Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Cariveau, D. P.

Publications and source records attributed to Cariveau, D. P..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Pollinator habitat plantings benefit wild, native bees, but do not necessarily favor rare species

O_LIInstalling pollinator habitat is a ubiquitous conservation tool, but little is known about which pollinator taxa require support, or which benefit from habitat installations. C_LIO_LIWe studied the response of rare and common bees to pollinator habitat enhancement. We used independent regional datasets to designate bee species as common or rare based on their rank according to one of three metrics: a) site occurrence frequency, b) local relative abundance, and c) geographic range size. We asked whether the abundance or richness of rare and common bees were greater in pollinator habitat, relative to old-field controls. Because we used an arbitrary, quantile-based cutoff to categorize species rarity, we conducted sensitivity analysis and controlled for rarity classification errors with a null model. With this null model, we determined whether rare and/or common species responded to pollinator habitat disproportionately, compared to the expectation for typical bee species. C_LIO_LIWe found that the number of individuals and of species designated as rare based on local relative abundance was greater in pollinator habitat enhancements. The number of individuals from bee species designated as rare based on site occurrence was lower in pollinator habitat enhancements, but the number of species was not clearly different between habitat types. We did not find a clear positive nor negative effect of habitat enhancement for species designated rare based on geographic range size. For all three rarity metrics, common species increased in abundance and richness in pollinator habitat relative to controls. Null models indicated that in most cases, neither rare nor common species disproportionately benefited from pollinator habitat. C_LIO_LISynthesis and Applications: Our results suggest that pollinator habitat can lead to an increase in the abundance and richness of bees, including species that are rare and that are common. However, rare species appeared to respond differently than typical species, and depending on how species were classified as rare, could display muted or even negative responses to habitat enhancement. Targeting rare species with specific floral resources or unique habitat types may lead to better outcomes for rare and threatened species. C_LI

ecology↗

Pollinator size and its consequences: Predictive allometry for pollinating insects

O_LIBody size is an integral functional trait that underlies pollination-related ecological processes, yet it is often impractical to measure directly. Allometric scaling laws have been used to overcome this problem. However, most existing models rely upon small sample sizes, geographically restricted sampling and have limited applicability for non-bee taxa. Predictive allometric models that consider biogeography, phylogenetic relatedness and intraspecific variation are urgently required to ensure greater accuracy.\nC_LIO_LIHere, we measured body size, as dry weight, and intertegular distance (ITD) of 391 bee species (4035 specimens) and 103 hoverfly species (399 specimens) across four biogeographic regions: Australia, Europe, North America and South America. We updated existing models within a Bayesian mixed-model framework to test the power of ITD to predict interspecific variation in pollinator dry weight in interaction with different co-variates: phylogeny or taxonomy, sexual dimorphism and biogeographic region. In addition, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) regression to assess intraspecific dry weight - ITD relationships for 10 bee and five hoverfly species.\nC_LIO_LIIncluding co-variates led to more robust interspecific body size predictions for both bees (Bayesian R2: 0.946; {Delta}R2 0.047) and hoverflies (Bayesian R2: 0.821; {Delta}R2 0.058) relative to models with ITD alone. In contrast, at the intraspecific level, our results demonstrate that ITD is an inconsistent predictor of body size for bees (R2: 0.02 - 0.66) and hoverflies (R2: -0.11 - 0.44).\nC_LIO_LITherefore, predictive allometry is more suitable for interspecific comparative analyses than assessing intraspecific variation. Collectively, these models form the basis of the dynamic R package, pollimetry, which provides a comprehensive resource for allometric research concerning insect pollinators worldwide.\nC_LI

ecology↗