This statistic shows the number of honey bee colonies in the United States from 2016 to 2023. In 2023, there were approximately **** million honey bee colonies in the United States, a slight decrease from the previous year.

Bumble bees (Bombus) are vitally important pollinators of wild plants and agricultural crops worldwide. Fragmentary observations, however, have suggested population declines in several North American species. Despite rising concern over these observations in the United States, highlighted in a recent National Academy of Sciences report, a national assessment of the geographic scope and possible causal factors of bumble bee decline is lacking. Here, we report results of a 3-y interdisciplinary study of changing distributions, population genetic structure, and levels of pathogen infection in bumble bee populations across the United States. We compare current and historical distributions of eight species, compiling a database of >73,000 museum records for comparison with data from intensive nationwide surveys of >16,000 specimens. We show that the relative abundances of four species have declined by up to 96% and that their surveyed geographic ranges have contracted by 23–87%, some within the last 20 y. We also show that declining populations have significantly higher infection levels of the microsporidian pathogen Nosema bombi and lower genetic diversity compared with co-occurring populations of the stable (nondeclining) species. Higher pathogen prevalence and reduced genetic diversity are, thus, realistic predictors of these alarming patterns of decline in North America, although cause and effect remain uncertain. Bumble bees (Bombus) are integral wild pollinators within native plant communities throughout temperate ecosystems, and recent domestication has boosted their economic importance in crop pollination to a level surpassed only by the honey bee. Their robust size, long tongues, and buzz-pollination behavior (high-frequency buzzing to release pollen from flowers) significantly increase the efficiency of pollen transfer in multibillion dollar crops such as tomatoes and berries. Disturbing reports of bumble bee population declines in Europe have recently spilled over into North America, fueling environmental and economic concerns of global decline. However, the evidence for large-scale range reductions across North America is lacking. Many reports of decline are unpublished, and the few published studies are limited to independent local surveys in northern California/southern Oregon, Ontario, Canada, and Illinois. Furthermore, causal factors leading to the alleged decline of bumble bee populations in North America remain speculative. One compelling but untested hypothesis for the cause of decline in the United States entails the spread of a putatively introduced pathogen, Nosema bombi, which is an obligate intracellular microsporidian parasite found commonly in bumble bees throughout Europe but largely unstudied in North America. Pathogenic effects of N. bombi may vary depending on the host species and reproductive caste and include reductions in colony growth and individual life span and fitness. Population genetic factors could also play a role in Bombus population decline. For instance, small effective population sizes and reduced gene flow among fragmented habitats can result in losses of genetic diversity with negative consequences, and the detrimental impacts of these genetic factors can be especially intensified in bees. Population genetic studies of Bombus are rare worldwide. A single study in the United States identified lower genetic diversity and elevated genetic differentiation (FST) among Illinois populations of the putatively declining B. pensylvanicus relative to those of a codistributed stable species. Similar patterns have been observed in comparative studies of some European species, but most investigations have been geographically restricted and based on limited sampling within and among populations. Although the investigations to date have provided important information on the increasing rarity of some bumble bee species in local populations, the different survey protocols and limited geographic scope of these studies cannot fully capture the general patterns necessary to evaluate the underlying processes or overall gravity of declines. Furthermore, valid tests of the N. bombi hypothesis and its risk to populations across North America call for data on its geographic distribution and infection prevalence among species. Likewise, testing the general importance of population genetic factors in bumble bee decline requires genetic comparisons derived from sampling of multiple stable and declining populations on a large geographic scale. From such range-wide comparisons, we provide incontrovertible evidence that multiple Bombus species have experienced sharp population declines at the national level. We also show that declining populations are associated with both high N. bombi infection levels and low genetic diversity. This data was used in the paper "Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees" published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of United States of America. For more information about this dataset contact: Sydney A. Cameron: scameron@life.illinois.edu James Strange: James.Strange@ars.usda.gov Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Data from: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees (Data Dictionary). File Name: meta.xmlResource Description: This is an XML data dictionary for Data from: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees.Resource Title: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees (DWC Archive). File Name: occurrence.csvResource Description: File modified to remove fields with no recorded values.Resource Title: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees (DWC Archive). File Name: dwca-usda-ars-patternsofwidespreaddecline-bumblebees-v1.1.zipResource Description: Data from: Patterns of Widespread Decline in North American Bumble Bees -- this is a Darwin Core Archive file. The Darwin Core Archive is a zip file that contains three documents.

The occurrence data is stored in the occurrence.txt file. The metadata that describes the columns of this document is called meta.xml. This document is also the data dictionary for this dataset. The metadata that describes the dataset, including author and contact information for this dataset is called eml.xml.

Find the data files at https://bison.usgs.gov/ipt/resource?r=usda-ars-patternsofwidespreaddecline-bumblebees

Bee Colony Census and Loss Data

Bee Colony Census, Survey, and Loss Data in the United States

By Brenda Griffith [source]

About this dataset

The Bee Colony Statistics dataset provides comprehensive data on bee colonies in the United States. It combines information from multiple sources, including the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Bee Informed Partnership (BIP), to present a detailed overview of bee colony surveys, censuses, and losses.

The USDA data includes three major components. The first is the Bee Colony Survey Data by State, which includes information on various metrics related to beekeeping at a state level. This dataset contains data such as the number of beekeepers exclusive to each state, percentage of colonies managed exclusively in each state, and total winter loss of colonies.

The second component is the Bee Colony Census Data by County, offering insights into specific county-level statistics. It presents a breakdown of colony numbers based on counties and also provides other relevant metrics specific to each county.

Lastly, there is the Bee Colony Census Data by State that expands upon these statistics at a more granular state level perspective. It offers a detailed breakdown of colony numbers for individual states across the country.

Additionally, this dataset incorporates valuable information from BIP—a renowned organization dedicated to studying and improving honeybee health—specifically their Bee Colony Loss data for educational purposes only. The original data ownership remains with BIP.

Important notes regarding this dataset include slight variations between reported losses in publications compared to those shown here due to additional analyses conducted. Losses reported as N/A indicate privacy protection when five or fewer beekeepers responded in a particular state; however, their losses are still included within national statistics.

To delve into more specifics about this dataset's columns: it covers factors such as year, period during which data was collected (e.g., season), geographic location down to county level using ANSI codes for identification, various measured values (e.g., number of colonies), coefficient variation representing relative variability in measurements (%CV), program or survey name from which data originated, week ending date when the data was collected, geographical level at which the data is reported (e.g., state, county), zip code of the location where data belongs, region within the United States, watershed information with corresponding code and name, commodity or product being reported (e.g., honey), specific domain or category to categorize each metric (e.g., loss), value reported for respective columns in numeric format.

Through this dataset compilation and analysis, researchers and beekeepers alike can gain insights into colony health trends and make informed decisions about preserving honeybee populations

How to use the dataset

Here is a step-by-step guide on how to utilize this dataset effectively:

• Understanding the Columns:

  • Year: The year in which the data was collected.
  • Period: The time period during which the data was collected.
  • State: The state in the United States for which the data is reported.
  • State ANSI: The ANSI code for the state.
  • Ag District: The agricultural district within the state for which the data is reported.
  • Ag District Code: The code for the agricultural district.
  • County: The county within the state for which the data is reported.
  • County ANSI: The ANSI code for the county.
  • Value/Total Winter All Loss/Beekeepers/Colonies/CV (%): Different measurements or statistics related to bee colonies and losses.

• Exploration by State: Start by analyzing specific states that are of interest to you. Filter or search based on desired states using their respective column values (e.g., State, State ANSI). This will allow you to focus on a particular region or compare multiple states.

• Investigation by County or Agricultural District: Further narrow your analysis by exploring specific counties or agricultural districts within a state using columns like County, County ANSI, Ag District, and Ag District Code. This can help identify patterns or differences between different areas.

• Understanding Survey Data: Some columns provide information about survey responses from beekeepers such as Beekeepers Exclusive to State (percentage of exclusive beekeepers) and Beekeepers (number of responding beekeepers). These can help gauge the level of participation from beekeepers in different regions.

• ...

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Bee population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Bee across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Bee was 167, a 0.60% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Bee population was 168, a decline of 1.18% compared to a population of 170 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Bee decreased by 56. In this period, the peak population was 223 in the year 2000. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Bee is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Bee population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Bee Population by Year. You can refer the same here

Bee Colony Dynamics

U.S. Survey and Census Data

By Brenda Griffith [source]

About this dataset

This dataset provides access to the rich and expansive bee colony contribution information captured by the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service Quick Stats Dataset. Here, you will find survey data by state and census data by county, which can help inform decision-making and research related to beekeeping practices.
Our dataset also covers Bee Informed Partnership's original data on bee colony loss in the U.S., including percentages of colonies exclusive to each state, total winter all loss, number of beekeepers exclusive to each state, as well as overall percentage of populations experiencing losses during a given period. With this valuable data at hand, it becomes easier for policymakers, business owners and researchers to make well informed decisions that help protect our nation's most important pollinators!

More Datasets

For more datasets, click here.

Featured Notebooks

• 🚨 Your notebook can be here! 🚨!

How to use the dataset

The first three datasets contain information on colonies and their management while BIP Bee Loss Clean contains information specifically related to bees’ losses during specific periods and years throughout all 50 states. For each dataset there is a “Search Criteria” excel file which provides more details about what data was collected from each set in order for you to better understand it when looking at query results or performing features/dimensionality reduction analyses based on these criteria one might want different levels of aggregation available for his/her use case wherein he can get helpful insights form both state-level as well as county-level granularities wrapped up together into one entity that can help one draw connections between them over time for example . The datasets include fields such as year, period, state code, agricultural district code, watershed code, region and various others related to the characteristics of colonies and their management in different states over multiple years (from 2017–2020). Depending upon your analysis task or outcome you would like perform afterwards you can carefully choose columns/parameters that best serve your purpose accordingly else it would be bear more processing resources than necessary also consequentlly reducing efficiency overall due sacrificing optimal functioning capabilities at least partiually especially regarding system resources being consumed thereby possibly resulting into noteworthy performance degradation overall , quite obviously hence needful for optimal performance & computational efficiencies unique requisites .

You may also look at other similar data collections such as EPA's official Pollutant Release Inventory or PRI dataset which provides pollutant releases(emissions & transfers) along provide additional relevant insights obtained via analysis corresponding pollutants released across varius waetedbodies & farms within US& respective impacts upon ecosystems^ eco services etc etc ..Meanwhile during Mining IT recource consideration should be given particular attention regarding any redundant preprocessing steps if possible execution done

Research Ideas

• Developing an app or device to help beekeepers track their hive health and productivity over time. This could include tracking population of bees, diseases and pests in their hives, and performance in producing honey.
• Analyzing the data to identify geographical regions with the most favorable conditions for successful bee colonies, which can then be used to better inform prospective new beekeepers as well as eager honey consumers looking for ethically sourced honey products.
• Examining how trends in pollen sources available affect beehive production by correlating census data with changes in local flora or climate over time (e.g., studying areas experiencing severe drought vs those with abundant blooming plants)

Acknowledgements

If you use this dataset in your research, please credit the original authors. Data Source

License

License: Dataset copyright by authors - You are free to: - Share - copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially. - Adapt - remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially. - You must: - Give appropriate credit - Provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. - ShareAlike - You must distribute your contributions u...

Turley NE, Biddinger DJ, Joshi NK, López-Uribe MM. 2022. Six years of wild bee monitoring shows changes in biodiversity within and across years and declines in abundance. Ecology and Evolution.
Wild bees form diverse communities that pollinate plants in both native and agricultural ecosystems making them both ecologically and economically important. The growing evidence of bee declines has sparked increased interest in monitoring bee community and population dynamics using standardized methods. Here, we studied the dynamics of bee biodiversity within and across years by monitoring wild bees adjacent to four apple orchard locations in Southern Pennsylvania, USA. We collected bees using passive Blue Vane traps continuously from April to October for six years (2014-2019) amassing over 26,000 bees representing 144 species. We quantified total abundance, richness, diversity, composition, and phylogenetic structure. There were large seasonal changes in all measures of biodiversity with month explaining an average of 72% of the variation in our models. Changes over time were less dramatic with years explaining an average of 44% of the variation in biodiversity metrics. We found declines in all measures of biodiversity especially in the last 3 years, though additional years of sampling are needed to say if changes over time are part of a larger trend. Analyses of population dynamics over time for the 40 most abundant species indicate that about one third of species showed at least some evidence for declines in abundance. Bee family explained variation in species-level seasonal patterns but we found no consistent family-level patterns in declines, though bumble bees and sweat bees were groups that declined the most. Overall, our results show that season-wide standardized sampling across multiple years can reveal nuanced patterns in bee biodiversity, phenological patterns of bees, and population trends over time of many co-occurring species. These datasets could be used to quantify the relative effects that different aspects of environmental change have on bee communities and to help identify species of conservation concern. Methods Study site Our study took place between 2014 and 2019 at the Pennsylvania State Fruit Research and Extension Center in Adams County, Pennsylvania, USA (39.935226, -77.254530) and nearby apple orchards. This site has an average yearly rainfall of 112 cm, average summer temperature ranging from 16 °C to 28 °C, and average winter temperatures of -5 °C to 5 °C (Biddinger et al., 2018). The landscape is hilly with well-drained soils and the broader area is approximately 56% broadleaf forest fragments, 25% pastureland, 9% developed areas, and 8% commercial orchards (Biddinger et al., 2018). All orchards were managed under growers’ choice conventional pest management programs that use pesticide classes including insect growth regulators, anthranilic diamide, tetramic acid, microbials, and neonicotinoid insecticides (Biddinger et al., 2018). We sampled bees at 8 locations adjacent to 4 different active apple orchards. Sampling locations were within 150 m of orchards and 250 m of a forest fragment (Figure 1), which have diverse plant and pollinator communities (Kammerer et al., 2016). Often orchards rely, in part, on managed honey bee colonies for pollination, which have the potential to negatively impact native bee populations (Mallinger et al., 2017). However, our sampling sites did not have managed honey bee hives within 2 km and growers managing the adjacent orchards had not rented honey bees for at least 15 years. Our bee monitoring traps were located within perennial wildflower strips approximately 50 m x 10 m in size that were sown between 2-3 years before the beginning of our study. Wildflower sites used in this study were established and managed using the specific planting guidelines developed by the Pennsylvania USDA-NRCS and the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (NRCS, 2011). They were sown with 21 species of native forbs and grasses sourced from a local native seed supplier (Ernst Conservation Seed, Meadville, PA 16335). All wildflower sites were mowed once a year and received spot sprays of common selective herbicides to control non-native plants as needed. Bee collections We trapped bees continuously from April to October from 2014 to 2019 using Blue Vane traps (BanfieldBio Inc., Woodinville WA). A previous study in this region showed that Blue Vane traps collect a higher abundance and total richness of bees than colored bowl traps, also called pan traps (Joshi et al., 2015). Although the overall community composition of bees captured in Blue Vane traps was different from bowl traps, nearly all species were more likely to be captured in Blue Vane traps over bowls, except some Andrena and Lasioglossum species (Joshi et al., 2015). In our study, Blue Vane traps were filled with about 7 cm of 60% ethylene glycol (Supertech® Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR), hung from posts about 1.5 m off the ground. At each of our 8 locations, we placed 2 traps 25 m apart. Traps were left outside continuously from April to October every year and traps were replaced each year in case wear over time decreased their attractiveness. Each week, all specimens were removed and the ethylene glycol was replaced. Bee specimens were separated from other insects collected in the traps and stored in 70% alcohol until they were washed, pinned, and labeled. All bees were identified to the species level except 14 individuals that were removed from analyses because of uncertain species-level identification. For bee identification, we used published dichotomous keys (Mitchell, 1960, 1962; Michener et al., 1994, Michener, 2000) and various interactive bee identification guides available at Discover Life (http://www.discoverlife.org). Species identifications were conducted by David Biddinger (Pennsylvania State University), Robert Jean (Senior Entomologist, Environmental Solutions and Innovations, Inc.), Jason Gibbs (University of Manitoba), and Sam Droege (United States Geological Survey). All specimens from this study are stored at the Pennsylvania State Fruit Research and Extension Center, Biglerville, PA, or the Frost Insect Museum at Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

The coastal prairie of Louisiana is classified as a Tier 1 Habitat in the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’ Wildlife Action Plan, meaning that it is a priority habitat of primary conservation concern. Declines in pollinator populations worldwide have prompted questions about the role of such grasslands as habitat for pollinators. In this study, we surveyed bee populations and the plant communities present in the following three grassland types in southwest Louisiana: prairie remnants, restored prairies, and old fields.

About this dataset

Context

The dataset tabulates the Bee Cave population over the last 20 plus years. It lists the population for each year, along with the year on year change in population, as well as the change in percentage terms for each year. The dataset can be utilized to understand the population change of Bee Cave across the last two decades. For example, using this dataset, we can identify if the population is declining or increasing. If there is a change, when the population peaked, or if it is still growing and has not reached its peak. We can also compare the trend with the overall trend of United States population over the same period of time.

Key observations

In 2023, the population of Bee Cave was 8,621, a 2.70% decrease year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Bee Cave population was 8,860, a decline of 1.81% compared to a population of 9,023 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Bee Cave increased by 7,572. In this period, the peak population was 9,159 in the year 2020. The numbers suggest that the population has already reached its peak and is showing a trend of decline. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Content

When available, the data consists of estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Data Coverage:

• From 2000 to 2023

Variables / Data Columns

• Year: This column displays the data year (Measured annually and for years 2000 to 2023)
• Population: The population for the specific year for the Bee Cave is shown in this column.
• Year on Year Change: This column displays the change in Bee Cave population for each year compared to the previous year.
• Change in Percent: This column displays the year on year change as a percentage. Please note that the sum of all percentages may not equal one due to rounding of values.

Good to know

Margin of Error

Data in the dataset are based on the estimates and are subject to sampling variability and thus a margin of error. Neilsberg Research recommends using caution when presening these estimates in your research.

Custom data

If you do need custom data for any of your research project, report or presentation, you can contact our research staff at research@neilsberg.com for a feasibility of a custom tabulation on a fee-for-service basis.

Inspiration

Neilsberg Research Team curates, analyze and publishes demographics and economic data from a variety of public and proprietary sources, each of which often includes multiple surveys and programs. The large majority of Neilsberg Research aggregated datasets and insights is made available for free download at https://www.neilsberg.com/research/.

Recommended for further research

This dataset is a part of the main dataset for Bee Cave Population by Year. You can refer the same here

Ongoing honey bee colony losses are of significant international concern because of the essential role these insects play in pollinating many high nutrient crops, such as fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Both chemical and non-chemical stressors have been implicated as possible contributors to colony failure; however, the potential role(s) of commonly-used neonicotinoid insecticides has emerged as particularly concerning. Neonicotinoids act on the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChRs) in the central nervous system to eliminate target pest insects. However, mounting evidence indicates that these neonicotinoids also may adversely affect beneficial pollinators, such as the honey bee (Apis mellifera), via impairments on learning and memory, and ultimately foraging success. The specific mechanisms linking activation of the nAChR to adverse effects on learning and memory are uncertain. Additionally, clear connections between observed impacts on individual bees and colony level effects are lacking. The objective of this review was to develop adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) as a means to evaluate the biological plausibility and empirical evidence supporting (or refuting) the linkage between activation of the physiological target site, the nAChR, and colony level consequences. Development of AOPs has led to the identification of research gaps which, for example, may be of high priority in understanding how perturbation of pathways involved in neurotransmission can adversely affect normal colony functions, causing colony instability and subsequent bee population failure. A putative AOP network was developed, laying the foundation for further insights as to the role of combined chemical and non-chemical stressors in impacting bee populations. Insights gained from the putative AOP network assembly, which more realistically represents multi-stressor impacts on honey bee colonies, are promising toward understanding common sensitive nodes in key biological pathways and identifying where mitigation strategies may be focused to reduce colony losses. This dataset is not publicly accessible because: No data, literature review only. It can be accessed through the following means: N/A. Format: N/A. This dataset is associated with the following publication: LaLone, C., D. Villeneuve, J. Wu-Smart, R. Milsk, K. Sappington, K. Garber, J. Housenger, and G. Ankley. Weight of evidence evaluation of a network of adverse outcome pathways linking activation of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor in honey bees to colony death. SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT. Elsevier BV, AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS, 584: 751–775, (2017).

The genetic diversity of the USA honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) populations was examined through a molecular approach using two mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) markers. A total of 1,063 samples were analyzed for the mtDNA intergenic region located between the cytochrome c oxidase I and II (COI-COII) and 401 samples were investigated for the NADH dehydrogenase 2 (ND2) coding gene. The samples represented 45 states, the District of Colombia and two territories of the USA. Nationwide, three maternal evolutionary lineages were identified: the North Mediterranean lineage C (93.79%), the West Mediterranean lineage M (3.2%) and the African lineage A (3.01%). A total of 27 haplotypes were identified, 13 of them (95.11%) were already reported and 14 others (4.87%) were found to be novel haplotypes exclusive to the USA. The number of haplotypes per state/territory ranged between two and eight and the haplotype diversity H ranged between 0.236–0.763, with a nationwide haplotype diversity of 0.597. Furthermore, the honey bee populations of the USA were shown to rely heavily (76.64%) on two single haplotypes (C1 = 38.76%, C2j = 37.62%) of the same lineage characterizing A. m. ligustica and A. m. carnica subspecies, respectively. Molecular-variance parsimony in COI-COII and ND2 confirmed this finding and underlined the central and ancestral position of C2d within the C lineage. Moreover, major haplotypes of A. m. mellifera (M3a, M7b, M7c) were recorded in six states (AL, AR, HI, MO, NM and WA). Four classic African haplotypes (A1e, A1v, A4, A4p) were also identified in nine states and Puerto Rico, with higher frequencies in southern states like LA, FL and TX. This data suggests the need to evaluate if a restricted mtDNA haplotype diversity in the US honey bee populations could have negative impacts on the beekeeping sustainability of this country.

description: Bee populations have been declining over the past 60 years in both the U.S. and Europe. In 2008 2.4 million honey-producing hives were estimated to exist in the United States, representing a dramatic decline from 4.5 million in 1980, and 5.9 million in 1947. The incidence of so-called Colony Collapse Disorder, where entire colonies either disappear or stop production has been on the rise, and several causes have been implicated, including the broad use of pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, parasites, and food supply. Whatever the cause, the loss of these pollinators has implications for both the natural vegetative environment and agriculture in general.Refuges, which undergo less development and are under less pressure for pesticide use, offer areas throughout the U.S. for bees to thrive. The contribution of refuges to the overall bee population, however, is unknown, and habitat for bees on refuges has never been assessed. Knowing the location of bee colonies and what types of habitats are used on the refuge will allow us to manage for this important resource more effectively. The Refuge can conserve these areas and develop potential ways to increase pollinator use and/or create additional habitat.This project is designed to develop a baseline for pollinator habitat on the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (JBH) and the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge (L&C). This work is part of a larger regional effort that is being conducted on refuges throughout the West.; abstract: Bee populations have been declining over the past 60 years in both the U.S. and Europe. In 2008 2.4 million honey-producing hives were estimated to exist in the United States, representing a dramatic decline from 4.5 million in 1980, and 5.9 million in 1947. The incidence of so-called Colony Collapse Disorder, where entire colonies either disappear or stop production has been on the rise, and several causes have been implicated, including the broad use of pesticides, particularly neonicotinoids, parasites, and food supply. Whatever the cause, the loss of these pollinators has implications for both the natural vegetative environment and agriculture in general.Refuges, which undergo less development and are under less pressure for pesticide use, offer areas throughout the U.S. for bees to thrive. The contribution of refuges to the overall bee population, however, is unknown, and habitat for bees on refuges has never been assessed. Knowing the location of bee colonies and what types of habitats are used on the refuge will allow us to manage for this important resource more effectively. The Refuge can conserve these areas and develop potential ways to increase pollinator use and/or create additional habitat.This project is designed to develop a baseline for pollinator habitat on the Julia Butler Hansen Refuge for Columbian White-tailed Deer (JBH) and the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge (L&C). This work is part of a larger regional effort that is being conducted on refuges throughout the West.

Pesticide use, disease, climate change, and habitat loss associated with agricultural intensification and urbanization have contributed to the decline of numerous insect groups. Recent government incentives have recognized the importance of supplementary wildflower plantings to support native bee populations, yet little information exists on the attractiveness of recommended plant species to bees. We evaluated the bee attractiveness of 18 native wildflower species belonging to 6 families (Apiaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Lamiaceae, and Verbenaceae) commonly recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) to land managers in the southeastern United States. To accomplish this, we planted the 18 wildflower species in separate 1 m2 plots arranged in a randomized block design with four replicates in Auburn, Alabama, USA. We conducted floral counts and timed sweep netting events to assess each species’ attractiveness to bees from May-November 2019. We also evaluated the floral preferences of seven bee taxa (Apis mellifera, Halictus poeyi/ligatus, Bombus griseocollis, Bombus impatiens, Lasioglossum spp., Megachile spp., and Xylocopa virginica) to the planted wildflower species. We found that Asclepias tuberosa, Gaillardia pulchella, and Verbena hastata attracted the greatest abundance, richness, and diversity of native bees compared to the other wildflower species. While several wildflower species attracted low abundance, richness, and diversity of native bees, they are still ecologically important for attracting uncommon or specialist bee species. Each bee taxa were attracted to a particular combination of planted wildflower species; collectively, Asclepias tuberosa, Gaillardia pulchella, and Verbena hastata attracted 89% of all be taxa in the study, which exemplifies the importance of including them in a wildflower mixture to attract native bees. Our results highlight that each species of native wildflower varies in the abundance, richness, and diversity of native bees they attract; this could be considered in the decision-making of landowners and land managers to promote wildflower plantings to reflect their needs.

IntroductionBee conservation in the US is currently hindered by challenges associated with assessing the status and trends of a diverse group of >3000 species, many of which are rare, endemic to small areas, and/or exhibit high inter-annual variationin population size. Fundamental information about the distribution of most species across space and time, thus, is lacking yet urgently needed to assess population status, guide conservation plans, and prioritize actions among species and geographies.MethodsUsing wild bee data from two public data repositories representing the contiguous US, we evaluated the availability and sufficiency of data for use in species assessments of wild bees. We also examined the number of bee species recorded in each US state and the proportion of species with recent records (2012–2021).ResultsAlthough efforts to monitor bees continue to grow, there remains a massive paucity of data. Exceedingly few records (0.04%)reported both sampling protocol and effort, greatly limiting the usefulness of the data. Few species or locations have adequate publicly available data to support analyses of population status or trends, and fewer than half of species have sufficient data to delineate geographic range. Despite an exponential increase in data submissions since the 2000s, only 47% of species were reported within the last decade, which may be driven by how data are collected, reported, and shared, or may reflect troubling patterns of local or large-scale declines and extirpations.DiscussionBased on our analysis, we provide recommendations to improve the quality and quantity of data that can be used to detect, understand, and respond to changes in wild bee populations.

USBombus is a large dataset that represents the outcomes of the largest standardized survey of bee pollinators (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) on the planet. The motivation to collect live bumble bees across the US was to document the decline and conservation status of Bombus affinis, B. occidentalis, B. pensylvanicus, and B. terricola. The results of study have been published Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences as “Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees” by Cameron et al. (2011). In this dataset we have documented a total of 17,796 adult occurrence records across 391 locations and 38 species of Bombus. The geospatial coverage of the dataset extends across 41 of the 50 US states and from 0 to 3500 m a.s.l. The temporal scale of the dataset represents systematic surveys that took place from 2007 to 2010. The dataset was developed using SQL server 2008 r2. For each specimen, the following information is generally provided: species name, sex, caste, temporal and geospatial details, Cartesian coordinates, data collector(s), and when available, host plants. This database has already proven useful for a variety of studies on bumble bee ecology and conservation. Considering the value of pollinators in agriculture and wild ecosystems, this large systematic collection of bumble bee occurrence records will likely prove useful in investigations into the effects of anthropogenic activities on pollinator community composition and conservation status. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Data from: USBombus, Contemporary Survey Data of North American Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) Distributed in the United States (Data Dictionary). File Name: meta.xmlResource Description: This is the data dictionary for Data from: USBombus, Contemporary Survey Data of North American Bumble Bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) Distributed in the United States.Resource Title: USBombus, contemporary survey data of North American bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) distributed in the United States (DWC Archive). File Name: dwca-usbombus-v2.11.zipResource Description: This is the Darwin Core Archive of USBombus, contemporary survey data of North American bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) distributed in the United States. The Darwin Core Archive is a zip file that contains three documents.

The occurrence data is stored in the occurrence.txt file. The metadata that describes the columns of this document is called meta.xml. This document is also the data dictionary for this dataset. The metadata that describes the dataset, including author and contact information for this dataset is called eml.xml.

Pollinators are important both ecologically and economically. Nonetheless, documented pollinator population decline threatens ecosystem functioning and human well-being. In response, conservation methods such as augmented pollinator habitat are becoming popular tools to combat pollinator losses. While previous research has shown added habitat can benefit bee communities, there are still aspects of the habitat implementation that require further research, particularly how this will impact bee communities in real-world settings beyond researcher-led efforts. In our study, we use a 2016 initiative mandating the planting of pollinator habitat on research stations across North Carolina, United States to act as an outdoor laboratory to investigate this exact question. From 2016 to 2018, we found significant increases in bee abundance and diversity. However, these increases depended on the quality of habitat, with areas of higher flower cover and diversity supporting larger, more diverse bee communities. Although the habitats positively supported bee communities, we found that resources within the habitats were lower later in the sampling season, highlighting the need of developing seed mixes that include late season resources. Weedy plants were documented to establish within the habitats, demonstrating the need for regular upkeep and maintenance of pollinator habitat in order to appropriately support bee communities. It is likely that planting pollinator habitat will not be a one-size-fits-all conservation solution, as bee species can respond differently to some habitat characteristics. Future long-term studies on pollinators will be important as natural fluctuations in bee populations may limit findings and many knowledge gaps on native bees still persist.

The Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (BANWR), along the Mexican border in southern Arizona, is host to a rich community of bird and mammal species, many of which rely on seed-bearing plants for sustenance. Native bees (Anthophila) provide pollination services vital to the reproduction of such plants, and some of Earth’s highest bee diversity has been documented within the broader Sonoran Desert region. Native bees are historically under-monitored, especially in remote, unpopulated, and inaccessible regions. As the climate warms, global declines in native bee populations have underscored the importance of bee monitoring projects. Without baseline occurrence data, tracking the changing status of bee populations is nearly impossible. Despite the diversity of the region and urgent need for monitoring bee populations, the bee fauna of BANWR has not been methodically sampled. We conducted a survey of the BANWR bee fauna at least once a month from May 2019 to March 2020, using blue vane traps at each of eight sites within the refuge. Our sites varied in elevation, precipitation, associated plants, and fire treatment. A total of 39 distinct bee genera were documented across all sites. These data can be used to inform a monitoring program for pollinator health at BANWR.

This national protocol framework is a standardized tool for the inventory and monitoring of the approximately 4,200 species of native and non-native bee species that may be found within the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, this protocol framework may also be used by other organizations and individuals to monitor bees in any given habitat or location. Our goal is to provide USFWS stations within the NWRS (NWRS stations are land units managed by the USFWS such as national wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, wetland management districts, conservation areas, leased lands, etc.) with techniques for developing an initial baseline inventory of what bee species are present on their lands and to provide an inexpensive, simple technique for monitoring bees continuously and for monitoring and evaluating long-term population trends and management impacts. The latter long-term monitoring technique requires a minimal time burden for the individual station, yet can provide a good statistical sample of changing populations that can be investigated at the station, regional, and national levels within the USFWS’ jurisdiction, and compared to other sites within the United States and Canada. This protocol framework was developed in cooperation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the USFWS, and a worldwide network of bee researchers who have investigated the techniques and methods for capturing bees and tracking population changes. The protocol framework evolved from field and lab-based investigations at the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Beltsville, Maryland starting in 2002 and was refined by a large number of USFWS, academic, and state groups. It includes a Protocol Introduction and a set of 8 Standard Operating Procedures or SOPs and adheres to national standards of protocol content and organization. The Protocol Narrative describes the history and need for the protocol framework and summarizes the basic elements of objectives, sampling design, field methods, training, data management, analysis, and reporting. The SOPs provide more detail and specific instructions for implementing the protocol framework. A central database, for managing all the resulting data is under development. We welcome use of this protocol framework by our partners, as appropriate for their bee inventory and monitoring objectives.

Habitat loss and degradation due to agricultural intensification and urbanization are key threats facing wild pollinators, especially bees. However, data on the distribution and abundance of most of the world's 20,000+ bee species is lacking, making it difficult to assess the effects of anthropogenic disturbance through time. Moreover, there are geographic biases in the study of bees creating gaps in our understanding of species distributions and regional patterns of diversity. Research efforts are often focused around cities or field stations associated with universities and other research institutions. In this perspectives paper, we provide examples of geographic bias in knowledge regarding bee species distributions using recently collected data from Michigan and Colorado, USA—two states with published species checklists. We illustrate how a limited sampling effort can advance knowledge about bee species distributions, yielding species occurrence records at local and regional scales. Given the implications of geographic biases, we recommend future research efforts focus on poorly sampled geographic regions, especially those affected by anthropogenic disturbance, in order to expand our understanding of human impacts on wild bee species. Sampling across a broader geographic area will provide critical information for taxonomy and predictive models of bee species distributions and diversity. We encourage researchers to plan future studies with consideration of strategies to avoid oversampling local bee populations, the taxonomic expertise required to identify specimens, and resources necessary to voucher specimens.

Honey bees (Apis mellifera) play a critical role in global food production as pollinators of numerous crops. Recently, honey bee populations in the United States, Canada, and Europe have suffered an unexplained increase in annual losses due to a phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). Epidemiological analysis of CCD is confounded by a relative dearth of bee pathogen field studies. To identify what constitutes an abnormal pathophysiological condition in a honey bee colony, it is critical to have characterized the spectrum of exogenous infectious agents in healthy hives over time. We conducted a prospective study of a large scale migratory bee keeping operation using high-frequency sampling paired with comprehensive molecular detection methods, including a custom microarray, qPCR, and ultra deep sequencing. We established seasonal incidence and abundance of known viruses, Nosema sp., Crithidia mellificae, and bacteria. Ultra deep sequence analysis further identified four novel RNA viruses, two of which were the most abundant observed components of the honey bee microbiome (∼10(11) viruses per honey bee). Our results demonstrate episodic viral incidence and distinct pathogen patterns between summer and winter time-points. Peak infection of common honey bee viruses and Nosema occurred in the summer, whereas levels of the trypanosomatid Crithidia mellificae and Lake Sinai virus 2, a novel virus, peaked in January.

Graph and download economic data for Resident Population in Bee County, TX (TXBEEC5POP) from 1970 to 2024 about Bee County, TX; residents; TX; population; and USA.