Grassy–herbaceous land moderates regional climate effects on honey bee colonies in the Northcentral US

The lack of seasonally sustained floral resources (i.e. pollen and nectar) is considered a primary global threat to pollinator health. However, the ability to predict the abundance of flowering resources for pollinators based upon climate, weather, and land cover is difficult due to insufficient monitoring over adequate spatial and temporal scales. Here we use spatiotemporally distributed honey bee hive scales that continuously measure hive weights as a standardized method to assess nectar intake. We analyze late summer colony weight gain as the response variable in a random forest regression model to determine the importance of climate, weather, and land cover on honey bee colony productivity. Our random forest model predicted resource acquisition by honey bee colonies with 71% accuracy, highlighting the detrimental effects of warm, wet regions in the Northcentral United States on nectar intake, as well as the detrimental effect of years with high growing degree day accumulation. Our model also predicted that grassy–herbaceous natural land had a positive effect on the summer nectar flow and that large areas of natural grassy–herbaceous land around apiaries can moderate the detrimental effects of warm, wet climates. These patterns characterize multi-scale ecological processes that constrain the quantity and quality of pollinator nutritional resources. That is, broad climate conditions constrain regional floral communities, while land use and weather act to further modify the quantity and quality of pollinator nutritional resources. Observing such broad-scale trends demonstrates the potential for utilizing hive scales to monitor the effects of climate change on landscape-level floral resources for pollinators. The interaction of climate and land use also present an opportunity to manage for climate-resilient landscapes that support pollinators through abundant floral resources under climate change

The IDENTIFY study: the investigation and detection of urological neoplasia in patients referred with suspected urinary tract cancer - a multicentre observational study

Objective To evaluate the contemporary prevalence of urinary tract cancer (bladder cancer, upper tract urothelial cancer [UTUC] and renal cancer) in patients referred to secondary care with haematuria, adjusted for established patient risk markers and geographical variation. Patients and Methods This was an international multicentre prospective observational study. We included patients aged ≥16 years, referred to secondary care with suspected urinary tract cancer. Patients with a known or previous urological malignancy were excluded. We estimated the prevalence of bladder cancer, UTUC, renal cancer and prostate cancer; stratified by age, type of haematuria, sex, and smoking. We used a multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression to adjust cancer prevalence for age, type of haematuria, sex, smoking, hospitals, and countries. Results Of the 11 059 patients assessed for eligibility, 10 896 were included from 110 hospitals across 26 countries. The overall adjusted cancer prevalence (n = 2257) was 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 22.3–34.1), bladder cancer (n = 1951) 24.7% (95% CI 19.1–30.2), UTUC (n = 128) 1.14% (95% CI 0.77–1.52), renal cancer (n = 107) 1.05% (95% CI 0.80–1.29), and prostate cancer (n = 124) 1.75% (95% CI 1.32–2.18). The odds ratios for patient risk markers in the model for all cancers were: age 1.04 (95% CI 1.03–1.05; P < 0.001), visible haematuria 3.47 (95% CI 2.90–4.15; P < 0.001), male sex 1.30 (95% CI 1.14–1.50; P < 0.001), and smoking 2.70 (95% CI 2.30–3.18; P < 0.001). Conclusions A better understanding of cancer prevalence across an international population is required to inform clinical guidelines. We are the first to report urinary tract cancer prevalence across an international population in patients referred to secondary care, adjusted for patient risk markers and geographical variation. Bladder cancer was the most prevalent disease. Visible haematuria was the strongest predictor for urinary tract cancer

Understanding Barriers to Participation in Cost-Share Programs For Pollinator Conservation by Wisconsin (USA) Cranberry Growers

The expansion of modern agriculture has led to the loss and fragmentation of natural habitat, resulting in a global decline in biodiversity, including bees. In many countries, farmers can participate in cost-share programs to create natural habitat on their farms for the conservation of beneficial insects, such as bees. Despite their dependence on bee pollinators and the demonstrated commitment to environmental stewardship, participation in such programs by Wisconsin cranberry growers has been low. The objective of this study was to understand the barriers that prevent participation by Wisconsin cranberry growers in cost-share programs for on-farm conservation of native bees. We conducted a survey of cranberry growers (n = 250) regarding farming practices, pollinators, and conservation. Although only 10% of growers were aware of federal pollinator cost-share programs, one third of them were managing habitat for pollinators without federal aid. Once informed of the programs, 50% of growers expressed interest in participating. Fifty-seven percent of growers manage habitat for other wildlife, although none receive cost-share funding to do so. Participation in cost-share programs could benefit from outreach activities that promote the programs, a reduction of bureaucratic hurdles to participate, and technical support for growers on how to manage habitat for wild bees

Do managed bees have negative effects on wild bees?: A systematic review of the literature.

Managed bees are critical for crop pollination worldwide. As the demand for pollinator-dependent crops increases, so does the use of managed bees. Concern has arisen that managed bees may have unintended negative impacts on native wild bees, which are important pollinators in both agricultural and natural ecosystems. The goal of this study was to synthesize the literature documenting the effects of managed honey bees and bumble bees on wild bees in three areas: (1) competition for floral and nesting resources, (2) indirect effects via changes in plant communities, including the spread of exotic plants and decline of native plants, and (3) transmission of pathogens. The majority of reviewed studies reported negative effects of managed bees, but trends differed across topical areas. Of studies examining competition, results were highly variable with 53% reporting negative effects on wild bees, while 28% reported no effects and 19% reported mixed effects (varying with the bee species or variables examined). Equal numbers of studies examining plant communities reported positive (36%) and negative (36%) effects, with the remainder reporting no or mixed effects. Finally, the majority of studies on pathogen transmission (70%) reported potential negative effects of managed bees on wild bees. However, most studies across all topical areas documented the potential for impact (e.g. reporting the occurrence of competition or pathogens), but did not measure direct effects on wild bee fitness, abundance, or diversity. Furthermore, we found that results varied depending on whether managed bees were in their native or non-native range; managed bees within their native range had lesser competitive effects, but potentially greater effects on wild bees via pathogen transmission. We conclude that while this field has expanded considerably in recent decades, additional research measuring direct, long-term, and population-level effects of managed bees is needed to understand their potential impact on wild bees

Colonies of Bumble Bees (Bombus impatiens) Produce Fewer Workers, Less Bee Biomass, and Have Smaller Mother Queens Following Fungicide Exposure

Bees provide vital pollination services to the majority of flowering plants in both natural and agricultural systems. Unfortunately, both native and managed bee populations are experiencing declines, threatening the persistence of these plants and crops. Agricultural chemicals are one possible culprit contributing to bee declines. Even fungicides, generally considered safe for bees, have been shown to disrupt honey bee development and impair bumble bee behavior. Little is known, however, how fungicides may affect bumble bee colony growth. We conducted a controlled cage study to determine the effects of fungicide exposure on colonies of a native bumble bee species (Bombus impatiens). Colonies of B. impatiens were exposed to flowers treated with field-relevant levels of the fungicide chlorothalonil over the course of one month. Colony success was assessed by the number and biomass of larvae, pupae, and adult bumble bees. Bumble bee colonies exposed to fungicide produced fewer workers, lower total bee biomass, and had lighter mother queens than control colonies. Our results suggest that fungicides negatively affect the colony success of a native bumble bee species and that the use of fungicides during bloom has the potential to severely impact the success of native bumble bee populations foraging in agroecosystems

Studies published from 1900–2016 examining the potential effect of managed bees on wild bees through changes in plant communities, including the spread of exotic plants.

<p>For all studies, we recorded the species of managed and wild bees, and indicated whether managed bees were native or exotic to the study region, the location (continent and country) and context of the study including field (natural, semi-natural, developed, agricultural, or experimental plot), lab, or greenhouse, and all variables measured, including the managed bee metric (independent variable), plant metric (dependent variable), and any explanatory or mechanistic variables. The overall effect of managed bees on plant communities, as reported by the study, is also recorded and noted as positive (+), neutral (0), negative (-), or mixed.</p

Studies published from 1900–2016 examining the potential transmission of pathogens from managed to wild bees.

<p>For all studies, we recorded the species of managed and wild bees, and indicated whether managed bees were native or exotic to the study region, the location (continent and country) and context of the study including field (natural, semi-natural, developed, agricultural, or experimental plot), lab, or greenhouse, and all variables measured, including the managed bee metric (independent variable), wild bee metric (dependent variable), and any explanatory or mechanistic variables. The overall effect of managed bees on wild bees via pathogens, as reported by the study, is also recorded and noted as positive (+), neutral (0), negative (-), or mixed.</p

PRISMA flow diagram.

<p>A flow diagram showing the process for a systematic review including the number of studies processed, reviewed, and analyzed at each step in the review process.</p

Publication trends.

<p>The total number of published studies over time from 1900–2016 that examined the effects of managed bees on wild bees via three reviewed mechanisms: competition for resources, changes in plant communities (specifically native and exotic plant populations), and transmission of pathogens. While the literature search began in 1900, the first publication within these topical areas did not occur until 1964.</p

Reviewed effects of managed bees on wild bees through competition for shared resources.

<p>Variables reported by studies examining the competitive effects of managed bees on wild bees including (A) managed bee metrics (independent variables), (B) potential mechanisms (explanatory variables), and (C) wild bee responses (dependent variables).</p