Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Royal Society Open Science logoLink to Royal Society Open Science
. 2016 Mar 2;3(3):150623. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150623

DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees

J Scott MacIvor 1,✉
PMCID: PMC4821261  PMID: 27069650

Abstract

Leafcutting bees (Megachile: Megachilidae) cut leaves from various trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses to partition and encase brood cells in hollow plant stems, decaying logs or in the ground. The identification of preferred plant species via morphological characters of the leaf fragments is challenging and direct observation of bees cutting leaves from certain plant species are difficult. As such, data are poor on leaf preference of leafcutting bees. In this study, I use DNA barcoding of the rcbL and ITS2 regions to identify and compare leaf preference of three Megachile bee species widespread in Toronto, Canada. Nests were opened and one leaf piece from one cell per nest of the native M. pugnata Say (N=45 leaf pieces), and the introduced M. rotundata Fabricius (N=64) and M. centuncularis (L.) (N=65) were analysed. From 174 individual DNA sequences, 54 plant species were identified. Preference by M. rotundata was most diverse (36 leaf species, H′=3.08, phylogenetic diversity (pd)=2.97), followed by M. centuncularis (23 species, H′=2.38, pd=1.51) then M. pugnata (18 species, H′=1.87, pd=1.22). Cluster analysis revealed significant overlap in leaf choice of M. rotundata and M. centuncularis. There was no significant preference for native leaves, and only M. centuncularis showed preference for leaves of woody plants over perennials. Interestingly, antimicrobial properties were present in all but six plants collected; all these were exotic plants and none were collected by the native bee, M. pugnata. These missing details in interpreting what bees need offers valuable information for conservation by accounting for necessary (and potentially limiting) nesting materials.

Keywords: Megachile, Megachilidae, ITS2, rcbL, phylogeny, antimicrobial properties

1. Background

The Megachilidae is the second largest bee family with over 3900 species and a worldwide distribution [1,2]. These bees are solitary and important pollinators in most terrestrial environments. Many of these bees use foreign materials to construct their nests [1–4]. For some megachilid species, these nesting materials consist of little more than fine particle mud, sand and smaller pebbles [5]. Others depend on plant materials including leaves, flower petals, resins and plant hairs [5–10]. The collection of foreign material is one factor that may have promoted the diversification of megachilid bees [4].

Megachilid bees and especially those in the genus Megachile predominantly collect leaves by cutting pieces with their mandibles to construct their nests [11–13]. Not all leafcutting bees actually collect leaves, some use flower petals (e.g. M. montivaga Cresson) [14,15] and others collect plant resins (M. sculpturalis Smith, M. campanulae Robertson), or even tile caulking and plastic bags [16]. Although leafcutting bees are well-studied compared with other solitary bees [17,18], surprisingly little information is available on which leaf types are cut and by which bee species.

Nesting material choice may limit the geographical ranges and/or abundances of particular bee species. However, the leaf preferences of megachilid bee species have rarely been investigated. Identifying leaf preference could inform management and conservation [19], research and the improvement of experimental design [20–22], as well as plant selection and horticulture to reduce damage to ornamental plant species [23]. For example, Horne [19] experimentally evaluated the leaf preference of M. rotundata among 11 plant species. In enclosures, bees cut all plant species offered to them but showed a significant preference for leaves of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench), which were also significantly larger than the leaves of the other 10 species. Kim [20] observed M. apicalis Spinola visiting Wisteria sp. for leaf pieces in nature and subsequently used the plant in pots in enclosures to study relationships between female body size and fecundity. Finally, Nugent & Wagner [23] compared the level of leaf defoliation by unidentified Megachile bee species on seven different Populus cultivars and found one cultivar was defoliated significantly less than all others. Mechanical properties of leaves are evidently important for leaf preference in leaf-collecting Megachile bees. However, studies of resin- and trichome (leaf hair)-collecting megachilid bees suggest antimicrobial factors are important to protect brood from diseases, moulds and parasites [24–26], and so these properties might also be desirable among leaf-collecting Megachile bees.

Studies that report the identities of leaves cut by megachilid bees do so based on the characteristic damage to leaves [19,27–32] (figure 1). For example, one study made observations on Hoplitis producta (Cresson) collecting Fragaria sp. leaf pieces [33], Michener [1] noted Hoplitis pilosifrons (Cresson) using Oenothera sp. leaves, M. centuncularis was observed cutting leaves from beech (Fagus) trees [34], and another study found the ground-nesting M. integra Cresson using blackberry (Rubus sp.) [35]. Strickler et al. [32] linked M. relativa Cresson to cutting plants in the genera Fragaria and Epilobium, and M. inermis Provancher to (among many others) Acer, Betula, Rubus and Amelanchier. The authors associated the size of the cuts on the leaves to the two different bees studied because the first bee species cut noticeably larger pieces than the second one.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Examples of cuts by leafcutting bees on various plants. (a) Raspberry (Rubus) (photo: Sara Schraf), (b) redbud (Cercis) (photo: Heather Lynn), (c) beardtongue (Penstemon) (photo: Deb Chute), (d) honeysuckle (Lonicera), (e) ash (Fraxinus), (f) sumac (Rhus typhina), (g) basswood (Tilia), (h) rose (Rosa) (photo: Deb Chute), (i) Canadian tick trefoil (Desmodium) (photo: Deb Chute, (j) dogwood (Cornus), (k) lilac (Syringa) (photo: Rob Cruickshanks) and (l) maple (Acer) (photo: Victoria MacPhail).

Determining leaf preference from observations of the bee in the act of cutting, or by surveying for the characteristic leaf cuts on plants, gives partial lists that can offer useful details about local megachilid bee nesting requirements. However, methods that more accurately link leaf–bee species interactions could provide details about inter- and intraspecific variation in leaf preference, contributing to gaps in knowledge on these essential pollinators. One technique that could ameliorate our understanding of leafcutting bee nesting preferences is DNA barcoding, which uses the diversity in short gene sequence regions to improve species-level identification [36–39]. These techniques are especially useful in cases where morphological identification is difficult or not possible [40], as is the case with leaf fragments in bee nests.

In this study, I use DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of three leafcutting bee species, one native (M. pugnata Say) and two exotic bees that are naturalized in the study region, M. centuncularis (L.) and M. rotundata [13]. The leaf fragments were removed from nests constructed in artificial nest-boxes that were set up in the city of Toronto in 2012 and 2013. I first compare the species diversity in leaf preference among the three bee species and as previous studies show bee species tend to prefer leaves from only a few species [19,20], I hypothesize that bees would not overlap in their leaf preferences. Second, because anthropogenic landscape change can reduce phylogenetic diversity (pd) [41], I hypothesize that the leaf preference of the native bee studied in an urban environment would be more phylogenetically constrained than that of the two exotic bees. Native bees prefer native plants [42,43], and so similarly I hypothesize that the native bee (M. pugnata) would prefer native leaves rather than exotic ones for nesting material. Lastly, I determine whether any bees exhibit specialization or affinities for native or exotic species, or particular kinds of vegetation, including trees, shrubs or flowering plants, which would have applications for conservation planning and management.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Sample collection

To sample leaves from nests I set up artificial nests (nest-boxes), which are a preferred habitat for many cavity-nesting bee species [8,17,44,45]. One nest-box was set up at each of 200 locations throughout the city of Toronto in residential gardens, community gardens, public parks and on green roofs, each year from 2011–2013, approximately 250 m apart in distance [46]. Each nest-box was made of a 30 cm piece of PVC pipe that was 10 cm in diameter into which 30 cardboard nesting tubes (10 of each of three widths: 7.6 mm, 5.5 mm, 3.4 mm) were inserted [47]. These were attached to fixed structures at each site (e.g. wooden stake, fence post, exposed tree limb). Nest-boxes were set up in April and retrieved in October. The nesting tubes were opened and all brood were stored in a walk-in fridge at 4°C for the winter. In spring, all individual brood cells were placed in a growth chamber at 26°C and 65% humidity so that they could be identified to species level after emergence.

Thirty-six bee species (including five cleptoparasites) used the nest-boxes over the three seasons [46]. From this group, three common leafcutting species were selected for study, the native M. pugnata, and the introduced M. centuncularis and M. rotundata. M. pugnata uses mud and chewed leaves to line its brood cells, and makes partitions between adjacent cells using circular pieces of leaves laid one over the other (figure 2). M. rotundata and M. centuncularlis collect circular pieces of leaves and line each brood cell with a roll of layered leaves (figure 2). One leaf piece was selected from one cell per nest of the native M. pugnata (N=45 leaf pieces; 10 sites), and the introduced M. rotundata (N=64; 29 sites) and M. centuncularis (N=65; 31 sites). A total of 62 sites were sampled over the 2012 and 2013 seasons. No sites were shared among all three bees, and only two sites were shared between M. pugnata and M. centuncularis, one between M. pugnata and M. rotundata, and four sites between M. centuncularis and M. rotundata.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Representative examples of brood cells constructed by each of the leafcutting bees. From left to right: M. rotundata, M. centuncularis and M. pugnata. Photos were taken at the Packer Collection at York University (PCYU) laboratory using a Canon E05 40D camera with a K2 lens and a 10× lens attachment, with a Microoptics ML 1000 fibreoptics illuminating system at the highest flash setting and highest magnification.

To determine the identity of each leaf cut sample, using forceps I removed one leaf piece per brood cell, then each was cut into a 0.5 cm2 square, washed in ethanol, air dried, and placed into an individual sampling vial in a 96-vial DNA extraction plate (AcroPrep) provided by the Canadian Centre for DNA Barcoding (CCDB). Two filled plates of leaf fragments were then sent to the CCDB for DNA extraction [48] and barcoding [37,49,50]. The primers rcbL and ITS2 were used to obtain nucleotide sequences for each sample. Identities of the leaf samples were determined by downloading sequence data (greater than 50 bp) from the Barcode of Life Data (BOLD) systems. A total of 47.4% of samples yielded incomplete sequence data (rcbL=11.9% of sample, ITS2=35.6%). However, sequence quality was high (rbcL=96.7% (<1% Ns); ITS2=93.75% (<1% Ns)) and sequence data were cross-referenced in the gene sequence database GenBank [51] for 100% matches using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) [52]. Lastly, once the identities of the leaves were determined, the antimicrobial properties of each of the plant species were determined by surveying the literature that measures these values (table 1) [53–60].

Table 1.

List of leaf species collected by each of the three megachilid bees as determined using DNA barcoding. Plants having secondary compounds with known antimicrobial properties were determined for each species or genus as per aNickell [53], bBorchardt et al. [54], cMogg et al. [55], dCappuccino & Arnason [56], eHayes [57], fMadsen & Pates [58], gAmadou et al. [59], hChen et al. [60]. These were denoted at the species level with ‘++’, at the genus level with ‘+’. Species known to have no known antimicrobial and antifungal properties are given ‘−’, and at the genus level ‘−−’. MC, M. centuncularis; MP, M. pugnata; MR, M. rotundata.

family genus common status type antimicrobial MC MP MR
Anacardiaceae Rhus typhina L. staghorn sumac native tree ++ab 1 0 4
Apocynaceae Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi dog-strangling vine exotic perennial ++cd 0 0 7
Asteraceae Artemisia biennis L. wormwood exotic biennial ++a 0 0 1
Helianthus annuus L. common sunflower native annual +a 0 0 1
Rudbeckia triloba L. brown-eyed susan native perennial +a 0 0 1
Solidago canadensisL. Canadian goldenrod native perennial ++a 0 0 1
Symphyotrichum nova-angliae(L.) G.L.Nesom New England aster native perennial ++a 0 1 0
Caryophyllaceae Silene vulgaris(Moench) Garcke bladder campion exotic perennial −−b 1 0 0
Celastraceae Celastrus scandens L. American bittersweet native tree ++a 1 0 0
Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium album L. lamb’s quarter exotic annual ++a 0 2 1
Convolvulaceae Convolvulus arvensis L. field bindweed exotic annual ++e 0 0 1
Ipomoea hederaceaJacq. ivy-leaved morning glory exotic annual +f 0 0 2
Cornaceae Cornus stoloniferaL. red osier dogwood native shrub ++a 0 1 1
Cornus racemosa Lam. gray dogwood native shrub +b 0 5 0
Euphorbiaceae Euphorbia dentata Michx. toothed spurge exotic annual +b 0 0 1
Fabaceae Amphicarpaea bracteata (L.) Fernald. hog peanut native perennial ++a 0 0 1
Baptisia australis Hort. Ex. Lehm. false indigo exotic perennial ++a 1 0 1
Caragana arborescensLam. Siberian peashrub exotic shrub +a 1 0 0
Cercis canadensis L. redbud native tree ++a 5 0 3
Desmodium canadense(L.) DC. Canadian tick trefoil native perennial ++a 2 0 2
Lotus corniculatusL. bird’s-foot trefoil exotic perennial −−b 0 0 2
Melilotus albaMedik. sweet clover exotic annual ++a 0 0 4
Phaseolus vulgaris L. string bean exotic annual ++a 4 0 0
Robinia pseudoacaciaL. black locust native tree ++a 2 0 0
Securigera varia (L.) Lassen crown vetch exotic annual ++a 0 0 1
Grossulariaceae Ribes hirtellumMichx. American gooseberry native shrub ++a 0 0 1
Juglandaceae Carya cordiformis (Wangenh.) K. Koch bitternut hickory native tree +a 0 1 0
Lamiaceae Stachys palustris L. marsh woundwort exotic perennial −−b 1 0 1
Lythraceae Lythrum salicaria L. purple loosestrife exotic perennial ++b 1 5 0
Oleaceae Syringa vulgaris L. common lilac exotic tree −−b 0 0 3
Onagraceae Epilobium ciliatum Raf. slender willowherb native perennial ++b 0 1 0
Epilobium parviflorum(Schreb.) Schreb. smallflower hairy willowherb native perennial +b 2 0 1
Oenothera biennisL. common evening primrose native biennial ++be 0 0 2
Oenothera parvifloraL. northern evening primrose native biennial ++a 1 0 0
Oenothera pilosella Raf. meadow evening primrose native perennial +b 0 5 1
Papaveraceae Chelidonium majus L. greater celandine native perennial ++a 0 0 2
Poaceae Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauv. foxtail millet exotic annual ++g 0 0 1
Polygonaceae Fallopia convolvulus (L.) Á. Löve black bindweed exotic annual ++h 0 1 1
Rhamnaceae Rhamnus cathartica L. common buckthorn exotic tree −−b 0 0 2
Rosaceae Crataegus macrospermaAshe big fruit hawthorn native tree +b 0 1 0
Fragaria virginianaDuchesne wild strawberry native perennial +b 0 1 0
Prunus avium (L.) bird cherry exotic tree +b 2 4 1
Prunus virginianaL. chokecherry native tree +b 0 1 0
Rosa blandaGray smooth wild rose native shrub +b 1 1 1
Rosa palustrisMarshall swamp rose exotic shrub +b 3 4 0
Rosa multifloraThunb. multiflora rose native shrub ++a 15 5 5
Rosa glauca Pourret red-leaved rose exotic shrub +b 3 1 1
Rosa virginianaP.Mill common wild rose exotic shrub +b 0 5 0
Rubus occidentalis L. black raspberry native shrub +b 3 0 0
Sapindaceae Acer saccharumMarshall sugar maple native tree ++a 4 0 3
Acer platanoides L. Norway maple exotic tree ++a 8 0 1
Tiliaceae Tilia cordataMill. small leaf linden native tree +b 0 0 1
Vitaceae Ampelopsis japonica (Thunb.) Makino. Japanese peppervine exotic shrub −g 1 0 0
Vitis riparia Michx. riverbank grape native shrub +ad 2 0 1
Open in a new tab

2.2. Analysis

From the type and number of leaf species cut as determined by DNA barcoding, I determined the richness and Shannon diversity index (H′) of leaf species preference for each of the three bee species. Rarefaction curves for leaf preference of all bee species were interpreted using iNEXT software [61,62]. Using the package ‘ecodist’ [63] in the R statistical program [64], I calculated the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity index to compare how leaf preference differed between the leafcutting bee species. I then used a Spearman’s rank correlation to determine similarity in leaf preference between each bee species pair. Bee species pairs that were positively correlated meant they overlapped in leaf preference. The leaf preferences of the three bee species were also compared by plant species grouped by status (‘exotic’ or ‘native’) and type (‘tree’, ‘shrub’, ‘perennial’, ‘annual’) using a set of Pearson’s χ2-tests in the R package ‘MASS’. Some plant species used by the bees were biennials (N=3, see table 1) and these were included as perennials in the analysis. Another χ2-test was used to compare preference with plant species grouped as ‘woody’ (‘tree’ + ‘shrub’) or ‘non-woody’ (‘perennial’ + ‘biennial’ + ‘annual’).

To compare pd in leaf preference by each of the three bee species, I constructed a phylogeny of all leaf species identified from the nests of each species by using the prune function in the R package ‘phytools’ [65] from an existing rooted phylogeny of 912 plant species identified from the study region [66]. Faith’s pd was calculated from the phylogeny of leaf preference for each of the three bee species using the R package ‘picante’ [67].

3. Results

DNA barcoding identified leaves of 54 species in 46 genera and 24 families (table 1) from 174 samples (e.g. every third sample was of a unique plant species). The leaves collected were significantly different among bee species (χ2=197.44, p<0.001). M. centuncularis collected 23 species in 20 genera and 10 families, and 23.1% of the total leaves analysed were Rosa multiflora Thunb. M. pugnata collected leaves from 18 species in 14 genera and 8 families, with Cornus racemosa Lam., Lythrum salicaria L., R. multiflora and R. virginiana P.Mill. all tied for the most identified leaf type (11.1% each). M. rotundata collected leaves from 36 species in 33 genera and 20 families. Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi was the most often identified species for M. rotundata. Rarifying leaf species richness and sample completeness for all three bees to control for uneven sample size indicated that the estimate of total species richness was lower for M. pugnata and M. centuncularis than M. rotundata and that sampling more adequately characterized the leaf preference of M. pugnata than that of M. centuncularis and M. rotundata (figure 3).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

(a,b) Rarefaction and species completeness curves for the leafcutting bee species (M. centuncularis=M. cent, M. pugnata=M. pug, M. rotundata=M. rot).

Diversity in leaf preference was greatest in the exotic M. rotundata (H′=3.08) then M. centuncularis (H′=2.38), and lowest in the native M. pugnata (H′=1.87). The pd in leaf preference was highest in M. rotundata (pd=2.97), followed by M. centuncularis (pd=1.51) and the native M. pugnata (pd=1.22) (figure 4). Controlling for species richness (pd/SR), M. centuncularis (0.64) and M. pugnata (0.65) were more constrained in pd than was M. rotundata (0.96).

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Phylogeny of leaf preferences by the leafcutting bee species. The diamonds indicate by which bee species the respective leaf species are selected.

A Bray–Curtis cluster analysis showed leaf preference between M. centuncularis and M. rotundata was more similar than that of M. pugnata (figure 5). A Pearson’s R correlation confirmed that there was significant overlap in the leaf preference of M. centuncularis and M. rotundata (R=0.288, p = 0.035). Four plant species were visited by all bee species and all were shrubs or trees: R. blanda Gray, R. glauca Pourret, R. multiflora and Prunus avium (L.) (table 1). Twelve plant species were shared between M. centuncularis and M. rotundata, whereas M. pugnata shared six and eight leaf species with M. centuncularis and M. rotundata, respectively. M. rotundata used seven species from the legume family Fabaceae and preferred these plants to the others (21.5% of the total). Rosaceae was the most used family for both M. centuncularis (6 species, N=27) and M. pugnata (9 species, N=23). For M. pugnata, leaves in the family Rosaceae represented half of all species collected. Leaves of R. multiflora were the most abundantly collected species by all three species combined (N=25). Only one grass species was collected, Setaria italica (L.) P. Beauvois, by one M. rotundata individual (table 1).

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Bray–Curtis cluster tree showing the similarity in leaf preference between the three bee species.

Native leaves were not collected more than exotic leaves (χ2=1.30, p=0.52) with 30 native plant species and 24 exotic species collected among the three bees (table 2). Exotic plant species collected included cosmopolitan plants such as lamb’s quarter (Chenopodium album L.), bird’s foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) and crown vetch (Securigera varia (L.) Lassen) as well as plants invasive to the Southern Ontario region, including purple loosestrife (L. salicaria L.) and dog-strangling vine (C. rossicum) (table 1). Interestingly, all native plants collected by the bees are known to have antimicrobial properties (table 1). Only six plant species collected were known to contain no antimicrobial properties: Silene vulgaris (Moench) Garcke, L. corniculatus L., Stachys palustris L., Syringa vulgaris L., Rhamnus cathartica L. [54] and Ampelopsis japonica (Thunb.) Makino [59]. All six of these plants were exotic to the study region, and none were used by the native bee, M. pugnata (table 1). Lastly, there was a significant difference among bees’ preference for different plant types (‘tree’, ‘shrub’, ‘perennial’, ‘annual’) (χ2=29.61, p<0.001; table 2), with M. centuncularis, in particular, visiting ‘woody’ plants (N=49) significantly more than ‘non-woody’ plants (N=13) (χ2=19.24, p<0.001; table 2).

Table 2.

The status (native or exotic) and types of vegetation collected by the three leafcutting bee species. The percentage of the total number of plants identified and their abundances (in parentheses) are given. An *indicates a significant difference in the leaf preference of M. centuncularis between woody and non-woody plant species.

M. pugnata M. centuncularis M. rotundata
native 48.9% (22) 38.5% (25) 53.1% (30)
exotic 51.1% (23) 61.5% (40) 46.9% (34)
woody 64.4% (29) 75.4% (49)* 42.2% (27)
 tree 15.6% (7) 35.4% (23) 23.4% (15)
 shrub 48.8% (22) 40.0% (26) 18.8% (12)
non-woody 35.6% (16) 24.6% (16) 57.8% (37)
 perennial 28.9% (13) 18.5% (12) 37.5% (24)
 annual 6.7% (3) 6.1% (4) 20.3% (13)
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

Leafcutting bees are reported to be selective in leaf preference, and to forage on only a few plant species [19,20]. Past studies reporting leaf preference of leafcutting bees did so using observational data [15,32,34]. In this study, I use DNA barcoding to identify leaf pieces from nests of three leafcutting bees and demonstrate that diversity in the leaves selected is far greater than previously reported. The leaf preferences of the two exotic bees overlap significantly and so I reject my first hypothesis that leaf preferences would be different among bee species. The pd and the species spectrum of selected leaves were higher in the two exotic bee species than in the native one. This is in accordance with the second hypothesis that leaf preference of the native bee is more restricted to phylogenetic groups. Finally, according to the χ2-tests none of the bee species exhibited a significant preference for native or exotic leaf species, indicating that the third hypothesis, e.g. that the native bee, M. pugnata, would prefer native plant species to exotic species, is not valid.

Dependence of the native M. pugnata on nesting materials that are more phylogenetically related could make this species and other native bees more susceptible to environmental change [68]. Ecologists increasingly use phylogenetic measures to inform our understanding of community assembly as well as management practices to conserve biodiversity and ecological functioning [69,70]. Some studies have used phylogenetic relatedness to describe bees and their foraging preferences [71,72] and their nesting behaviour [73]. Future work could evaluate matching (or mis-matching) in phylogenetic relationships (e.g. [74]) among bees and nesting resources. These relationships examined along gradients of environmental change could aid in determining the extent to which these eco-evolutionary relationships depend on environmental filters, such as urbanization [75].

The leaves collected belonged to a variety of plant types: trees, shrubs and flowering plants, as well as one grass species. Only M. centuncularis exhibited a significant preference for woody plants (e.g. trees and shrubs) (table 2). None of the bee species exhibited significant preference for native or exotic leaf types. M. pugnata visited many exotic species including spontaneous urban plants (e.g. lamb’s quarter (Chenopodium album)) and invasive species (e.g. purple loosestrife (L. salicaria)) (table 1). The exotic M. rotundata collected more exotic leaf types than the other two species (table 2), and among the 36 species recorded was the invasive dog-strangling vine (Cyananchum rossicum) [76] (table 1). This vine has invaded Southern Ontario, where it ‘strangles’ and suppresses the growth of native vegetation [77,78]. A number of other exotic plants were visited for nesting material by the three bee species ((e.g. bird’s foot trefoil (L. corniculatus L.) and sweet clover (Melilotus albus Medik.)) (table 1). As exotic flora is abundant in urban areas [79,80], urban landscapes could provide a wider range of nest material for leafcutting bees, including native species [81,82].

Bee diversity and abundance are strongly linked to characteristics of the local environment, including the presence and quantity of foraging and nesting materials, as well as the amount of, and distance between, habitat containing these resources [83–87]. In urban landscapes containing many thousands of individually managed gardens that together form a rich diversity of flowering plants [88,89], leafcutting bees are not limited in these areas by nesting materials. Given how diverse leaf selection was for each of the leafcutting bees in this study, it is possible that further DNA barcoding would identify even greater numbers of plant species used. Citizen science to help record leaf cuts on plants (see figure 1) with DNA barcoding could be useful for examining leaf preference and diversity along urban–rural gradients where dominant factors affecting plant species assembly change from natural to anthropogenic [75,90].

Almost all the leaves identified in the nests are known to contain antimicrobial properties (table 1). Many ground-nesting bees waterproof and sterilize their brood cells using glandular secretions from the Dufour’s glands [91,92]. These glands are significantly reduced in above-ground-nesting bees including megachilids [2], and so antimicrobial properties of leaves might inform choice [24–26]. One above-ground-nesting megachilid, Anthidium manicatum, collects leaf trichomes to make their nests which have antimicrobial properties [25] and their physical properties actively prevent attacking parasites [93]. One study showed leaf type and physical properties impact choice in M. rotundata, which preferred buckwheat unanimously over alfalfa and especially leaves greater than 1 cm2 [19]. A combination of the antimicrobial and mechanical properties of leaves may inform choice among leaf types and why certain leaves are preferred over others by megachilid bees.

Missing from this study is an examination of the continuity and variability in leaf choice within single nests, which limits interpretation of the diversity of leaf types used by individual females. Identifying all leaves comprising a complete nest of individual bees (some complete nests contain greater than 100 individual leaf pieces) would contribute to knowledge on how diverse leaf preference is among individual bees, or even how it changes over a season. Knowing the identities of plants used by leafcutting bees can inform ‘complete’ pollinator gardening and broader actions supporting wild pollinators that include both foraging and nesting requirements [42,94–97].

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr Laurence Packer for helpful comments on the manuscript and Baharak Salehi, Daniel de Ocampo and Vipul Patel for help preparing the samples. I thank Dr Lanna Jin and Dr Marc Cadotte for help with preparing the phylogeny. Lastly, I thank the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario for help with DNA barcoding, in particular Dr Paul Hebert, Dr Mehrdad Hajibabaei, Dr Chris Weland and Dr Evgeny Zakharov.

Data accessibility

DNA sequences: http://dx.doi.org/10.5883/DS-8669.

Competing interests

I declare I have no competing interests.

Funding

The work was funded by an NSERC scholarship (CGS D 408565) to the author and a discovery grant awarded to his supervisor, Dr Laurence Packer.

References

  • 1.Michener CD. 1955. Some biological observations on Hoplitis pilosifrons and Stelis lateralis (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). J Kans. Entomol. Soc. 28, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Litman JR, Danforth BN, Eardley CD, Praz CJ. 2011. Why do leafcutter bees cut leaves? New insights into the early evolution of bees. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3593–3600. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0365) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Williams NM, Goodell K. 2000. Association of mandible shape and nesting material in Osmia Panzer (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): a morphometric analysis. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 93, 318–325. (doi:10.1603/0013-8746(2000)093[0318:AOMSAN]2.0.CO;2) [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bosch J, Kemp WP. 2002. Developing and establishing bee species as crop pollinators: the example of Osmia spp. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) and fruit trees. Bull. Entomol. Res. 92, 3–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Cane JH, Griswold T, Parker FD. 2007. Substrates and materials used for nesting by North American Osmia bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes: Megachilidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 100, 350–358. (doi:10.1603/0013-8746(2007)100[350:SAMUFN]2.0.CO;2) [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fabre JH. 1920. Bramble-bees and others, 2nd edn New York, NY: Dodd, Mead, and Company. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stephen WP. 1956. Notes on the biologies of Megachile frigida Smith and M. inermis Provancher (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Pan.-Pac. Entomol. 32, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Krombein KV. 1967. Bees: life histories, nests, and associates. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Press. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Frohlich DR, Parker FD. 1983. Nest building behavior and development of the sunflower leaf-cutter bee: Eumegachile (Sayapis) pugnata (Say) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Psyche 90, 193–209. (doi:10.1155/1983/28573) [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Rozen JG Jr, özbek H, Ascher JS, Sedivy C, Praz C, Monfared A, Müller A. 2010. Nests, petal usage, floral preferences, and immatures of Osmia (Ozbekosmia) avosetta (Megachilidae: Megachilinae: Osmiini), including biological comparisons with other osmiine bees. Am. Mus. Nov. 3680, 1–22. (doi:10.1206/701.1) [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hicks CH. 1936. Nesting habits of certain western bees. Can. Entamol. 68, 47–52. (doi:10.4039/Ent6847-3) [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Stephen WP, Torchio PF. 1961. Biological notes on the leaf-cutter bee, Megachile (Eutricharaea) rotundata (Fabricius) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Pan.-Pac. Entomol. 37, 85–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sheffield CS, Ratti C, Packer L, Griswold T. 2011. Leafcutter and mason bees of the genus Megachile Latreille (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Canada and Alaska. Can. J. Arthropod. Identif. 18, 1–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Baker JR, Kuhn ED, Bambara SB. 1985. Nests and immature stages of leafcutter bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 58, 290–313. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Armbrust EA. 2004. Resource use and nesting behavior of Megachile prosopidis and M. chilopsidis with notes on M. discorhina (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 77, 89–98. (doi:10.2317/0302.24.1) [Google Scholar]
  • 16.MacIvor JS, Moore AE. 2013. Bees collect polyurethane and polyethylene plastics as novel nest materials. Ecosphere 4, 1–6 (doi:10.1890/ES13-00308.1) [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Bohart GE. 1972. Management of wild bees for the pollination of crops. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 17, 287–312. (doi:10.1146/annurev.en.17.010172.001443) [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pitts-Singer TL, Cane JH. 2011. The alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata: the world’s most intensively managed solitary bee. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 56, 221–237. (doi:10.1146/annurev-ento-120709-144836) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Horne M. 1995. Leaf area and toughness: effects on nesting material preferences of Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 88, 868–875. (doi:10.1093/aesa/88.6.868) [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kim JY. 1997. Female size and fitness in the leaf-cutter bee Megachile apicalis. Ecol. Entomol. 22, 275–282. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2311.1997.00062.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Goodell K. 2003. Food availability affects Osmia pumila (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) foraging, reproduction, and brood parasitism. Oecologia 134, 518–527. (doi:10.1007/s00442-002-1159-2) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pitts-Singer TL, Bosch J. 2010. Nest establishment, pollination efficiency, and reproductive success of Megachile rotundata (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in relation to resource availability in field enclosures. Environ. Entomol. 39, 149–158. (doi:10.1603/EN09077) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nugent SP, Wagner MR. 1995. Clone and leaf position effects on populus defoliation by leaf-cutting bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). For. Ecol. Manage. 77, 191–199. (doi:10.1016/0378-1127(95)03513-A) [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Messer AC. 1985. Fresh dipterocarp resins gathered by megachilid bees inhibit growth of pollen-associated fungi. Biotropica 17, 175–176. (doi:10.2307/2388512) [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Müller A, Topfl W, Amiet F. 1996. Collection of extrafloral trichome secretions for nest wool impregnation in the solitary bee Anthidium manicatum. Naturwissenschaften 83, 230–232. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cane JH. 1996. Nesting resins obtained from Larrea pollen host by an oligolectic bee, Trachusa larreae (Cockerell)(Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 69, 99–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vesey-Fitzgerald D. 1941. Some insects of economic importance in Seychelles. Bull. Entomol. Res. 32, 153–160. (doi:10.1017/S0007485300005368) [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hobbs GA. 1956. Ecology of the leaf-cutter bee Megachile perihirta Ckll. (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in relation to production of alfalfa seed. Can. Entomol. 88, 625–631. (doi:10.4039/Ent88625-11) [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Michener CD. 1962. Observations on the classification of the bees commonly placed in the genus Megachile (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). J. N. Y. Entomol. Soc. 70, 17–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Eickwort GC, Matthews RW, Carpenter J. 1981. Observations on the nesting behavior of Megachile rubi and M. texana with a discussion of the significance of soil nesting in the evolution of megachilid bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 54, 557–570. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Donovan BJ, Read PEC. 1988. The alfalfa leafcutting bee, Megachile rotundata (Megachilidae), does not pollinate kiwifruit, Actinidia deliciosa var. deliciosa (Actinidiaceae). J. Apicult. Res. 27, 9–12. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Strickler K, Scott VL, Fischer RL. 1996. Comparative nesting ecology of two sympatric leafcutting bees that differ in body size (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 69, 26–44. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Rau P. 1928. The nesting habits of the pulp-making bee, Alcidamea producta Cress. Psyche 35, 100–107. (doi:10.1155/1928/84370) [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Williams HJ, Strand MR, Elzen GW, Vinson SB, Merritt SJ. 1986. Nesting behavior, nest architecture, and use of Dufour’s gland lipids in nest provisioning by Megachile integra and M. mendica (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 59, 588–597. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Medler J. 1959. A note on Megachile centuncularis (Linn.) in Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Can. Entomol. 91, 113–115. (doi:10.4039/Ent91113-2) [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hebert PD, Cywinska A, Ball SL. 2003. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 270, 313–321. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.2218) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ratnasingham S, Hebert PD. 2007. BOLD: the barcode of life data system (http://www.barcodinglife.org) Mol. Ecol. Notes 7, 355–364. (doi:10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01678.x) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Ratnasingham S, Hebert PD. 2013. A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the barcode index number (BIN) system. PLoS ONE 8, e66213 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066213) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Joly S, Davies TJ, Archambault A, Bruneau A, Derry A, Kembel SW, Peres-Neto P, Vamosi J, Wheeler TA. 2014. Ecology in the age of DNA barcoding: the resource, the promise and the challenges ahead. Mol. Ecol. Res. 14, 221–232. (doi:10.1111/1755-0998.12173) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sheffield CS, Hebert PD, Kevan PG, Packer L. 2009. DNA barcoding a regional bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) fauna and its potential for ecological studies. Mol. Ecol. Res. 9, 196–207. (doi:10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02645.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Winter M. et al. 2009. Plant extinctions and introductions lead to phylogenetic and taxonomic homogenization of the European flora. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 21 721–21 725. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0907088106) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Kearns CA, Inouye DW, Waser NM. 1998. Endangered mutualisms: the conservation of plant–pollinator interactions. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29, 83–112. (doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.83) [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Tscharntke T, Gathmann A, Steffan-Dewenter I. 1998. Bioindication using trap-nesting bees and wasps and their natural enemies: community structure and interactions. J. Appl. Ecol. 35, 708–719. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-2664.1998.355343.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Pardee GL, Philpott SM. 2014. Native plants are the bee’s knees: local and landscape predictors of bee richness and abundance in backyard gardens. Urb. Ecosyst. 17, 641–659. (doi:10.1007/s11252-014-0349-0) [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sheffield CS, Kevan PG, Westby SM, Smith RF. 2008. Diversity of cavity-nesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) within apple orchards and wild habitats in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia, Canada. Can. Entomol. 140, 235–249. (doi:10.4039/n07-058) [Google Scholar]
  • 46.MacIvor JS, Packer L. 2015. ‘Bee hotels’ as tools for native pollinator conservation: a premature verdict? PLoS ONE 10, e0122126 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122126) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.MacIvor JS, Cabral JM, Packer L. 2014. Pollen specialization by solitary bees in an urban landscape. Urb. Ecosyst. 17, 139–147. (doi:10.1007/s11252-013-0321-4) [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ivanova N, Kuzmina M, Fazekas A. 2015. Glass fiber plate DNA extraction protocol for plants, fungi, echinoderms and mollusks: manual protocol employing centrifugation. For CCDB protocols, see http://ccdb.ca/docs/CCDB_DNA_Extraction-Plants.pdf (accessed 16 December 2015).
  • 49.Kress WJ, Wurdack KJ, Zimmer EA, Weigt LA, Janzen DH. 2005. Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 8369–8374. (doi:10.1073/pnas.0503123102) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Li X, Yang Y, Henry RJ, Rossetto M, Wang Y, Chen S. 2015. Plant DNA barcoding: from gene to genome. Biol. Rev. 90, 157–166. (doi:10.1111/brv.12104) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Benson DA, Clark K, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Sayers EW. 2015. GenBank. Nucl. Acids Res. 43, D30–D35. (doi:10.1093/nar/gku1216) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Zhang Z, Schwartz S, Wagner L, Miller W. 2000. A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J. Comp. Biol. 7, 203–214. (doi:10.1089/10665270050081478) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nickell LG. 1959. Antimicrobial activity of vascular plants. Econ. Bot. 13, 281–318. (doi:10.1007/BF02885664) [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Borchardt JR, Wyse DL, Sheaffer CC, Kauppi KL, Fulcher RG, Ehlke NJ, Beisboer DD, Bey RF. 2008. Antimicrobial activity of native and naturalized plants of Minnesota and Wisconsin. J. Med. Plants Res. 2, 98–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Mogg C, Petit P, Cappuccino N, Durst T, McKague C, Foster M, Yack JE, Arnason JT, Smith ML. 2008. Tests of the antibiotic properties of the invasive vine Vincetoxicum rossicum against bacteria, fungi and insects. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 36, 383–391. (doi:10.1016/j.bse.2008.01.001) [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Cappuccino N, Arnason JT. 2006. Novel chemistry of invasive exotic plants. Biol. Lett. 2, 189–193. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0433) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Hayes LE. 1947. Survey of higher plants for presence of antibacterial substances. Bot. Gaz. 108, 408–414. (doi:10.1086/335424) [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Madsen GC, Pates AL. 1952. Occurrence of antimicrobial substances in chlorophyllose plants growing in Florida. Bot. Gaz. 113, 293–300. (doi:10.1086/335721) [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Amadou I, Le GW, Amza T, Sun J, Shi YH. 2013. Purification and characterization of foxtail millet-derived peptides with antioxidant and antimicrobial activities. Food. Res. Int. 51, 422–428. (doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2012.12.045) [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chen J, Zhang C, Zhang M. 2010. Chemical constituents from aerial parts of Fallopia convolvulus. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi 35, 3165–3167. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Chao A, Jost L. 2012. Coverage-based rarefaction and extrapolation: standardizing samples by completeness rather than size. Ecology 93, 2533–2547. (doi:10.1890/11-1952.1) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A. 2013. iNEXT online: interpolation and extrapolation (version 1.0). See http://chao.stat.nthu.edu.tw/blog/software-download/.
  • 63.Goslee SC, Urban DL. 2007. The ‘ecodist’ package for dissimilarity-based analysis of ecological data. J. Stat. Softw. 22, 1–19. (doi:10.18637/jss.v022.i07) [Google Scholar]
  • 64.R Core Team. 2014. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; (http://www.R-project.org/) [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Revell LJ. 2012. Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223. (doi:10.1111/j.2041-210X.2011.00169.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Jin L. 2015. A spatio-temporal phylogenetic approach to community ecology. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
  • 67.Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR, Cornwell WK, Morlon H, Ackerly DD, Blombery SP, Webb CO. 2010. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464. (doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq166) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Hoiss B, Krauss J, Potts SG, Roberts S, Steffan-Dewenter I. 2012. Altitude acts as an environmental filter on phylogenetic composition, traits and diversity in bee communities. Proc. R. Soc. B 279, 4447–4456. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1581) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Cadotte MW, Dinnage R, Tilman D. 2012. Phylogenetic diversity promotes ecosystem stability. Ecology 93, S223–S233. (doi:10.1890/11-0426.1) [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Mouquet N. et al. 2012. Ecophylogenetics: advances and perspectives. Biol. Rev. 87, 769–785. (doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00224.x) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Patiny S, Michez D, Danforth BN. 2008. Phylogenetic relationships and host-plant evolution within the basal clade of Halictidae (Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Cladistics 24, 255–269. (doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00182.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Haider M, Dorn S, Sedivy C, Müller A. 2014. Phylogeny and floral hosts of a predominantly pollen generalist group of mason bees (Megachilidae: Osmiini). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 111, 78–91. (doi:10.1111/bij.12186) [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Bosch J, Maeta Y, Rust R. 2001. A phylogenetic analysis of nesting behavior in the genus Osmia (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 94, 617–627. (doi:10.1603/0013-8746(2001)094[0617:APAONB]2.0.CO;2) [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Rezende EL, Jordano P, Bascompte J. 2007. Effects of phenotypic complementarity and phylogeny on the nested structure of mutualistic networks. Oikos 116, 1919–1929. (doi:10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.16029.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Williams NS. et al. 2009. A conceptual framework for predicting the effects of urban environments on floras. J. Ecol. 97, 4–9. (doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2008.01460.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Sheeley SE, Raynal DJ. 1996. The distribution and status of species of Vincetoxicum in eastern North America. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 123, 148–156. (doi:10.2307/2996072) [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Kirk M. 1985. Vincetoxicum spp. (Dog-Strangling Vines): alien invaders of natural ecosystems in southern Ontario. Plant Press 3, 130–131. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Miller GC, Kricsfalusy VV, Moleirinho P, Hayes S, Krick R. 2008. Dog-strangling vine—Cynanchum rossicum (Kleopow) Borhidi.: a review of distribution, ecology and control of this invasive exotic plant. Toronto, ON: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. (http://www.rougepark.com/unique/reports/RP_DSV_Report_Dec07.pdf).
  • 79.Reichard SH, White P. 2001. Horticulture as a pathway of invasive plant introductions in the United States: Most invasive plants have been introduced for horticultural use by nurseries, botanical gardens, and individuals. BioScience 51, 103–113. (doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0103:HAAPOI]2.0.CO;2) [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Smith RM, Thompson K, Hodgson JG, Warren PH, Gaston KJ. 2006. Urban domestic gardens (IX): composition and richness of the vascular plant flora, and implications for native biodiversity. Biol. Conserv. 129, 312–322. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2005.10.045) [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Fortel L. et al. 2014. Decreasing abundance, increasing diversity and changing structure of the wild bee community (Hymenoptera: Anthophila) along an urbanization gradient. PLoS ONE 9, e104679 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0104679) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Threlfall CG, Walker K, Williams NSG, Hahs AK, Mata L, Stork N, Livesley SJ. 2015. The conservation value of urban green space habitats for Australian native bee communities. Biol. Conserv. 187, 240–248. (doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.05.003) [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Cane JH. 2001. Habitat fragmentation and native bees: a premature verdict? Conserv. Ecol. 5, 3. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Potts SG, Vulliamy B, Roberts S, O’Toole C, Dafni A, Ne’eman G, Willmer P. 2005. Role of nesting resources in organising diverse bee communities in a Mediterranean landscape. Environ. Entomol. 30, 78–85. (doi:10.1111/j.0307-6946.2005.00662.x) [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Winfree R, Aguilar R, Vázquez DP, LeBuhn G, Aizen MA. 2009. A meta-analysis of bees’ responses to anthropogenic disturbance. Ecology 90, 2068–2076. (doi:10.1890/08-1245.1) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Kennedy CM. et al. 2013. A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems. Ecol. Lett. 16, 584–599. (doi:10.1111/ele.12082) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Schüepp C, Herzog F, Entling MH. 2014. Disentangling multiple drivers of pollination in a landscape-scale experiment. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20132667 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.2667) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Gaston KJ, Warren PH, Thompson K, Smith RM. 2005. Urban domestic gardens (IV): the extent of the resource and its associated features. Biodiv. Conserv. 14, 3327–3349. (doi:10.1007/s10531-004-9513-9) [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Goddard MA, Dougill AJ, Benton TG. 2010. Scaling up from gardens: biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 90–98. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.McDonnell MJ, Pickett ST, Groffman P, Bohlen P, Pouyat RV, Zipperer WC, Parmalee RW, Carreiro MM, Medley K. 1997. Ecosystem processes along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urb. Ecosyst. 1, 21–36. (doi:10.1023/A:1014359024275) [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Michener C. 1964. Evolution of the nests of bees. Am. Zool. 4, 227–239. (doi:10.1093/icb/4.2.227) [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Cane JH, Gerdin S, Wife G. 1983. Mandibular gland secretions of solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea): potential for nest cell disinfection. J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 56, 199–204. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Eltz T, Küttner J, Lunau K, Tollrian R. 2015. Plant secretions prevent wasp parasitism in nests of wool-carder bees, with implications for the diversification of nesting materials in Megachilidae. Front. Ecol. Evol. 2, 86 (doi:10.3389/fevo.2014.00086) [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Potts SG, Vulliamy B, Dafni A, Ne’eman G, Willmer P. 2003. Linking bees and flowers: how do floral communities structure pollinator communities? Ecology 84, 2628–2642. (doi:10.1890/02-0136) [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Tuell JK, Fiedler AK, Landis D, Isaacs R. 2008. Visitation by wild and managed bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) to eastern US native plants for use in conservation programs. Environ. Entomol. 37, 707–718. (doi:10.1603/0046-225X(2008)37[707:VBWAMB]2.0.CO;2) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Garbuzov M, Ratnieks FL. 2014. Listmania: the strengths and weaknesses of lists of garden plants to help pollinators. BioScience 64, 1019–1026. (doi:10.1093/biosci/biu150) [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Salisbury A, Armitage J, Bostock H, Perry J, Tatchell M, Thompson K. 2015. Enhancing gardens as habitats for flower-visiting aerial insects (pollinators): should we plant native or exotic species? J. Appl. Ecol. 52, 1156–1164. (doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12499) [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

DNA sequences: http://dx.doi.org/10.5883/DS-8669.

Articles from Royal Society Open Science are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES