild species' interactions
<p>Honey bees (<em>Apis mellifera</em>) are widely used for honey production and crop pollination, raising concern for wild pollinators, as honey bees may compete with wild pollinators for floral resources. The first sign of competition, before changes appear in wild pollinator abundance or diversity, may be changes to wild pollinator interactions with plants. Such changes for a community can be measured by looking at changes to metrics of resource use overlap in plant-pollinator interaction networks. Studies of honey bee effects on plant-pollinator networks have usually not distinguished whether honey bees alter wild pollinator interactions, or if they merely alter total network structure by adding their own interactions. To test this question, we experimentally introduced honey bees to a Canadian grassland and measured plant-pollinator interactions at varying distances from the introduced hives. We found that honey bees increased the network metrics of pollinator and plant functional complementarity and decreased interaction evenness. However, in networks constructed from just wild pollinator interactions, honey bee abundance did not affect any of the metrics calculated. Thus, all network structural changes to the full network (including honey bee interactions) were due only to honey bee-plant interactions, and not to honey bees causing changes in wild pollinator-plant interactions. Given widespread and increasing use of honey bees, it is important to establish whether they affect wild pollinator communities. Our results suggest that honey bees did not alter wild pollinator foraging patterns in this system, even in a year that was drier than the 20-year average.</p>
Data from: The contributions of flower strips to wild bee conservation in agricultural landscapes can be predicted using pollinator habitat suitability models
<p>Sowing flower strips along field edges is a widely adopted method for conserving pollinating insects in agricultural landscapes. To maximize the effect of flower strips given limited resources, we need spatially explicit tools that can prioritize their placement, and for identifying plant species to include in seed mixtures.</p> <p>We sampled bees and plant species as well as their interactions in a semi-controlled field experiment with roadside/field edge pairs with/without a sown flower strip at 31 sites in Norway and used a regional spatial model of solitary bee species richness to test if the effect of flower strips on bee species richness was predictable from the modelled solitary bee species richness.</p> <p>We found that sites with flower strips were more bee species rich compared to sites without flower strips and that this effect was greatest in areas that the regional solitary bee species richness model had identified to be particularly important for bees. Spatial models revealed that even within small landscapes there were pronounced differences between field edges in the predicted effect of sowing flower strips.</p> <p>Of the plant species that attracted the most bee species, the majority mainly attracted bumblebees and only few species also attracted solitary bees. Considering both the taxonomic diversity of bees and the species richness of bees attracted by plants we suggest that seed mixes containing <em>Hieracium </em>spp. such as <em>Hieracium umbellatum </em>and <em>Pilosella officinarum</em>; <em>Taraxacum</em> spp; <em>Trifolium repens</em>;<em> Lotus corniculatus</em>; S<em>tellaria graminea</em>; and <em>Achillea millefolium</em> would provide resources for diverse bee communities in our region.</p> <p>Spatial prediction models of bee diversity can be used to identify locations where flower strips are likely to have the largest effect and can thereby provide managers with an important tool for prioritizing how funding for agri-environmental schemes such as flower strips should be allocated. Such flower strips should contain plant species that are attractive to both solitary and bumblebees, and do not need to be particularly plant species rich as long as the selected plants complement each other.</p>
Grassland extensification enhances nest densities of ground-nesting wild bees
<ol> <li>Ground-nesting wild bees provide essential pollination services in agroecosystems, but they are jeopardized by intensive agricultural management. To mitigate such negative impacts, agri-environment schemes have been implemented. While the success of enhancing floral food resources is relatively well studied, the role of agri-environmental schemes in providing suitable nesting habitat remains underexplored.</li> <li>We studied the effectiveness of meadow extensification according to the Swiss agri-environment scheme in promoting nesting of ground-nesting bees. Using a paired design, we quantified their nests during four rounds (March-June) in pairs of nine randomly selected extensively (i.e. no fertilizer input, postponed first mowing) and nine intensively managed meadows with similar soil properties, slope, exposure and landscape context. Nest numbers and vegetation characteristics were surveyed in areas of 250 m<sup>2</sup>. Vegetation properties were also assessed in 0.5 m × 0.5 m plots around nest locations and randomly selected locations without nests within each meadow to assess their role as drivers of nesting incidence (nest presence/absence) at this plot scale.</li> <li>We found substantially higher nest numbers of ground-nesting bees in extensively (mean ± SE per sampling round = 46.8 ± 14.2) compared to intensively managed meadows (0.8 ± 0.3; no nests in three out of nine intensively managed meadows). Extensively managed meadows harboured nests of several dominant crop pollinator species, including aggregations of e.g. <em>Lasioglossum malachurum</em> contributing to high nest densities in some of them. Number of nests was negatively related to grass cover and vegetation height, which were lower in extensively compared to intensively managed meadows. Plot-level nesting incidence increased with bare ground and moss cover, and decreased with grass cover.</li> <li> <em>Synthesis and applications.</em> Our study shows that extensively managed meadows are better nesting habitats for ground-nesting bees than intensively managed meadows, if reduced management intensity is associated with altered vegetation characteristics such as reduced grass cover and vegetation height, and small-scale availability of bare ground, driving these effects. This highlights that maintaining and promoting extensive management of meadows can promote ground-nesting wild bees, including dominant crop pollinators, not only by enhancing floral resources but also by improving nesting opportunities in agroecosystems.</li> </ol>
Data and code from: Environmental drivers of wild bee reproductive performance across a South American dryland ecoregion
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Honey bees (Apis mellifera) modify plant-pollinator network structure, but do not alter wild species’ interactions
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Flower plantings support wild bee reproduction and may also mitigate pesticide exposure effects
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: The contributions of flower strips to wild bee conservation in agricultural landscapes can be predicted using pollinator habitat suitability models
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data and code from: Life-history traits predict ability of British wild bees to fill their climate envelopes
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Macronutrient composition in pollen affects development and survival in wild bees
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data and analyses for: Localised patterns of wild bee abundance indicate woodlands play multiple roles in supporting farmland populations
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Wild bumble bee colony abundance, scaled by field size, predicts pollination services
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.