Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 29;19(5):e0302688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302688

Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus

Bas A Michels 1, Mariska M Beekman 1, Jeremy Field 2, Jodie Gruber 2, Bart A Pannebakker 1, Charlotte Savill 3, Rebecca A Boulton 1,4,*
Editor: Bilal Rasool5
PMCID: PMC11135698  PMID: 38809856

Abstract

The sweat bee Halictus rubicundus is an important pollinator with a large latitudinal range and many potential barriers to gene flow. Alongside typical physical barriers, including mountain ranges and oceans, the climate may also impose restrictions on gene flow in this species. The climate influences voltinism and sociality in H. rubicundus, which is bivoltine and can nest socially at warmer lower latitudes but tends to be univoltine and solitary in the cooler north. Variation in voltinism could result in phenological differences, potentially limiting gene flow, but a previous study found no evidence for this in H. rubicundus populations in mainland Britain. Here we extend the previous study to consider populations of H. rubicundus at extreme northern and southern latitudes in the UK. We found that bees from a population in the far north of Scotland were genetically differentiated from bees collected in Cornwall in the south-west of England. In contrast, bees collected across the Irish Sea in Northern Ireland showed slight genetic overlap with both the Scottish and Cornish bees. Our results suggest that when populations at extreme latitudes are considered, phenology and the climate may act alongside physical barriers such as the Scottish Highlands and the Irish Sea to restrict gene flow in H. rubicundus. We discuss the implications of our results for local adaptation in the face of rapidly changing selection pressures which are likely under climate change.

Introduction

The sweat bee Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) has a broad geographic range, is abundant in many regions and can be found nesting in large aggregations, often of consisting of several hundred bees. This Holarctic ground-nesting bee has been well studied throughout mainland Europe, the UK and North America. Halictus rubicundus forages on a wide range of plant species (it is polylectic) and so it is likely a key pollinator for many native plant species, particularly at high latitudes where pollinator diversity is lower [1,2]. Voltinism and social structure have been well-studied in H. rubicundus and have been shown to vary across latitudes and altitudes [3–5]). Variation in social structure in H. rubicundus is thought to be related to the climate, as cooler temperatures and a shorter growing season restrict the number of foraging days. This limits bees in colder climates to univoltinism which precludes sociality (Fig 1; see also [3]. In the south of its geographical range, bivoltinism and a second, social, ‘worker’ generation are typical while in the north (and at higher altitudes), H. rubicundus populations tend to be univoltine with one solitary generation per year [4–6]. This is the pattern we see in North America and the UK; populations are solitary in cooler climates and social where it is warmer [4–7]. Additionally in the UK, sociality has been shown to be plastic; when solitary northern bees are transplanted to the south, they express bivoltinism and sociality [4,6,7].

Fig 1. Life cycle of Halictus rubicundus.

Fig 1

In solitary populations, the foundress rears one brood of both sexes (B1), which subsequently mate. After mating, the B1 males die and the B1 females hibernate underground and become foundresses the next year. In social populations, the foundress also rears a mixed B1 brood. Of this B1 brood, some females become foundresses themselves and rear a brood of their own in the same year, while others go into hibernation until the following year (not shown in figure). The other females of the B1 brood become workers; assisting the original foundress in provisioning and raising a second brood (B2) of both sexes (figure adapted from [10]).

Research on bees and other insects suggests that regular spells of very hot weather caused by anthropogenic climate change are contributing to declines in species diversity and abundance worldwide [8,9]. However, Schürch et al. [10] suggested that warming temperatures due to climate change may actually benefit H. rubicundus numbers in the UK in the short term. By combining foraging data with climate forecasts, they hypothesised that northern populations would transition to social nesting under most climate change scenarios, increasing the numbers of provisioning bees in the summer which may actually alleviate the pollinator crisis [11]. Whether or not this benefit of climate change will be realised will depend on a number of factors. For instance, local adaptation to the climate, synchronicity with regional food plant phenology and barriers to gene flow can all influence the evolutionary trajectory and persistence of Halictus rubicundus under a changing climate.

Gene flow between populations with different phenologies and social structures is particularly salient with respect to climate change. Variation in social organisation has been proposed to restrict gene flow in H. rubicundus, perhaps due to non-matching phenologies of social versus solitary populations [5]. This scenario may arise if, under solitary nesting, the first generation of reproductives (B1) does not emerge at the same time as the reproductive generation (B2) produced by social nests (Fig 1). This might limit mating opportunities between social and solitary populations, particularly if males are short-lived (but see [12]). When this results in reduced or no exchange of genetic material between the two phenotypes, a long-term phenological barrier to mating may arise, resulting in larger genetic differences between populations over time. Soucy and Danforth [5] found evidence for this in North American populations of H. rubicundus, but in the UK there appears to be substantial gene flow between solitary and social populations in the north and south respectively [4]. Indeed, Soro et al. [4] found evidence that only the Irish Sea poses a barrier to gene flow in British H. rubicundus. However, as yet, no studies have sampled populations from the full latitudinal range of H. rubicundus in the UK or Europe which limits our ability to predict how climate change will impact this species and the ecosystems that may depend on it.

In this study, we investigate whether the previous findings, the Irish Sea as the only barrier to gene flow, extend to populations at the latitudinal extremes of the range of H. rubicundus in the UK, or whether other barriers might also limit gene flow in this species. For instance, the Scottish Highlands are another potential geographic barrier which could limit geneflow, but non-physical barriers could also play a role. Males and females from populations with different social phenotypes may be less likely to encounter each other and mate, for example. Local adaptation to different microclimates and food plants/phenologies could also reduce the fitness of hybrids, limiting effective gene flow between populations that have experienced different selective environments. We sampled bees from three previously unstudied populations of H. rubicundus, one in the far north (Scotland, N 57˚) and two in the south-west (Cornwall, England, N 50˚) of its range. Using twelve microsatellite markers, we assessed patterns of genetic variation within and between these three populations and compared this to genetic variation observed in the Belfast population previously studied by Soro et al. [4]. These results help improve our understanding of barriers to gene flow in H. rubicundus and other socially polymorphic species and can help us better predict the effects of climate change on genetic diversity and population persistence in important pollinators such as H. rubicundus.

Materials and methods

Sample collection

We sampled Halictus rubicundus females (N = 142) from four aggregations across the UK (see Fig 2). In Belfast (at the same site studied by Soro et al. 2010 [4]) we collected 39 females by excavating them during hibernation in February 2020. In Migdale (Scotland; N = 40) and Boscastle (N = 28) (Cornwall) foundresses were collected by hand netting in May and June 2018. In Bodmin (Cornwall, N = 35) bees were collected (again by hand-netting) in May and June 2019. All specimens were placed in 99% ethanol and stored at -20°C until DNA extractions were performed.

Fig 2. The sampling locations of the Halictus rubicundus aggregations used in this study.

Fig 2

This image was reproduced from [7] under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY).

DNA extractions

DNA was extracted from all ethanol-stored individuals using a hot-shot extraction method [13]. A hind leg was removed from each individual and left to dry on absorbent paper, after which it was cut into small pieces using dissecting scissors and placed into a single well of a 96-well plate. Fifty μL alkaline lysis buffer was added to each sample which were subsequently covered and placed in a PCR machine at 95°C for 45 minutes after which a neutralizing reagent (40mM Tric-HCl in water at pH 5) was added. The plate was stored at -20°C until the extractions were used in multiplex PCR reactions detailed below.

Microsatellite amplification

We used 13 microsatellite markers that were previously designed for H. rubicundus by Soro and Paxton [14] to assess genetic variation within and between the four sampled populations. Of these 13, only 12 amplified successfully for all samples (rub61 did not, see S1 Table). We genotyped each individual at the 12 remaining loci. We ran three multiplex reactions using fluorescently labelled primers (see S1 Table and Soro and Paxton 2009 for details; set 1: rub02, rub30, rub35, rub37b, rub59; set 2: rub04, rub06, rub55, rub60; set 3: rub73, rub80, rub72). PCR reactions were carried out in 5 μL reactions and contained: 1 μL DNA template, 4 μL PCR mastermix (made up of 0.75 μl at a concentration of 0.2 μM of each primer, 80 μL ultrapure water, and 250 μL QIAGEN Multiplex PCR mix; QIAGEN Inc. Cat. No. 20614). PCR conditions were as follows: initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 30 s, 60°C for 90 s, 72°C for 90 s, and final extension at 68°C for 30 min. PCR amplification was performed using a DNA Engine Tetrad ® Thermal Cycler (MJ Research, Bio-Rad, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, UK). Fragment separation was performed on an ABI 3730 48-well capillary DNA Analyser using the LIZ size standard (Applied Biosystems Inc, Waltham, USA. Cat. No. 4322682). Allele sizes were scored by a single scorer (BM) using Geneious v9.1.5 (Biomatters Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand). Peaks were screened for quality, based on the recommendations of [15]. Any peaks that did not meet quality standards were excluded from analysis of that individual, and if one individual had multiple exclusions, it was excluded entirely.

We excluded scores from one locus (rub04) from the analysis due to a high frequency of null alleles (~20% in all populations; results based on analysis using FreeNA; Chapuis and Estoup 2007) and significant deviation from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) for this locus across all populations. Population genetic analyses were performed using GenAlEx 6.5 [16,17]. We tested whether all markers conformed to HWE and calculated population descriptive statistics including observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He), FST and Nei’s genetic distance. GenAlEx was also used to conduct a principal component analysis (PCoA) on the genetic distances to visualise genetic differentiation within and between populations. The total number of alleles (Na) and private alleles (Np; alleles unique to each population) per marker per population (rarefied to a common sample size of 28) were calculated in ADZE [18] for Np, and with R v. 4.2.1 [19] in RStudio v. 2022.07.1 [20] using the package pegas v. 1.1 [21] for Na.

Ethical approvement statement

This research project complies with ethical legislation laid out by the EU, the UK (Animals Scientific Procedures Act 1986) and the University of Exeter and WUR. No human subjects, animals covered by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act or genetically modified organisms were involved in this research. This work adhered to the ethical guidelines set out by ASAB and the 3Rs to ensure that results are reliable and replicable.

Results

The mean expected heterozygosity (He) across all four populations was 0.79 and the observed heterozygosity (Ho) was 0.74. There were slight differences in observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosity across populations (Table 1). For all populations, Ho was lower than He and this was particularly pronounced in Bodmin.

Table 1. Observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosity ± standard error across four aggregations of H. rubicundus in the UK.

Ho ± SE He ± SE
Bodmin 0.63 ± 0.03 0.81 ± 0.02
Boscastle 0.81 ± 0.04 0.83 ± 0.02
Migdale 0.73 ± 0.04 0.75 ± 0.03
Belfast 0.78 ± 0.04 0.80 ± 0.04

The average number of alleles across all loci was 10.9. Boscastle had the highest number of alleles across all loci (Na = 12.27, Table 2) and Migdale had the lowest (Na = 8.52). The population with the most private alleles (Np) was Belfast (Np = 2.74). Migdale had the fewest private alleles (Np = 1.08). The marker with the lowest number of alleles was rub37b (Na = 5), rub30 had the most alleles across all populations (Na = 39) and the most private alleles within each population (Np = 3.6 on average).

Table 2. Population genetic statistics for Halictus rubicundus from four populations across the UK.

Population average rub37b rub02 rub59 rub30 rub35 rub60 rub06 rub55 rub72 rub80 rub73
Number of alleles (Na) Bodmin 11.34 5.00 7.76 17.79 15.64 18.32 11.47 7.56 7.75 12.78 11.32 9.39
Boscastle 12.27 5.00 10.00 14.00 18.00 19.00 13.00 8.00 7.00 14.00 16.00 11.00
Migdale 8.52 2.91 7.61 12.15 15.16 11.06 12.30 5.70 7.10 7.52 6.58 5.61
Belfast 11.50 4.85 7.96 12.81 24.02 17.93 5.34 10.54 9.74 14.81 9.92 8.56
Mean number of alleles per marker 4.44 8.33 14.19 18.20 16.58 10.53 7.95 7.90 12.28 10.96 8.64
Number of private alleles (Np) Bodmin 1.65 0.00 1.00 5.68 1.57 0.36 1.26 1.80 0.99 3.68 0.86 0.99
Boscastle 1.91 0.00 1.00 2.20 1.77 4.09 1.82 0.11 0.00 2.50 4.29 3.21
Migdale 1.08 0.00 1.00 0.70 3.30 0.28 2.13 0.70 2.70 0.00 0.99 0.13
Belfast 2.74 0.00 0.00 1.20 7.76 5.51 0.00 5.62 2.92 3.56 2.62 1.00
Mean number of private alleles per marker 0.00 0.75 2.44 3.60 2.56 1.30 2.06 1.65 2.43 2.19 1.33

Number of alleles (Na) per population and/or marker, along with the rarefied number of alleles (Np) per population and/or marker.

Significant deviation from HWE was observed at several loci (see Table 3). Marker rub73 deviated significantly from HWE in all populations. The Bodmin population showed significant deviation from HWE at 8/11 loci.

Table 3. Departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium across microsatellite markers in each of the four Halictus rubicundus population assayed.

Set 1 2 3
rub37b rub02 rub59 rub30 rub35 rub60 rub06 rub55 rub72 rub80 rub73
Bodmin ns *** ** *** * *** * ns ns *** *
Boscastle ns ns ns ns ns ns *** ns ns ns *
Migdale ns ns ns *** ns ns ns ns ns *** ***
Belfast ns ns ns * ns ns ns ns ns *** ***

P < 0.05 =

*, P < 0.01 =

**, P < 0.001 =

***, ns = not significant.

Pairwise FST values and Nei’s genetic distances showed the most genetic similarity between Bodmin and Boscastle (FST = 0.023; Nei’s = 0.241, Table 4). Migdale was the most genetically different from all other populations (Bodmin: FST = 0.061; Nei’s = 0.618. Boscastle: FST = 0.059; Nei’s = 0.625. Belfast: FST = 0.054; Nei’s = 0.491). Bees collected in the south of mainland Britain (Bodmin and Boscastle) were more genetically similar to bees across the Irish Sea (Belfast) than they were to bees collected in the North of mainland Britain in Migdale (Bodmin: FST = 0.046; Nei’s = 0.504. Boscastle: FST = 0.044; Nei’s = 0.503). Principal component analysis (PCoA) confirmed this visually (Fig 3). The first three principal components explain 7.64%, 5.74% and 4.61% of the variance observed. The Bodmin and Boscastle samples show considerable overlap. There is a slight overlap between Belfast and the other populations, but Migdale samples form a distinct cluster (Fig 3).

Table 4. The FST and Nei’s genetic distances between the Halictus rubicundus populations assayed.

Bod Bos Mig Bel
Bod 0.000 0.241 0.618 0.504
Bos 0.023 0.000 0.625 0.503
Mig 0.061 0.059 0.000 0.491
Bel 0.046 0.044 0.054 0.000

On the bottom left side (dark grey) Nei’s genetic distance is displayed, while on the top right (white) the FST values are shown.

Fig 3. Principal component analysis (PCoA) of multilocus genotypes from four populations of Halictus rubicundus from the UK.

Fig 3

Cornwall (south-west UK); Bodmin (Bod): Blue diamonds, Boscastle (Bos): Orange squares. Belfast (Northern Ireland; Bel): Yellow circles. Migdale (Scotland; Mig): Grey triangles.

Discussion

Barriers to gene flow in the ground-nesting sweat bee Halictus rubicundus have been suggested to be both geographic and temporal in nature [4,5]. Geographic barriers such as the Rocky Mountains and the Irish Sea appear to restrict gene flow across this species Holarctic range, but the existence of a temporal or phenological barrier to gene flow is more ambiguous. In North America, it appears that geographically close populations with different social structures are genetically isolated from one another [5]. This may be due to temporal differences in the emergence of reproductives which limit mating between social and solitary populations. In the UK, where the social organisation of H. rubicundus is plastic, no evidence for temporal barriers restricting gene flow have been found [4,6].

In this study, we extended the work of Soro et al. [4] to consider British populations of H. rubicundus at extreme latitudes. We found the greatest genetic difference between bees collected in mainland UK; between those collected in Migdale, in the far north of Scotland, and those from South-West England (Cornwall). In contrast, bees collected across the Irish Sea in Northern Ireland showed slight genetic overlap with both Scottish and Cornish bees.

While our results do not allow us to comment on the exact nature of the barriers to gene flow, they do suggest that other barriers exist. Moreover, one important barrier, the Irish Sea, highlighted by the study of Soro et al. [4], did not appear to restrict gene flow to as great an extent as any potential barriers between the north of Scotland and the south of the UK. Many barriers could be responsible for the genetic isolation of the Scottish population, including the Scottish Highlands, local adaptation (e.g. climate) or consistent differences in phenology (e.g., due to the climate or social organisation). Longitudinal studies which sample from more populations with known phenologies (and social phenotypes) are needed to elucidate the most likely mechanisms.

We found that many markers deviated from HWE, particularly for bees sampled in Bodmin. This brings the caveat that many of the results we present should be interpreted with a degree of caution. Future studies using whole genome sequencing and genotyping-by-sequencing will provide greater power to assess patterns of genetic variation within, and genetic differences between, populations. Sequencing the same individuals that we used here would also allow us to validate the results of this microsatellite-based study [22].

In addition to our findings regarding genetic differences between populations, we also found low observed compared to expected heterozygosity in all populations, particularly Bodmin, suggesting that founder effects may have reduced genetic variation. The founder effect is problematic for small populations where genetic drift and inbreeding lead to a random loss of alleles, and thus a decrease in heterozygosity. The Bodmin population showed the largest deficit in observed heterozygosity compared to expected heterozygosity and also showed deviation from HWE in 8/11 markers (for all other populations, this was only two or three out of 11). These results suggest that genetic variation has been reduced in Bodmin, but interestingly, not in the nearby population at Boscastle. Bodmin is at a higher altitude than Boscastle, the climate is cooler, wetter, and less sheltered, and food is scarcer. We have noticed that aggregations from Bodmin tend to be smaller and more transient than other populations we monitored every spring and summer between 2018 and 2021.

The founder effect and isolation may have resulted in low observed heterozygosity in Bodmin (which could also contribute to the deviations from HWE that we observed) and this may have led to inbreeding and reduced population fitness. For Hymenoptera, the most direct effect of inbreeding on population fitness arises through sex determination. Hymenoptera are haplodiploid; diploid females are produced from fertilised eggs and haploid males from unfertilised eggs. Under inbreeding diploid males are sometimes produced from fertilised eggs if the gamete is homozygous at the sex-determining loci. In many Hymenoptera there is only one sex-determining locus, this is known as single locus complementary sex determination (sl-CSD [23]) and so the likelihood of diploid male production is high when inbreeding is common. Diploid male production imposes a genetic load on the population because diploid males are effectively sterile, potentially resulting in a ‘diploid male vortex of extinction’ [24]. While the mechanism of sex determination in H. rubicundus is unknown, the presence of high levels of male diploidy in Halictus poeyi in Florida [25] suggests the diploid male vortex could be a problem for H. rubicundus as well. The costs of inbreeding may have acted alongside environmental stressors (such as poor weather and high levels of cuckoo parasitism) at Bodmin resulting in the reduced nesting activity that we observed between 2018 and 2020.

The Migdale population was the most stable in terms of numbers over the several years that we have been monitoring these aggregations with several thousand nests found on a 20 m-long stretch of bank. Our analyses show that despite its size, the Migdale population had the lowest number of alleles per marker on average; 8.5 compared to around 11–12 for the other three populations. The fact that Migdale also had the lowest He value reflects this low allelic diversity. Unlike the previous study by Soro et al. [4], who found that the Belfast population across the Irish Sea showed the most genetic differentiation from populations in mainland UK, we found that another mainland UK population (Migdale in Scotland) was the most genetically distinct (Bodmin and Boscastle; Migdale FST values around 0.06, Bodmin and Boscastle; Belfast FST values around 0.045). Belfast was more genetically different from Migdale than from the populations in the far south-west (Bodmin and Boscastle; Belfast around 0.045, Migdale; Belfast 0.054). Indeed, Migdale was the only population where pairwise FST exceeded 0.05 which is considered moderate genetic differentiation [26]. This pattern was also reflected in the values for Nei’s genetic distance between populations and the principal component analysis, which clearly shows the multilocus genotypes for Migdale form a distinct cluster.

Taken together, these results suggest that the Migdale population in Scotland is isolated, having split off from another population with little gene flow arising after the split, perhaps resulting in a founder effect. That the genetic difference between the Migdale population and the other populations in southern mainland Britain is greater than the difference between the Belfast population and the two southern populations, suggests that a barrier to gene flow other than the Irish Sea exists. This could be a physical barrier, like the Scottish Highlands, or it could be due to local adaptation or phenological differences. While the climate is rather different in Migdale compared with the other sites, which could lead to differences in phenology that act as a barrier to mating, our observations of multiple populations in the UK suggest that a phenological barrier is unlikely. Under social nesting, the second-generation (B2) males usually emerge in late July to early August. In Migdale where nesting is solitary, we have seen first generation (B1) males from late July until September. Moreover, a recent study by Gruber and Field [12] estimated the maximum survival for a male H. rubicundus to be 22 days. As such, it seems unlikely that a lack of emergence synchronicity could consistently preclude matings between males and females from populations with different social structures and phenologies. Another non-mutually exclusive possibility is that these bees are locally adapted to the climate in Migdale and outbreeding with non-locally adapted individuals may result in low fitness offspring which do not survive and reproduce, removing their alleles from the population. There is some evidence for local adaptation to the climate in H. rubicundus; bees from the Belfast and Migdale populations in the north have denser sense organs on their antennae that detect humidity, temperature and CO2 than bees from south-western populations in the UK [7]. In future, longitudinal studies using next-generation sequencing to assess allele frequencies across multiple populations of H. rubicundus would provide more power to assess the relative importance of local adaptation vs physical barriers as barriers to gene flow in this species. Such studies would also help to elucidate the sex-determining mechanism in this species and predict the risk of a diploid male extinction vortex.

Soro et al. [4] previously found no evidence of genetic differentiation of H. rubicundus populations across mainland UK, but this study found that when populations from the extreme north and south are considered, this no longer holds true. H. rubicundus collected in Northern Ireland and those collected in southern England were more genetically similar to each other than Scottish bees from Migdale. This suggests that the Irish Sea may not be the only barrier to gene flow. If these bees are locally adapted to the climate, the consequences of climate change for this species may not be as optimistic as predicted by Schürch et al. [8]. In populations with less genetic variation, such as Migdale and Bodmin, environmental stressors resulting from climate change could impose selection which further reduces genetic variation. This could be detrimental to population persistence unless it is countered by increased gene flow with other populations. If the barrier to gene flow between Migdale and other H. rubicundus populations is phenological or related to social structure (i.e., is not due to a physical barrier) this may break down under climate change, preserving the population, but our results suggest that this is unlikely. Alternatively, if gene flow is restricted by a physical barrier bees may be more at risk in the far north, where the ecosystem services provided by H. rubicundus are most important and pollinator diversity is declining most rapidly [2]. Studies that assess population genetics of H. rubicundus at smaller spatial scales within Scotland and the north of England would help to uncover the nature of any barriers to gene flow, providing more accurate assessments of isolation-by-distance so that we can better understand the issues that this important pollinator is likely to face in the present climate crisis. Including populations from the central belt of Scotland would be particularly worthwhile as this area was not included in this or the previous study by Soro et al [4].

The results of this study demonstrate the importance of sampling populations at the limits of a species range for comprehensively assessing patterns of geneflow. We show that the Irish sea is not the only barrier to gene flow in UK H. rubicundus populations. By including populations at extreme latitudes in our study, we show that phenology and the climate may act alongside physical barriers including the Irish Sea, and also the Scottish Highlands, to restrict gene flow in H. rubicundus.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Details of the primers used in each of the 3 sets.

(DOCX)

pone.0302688.s001.docx (16.1KB, docx)
S1 File. Raw data files and code to reproduce analyses can be found in the following data repository: https://osf.io/s8txc/?view_only=aebe7992b4cb4285a90a0e6eb2603685.

(DOCX)

pone.0302688.s002.docx (567.6KB, docx)
S2 File. Extended methods.

(DOCX)

pone.0302688.s003.docx (574.6KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Stephen Quinn (community park manager, Belfast city council), Ross Watson (Woodland trust, Migdale and Ledmore), Jeff Cherrington (lead ranger, Boscastle to Morwenstow, National Trust), John Keast (Bodmin commons council), Robert Clark (landowner at Bodmin), Martin Wright (common land and village greens registration officer, natural environment and open spaces service, Cornwall council), Lynne Jones (St. Neot Parish council) and South West Water for facilitating access to field sites.

Data Availability

Data and code are available at osf.io/s8txc.

Funding Statement

This work is part of a project that received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Horizon's 202 research and innovation programme (grantagreement no. 695744). RAB was funded by a Wageningen Graduate School Postdoctoral Talent fellowship and a BBSRC discovery fellowship.

References

  • 1.Potts S, Willmer P. Abiotic and biotic factors influencing nest‐site selection by Halictus rubicundus, a ground‐nesting halictine bee. Ecol Entomol. 1997;22: 319–328. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00071.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vasiliev D, Greenwood S. The role of climate change in pollinator decline across the Northern Hemisphere is underestimated. Sci. Total Environ. 2021;775: 145788. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145788 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hogendoorn K, Leys R. Life-cycle of Halictus rubicundus Christ (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in the Netherlands: comparison of two populations. J Kans Entomol Soc. 1997;70: 347–352. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Soro A, Field J, Bridje C, Cardinal SC, Paxton RJ. Genetic differentiation across the social transition in a socially polymorphic sweat bee, Halictus rubicundus. Mol Ecol. 2010;19: 3351–3363. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2010.04753.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Soucy SL, Danforth BN. Phylogeography of the socially polymorphic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Evolution. 2002;56: 330–341. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01343.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Field J, Paxton RJ, Soro A, Bridge C. Cryptic plasticity underlies a major evolutionary transition. Curr Biol. 2010;20: 2028–2031. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2010.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boulton RA, Field J. Sensory plasticity in a socially plastic bee. J Evol Biol. 2022/07/18. 2022;35: 1218–1228. doi: 10.1111/jeb.14065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Brown MJF, Paxton RJ. The conservation of bees: a global perspective. Apidologie. 2009;40: 410–416. doi: 10.1051/apido/2009019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Soroye P, Newbold T, Kerr J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science (1979). 2020;367: 685–688. doi: 10.1126/science.aax8591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schürch R, Accleton C, Field J. Consequences of a warming climate for social organisation in sweat bees. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2016/04/30. 2016;70: 1131–1139. doi: 10.1007/s00265-016-2118-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Martin C. A re-examination of the pollinator crisis. Curr Biol. 2015;25: R811–R815. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2015.09.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gruber J, Field J. Male survivorship and the evolution of eusociality in partially bivoltine sweat bees. PLoS One. 2022;17: e0276428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276428 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Truett GE, Heeger P, Mynatt RL, Truett AA, Walker JA, Warman ML. Preparation of PCR-Quality mouse genomic DNA with hot sodium hydroxide and tris (HotSHOT). BioTechniques. 2000;29: 52–54. doi: 10.2144/00291bm09 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Soro A, Paxton RJ. Characterization of 14 polymorphic microsatellite loci for the facultatively eusocial sweat bee Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera, Halictidae) and their variability in related species. Mol Ecol Resour. 2009;9: 150–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0998.2008.02416.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Luckau T. How I score frag data. [Internet]. OpenWetWare.org; 30 May 2013 [Cited 29 June 2022]. Available from: https://openwetware.org/wiki/Luckau_Protocols:Scoring.
  • 16.Peakall R, Smouse PE. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes. 2006;6: 288–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01155.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Peakall R, Smouse PE. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics. 2012;28: 2537–2539. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Szpiech ZA, Jakobsson M, Rosenberg NA. ADZE: a rarefaction approach for counting alleles private to combinations of populations. Bioinformatics. 2008/09/08. 2008;24: 2498–2504. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.RStudio Team (2020). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. Available from: http://www.rstudio.com/. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Paradis E. pegas: an R package for population genetics with an integrated–modular approach. Bioinformatics. 2010;26: 419–420. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Holliday J, Hallerman E, Haak D. Genotyping and sequencing technologies in population genetics and genomics. In: Rajora OP, editor. Population genomics. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. 83–125. doi: 10.1007/13836_2017_5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.van Wilgenburg E, Driessen G, Beukeboom LW. Single locus complementary sex determination in Hymenoptera: an “unintelligent” design? Front Zool. 2006;3: 1. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-3-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Zayed A, Packer L. Complementary sex determination substantially increases extinction proneness of haplodiploid populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 10742–10746. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0502271102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Zayed A, Packer L. High levels of diploid male production in a primitively eusocial bee (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Heredity. 2001;87: 631–636. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2540.2001.00952.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wright S. The interpretation of population structure by F-Statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution. 1965;19: 395–420. doi: 10.2307/2406450 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Bilal Rasool

7 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-27285Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boulton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The manuscript requires comprehensive revision for the improvement of the draft. Some suggested changes are in the comments portion of the reviewers to revise and improve the manuscript. Please find suggested corrections, reference writing, journal-style format, author’s instructions, use of abbreviations and missing information for revision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 22 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bilal Rasool, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.  Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

"This work is part of a project that received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Horizon's 202 research and innovation programme (grantagreement no. 695744). RAB was funded by a Wageningen Graduate School Postdoctoral Talent fellowship and a BBSRC discovery fellowship."

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"Many thanks to Stephen Quinn (community park manager, Belfast city council), Ross Watson (Woodland trust, Migdale and Ledmore), Jeff Cherrington (lead ranger, Boscastle to Morwenstow, National Trust), John Keast (Bodmin commons council), Robert Clark (landowner at Bodmin), Martin Wright (common land and village greens registration officer, natural environment and open spaces service, Cornwall council), Lynne Jones (St. Neot Parish council) and South West Water for facilitating access to field sites. This work is part of a project that received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Horizon's 2020 research and innovation programme (grantagreement no. 695744). RB was funded by a Wageningen Graduate School Postdoctoral Talent fellowship and a BBSRC discovery fellowship."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This work is part of a project that received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Horizon's 202 research and innovation programme (grantagreement no. 695744). RAB was funded by a Wageningen Graduate School Postdoctoral Talent fellowship and a BBSRC discovery fellowship."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

"Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

7. We note that you have referenced (Boulton, unpublished data) on page 13, which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style 

8. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

9. We note that [Figure 2] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

Additional Editor Comments: 

The manuscript requires comprehensive revision for the improvement of the draft. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper presents the results of a study aiming to understand whether differences in phenology due to

environmental conditions could limit gene flow in Halictus rubicundus bees. My impression is that the

data are interesting and, with a few adjustments, would make a nice paper in PLOS ONE. Follow my

comments:

1) In general, in the introduction, I think it misses a description of the types of barriers, in addition to

the distance between populations, that could influence bee gene flow. The authors cite the Irish Sea and

temperature differences, but between the south and north of the UK, there are possibly other barriers

that could be better described. My knowledge about UK geography is poor, just like many readers

abroad. So, the detail of this point is important to strengthen the work.

2) Lines 43–44: “Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) is a locally abundant species with a

broad geographic range”. Where are the bees locally abundant? In the north of the globe? In UK? I

understand your point, but starting the text with this information without giving a basis to understand it

doesn’t seem right.

3) Lines 205-207: “Migdale was the most genetically different from all other populations (Bodmin:

FST = 0.061; Nei’s = 0.618. Boscastle: FST = 0.059; Nei’s = 0.625. Belfast: FST = 0.054; Nei’s =

0.491)”. I suggest adding the values of Migdale at this point in the text to facilitate the comparison.

4) Lines 207-210: “Bees collected in the south of mainland Britain (Bodmin and Boscastle) were more

genetically similar to bees across the Irish Sea (Belfast) than they were to bees collected in the North of

mainland Britain in Migdale (Bodmin: FST = 0.046; Nei’s = 0.504. Boscastle: F ST = 0.044; Nei’s =

0.503).” Again, please add the values of all points cited in the text.

Reviewer #2: Article number PONE-D-23-27285 “Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus” carried results that need revision for the improvement of the draft. Moreover, the conclusion portion should be further developed based on the findings and future implications of the study. Some suggested changes are in the comments portion to revise and improve the manuscript. Please find suggested corrections, Reference writing, journal-style format, author’s instructions, use of abbreviations and missing information for revision.

Abstract: Abstract is lengthy, please be precise in the abstract writings.

Line 45: Please recheck the abbreviations H. rubicundus” and write complete scientific name at the start of the sentence.

Line 45-48: Please rephrase the sentence

Line 48: (the number of generations per year)” remove the sentence

Line 53-54: (a single generation per 54 year)” please remove the sentence.

Line 54: see also Hogendoorn and Leys 1997” please follow the author’s instructions and journal style format while writing the references” this may be recheck throughout the manuscript

Figure 1 may be placed as supplementary figure 1 (figure taken from Schürch et al. 2016) while mentioning the Figure S1 in the text.

Material and methods

The authors collected samples in 2019-2020 and conducted analysis? There is no data found regarding the background of the samples and even the generational data?

Line 160: HWE?

Line 249: to the” remove from the sentence

Please add a precise conclusion

Please write the references in the text and in the reference portion according to the author's instructions and Journal style/formatting. Please double-check for typos and inconsistencies in Journal style/formatting/ authors instructions, double spaces, spellings of the words, English vocabulary, missing italics, scientific names, missing information

Reviewer #3: This article presents a study on the genetic differentiation seen in different populations of Halictus rubicundus in the UK. The paper addresses an interesting topic and is well written; I don’t have comments about the analyses or the interpretation of the results. I feel the discussion could be fleshed out a bit, however, and so I recommend it for publication in PLOS One pending the minor revisions to the discussion outlined below.

The results of the study uncover genetic differentiation between populations in the north and the south of the UK and the authors state that their results “improve understanding of barriers to gene flow”. While the authors suggest that this differentiation may be caused by both phenological and /or physical barriers to gene flow, the study does not appear to have made any attempt to separate these factors. To truly understand the barriers to gene flow, and thus the potential consequences of climate change or habitat degradation on these populations, separating phenological barriers from physical barriers seems essential. Perhaps it was not possible in the present study…but how could this be done in a future study? To highlight geographical barriers - would it be useful to increase the sampled nests to include populations from along the north-south gradient of the UK? If the Scottish Highlands truly represent a barrier to gene flow, then populations in the Scottish lowlands should also be quite different from the Migdale populations. The Irish Sea was not found to have been a total barrier to gene flow (Belfast populations overlapped quite a bit with the Cornish and, to a lesser degree, with the Migdale). Maybe this should be discussed in more detail, given what we know about dispersal capacities of species of bees across bodies of water? Or maybe there’s another explanation for this overlap, i.e. similar alleles that have been retained in different populations despite reproductive isolation? And to look at phenological barriers to gene flow - could one take into consideration voltinism when comparing genetic differentiation (i.e. is there more gene flow between populations that are either univoltine or bivoltine, and less among populations with different social structure?)?

Finally, to the question "Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?", I answered no because I couldn't find any mention of where the microsat markers generated in the study were stored...

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Jesse Litman

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-27285_review.pdf

pone.0302688.s004.pdf (27.6KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2024 May 29;19(5):e0302688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302688.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jan 2024

Reviewer #1: The paper presents the results of a study aiming to understand whether differences in phenology due to environmental conditions could limit gene flow in Halictus rubicundus bees. My impression is that the data are interesting and, with a few adjustments, would make a nice paper in PLOS ONE. Follow my comments:

We thank reviewer #1 for these kind words.

1) In general, in the introduction, I think it misses a description of the types of barriers, in addition to the distance between populations, that could influence bee gene flow. The authors cite the Irish Sea and temperature differences, but between the south and north of the UK, there are possibly other barriers that could be better described. My knowledge about UK geography is poor, just like many readers abroad. So, the detail of this point is important to strengthen the work.

We agree that this part of the introduction can be extended, so we have also introduced the Scottish Highlands as a possible barrier between the south and north, and some other barriers (L97-103).

2) Lines 43–44: “Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) is a locally abundant species with a broad geographic range”. Where are the bees locally abundant? In the north of the globe? In UK? I understand your point, but starting the text with this information without giving a basis to understand it doesn’t seem right.

We have changed this sentence to be more specific (L38-40).

3) Lines 205-207: “Migdale was the most genetically different from all other populations (Bodmin: FST = 0.061; Nei’s = 0.618. Boscastle: FST = 0.059; Nei’s = 0.625. Belfast: FST = 0.054; Nei’s = 0.491)”. I suggest adding the values of Migdale at this point in the text to facilitate the comparison.

These values shown here are values comparing Migdale with Bodmin, Boscastle and Belfast. We agree see that this might not be clear from the way it was expressed, and have added a table (Table 4) displaying these values so there may be no misunderstanding of how to interpret the results.

4) Lines 207-210: “Bees collected in the south of mainland Britain (Bodmin and Boscastle) were more genetically similar to bees across the Irish Sea (Belfast) than they were to bees collected in the North of mainland Britain in Migdale (Bodmin: FST = 0.046; Nei’s = 0.504. Boscastle: F ST = 0.044; Nei’s = 0.503).” Again, please add the values of all points cited in the text.

This is the same issue as with comment #3, and we think the addition of the Table 4 will also be beneficial in the presentation of the data for these comparisons.

Reviewer #2: Article number PONE-D-23-27285 “Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus” carried results that need revision for the improvement of the draft. Moreover, the conclusion portion should be further developed based on the findings and future implications of the study. Some suggested changes are in the comments portion to revise and improve the manuscript. Please find suggested corrections, Reference writing, journal-style format, author’s instructions, use of abbreviations and missing information for revision.

We thank the reviewer for their feedback on our study and have adjusted the manuscript, based on their suggestions, as described below.

Abstract: Abstract is lengthy, please be precise in the abstract writings.

We have reduced the abstract significantly for conciseness.

Line 45: Please recheck the abbreviations H. rubicundus” and write complete scientific name at the start of the sentence.

We have written out the complete scientific name at the start of the sentence (L41).

Line 45-48: Please rephrase the sentence

We are unsure what the reviewer would like us to change about this sentence. We are happy to edit with further comments from the reviewer.

Line 48: (the number of generations per year)” remove the sentence

This sentence has been removed (L43).

Line 53-54: (a single generation per 54 year)” please remove the sentence.

This sentence has been removed (L47).

Line 54: see also Hogendoorn and Leys 1997” please follow the author’s instructions and journal style format while writing the references” this may be recheck throughout the manuscript

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_auto_convert_references_from_word_file_to_Mendeley

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have changed the reference format accordingly.

Figure 1 may be placed as supplementary figure 1 (figure taken from Schürch et al. 2016) while mentioning the Figure S1 in the text.

We understand the point reviewer #2 is making here. However, we feel that Figure 1 is essential to the introduction, as a big part of this paper is about the life cycle of H. rubicundus and how differences could influence phenology and gene flow. Therefore, we believe that a Figure 1 is an important visual aid to set up the study and so we have left it as a main figure. We are happy to be guided by the editors preference with regards to moving Figure 1 to the supplementary material.

Material and methods

The authors collected samples in 2019-2020 and conducted analysis? There is no data found regarding the background of the samples and even the generational data?

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We have added this information to the data repository, for which the link can be found in the supplementary section. This is the link to the meta-data with details about collection of the samples https://osf.io/pvj56?view_only=aebe7992b4cb4285a90a0e6eb2603685

Line 160: HWE?

We have added ‘Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium’ in full (L159).

Line 249: to the” remove from the sentence

Done.

Please add a precise conclusion

We thank reviewer #2 for their feedback regarding our conclusion. We have added a more precise conclusion (L388-393).

Please write the references in the text and in the reference portion according to the author's instructions and Journal style/formatting. Please double-check for typos and inconsistencies in Journal style/formatting/ authors instructions, double spaces, spellings of the words, English vocabulary, missing italics, scientific names, missing information

Done.

Reviewer #3: This article presents a study on the genetic differentiation seen in different populations of Halictus rubicundus in the UK. The paper addresses an interesting topic and is well written; I don’t have comments about the analyses or the interpretation of the results. I feel the discussion could be fleshed out a bit, however, and so I recommend it for publication in PLOS One pending the minor revisions to the discussion outlined below.

We thank reviewer #3 for their kind words, and have fleshed out the discussion, specifically on future research recommendations, as per their suggestion.

The results of the study uncover genetic differentiation between populations in the north and the south of the UK and the authors state that their results “improve understanding of barriers to gene flow”. While the authors suggest that this differentiation may be caused by both phenological and /or physical barriers to gene flow, the study does not appear to have made any attempt to separate these factors. To truly understand the barriers to gene flow, and thus the potential consequences of climate change or habitat degradation on these populations, separating phenological barriers from physical barriers seems essential. Perhaps it was not possible in the present study…but how could this be done in a future study? To highlight geographical barriers - would it be useful to increase the sampled nests to include populations from along the north-south gradient of the UK? If the Scottish Highlands truly represent a barrier to gene flow, then populations in the Scottish lowlands should also be quite different from the Migdale populations. The Irish Sea was not found to have been a total barrier to gene flow (Belfast populations overlapped quite a bit with the Cornish and, to a lesser degree, with the Migdale). Maybe this should be discussed in more detail, given what we know about dispersal capacities of species of bees across bodies of water? Or maybe there’s another explanation for this overlap, i.e. similar alleles that have been retained in different populations despite reproductive isolation? And to look at phenological barriers to gene flow - could one take into consideration voltinism when comparing genetic differentiation (i.e. is there more gene flow between populations that are either univoltine or bivoltine, and less among populations with different social structure?)

We agree with the suggestion of reviewer #3 to include populations from the Scottish lowlands (the central belt) in future comparisons, to test whether the Scottish highlands are indeed the main barrier to gene flow (L361-363).

Regarding the comment on the Irish Sea from reviewer #3, we still mention that the Irish Sea is a barrier to gene flow, just not as much as expected (L249-252). We think that it is very unlikely that the similarity is due to similar alleles being retained over time, as we are working with microsatellites here, which should be selectively neutral.

Finally, to the question "Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?", I answered no because I couldn't find any mention of where the microsat markers generated in the study were stored...

We have added the raw unscored data files (.fsa format) which can now be accessed via the repository here https://osf.io/s8txc/?view_only=aebe7992b4cb4285a90a0e6eb2603685, as also described in the supporting information in the manuscript (L38

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 17-12.docx

pone.0302688.s005.docx (28.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Bilal Rasool

11 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-27285R1Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boulton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please revise the draft according to comments of the reviewers  

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Bilal Rasool, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I found the revised manuscript much easier to read than the previous version. Particularly, the results seems clear to me now. I think this is an interesting study worth publishing.

Reviewer #2: The revised article, PONE-D-23-27285R1, "Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus" has improved after revision; however, some issues still need to be verified before the draft is officially considered.

The authors feel that “figure 1 is essential to the introduction, as a big part of this paper is about the life cycle of H. rubicundus and how differences could influence phenology and gene flow. Therefore, we believe that figure 1 is an important visual aid to set up the study and so we have left it as a main figure.......” Kindly recheck and consult for the journal's policies with the managing editor. "It is okay with me if the journal policies permit the reproduction of figure 1 from the earlier literature.

The authors should also recheck the formatting guidelines for tables. Journal-style formatting and adjustments should be made as needed.

Line 380: Reference [2] please recheck if this reference is relevant to the text (if necessary)

Could you please confirm that the references in the discussion section follow the numerical sequence, as they appear to be out of order? (Make changes if necessary.)

Please write the references in the text and in the reference portion according to the author's instructions and Journal's style and formatting. Please double-check for typos and inconsistencies in Journal style formatting, author's instructions, double spaces, spellings of the words, English vocabulary, missing italics, scientific names, and missing information etc.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed the comments from three different reviewers and I feel the manuscript is now ready for publication in PLOS One.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 29;19(5):e0302688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302688.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Mar 2024

Reviewer #2: The revised article, PONE-D-23-27285R1, "Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus" has improved after revision; however, some issues still need to be verified before the draft is officially considered.

The authors feel that “figure 1 is essential to the introduction, as a big part of this paper is about the life cycle of H. rubicundus and how differences could influence phenology and gene flow. Therefore, we believe that figure 1 is an important visual aid to set up the study and so we have left it as a main figure.......” Kindly recheck and consult for the journal's policies with the managing editor. "It is okay with me if the journal policies permit the reproduction of figure 1 from the earlier literature.

We have made our own version of the figure from Shurch et al, and this is now used as figure 1. We still credit the original paper in the legend due to the similar format.

The authors should also recheck the formatting guidelines for tables. Journal-style formatting and adjustments should be made as needed.

Done

Line 380: Reference [2] please recheck if this reference is relevant to the text (if necessary)

We have kept this reference in (now line 358 in the track changed version of the ms) this statement refers to the greater declines in pollinators in the north and this reference (where we originally read this) is the most appropriate.

Could you please confirm that the references in the discussion section follow the numerical sequence, as they appear to be out of order? (Make changes if necessary.)

Done

Please write the references in the text and in the reference portion according to the author's instructions and Journal's style and formatting. Please double-check for typos and inconsistencies in Journal style formatting, author's instructions, double spaces, spellings of the words, English vocabulary, missing italics, scientific names, and missing information etc.

Done

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 18-3.docx

pone.0302688.s006.docx (18KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Bilal Rasool

10 Apr 2024

Genetic differentiation at extreme latitudes in the socially plastic sweat bee Halictus rubicundus

PONE-D-23-27285R2

Dear Dr. Rebecca,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Bilal Rasool, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: The article is much improved after revisions, however, formatting of figures and tables according to journal style may be considered in proofreading.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Bilal Rasool

26 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-27285R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boulton,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Bilal Rasool

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Details of the primers used in each of the 3 sets.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0302688.s001.docx (16.1KB, docx)
    S1 File. Raw data files and code to reproduce analyses can be found in the following data repository: https://osf.io/s8txc/?view_only=aebe7992b4cb4285a90a0e6eb2603685.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0302688.s002.docx (567.6KB, docx)
    S2 File. Extended methods.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0302688.s003.docx (574.6KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-27285_review.pdf

    pone.0302688.s004.pdf (27.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 17-12.docx

    pone.0302688.s005.docx (28.8KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers 18-3.docx

    pone.0302688.s006.docx (18KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data and code are available at osf.io/s8txc.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES