Ohio Biological Survey Notes 7: 1-13, 2017. © Ohio Biological Survey, Inc. Quantifying Bee Diversity and Resource Use in the Appalachian Foothills near Marietta, Ohio MaLisa R. Spring*’^, Katy S. Lustofin^, Chia-Hua Lin^, Mary M. Gardiner^ and Dave McShaffrey^ ’Department of Entomology, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691; -Department of Biology and Environmental Science, Marietta College, Marietta, OH 45750; ^Department of Evolution, Ecology and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 Abstract: We surveyed bee ncliness, abundance, and diversity within Waslimgton County, Ohio Bees were collected at three sites within Washington County every two weeks from April to October 2013 using pan traps, vane traps, and hand collecting. A total of 2,753 bees were pinned and identified to genus, and when possible, species. A total of 35 genera of bees were collected representing over 130 species in five families. Of the species collected, 74 had fewer tlian 3 representatives. The most conmion genera were Andrena, Lasioglossiim, and Ceratina. Of the bees collected, 81 individuals, the majority of which were Andrena erigeniae (n=49) or Andrena violae (n=I2), had visible pollen loads. Andrena erigeniae was found to collect pollen mainly from Clay'tonia virginica. Andrena violae collected pollen from a variety of spring ephemerals in addition to violets, Overall, this research provides a baseline understanding of the current bee populations in southeastern Ohio. More work is needed m a larger variety of habitats to better understand the bee diversity and richness across southeastern Ohio. Introduction Victorian-era collection and identification of organisms seems to have gone out of style. However, habitat surveys are imperative for understanding changes in biodiversity over time. Local changes in richness and/or species diversity can only be determined if there is a baseline for comparison Worldwide, bees have been documented as m declme (Browm and Paxton, 2009). This includes decreases in both abundance and diversity and varies greatly depending on landscape changes (Burkle et al., 2013). As anthropogenic change continues, especially climate change, it is imperative to establish biodiversity baselines against which further surveys can be compared. Washington county is 1,657 km- and includes the small town (population 15,000) of Marietta (39.4154° N, 81 .4548° W). Marietta, Ohio, is rich in human history as the first capital of the Northwest Territory. However, the natural history of southeastern Ohio is sparse, especially involving bee species records. Therefore, this study set out to 1) determine the bee species richness and abundance in and around Marietta, Ohio, and 2) determine floral resource utilization of bees. Materials and Methods Sampling Sites. Three sites were chosen in Washington County: the Barbara A. Beiser Field Station, the Marietta College campus, and the Washington County Career Center From east to west, the Barbara A. Beiser Field station is ~12 kilometers from the Marietta College campus, which is ~8 kilometers from the Washington County Career Center. The Barbara A. Beiser Field Station was formally established in 2008 and transferred to co-management by Marietta College and Friends of the Lower Muskingum. It is 77 acres of forest, old field, and streamfront, most of which is on a slope. Each site had three transects of ~1 50 meters (Figure 1 ). The transects at the field station were in old field habitat bordered by forest edge. The transects at the Marietta College campus were on turf grass next to a stream overrun with invasive and ornamental plants At the Washington County Career Center, one transect was on turf grass and tire other two transects were old field habitat bordered by forest edge. The final transect at the Washington County Career Center was a clearing for an oil well surrounded by many acres of dense forest. Bee Collection. Sampling consisted of bee bowls, hand-netting, and blue vane trapping. Bee bowls consisted of 96 ml souffle (Solo®) cups painted either fluorescent yellow, fluorescent blue, or left white (Guerra Paints) as per the standardized guidelines of the Handy Bee Manual (Droege, 2012). Ninety bee bowls were set every five meters along each 150 meter transect. The bowls were half-filled with soap solution (0.5% blue Dawn® dish soap and distilled water mixture) and left out for 24 hours. Sampling for the bee bowls took place approximately every 2 weeks from April 201 3 to mid-October 201 3 on non-rainy days. 1 Hand-collection and netting occurred three times: April 29th, July 3rd, and August 2nd. Hand-collection or netting involved timed walks of 5 minutes along the transects to catch any observed bee within 5 meters of the transect. Blue vane traps (SpringStar™) were incorporated in an attempt to catch larger bees that escape from smaller traps (Stephan and Rao, 2005). The vane traps were used starting at the end of August until the first frost in October. Only one vane trap was set per transect and they were deployed for the same duration as the bee bowls. As with the bee bowls, these were half-filled with the soapy water solution. Figure 1. Sampling sites: A) the Marietta College campus; B) the Washington County Career Center; C) the Barbara A. Beiser Field Station. Sample Preparation. Samples were stored in 70% ethanol. Bees were sorted from bycatch, washed, blown dry, and pinned as per recommendations from the Handy Bee Manual (Droege, 2012). Bees were identified to genus using Michener et al. (1994). Species identification was based largely on Discoverlife.org (Droege et al, 2013). Sam Droege (USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab) confirmed species-level identification of bees and identified all specimens in the genera Lasioglossum and Nomada. In addition to calculated species richness, the Simpson’s Diversity Index was used to calculate diversity (Simpson 1949). The modified Simpson’s Diversity Equation is as follows: D = 1 - ( X (m {ni - \)) I N{N-\)) Species accumulation curves for bee bowl samples were created in R (3.2.2) with package vegan (2.3-1). Samples were summed over the entire year and species complexes were removed from the analysis to get an estimate of species present. Simpson’s Diversity Index provides information about the diversity and evenness of the samples and range from 0 to 1, where 0 is a 100% probability of getting two specimens of the same species from a sample and 1 is a 0% probability of randomly selecting two specimens of the same species from a sample (Simpson 1949). Since most bees were collected in a soapy water solution, only bees with large, visible pollen loads were chosen for pollen analysis. Contamination from the collection method is possible; hence, only dominant pollen grains were identified to decrease the likelihood of identifying contaminants in the pollen masses. The pollen loads were gently scraped from the scopa with an insect pin and placed in labeled microcentrifuge tubes with 70% ethanol until they could be processed. Pollen slides were made using basic fuschin jelly to stain the grains (Kearns and Inouye, 1993) and then compared to a reference collection of pollen. Results Bees Collected. We collected 2,753 bees from the three locations sampled during 2013. A total of 28 bees were collected from vane traps, 147 were hand collected, and the remaining 2,578 were from bee bowls. Overall abundance was 995 at the Barbara A. Beiser Field Station, 760 at the Marietta College Campus, and 972 at the Washington County Career Center, with 26 bees collected elsewhere in Washington County. Five families of bees were collected: Apidae, Andrenidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, and Megachilidae. These pollinators belonged to 35 genera, and 130 species (Appendix 1). Of these 130 species, 74 had fewer than 3 representatives. The most common species were Andrena erigeniae, A. violae, Calliopsis andreniformis. Apis mellifera, Ceratina calcarata, C. mikmaqi, C. strenua, and Lasioglossum versatum. Eight species were state records (not previously reported) for Ohio: A. macro, Hylaeus leptocephalus, Nomada annulata, N. luteola, Melecta pacifica, Stelis nitida, L. gotham, and L. subviridatum. Only a small number of bees not native to the United States were found: A. wilkella (n=l), Anthidium 2 manicatum (n=5), An. oblongatum (n=41), Apis mellifera (n=146), H. leptocephalus (n=2), Megachile rotundata (n=35), Osmia cornifrons (n=3), and O. taurus (n=10). This study also found the first reported case of gynandromorphy (individual with both male and female body parts) in the bumble bee Bombus bimaculatus at the Barbara A. Reiser Field Station (Spring et af, 2015). This has only been reported in 113 bee species worldwide (Hinojosa-Diaz et af, 2012) with Michez et al. (2009) providing a comprehensive review of the condition. Very few of the bees were stylopized, with the authors only finding six specimens of Andrena with streps ipterans remaining in their abdomen (Spring et af, 2015). Species diversity estimates. The calculated bee diversity (D) for all sites was as follows: the Washington County Career Center (0.929), the Barbara A. Reiser Field Station (0.875), and the Marietta College Campus (0.957). A total of 2,434 specimens were used to create the species accumulation curves once species complexes were removed from the bee bowl data. Species accumulation curves were created for each site using chao, jackknife, and bootstrap (Table 1). The estimated species richness that could be collected via bee bowls is 172 (Chao), 172 (Jackknife 1), 194 (Jackknife2), and 147 (Bootstrap) (Figure 2). Table 1. Species Accumulation Curve for bee bowl collection. Site Sampled species richness Chao Chao SE Jacki Jacki SE Jack 2 Boot n Overall 126 172.22 17.11 172.22 18.91 194.97 147.24 9 BFS 52 82.25 14.75 74 16.93 83.0 62.22 3 MC 77 105.00 11.83 105 19.80 115.5 90.22 3 WCCC 77 93.90 7.46 103 19.87 111.0 89.67 3 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 Size Figure 2. Species Accumulation Curve for bee bowl samples. Pollen analysis. A total of 81 bees collected had visible pollen loads. Of these 81 bees, 66 were from the genus Andrena. Furthermore, a majority of these bees were from QithQX Andrena erigeniae (n=50) or Andrena violae (n=12). Andrena erigeniae was found to collect mainly Claytonia virginica, a spring ephemeral common in Southeastern Ohio, but occasionally had other pollen in their loads including Taraxacum officinale, Caryophyllaceae, and Brassicaceae (Table 2). Andrena violae was found to have on average two dominant pollen types per load, but the types of pollen varied greatly by individual (Table 2). 3 Table 2. Pollen Loads Bee Species Average # of pollen types dominant per individual Pollen Type Andrena erigeniae (n=50) 1.24 Claytonia virginica. Taraxacum officinale, Caryophyllaceae, Brassicaceae Andrena perplexa (n=3) 4 Cornus spp., Viburnum spp., Carya spp. Andrena violae (n=12) 2.16 Rosaceae, Lamiaceae, Ranunculaceae, Lonicera spp., Oxalis stricta Halictus Hgatus (n=7) 1.71 Taraxacum officinale, Asteraceae Discussion There are only a few studies involving bees in Ohio, with most as part of ecological or agricultural studies and completed within the last decade (Arduser, 2010; Bernliardt et ah, 2008; Cusser and Goodell, 2013; Her and Goodell, 2014; Goodell et af, 2010; Pardee and Philpott, 2014, Phillips and Gardiner 2015). Of the studies in the nearby states, there is a tendency to focus on an agricultural crop, such as apple orchards (Gardner and Ascher, 2006, Russo et af, 2015), sunflowers (Todd et af, 2016), or bluebeny^ (Tuell et af, 2009) among many otliers. Occasionally, nearby studies focus on specific habitat such as sand dunes (Grundel et af, 2011), powerline right-of-ways (Russell et af, 2005), or shale barrens (Kalhorn et af, 2003). Other states are working on bee diversity and richness estimates, but many states lack a defined species list (Tucker and Rehan, 2016). There is a dearth of species diversity surveys in Ohio. It is a large state, rich in biodiversity (thanks to the varietv^ of habitats), and is thus likely to host a wide diversity of bees. The most recently published bee diversity survey occurred in the northwestern portion of Ohio in the Oak Openings (Arduser,. 2010). This study took place on a nature preserve known for its biodiversity and unique habitat (Arduser, 2010). A direct comparison of diversity between these two studies is challenging because Arduser (2010) used hand-netting as the mam sampling method, whereas this study largely utilized bee bowls, which are known to attract a slightly different subset of pollinators. Moreover, this study took place tliroughout the entire flying season from end of frost to first frost in the fall. The sampling efToit for Arduser (2010) was mainly when the author had a chance to be in northern Ohio over a period of 3 years. Despite this discrepancy in sampling methods, Arduser (2010) found 116 species among 486 individuals hand-collected from flowers, However, other than MitchelPs early work on bees across the United States, which only shows estimated distributions (Mitchell, 1960, Mitchell, 1962), and the study in Northwestern Ohio by Arduser, bee diversity remains largely understudied in Ohio. This is the first published year-long survey of bee diversity in soutlieastern Ohio known to the authors. We found a total of 130 bee species, which is similar in number, but not composition, to other bee diversity studies (Arduser, 2010; Giles and Ascher, 2006; Grundel et af, 201 1 ). We found a total of eight state records of bee species not previously reported in Ohio (Sam Droege, pers. comm). Of these records, one was a newly split species group (I. gotham) (Gibbs, 2011) or invasive (H. leptocephalus). Two records are of species not reported in many collections (A. macro and L. siibviridatum); thus, they are rare in general. The remainder are parasites of other bees {N. ammlata, N. luteoloa, Melecta pacifica, and S. nitida). This number of state records could be partly due to the habitat; the Appalachian foothills are still understudied for their bee diversity, and most research involving bees occurs in the central and northern region of the state. Species diversity was calculated using the reciprocal Simpson’s Diversity Index. With tins equation, a larger value (between 0-1) on the Simpson’s Diversity Index indicates a greater likelihood of randomly selecting two different species when selecting two specimens. A larger value can therefore be interpreted as a higher-diversity assemblage. All three sites had high index values (>0.85), which would imply diverse assemblages and good biodiversity of the overall area Moreover, the species estimates for just bowl collection of the area range from 147-194 species, whereas we only collected a total of 126 species with bee bowls. This implies that subsequent years of sampling with bee bowls should still find more species. Importantly, this calculation did not take into account alternative sampling methods, which are known to collect a different subset of the biodiversity in bees. Thus, the authors recommend additional effort in Washington County focusing on vane traps and hand- collection to get a better idea of bee richness. 4 Pollen loads. Of the 2,753 bees collected, few had visible pollen loads remaining once they got back to the lab. This could be partly due to the pollen packing methods of different bee species. Some species mix pollen with nectar to get the mass to stay attached to the scopa, whereas others just brush the pollen onto their scopa. Of the bees collected with visible pollen loads, most were in the genus Andrena. Andrena erigeniae is often stated as a pollen specialist on Claytonia virginica (Reese and Barrows, 1980). All of our specimens were found to be collecting C. virginica pollen, though they did occasionally have large quantities of other pollens present. Many articles, without referencing sources, state that A. violae only pollinates violets (Motton, 1986; Giles and Ascher, 2006). In our case, A. violae is found to collect pollen from a variety of sources, rarely having similar pollen loads. Older literature shows that A. violae is documented on many spring ephemerals in addition to violets (Robertson 1929; Mitchell 1960), which is more in line with our data. Future Research The authors recommend that the study be repeated in a few years with more hand-netting to collect more species. Increased hand-collection has the potential to find more species that are unlikely to visit bee bowls. Furthermore, collection at additional sites with a wider variety of habitats and fioral resources is recommended to get a better idea of the diversity present in and around the historic area of Marietta, Ohio. Acknowledgements We would like to thank Sam Droege from the USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab for his help with confirmations of IDs and species identification of the Lasioglossum and Nomada. We would also like to thank Karen Goodell for access to her reference collection of Ohio bees in the spring of 2014. Thanks also go to the following undergraduates at Marietta College who assisted with the 3:00 a.m. set-up time for bee bowls and vane traps or hand-collecting during the day: Rachel Shoop, Anna Cooper, Tristine Toves, and Rachel Stahl. Furthermore, we would like to thank the Marietta College Investigative Studies program and the Biology and Environmental Science Department for funding this project, and the Investigative Studies Travel grant for funding travel to both the Association for Southeastern Biologists meeting and the International Conference for Pollinator Biology, Health, and Policy. Thanks for diversity index calculation and interpretation goes to Katherine Todd and Bryan Zake. A synoptic collection of this research is housed at the Museum of Biological Diversity at The Ohio State University. Appendix 1. Species list and abundance of individuals. Species Total BFS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BFS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 CO 1- (J MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Agapostemon virescens 29 1 1 0 2 5 4 10 19 5 3 0 8 0 Andrena Barbara 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena harhilabris 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena bisalicis 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena bradleyi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena brevipalpis 3 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena carlini 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 5 Species Total BFS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BFS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Andrena commoda 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena cressonii 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Andrena cressonii cressonii 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 Andrena distans 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena erigeniae 323 42 94 96 232 10 16 21 47 6 10 28 44 0 Andrena gardineri 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Andrena illini 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Andrena imitatrix 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena macra 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 Andrena miserabilis 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena nasonii 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 Andrena nubecula 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Andrena perplexa 40 0 6 0 6 8 10 4 22 4 7 1 12 0 Andrena placata 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Andrena pruni 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena robertsonii 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 Andrena sayi 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena simplex 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena sp. 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 Andrena vicina 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 Andrena violae 266 59 77 44 180 12 14 18 44 5 21 16 42 0 Andrena wheeleri 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Species Total BFS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BFS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Andrena wilkella 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Anthidiellum notatum notatum 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Anthidium manicatum 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 1 Anthidium oblongatum 40 0 0 0 0 7 13 5 25 0 11 3 14 1 Anthophora terminalis 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Apis mellifera 147 5 10 4 19 21 41 27 89 15 11 10 36 3 Augochlora pura 49 6 22 2 30 2 2 3 7 2 7 3 12 0 Augochlorella aurata 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7 7 15 0 Augochloropsis metallica 7 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 0 Bombus auricomus 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Bombus bimaculatus 15 6 1 0 7 2 1 2 5 0 1 1 2 1 Bombus griseocollis 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Bombus impatiens 20 0 0 0 0 7 3 2 12 0 3 3 6 2 Bombus perplexus 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 Bombus vagans 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Calliopsis andreniformis 95 2 2 0 4 0 3 3 6 0 16 69 85 0 Ceratina CClicClTCltCl 169 7 64 15 86 38 5 5 48 11 5 19 35 0 Ceratina da^la 38 2 7 8 17 3 0 1 4 1 7 9 17 0 Ceratina mikmaqi 97 5 26 21 52 4 0 1 5 3 14 23 40 0 Ceratina sp. 5 0 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 Ceratina strenua 396 7 115 27 149 26 17 23 66 22 25 134 181 0 Chelostoma philadelphi 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 Species Total BFS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BFS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Coelioxys sayi 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Coelioxys sayi/ octodenata 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Colletes inaequalis 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Colletes simulans 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eucera atriventris 15 3 0 1 4 2 1 3 6 2 0 3 5 0 Eucera dubitata 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Eucera hamata 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Eucera sp. 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Halictus confusus 23 0 0 0 0 7 10 4 21 0 0 0 0 2 Halictus ligatus 76 2 7 1 10 11 3 6 20 8 15 23 46 0 Halictus rubicundus 9 1 2 0 3 1 1 0 2 2 2 0 4 0 Halictus sp. 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Heriades leavitti/ variolosa 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Holcopasites calliopsidis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 Hoplitis pilosifrons 8 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 5 7 0 Hoplitis producta 22 4 3 4 11 6 0 2 8 0 2 1 3 0 Hoplitis spoliata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Hylaeus affinis/ modestus 27 3 5 2 10 4 2 1 7 0 6 4 10 0 Hylaeus hyalinatus 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Hylaeus leptocephalus 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Hylaeus mesillae 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 Hylaeus sp. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 8 Species Total BFS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BFS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Lasioglossum admirandum 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum bruneri 4 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum cattallac 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Lasioglossum coriaceum 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 3 3 0 Lasioglossum cressonii 5 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Lasioglossum ephialtum 6 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 5 1 0 0 1 0 Lasioglossum foxii 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum fuscipenne 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Lasioglossum gotham 10 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 6 1 0 2 3 0 Lasioglossum hitchensi 52 1 5 1 7 10 11 10 31 3 5 6 14 0 Lasioglossum imitatum 21 0 1 0 1 9 6 5 20 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum katherineae 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum obscurum 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum para- admirandum 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum quebecense 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 Lasioglossum sp. 76 3 9 2 14 20 6 7 33 5 11 9 25 4 Lasioglossum subviridatum 10 0 3 1 4 1 0 0 1 2 2 1 5 0 Lasioglossum tegulare 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 Lasioglossum truncatum 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 Lasioglossum versans 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lasioglossum versatum 202 4 34 12 50 8 9 1 18 34 49 51 134 0 Megachile brevis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 9 Species Total BPS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BPS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Megachile campanulae 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Megachile centuncularis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Megachile inimica sayi 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Megachile mendica 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 1 1 0 2 0 Megachile montivaga 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Megachile petulans 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Megachile rotundata 37 0 0 0 0 13 15 5 33 1 0 2 3 1 Megachile sp. 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 Melecta pacifica 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Melissodes himaculatus 15 2 2 0 4 3 2 3 8 1 0 1 2 1 Melissodes coloradensis 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melissodes denticulata 13 2 6 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 0 Melissodes desponsa 7 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 4 0 Melissodes druriella 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 Melissodes sp. 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Melitoma taurea 15 4 6 0 10 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 2 0 Nomada (Bidentate) 15 0 2 0 2 1 3 1 5 4 1 3 8 0 Nomada annulata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Nomada articulata 4 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 Nomada cressonii 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Nomada denticulata 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Nomada depressa 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Nomada fervida 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Species Total BFS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BFS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Nomada imbricata 18 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 3 4 7 14 0 Nomada luteola 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 Nomada luteoloides 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 0 Nomada parva 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 Nomada pygmaea 7 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 4 0 Nomada sp. 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Osmia atriventris 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 4 0 2 1 3 0 Osmia hucephala 17 6 1 2 9 2 1 0 3 0 1 4 5 0 Osmia caerulescens/ cordata 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 0 Osmia collinsiae 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 Osmia cordata 18 0 0 1 1 10 1 2 13 2 1 1 4 0 Osmia cornifrons 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 Osmia distincta 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 0 Osmia georgica 15 2 2 2 6 3 1 0 4 2 0 3 5 0 Osmia inspergens 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Osmia pumila 9 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 0 Osmia sp. 21 1 1 0 2 7 0 1 8 5 3 3 11 0 Osmia subfasciata 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Osmia taurus 12 1 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 3 0 2 5 2 Panurginus potentillae 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 Peponapis pruinosa 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 Ptilothrix bombiformis 11 0 0 0 0 2 4 2 8 1 1 1 3 0 11 Species Total BPS T1 C\l 1- co LL DO BPS T3 BFS Total MCT1 MCT2 MCT3 MC Total WCCC T1 WCCC T2 WCCC T3 WCCC Total Other Sites Sphecodes coronus 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Stelis lateralis 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Stelis nitida 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Triepeolus cressonii? 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Xylocopa virginica 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 SUM 2753 995 760 972 26 Literature Cited Arduser, M. 2010. Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of the Kitty Todd Preserve, Lucas County, Ohio. Great Lakes Entomologist 43: 45-68. Bernhardt, C. E., Mitchell, R. J., and Michaels, H. E. 2008. Effects of population size and density on pollinator visitation, pollinator behavior, and pollen tube abundance in Lupinus perennis. International Journal of Plant Sciences 169: 944-953. Brown, J. F., and Paxton, R. J. 2009. The conservation of bees: a global perspective. Apidologie 40: 410-416. Burkle, L. A., Marlin, J. C., and Knight, T. M. 2013. Plant-pollinator interactions over 120 years: loss of species, co- occurrence, and function. Science 339: 1611-1615. Cusser, S., and Goodell, K. 2013. Diversity and distribution of floral resources influence the restoration of plant-pollinator networks on a reclaimed strip mine. Restoration Ecology 21 : 713-721 . Droege, S. 2012. The very handy manual: how to catch and identify bees and manage a collection. USGS Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Tab. Droege, S., Jean, R., and Orr, M. 2013. Discover Eife ID nature guide (draft): bee genera of Eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). Available from http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Apoidea Her, A. M., and Goodell, K. 2014. Relative floral density of an invasive plant affects pollinator foraging behavior on a native plant. Journal of Pollination Ecology 13: 173-183. Gardner, K. E., and Ascher, J. S. 2006. Notes on the native bee pollinators in New York apple orchards. Journal of New York Entomological Society 114: 86-91. Gibbs, J. 2011. Revision of the metallic Lasioglossum (Dialictus) of eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini). Zootaxa 3073: 1-216. Giles, V., and Ascher, J. S. 2006. A survey of the bees of the Black Rock Forest Preserve, New York. Journal of Hymenoptera Research 15: 208-231. Goodell, K., McKinney, A. M., and Lin, C. H. 2010. Pollen limitation and local habitat-dependent pollinator interactions in the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii. International Journal of Plant Sciences 171: 63-72. Grundel, R., Jean, R. P., Frohnapple, K. J., Gibbs, J., Glowacki, G. A., and Pavlovic, N. B. 2011. A survey of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of the Indiana Dunes and Northwest Indiana, USA. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84: 105-138. Hinojosa-Diaz, 1. A., Gonzalez, V. H., Ayala, R., Merida, J., Sagot, P., and Engel, M. S. 2012. New orchid and leaf-cutter bee gynandromorphs, with an updated review (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Zoosytematics and Evolution 88(2): 205-214. Kalhorn, K. D., Barrows, E. M., and LaBerge, W. E. 2003. Bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Apiformes) diversity in an Appalachian shale barrens. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 76: 455-468. Kearns, C. A., and Inonye, D. W. 1993. Techniques for pollination biologists. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 583 pp. Michener, C. D., McGinley, R. J., and Danforth, B. N. 1994. The bee genera of North and Central America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. 304 p. Michez, D., Rasmont, P., Terzo, M., and Vereecken, N. J. 2009. A synthesis of gynandromorphy among wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea), with an annotated description of several new cases. Annales de la Societe entomologique de 12 France (N.S.): International Journal of Entomology 45: 365-375. Mitchell, T. B. 1960. Bees of the Eastern United States, Vol I. Technical bulletin. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station 141 : 1-538. Mitchell, T. B. 1962. Bees of the Eastern United States. Vol II. Technical bulletin. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station 152: 1-557. Pardee, G. L., and Philpott, S. M. 2014. Native plants are the bee’s knees: local and landscape predictors of bee richness and abundance mbaclcyard gardens. Urban Ecosystems 17: 641-659. Phillips, B. W., and Gardiner, M. M. 2015. Use of video surveillance to measure the influences of habitat management and landscape composition on pollinator visitation and pollen deposition in pumpkin {Cuciirbita pepo) agroecosystems. PeerJ. 3:el342. Reese, C. S. L., and Barrows, E. M. 1980. Co-evolution of Clcp^tonia virginica (Portulacaceae) and its mam native pollinator, Andrena erigeniae (Andrenidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 82: 685-694. Robertson, C. 1929. Flowers and insects. Science Press. Lancaster, PA. Russell, K. N., Ikerd, I., and Droege S. 2005. The potential conseiwation value of unmowed powerline strips for native bees. Biological Conservation 124: 133-148. Russo, L., Park, M., Gibbs, J., and Danforth, B. 2015. The challenge of accurately documenting bee species richness in agroecosystems: bee diversity in eastern apple orchards. Ecology and Evolution 5: 3531-3540. Simpson, E. H. 1949. Measurement of diversity. Nature 163; 688. Spring, M. R., Liistofin, K. S., and Gardiner, M. M. 2015. Occurrence of a gynandromophic Bombus bimaculatus (Hymenoptera; Apidae) in Southeastern Ohio. The Great Lal^es Entomologist 48: 155-163. Stephen, W. P., and Rao, S. 2005. Unscented color traps for r\or\-Apis bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 78: 373-380. Todd, K. J., Gardiner, M. M., and Lindquist, E. D. 2016. Mass flowering crops as a conservation resource for wild pollinators (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Journal of Kansas Entomological Society 89(2): 158-167. Tucker, E. M., and Rehan, S. 2016. Wild bee pollination networks in northern New England. Journal of Insect Conservation 20; 325-337. Tuell, J. K., Ascher, J. S., and Isaacs, R. 2009. Wild bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea; Anthophila) of the Michigan highbush blueberry agroecosystem. Annals of the Entomological Society of America. 102: 275-287. 13 Ohio Biological Survey Notes 7: 14-16, 2017. © Ohio Biological Survey, Inc. A Bilateral Gynandromorph Northern Cardinal from South Bass Island Andrew W. Jones’ and H. Thomas Bartlett Department of Ornithology, Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 1 Wade Oval Drive - University Circle, Cleveland, OH 44106; 'corresponding author; ajones@cmnh.org Abstract: We report on a Northern Cardinal from South Bass Island, in the western basin of Lake Erie, which showed male plumage characteristics on the right side and female plumage characteristics on the left side. This condition, termed bilateral gynandromorph ism, is rare among wild birds, and there are few (<1 00) preseiwed specimens available for research. This bird had a slightly enlarged ovary on the left side and a small and probably non-functional testis on the right side. The plumage was fairly well demarcated between the two sides, but the female side was interspersed with red feathers and the male side was interspersed with brown. A recent study of gynandromorph domestic chickens provides a likely pathway for the origin and appearance of these Northern Cardinals. We suggest that a recent spate of records is probably due to increasing numbers of observant birdwatchers as well as the ubiquity of digital cameras. Keywords: Cardinalis cardinalis, bilateral gynandromorph, plumage Introduction Gynandromorphy is a rarely encountered condition in which an organism displays a combination of male and female characteristics This condition may be bilateral, with one half of tire organism phenotypically male and the other half phenotypically female, often with a clear line separating the two sides. Individuals with this condition are known across multiple classes of Metazoans, and individuals with this condition have been documented in both captive fowl as well as wild birds (Kumerloeve 1954). Kumerloeve (1954) conducted a review of this condition and the mechanisms that may underlie it, and documented several dozen instances m wild birds. Patten (1993) updated this review, and several additional records have been published since then (e.g., DaCosta et al. 2007, Peer and Motz 2014). No formal systematic review of gynandromorphism records has been conducted, but there are certainly more than fift\^ published examples as of this writing. Wild birds with gynandromorphism have been documented in many taxonomic orders and families across Aves, though there are multiple reports of gynandromorphy in Eurasian Bullfinch {Pyrrhula pytrhula) and Evenmg Grosbeak {Coccothraustes vesperthms), two members of the Fringillidae family. Published records are an underrepresentation of tlie prevalence of this condition, as any species without obvious size or plumage-related sex differences could only be documented through dissection by a knowledgeable museum specimen preparator. In this article, we document a bilateral gynandromorph Northern Cardinal {Cardinalis cardinalis) from South Bass Island, Ottawa County, Ohio. Specimen Data Bartlett operates a banding station for several weeks every spring and fall on private property on the east end of South Bass Island, in the western basin of Lake Erie (Ottawa County, Oliio, USA: 41.66239'^N, 82.79624‘^W). While banding on 01 May 2011, Bartlett and Jones encountered an unusual Northern Cardinal. The bird was initially identified as a female with an unusual molt pattern; Bartlett has encountered other female Northern Cardinals with excessive red presumably due to age and/ or eccentric molt. Further examination demonstrated that the red coloration was primarily restricted to the right side of the bird, and there was a fairly sharp color demarcation down the middle of the bird’s body. Jones made the decision to collect the bird, and the specimen was transferred to the ornithology research collection at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. Jones prepared the bird specimen (collector number AWJ 596, and cataloged as CMNH 74623), The bird weighed 43. 1 g. There was a little molt on this bird, wliich is unusual for a Northern Cardinal in May (like most songbirds, they ty'pically do not molt during the early part of the breeding season); several feathers on the right breast were being replaced, the left innermost tail 14 feather (Rl) was being replaced and was about 80% grown, and the right innermost tail feather was missing. There was no cloacal protuberance nor brood patch, suggesting that this bird was unpaired. The wing chord of both wings was 91mm, which is within the size range of both male and female Northern Cardinals (Pyle 1997). During dissection, Jones found an ovary on the bird’s left side that measured 8 x 5 mm, with the largest ovum 2 mm in diameter, and with a slightly enlarged oviduct. On the right side, an apparent testis was found, but it was small (for this time of year; 2 x l mm) and black in color, indicating that it may not have been functional. The bird’s plumage differs between the left and right sides most sharply on the ventral side, with a sharp demarcation on the breast, belly, and undertail coverts (Figure 1). The right side is red, though not nearly as bright red as a typical male, and interspersed with several partly or completely brown feathers. The left side is the same color of brown as a typical female, interspersed with a few red feathers. The head plumage is consistent with a female: dusl