Do you really want to save the bees? Not honeybees of course, Australian native bees! Many of Australia's bees were affected by the devastating 2019-2020 bushfires that destroyed their habitats. You can help by building bee hotels to supplement habitats in bushfire-affected areas. Follow the links below to sign up, build your hotel and upload your observations to the citizen science project.

Authorised by the Australian Native Bee Association (sponsor), lead researcher Dr Kit Prendergast and research assistant Rachele Wilson. Funded by the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (Grant Award GA158517).

ABSTRACT: Bees provide essential ecosystem services such as crop pollination, but perennial colonies of social species require year-round access to floral resources, especially in resource-poor agricultural landscapes. We investigated pollen resources used by a social bee (Tetragonula carbonaria, Meliponini) in forests and orchards of subtropical Australia. Pollen DNA metabarcoding with the markers rbcL and ITS2 was used to identify hive pollens from 57 colonies collected at seven sites each season over two years. We identified 341 botanical sources of hive pollens from 37 orders, 72 families, 218 genera and 302 species. Interestingly, introduced species (e.g. Ageratum spp. and Raphanus spp.) and wind-pollinated plants (Poaceae, Cyperaceae) were common pollen sources in both orchards and forests. Orchard colonies used a subset of pollen species used by colonies in forests, with many Myrtaceae (Corymbia, Eucalyptus and Melaleuca spp.), Poaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae and Proteaceae species found in both land uses. We found T. carbonaria foraged on “many small” rather than a “few large” pollen sources each season, regardless of land use. This suggests stingless bees aim for diversity in pollen diets. As such, land managers and beekeepers should ensure colonies have access to a variety of floral resources year-round. This may be achieved through targeted planting of key families identified in this study (e.g. Proteaceae, Asteraceae, Myrtaceae, Poaceae, Brassicaceae, Araliaceae, Cannabaceae, Arecaceae, Rubiaceae and Sapindaceae) and / or maintaining weeds while they are flowering in the orchard. Land managers may consider planting in unproductive areas such as riparian zones, edges or between crop rows if space is limited.

ABSTRACT: (1) Background: Landscape simplification is a major threat to bee and wasp conservation in the tropics, but reliable, long-term population data are lacking. We investigated how community composition, diversity, and abundance of tropical solitary bees and wasps change with landscape simplification (plant diversity, plant richness, distance from forest, forest cover, and land use type) and season. (2) Methods: We installed 336 timber and cob trap nests in four complex forests and three simplified orchards within the subtropical biodiversity hotspot of south-east Queensland, Australia. Trap nests were replaced every season for 23 months and all emergents identified. (3) Results: We identified 28 wasp species and 13 bee species from 2251 brood cells. Bee and wasp community composition changed with landscape simplification such that large, ground-nesting, and spider-hunting species were present in all landscapes, while those with specialist resource requirements and (clepto) parasitoids were present only in complex landscapes. Abundance and diversity of bees and wasps were unaffected by landscape simplification but increased with rainfall. (4) Conclusions: This study highlights the need for multi-year studies incorporating nuanced measures such as composition with a focus on functional diversity to detect changes bee and wasp populations.

ABSTRACT: The decline of both managed and wild bee populations has been extensively reported for over a decade now, with growing concerns amongst the scientific community. Also, evidence is growing that both managed and feral honey bees may exacerbate threats to wild bees. In Australia, there are over 1600 native bee species and introduced European honey bees (Apis mellifera) have established throughout most landscapes. There is a major gap in knowledge of the interactions between honey bees and native bees in Australian landscapes, especially floral resource use. Here we report on the pollen diets of wild bees in protected areas of coastal heathland, an ecosystem characterised by mass flowering in late winter and spring. We sampled bees within three sites and DNA metabarcoding was used to compare the pollen diets of honey bees and native bees. We recorded 2, 772 bees in total, with 13 genera and 18 described species identified. Apis mellifera was the most common species across all locations, accounting for 42% of all bees collected. Native bee genera included eusocial Tetragonula (stingless bees) (37%), and semi-social Exoneura and Braunsapis (19.8% combined). Metabarcoding data revealed both Tetragonula and honey bees have wide foraging patterns, and the bipartite network overall was highly generalised (H2’ = 0.24). Individual honey bees carried pollen of 7–29 plant species, and significantly more species than all other bees. We found niche overlap in the diets of honey bees and native bees generally (0.42), and strongest overlap with stingless bees (0.70) and species of Braunsapis (0.62). A surprising finding was that many species carried pollen from Restionaceae and Cyperaceae, families generally considered to be predominantly wind-pollinated in Australia. Our study showed introduced honey bee use of resources overlaps with that of native bees in protected heathlands, but there are clear differences in their diet preferences.