Geology topics

Neal M. Williams

Publications and source records attributed to Neal M. Williams.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2021

Impact of "non-lethal" tarsal clipping on bumble bees (Bombus vosnesenskii) may depend on queen stage and worker size

Recent bumble bee declines have prompted the development of novel population monitoring tools, including the use of putatively non-lethal tarsal clipping to obtain genetic material. However, the potential side effects of tarsal clipping have only been tested in the worker caste of a single domesticated species, prompting the need to more broadly test whether tarsal clipping negatively affects sampled individuals. To determine if tarsal clipping reduces queen survivorship and colony establishment, we collected wild queens of Bombus vosnesenskii and clipped tarsi from a single leg of half the individuals. We reared captive queens and estimated survivorship and nest establishment success. We also clipped tarsi of workers from a subset of colonies across a range of body sizes. We found no consistent negative effect of clipping on queen survival. In the first year, clipped nest-searching queens suffered heavy mortality, but there was no effect on foraging queens. The following year, we found no effect of clipping on queen survival or establishment. Clipping did not reduce overall worker survival but reduced survivorship for those in the smallest size quartile.

Journal of Insect Conservation↗

USGS2020

Wildfire reveals transient changes to individual traits and population responses of a native bumble bee ( Bombus vosnesenskii )

1. Fire-induced changes in the abundance and distribution of organisms, especially plants, can alter resource landscapes for mobile consumers driving bottom-up effects on their population sizes, morphologies, and reproductive potential. We expect these impacts to be most striking for obligate visitors of plants, like bees and other pollinators, but these impacts can be difficult to interpret due to the limited information provided by forager counts in the absence of survival or fitness proxies. 2. Increased bumble bee worker abundance is often coincident with the pulses of flowers that follow recent fire. However, it is unknown if observed postfire activity is due to underlying population growth or a stable pool of colonies recruiting more foragers to abundant resource patches. This distinction is necessary for determining the net impact of disturbance on bumble bees: are there population-wide responses or do just a few colonies reap the rewards? 3. We estimated colony abundance before and after fire in burned and unburned areas using a genetic mark-recapture framework. We paired colony abundance estimates with measures of body size, counts of queens, and estimates of foraging and dispersal to assess changes in worker size, reproductive output, and landscape-scale movements. 4. Higher floral abundance following fire not only increased forager abundance, but also the number of colonies from which those foragers came. Importantly, despite a larger population size we also observed increased mean worker size. Two years following fire, queen abundance was higher in both burned and unburned sites, potentially due to the dispersal of queens from burned into unburned areas. The effects of fire were transient; within two growing seasons, worker abundance was substantially reduced across the entire sampling area and body sizes were similar between burned and unburned sites. 5. Our results reveal how disturbance can temporarily release populations from resource limitation, boosting the genetic diversity, body size, and reproductive output of populations. Given that the effects of fire on bumble bees acted indirectly through pulsed resource availability, it is likely our results are generalizable to other situations, such as habitat restorations, where resource density is enhanced within the landscape.

California↗

USGS2020

Forests do not limit bumble bee foraging movements in a montane meadow complex

1. Understanding the roles of habitat fragmentation and resource availability in shaping animal movement are integral for promoting species persistence and conservation. For insects like bumble bees, their movement patterns affect the survival and reproductive potential of their colonies as well as the pollen flow of plant species. However, our understanding of their mobility or the impact of putative barriers in natural environments is limited due to the technical difficulties of studying wild populations. 2. We used genetic mark-recapture to estimate the foraging distance, resource use, and site connectivity of two bumble bee species in a montane meadow complex composed of open meadows within a matrix of forest. 3. There was no evidence that forests or changes in landcover function as barriers to the fine‐scale movement for either species. Substantially greater colony‐specific foraging distances were found for Bombus vosnesenskii (maximum: 1867 m) compared to Bombus bifarius (maximum: 362 m). Despite this difference in absolute range, both species were detected across putative forest barriers at frequencies expected by uninhibited movement. Siblings separated by greater distances were more likely to be foraging on different floral species, potentially suggesting a resource‐based motivation for movement. 4. These results suggest that bumble bee foraging patterns are influenced by species-specific differences in movement capacity, with little influence of matrix composition between resource patches. They also support the perspective that habitat conservation for bumble bees should prioritize providing abundant and diverse patches of resources within species-specific movement radii with less emphasis on matrix composition.

Ecological Entomology↗

USGS2020

Towards a U.S. national program for monitoring native bees

North America has more than 4000 bee species, yet we have little information on the health, distribution, and population trends of most of these species. In the United States, what information is available is distributed across multiple institutions, and efforts to track bee populations are largely uncoordinated on a national scale. An overarching framework for monitoring U.S. native bees could provide a system that is responsive to national needs, resources, and capacities. Five major action areas and priorities for structuring a coordinated effort include: (1) Defining the scope, aims, and cost of a national native bee monitoring program; (2) Improving the national capacity in bee taxonomy and systematics; (3) Gathering and cataloging data that are standardized, accessible, and sustainable; (4) Identifying survey methods and prioritizing taxa to monitor; and (5) Prioritizing geographic areas to be monitored. Here, we detail the needs, challenges, and opportunities associated with developing a multi-layered U.S. national plan for native bee monitoring.

Biological Conservation↗

USGS2019

Pesticides and pollinators: A socioecological synthesis

The relationship between pesticides and pollinators , while attracting no shortage of attention from scientists, regulators, and the public, has proven resistant to scientific synthesis and fractious in matters of policy and public opinion. This is in part because the issue has been approached in a compartmentalized and intradisciplinary way, such that evaluations of organismal pesticide effects remain largely disjoint from their upstream drivers and downstream consequences. Here, we present a socioecological framework designed to synthesize the pesticide-pollinator system and inform future scholarship and action. Our framework consists of three interlocking domains-pesticide use, pesticide exposure, and pesticide effects–each consisting of causally linked patterns, processes, and states. We elaborate each of these domains and their linkages, reviewing relevant literature and providing empirical case studies. We then propose guidelines for future pesticide-pollinator scholarship and action agenda aimed at strengthening knowledge in neglected domains and integrating knowledge across domains to provide decision support for stakeholders and policymakers. Specifically, we emphasize (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) mechanistic study of pesticide exposure, (3) understanding the propagation of pesticide effects across levels of organization, and (4) full-cost accounting of the externalities of pesticide use and regulation. Addressing these items will require transdisciplinary collaborations within and beyond the scientific community, including the expertise of farmers, agrochemical developers, and policymakers in an extended peer community.

Science of the Total Environment↗