Pollinator communities vary with vegetation structure and time since management within regenerating timber harvests of the Central Appalachian Mountains

Codey L. Mathis; Darin J. McNeil; Monica R. Lee; Christina M. Grozinger; David I. King; Clint R.V. Otto; Jeffery L. Larkin

doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119373

Pollinator communities vary with vegetation structure and time since management within regenerating timber harvests of the Central Appalachian Mountains

Codey L. Mathis, Darin J. McNeil, Monica R. Lee, Christina M. Grozinger, David I. King, Clint R.V. Otto, Jeffery L. Larkin

Forestry and Natural Resources

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

31 Scopus citations

Abstract

Native pollinator populations across the United States are increasingly threatened by a multitude of ecological stressors. Although the drivers behind pollinator population declines are varied, habitat loss/degradation remains one of the most important threats. Forested landscapes, where the impacts of habitat loss/degradation are minimized, are known to support robust pollinator populations in eastern North America. Within heavily forested landscapes, timber management is already implemented as a means for improving forest health and enhancing wildlife habitat, however, little is known regarding the characteristics within regenerating timber harvests that affect forest pollinator populations. In 2018 and 2019, we monitored insect pollinators in 143 regenerating (≤9 growing seasons post-harvest) timber harvest sites across Pennsylvania. During 1129 survey events, we observed over 9100 bees and butterflies, 220 blooming plant taxa, and collected over 2200 pollinator specimens. Bee and butterfly abundance were positively associated with season-wide floral abundance and negatively associated with dense vegetation that inhibits the growth of understory floral resources. Particularly in late summer, few pollinators were observed in stands >6 years post-harvest, with models predicting five times more bees in 1-year-old harvests than in 9-year-old harvests. Pollinator species diversity was positively associated with floral diversity and percent forb cover, and negatively associated with percent tall (>1 m) sapling cover. These results suggest that regenerating timber harvests promote abundant and diverse pollinator communities in the Appalachian Mountains, though pollinator abundance declined quickly as woody stems regenerated. Ultimately, our findings contribute to a growing body of literature suggesting that dynamic forest management producing a mix of age classes would benefit forest pollinator populations in the Central Appalachian Mountains.

Original language	English
Article number	119373
Journal	Forest Ecology and Management
Volume	496
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119373
State	Published - Sep 15 2021

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Elsevier B.V.

Funding

This research was funded through USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project (#68-7482-12-502) and Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s School of Graduate Studies and Research. We thank the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s and DCNR Bureau of Forestry for allowing access to study sites and assisting with project logistics (PGC Permit 36850; DCNR Permit: SFRA-0803). We thank Ralph Grundel, Steven Gray, Adria Elskus, Dave Mushet, and one anonymous reviewer for comments that improved this manuscript. We thank many private forest landowners who granted us access to their properties. We thank our field technicians: Katie Gray, Justin O’Neill, Josh Stevens, and Sara Trio. Non-Lasioglossum species identifications were corroborated with the assistance of H. Stout at the Penn State Frost Entomological Museum and all Lasioglossum species were identified to morphospecies with the assistance of K. Urban-Mead at Cornell University. S. K. Kilpatrick confirmed the validity of our species list and noted which species need further validation. We also thank Joseph Duchamp and Melanie Kammerer-Allen for statistical help. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. This research was funded through USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's Conservation Effects Assessment Project (#68-7482-12-502) and Indiana University of Pennsylvania's School of Graduate Studies and Research. We thank the Pennsylvania Game Commission's and DCNR Bureau of Forestry for allowing access to study sites and assisting with project logistics (PGC Permit 36850; DCNR Permit: SFRA-0803). We thank Ralph Grundel, Steven Gray, Adria Elskus, Dave Mushet, and one anonymous reviewer for comments that improved this manuscript. We thank many private forest landowners who granted us access to their properties. We thank our field technicians: Katie Gray, Justin O'Neill, Josh Stevens, and Sara Trio. Non-Lasioglossum species identifications were corroborated with the assistance of H. Stout at the Penn State Frost Entomological Museum and all Lasioglossum species were identified to morphospecies with the assistance of K. Urban-Mead at Cornell University. S. K. Kilpatrick confirmed the validity of our species list and noted which species need further validation. We also thank Joseph Duchamp and Melanie Kammerer-Allen for statistical help. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government.

Funders	Funder number
Indiana University of Pennsylvania's School of Graduate Studies and Research
Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s School of Graduate Studies and Research
Penn State Frost Entomological Museum
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service's Conservation Effects Assessment Project
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project	68-7482-12-502
Cornell Atkinson Center for Sustainability, Cornell University
Government of South Australia
Pennsylvania Game Commission	36850, SFRA-0803

Keywords

Communities
Flower
Forest
Overstory removal
Pennsylvania
Pollinator
Regenerating forests

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Forestry
Nature and Landscape Conservation
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Access to Document

10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119373

Cite this

@article{adbcb6be94a74b898565e0bac2aa640f,

title = "Pollinator communities vary with vegetation structure and time since management within regenerating timber harvests of the Central Appalachian Mountains",

abstract = "Native pollinator populations across the United States are increasingly threatened by a multitude of ecological stressors. Although the drivers behind pollinator population declines are varied, habitat loss/degradation remains one of the most important threats. Forested landscapes, where the impacts of habitat loss/degradation are minimized, are known to support robust pollinator populations in eastern North America. Within heavily forested landscapes, timber management is already implemented as a means for improving forest health and enhancing wildlife habitat, however, little is known regarding the characteristics within regenerating timber harvests that affect forest pollinator populations. In 2018 and 2019, we monitored insect pollinators in 143 regenerating (≤9 growing seasons post-harvest) timber harvest sites across Pennsylvania. During 1129 survey events, we observed over 9100 bees and butterflies, 220 blooming plant taxa, and collected over 2200 pollinator specimens. Bee and butterfly abundance were positively associated with season-wide floral abundance and negatively associated with dense vegetation that inhibits the growth of understory floral resources. Particularly in late summer, few pollinators were observed in stands >6 years post-harvest, with models predicting five times more bees in 1-year-old harvests than in 9-year-old harvests. Pollinator species diversity was positively associated with floral diversity and percent forb cover, and negatively associated with percent tall (>1 m) sapling cover. These results suggest that regenerating timber harvests promote abundant and diverse pollinator communities in the Appalachian Mountains, though pollinator abundance declined quickly as woody stems regenerated. Ultimately, our findings contribute to a growing body of literature suggesting that dynamic forest management producing a mix of age classes would benefit forest pollinator populations in the Central Appalachian Mountains.",

keywords = "Communities, Flower, Forest, Overstory removal, Pennsylvania, Pollinator, Regenerating forests",

author = "Mathis, \{Codey L.\} and McNeil, \{Darin J.\} and Lee, \{Monica R.\} and Grozinger, \{Christina M.\} and King, \{David I.\} and Otto, \{Clint R.V.\} and Larkin, \{Jeffery L.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 Elsevier B.V.",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119373",

language = "English",

volume = "496",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pollinator communities vary with vegetation structure and time since management within regenerating timber harvests of the Central Appalachian Mountains

AU - Mathis, Codey L.

AU - McNeil, Darin J.

AU - Lee, Monica R.

AU - Grozinger, Christina M.

AU - King, David I.

AU - Otto, Clint R.V.

AU - Larkin, Jeffery L.

PY - 2021/9/15

Y1 - 2021/9/15

N2 - Native pollinator populations across the United States are increasingly threatened by a multitude of ecological stressors. Although the drivers behind pollinator population declines are varied, habitat loss/degradation remains one of the most important threats. Forested landscapes, where the impacts of habitat loss/degradation are minimized, are known to support robust pollinator populations in eastern North America. Within heavily forested landscapes, timber management is already implemented as a means for improving forest health and enhancing wildlife habitat, however, little is known regarding the characteristics within regenerating timber harvests that affect forest pollinator populations. In 2018 and 2019, we monitored insect pollinators in 143 regenerating (≤9 growing seasons post-harvest) timber harvest sites across Pennsylvania. During 1129 survey events, we observed over 9100 bees and butterflies, 220 blooming plant taxa, and collected over 2200 pollinator specimens. Bee and butterfly abundance were positively associated with season-wide floral abundance and negatively associated with dense vegetation that inhibits the growth of understory floral resources. Particularly in late summer, few pollinators were observed in stands >6 years post-harvest, with models predicting five times more bees in 1-year-old harvests than in 9-year-old harvests. Pollinator species diversity was positively associated with floral diversity and percent forb cover, and negatively associated with percent tall (>1 m) sapling cover. These results suggest that regenerating timber harvests promote abundant and diverse pollinator communities in the Appalachian Mountains, though pollinator abundance declined quickly as woody stems regenerated. Ultimately, our findings contribute to a growing body of literature suggesting that dynamic forest management producing a mix of age classes would benefit forest pollinator populations in the Central Appalachian Mountains.

AB - Native pollinator populations across the United States are increasingly threatened by a multitude of ecological stressors. Although the drivers behind pollinator population declines are varied, habitat loss/degradation remains one of the most important threats. Forested landscapes, where the impacts of habitat loss/degradation are minimized, are known to support robust pollinator populations in eastern North America. Within heavily forested landscapes, timber management is already implemented as a means for improving forest health and enhancing wildlife habitat, however, little is known regarding the characteristics within regenerating timber harvests that affect forest pollinator populations. In 2018 and 2019, we monitored insect pollinators in 143 regenerating (≤9 growing seasons post-harvest) timber harvest sites across Pennsylvania. During 1129 survey events, we observed over 9100 bees and butterflies, 220 blooming plant taxa, and collected over 2200 pollinator specimens. Bee and butterfly abundance were positively associated with season-wide floral abundance and negatively associated with dense vegetation that inhibits the growth of understory floral resources. Particularly in late summer, few pollinators were observed in stands >6 years post-harvest, with models predicting five times more bees in 1-year-old harvests than in 9-year-old harvests. Pollinator species diversity was positively associated with floral diversity and percent forb cover, and negatively associated with percent tall (>1 m) sapling cover. These results suggest that regenerating timber harvests promote abundant and diverse pollinator communities in the Appalachian Mountains, though pollinator abundance declined quickly as woody stems regenerated. Ultimately, our findings contribute to a growing body of literature suggesting that dynamic forest management producing a mix of age classes would benefit forest pollinator populations in the Central Appalachian Mountains.

KW - Communities

KW - Flower

KW - Forest

KW - Overstory removal

KW - Pennsylvania

KW - Pollinator

KW - Regenerating forests

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107771196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85107771196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119373

DO - 10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119373

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85107771196

SN - 0378-1127

VL - 496

JO - Forest Ecology and Management

JF - Forest Ecology and Management

M1 - 119373

ER -

Pollinator communities vary with vegetation structure and time since management within regenerating timber harvests of the Central Appalachian Mountains

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this