nena masthead
NENA Home Staff & Editors For Readers For Authors

The Bee Fauna of Inland Sand Dune and Ridge Woodland Communities in Worcester County, Maryland
Jennifer A. Selfridge, Christopher T. Frye, Jason Gibbs, and Robert P. Jean

Northeastern Naturalist, Volume 24, Issue 4 (2017): 421–445

Full-text pdf (Accessible only to subscribers. To subscribe click here.)

 

Access Journal Content

Open access browsing of table of contents and abstract pages. Full text pdfs available for download for subscribers.



Current Issue: Vol. 30 (3)
NENA 30(3)

Check out NENA's latest Monograph:

Monograph 22
NENA monograph 22

All Regular Issues

Monographs

Special Issues

 

submit

 

subscribe

 

JSTOR logoClarivate logoWeb of science logoBioOne logo EbscoHOST logoProQuest logo

Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 421 2017 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 24(4):421–445 The Bee Fauna of Inland Sand Dune and Ridge Woodland Communities in Worcester County, Maryland Jennifer A. Selfridge1,*, Christopher T. Frye1, Jason Gibbs2, and Robert P. Jean3 Abstract - We surveyed bees inhabiting inland dune and ridge woodlands at 30 sites in Worcester County, MD, in 2008 and 2009 . We collected and identified 4878 bees representing 5 families, 31 genera, and 121 species. Here, we report data on annual and seasonal variation. Expanding survey efforts to include multiple years and seasons served to increase the overall number of species encountered, primarily through documenting the presence of rare or infrequently collected species. Eighty-eight species (73%) were represented by fewer than 10 individuals; of these 30 were represented by a single individual (25% of the total). The 5 most dominant species represented nearly half (48%) of the total number of specimens. We report a list of bee species collected from inland dune and ridge woodlands and discuss the presence of apparently habitat-restricted species. Introduction Xeric habitats are characterized by dry conditions with persistently low moisture levels and they often support specialist and habitat-restricted invertebrate species that are uniquely adapted to such conditions (Cloudsley-Thompson 1975). Reasons for habitat restriction may include specialization on limited-range host plants (Litvaitis et al. 1999, Wagner et al. 2003); unique microhabitat availability for nesting, burrowing, and foraging (Droege et al. 2009, Litvaitis et al. 1999, Wagner et. al 2003); and avoidance of predators and parasitoids (Fernandes and Price 1992). Frye et al. (2014) discussed butterfly, beetle, and leafhopper species restricted to xeric habitats in some detail and provided specific examples pertaining to Maryland species. Inland dune and ridge woodlands (Fig. 1), herein referred to generally as “dunes” or “dune habitat”, are globally rare xeric habitats that occur only on the Delmarva Peninsula and in southern New Jersey (NatureServe 2017). These communities are characterized by low-relief inland dunes shaped by northwest winds during the Pleistocene epoch and comprised of sand sheets of the Parsonsburg Formation (Denny et al. 1979, Newell and Dejong 2011). These woodlands are dominated by Pinus spp. (pines) and Quercus spp. (oaks) and are described at length by Frye et al. (2014). The bee fauna of these dune habitats has not been thoroughly investigated. Although roughly 430 species of native bees have been documented in Maryland 1Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife and Heritage Service, Natural Heritage Program, 909 Wye Mills Road, Wye Mills, MD 21601. 2University of Manitoba, Department of Entomology, Wallis Roughley Museum of Entomology, 214 Animal Science/ Entomology Building, 12 Dafoe Road, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada. 3Environmental Solutions & Innovations, Inc., 1811 Executive Drive, Suites C–D, Indianapolis, IN 46241. *Corresponding author - jennifer.selfridge@maryland.gov. Manuscript Editor: Howard Ginsburg Northeastern Naturalist 422 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 to date (Ascher and Pickering 2017), our understanding of the ecological requirements of most of the species is limited. This knowledge gap is important amidst concerns of recent pollinator declines (NRCNA 2007) and the listing of 8 bee species under the Endangered Species Act including 7 Hawaiian Hylaeus species and Bombus affinis Cresson (Rusty Patched Bumblebee). Many other insects, among them butterflies, moths, wasps, flies, and beetles, are noted for their value as pollinators (Kevan and Baker 1983, Rader et al. 2016); however, bees are arguably the most important insect pollinators because they actively collect pollen. Native bees play major roles in the pollination of crops (Greenleaf and Kremen 2006a, 2006b; Winfree et al. 2008) and native plants (Kevan and Baker 1983, Ollerton et al. 2011). Native bees have received more attention in recent years for their value as pollinators due to concerns over managed Apis mellifera L. (Western Honey Bee) declines (Garibaldi et al. 2013, Winfree et al. 2008). Evidence of decline for other bees is growing (Bartomeus et al. 2013, Biesmeijer et al. 2006, Kremen et al. 2002, Potts et al. 2010), most notably for Bombus spp. (bumblebees; Cameron et al. 2011, Colla and Packer 2008, Grixti et al. 2009) because the escape of commercially produced bumblebees used for greenhouse pollination is thought to be a factor in the spread of pathogens to wild bees (Colla et al. 2006). Many bee species prefer to nest in loose, sandy soil (Cane 1991, Michener 2007); thus, dune habitats may be beneficial to many ground-nesting bees. This Figure 1. A typical example of an inland sand and ridge woodland site (sand-dune habitat) in Worcester County, MD. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 423 study documents the bee species present in this rare community type and identifies those that may be restricted to dune habitats. Field-site Description We conducted the study in Worcester County, MD, on the Atlantic Coastal Plain east of the Chesapeake Bay (Fig. 2). We chose 30 survey sites distributed over 2 adjacent US Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles (Snow Hill and Dividing Creek). These areas, known for their dune fields (Newell and Dejong 2011), are characterized by an increase in elevation above the surrounding forest matrix, an elliptical shape, and well-drained soils. Dunes are typically interspersed throughout a landscape of basin swamps and lowland forests. To locate dunes, we used a combination of USGS quadrangle (topographic) maps and 2 ArcMap GIS (geographic information system) data layers: US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) data, and LIDAR (light detection and ranging) imagery. These resources allowed us to determine the locations of dune sites within the 2 quadrangles. We mapped all dunes (n = 303) as polygons using ArcMap GIS. We employed the natural breaks function in ArcMap (extension X-Tools Pro) to divide the dunes into 3 statistically determined size-classes (small, medium, and large). We calculated the actual range of each size class in ArcMap based on natural groupings inherent in the data, determining Figure 2. Map of the survey area in Worcester County, MD, covering portions of the Dividing Creek and Snow Hill USGS Quadrangles. Survey sites (dunes) are shown as darkened areas. Northeastern Naturalist 424 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 break points that “best group similar values and maximize the differences between classes” (ESRI 2016). Of the 303 dunes identified and mapped, we chose 30 at random for sampling. We ground-truthed all sites to verify that the polygons represented dune habitat. Of these, 9 were small dunes (<1.1 ha), 14 were medium dunes (1.1–4.0 ha) and 7 were large dunes (>4.0 ha). In addition to size, sites differed in management history, forest-stand age, vegetative composition, and nearest-neighbor distance (distance to other dunes), which varied from 0.03 km to 17 km. Methods We sampled bees along 70-m transects using 15 bee bowls, each separated by 5 m, incorporating methodology used in previous studies (e.g., Droege et al. 2010, Grundel et al. 2011a, Sharpiro et al. 2014, Westphal et al. 2008). Bee bowls offer a standardized, repeatable method for assessing bee abundance, but have some bias associated with them because they are known to be inefficient at capturing certain species (Cane et al. 2000, Geroff et al. 2014, Grundel et al. 2011a, Joshi et al. 2015, Leong and Thorp 1999, Toler et al. 2005). Each trap consisted of a 96-ml Solo® Brand plastic soufflé cup Model P325 (7-cm diameter) filled with a 3% Dawn® dish soap and water solution. We either left bowls white or painted them fluorescent blue or fluorescent yellow with Guerra Brand paint. We mixed 61 L of silica flat with 473 ml of fluorescent blue or fluorescent yellow to obtain the desired colors. These traps have been used successfully by many other bee researchers in the eastern US (e.g., Droege 2006; Grundel et al. 2010, 2011b); capture rates vary depending on region, time of year, bee species, and other factors (Geroff et al. 2014, Hicks et al. 2012, Leong and Thorp 1999). We included 5 each of white, yellow, and blue bowls on each transect. We set 1 transect on small dunes (15 bowls), 2 transects on medium dunes (30 bowls), and 3 transects on large dunes (45 bowls). We set 4 transects (60 bowls) on the 2 largest dunes (6.9 ha and 10.7 ha). The placement of transects at each dune differed in 2008 and 2009, but the number of bowls at each dune remained constant. We left bowls out for a period of 48 h during each spring, summer, and fall sample to limit mortality and prevent oversampling of the bee populations. Sampling dates varied slightly from year to year and between different dunes; the exact dates were dependent upon weather conditions and available labor. We obtained spring samples between 30 March and 20 May, summer samples between 7 July and 29 July, and fall samples between 18 September and 30 September. We sampled twice in the spring, once in the summer, and once in the fall in 2008 and 3 times in the spring, once in the summer, and once in the fall in 2009. When analyzing annual and seasonal data, we excluded species represented by fewer than 10 individuals to limit the potential bias of rare or infrequently occurring species. Thus, our final analyses and results included only 27% of the species collected. Missing data We deployed 885 bee bowls across 30 sites in each 48-h sampling period. Occasionally, individual bowls were lost, most often because they were trampled or Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 425 knocked over by animals. Most dunes incurred significantly less than a 14% loss; we retrieved 13 of 15 bowls per transect in any given sampling period. In all instances, there was no systematic bias and we excluded the missing values from the analysis (see Scheffer 2002); even undisturbed bowls may fail to collect any specimens. Data analysis We used abundance data in all analyses because we considered individuals to be independent of other bees of the same species in each sample. In addition to documenting overall bee species richness, we compared richness and abundance between the 3 seasons (spring, summer, and fall) and different years (2008 and 2009). We employed multiple-response permutation procedure (MRPP) in PC-ORD (Version 6.22), a non-parametric analog of analysis of variance, to test the null hypothesis of no significant differences in bee-species composition between years and seasons. Details of the method can be found in Mielke and Berry (2001). The strategy of MRPP is to compare the observed intragroup average distances with the average distances that would have resulted from all the other possible combinations of the data under the null hypothesis. The test statistic, usually symbolized with a lowercase delta (δ), is the average of the observed intragroup distances weighted by relative group size. The observed delta is compared to the possible deltas resulting from every permutation of the data. The MRPP reports a test statistic (T) describing the separation between groups, a measure of effect size (A) describing withingroup agreement, and a P-value representing the likelihood of finding an equal or smaller delta than the observed based on all possible partitions of the dataset using the Pearson Type III distribution of deltas. We used Sorenson distance and a ranked-distance matrix following the protocols in McCune and Grace (2002). We used indicator-species analysis (ISA) as employed in PC-ORD as a complement to MRPP to describe the value of different bee species for indicating trends in annual or seasonal variation. Indicator values range from 0 (no indication) to 100 (perfect indication). We evaluated statistical significance of indicator values via a Monte Carlo method using 1000 randomizations. Species identification and determination of habitat-restricted species We identified bees with the assistance of Sam Droege (USGS Native Bee Laboratory, Patuxent Wildlife Research Refuge, Washington, DC) using species concepts and keys from published revisions (Bouseman and LaBerge 1979; Coelho 2004; Gibbs 2011; Gibbs et al. 2013; LaBerge 1961, 1967, 1971, 1973, 1986; McGinley 1986; Mitchell 1960, 1962; Rehan and Sheffield 2011; Ribble 1967; Schwarz and Gusenleitner 2004; Stephen 1954; Williams et al. 2014) and online resources (e.g., Droege 2016, Larkin et al. 2016). We verified some species identifications by comparison with expertly identified material in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Classification follows Michener (2007) and Ascher and Pickering (2017), and incorporates recent taxonomic and nomenclatural changes (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2013, Williams et al. 2008). Available information is limited for many species; thus, we identified rare and/or habitat-restricted species based on collection data from across the state and region Northeastern Naturalist 426 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 using information collected and/or compiled by the US Geological Survey Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab and Ascher and Pickering (2017). Results We collected and identified 4878 bees representing 5 families, 31 genera, and 121 species (Appendix 1). We excluded from our analysis an additional 108 individuals that could not be identified with reasonable certainty; most of which were species of toothed Nomada (73; this group is in need of revision), Osmia males showing morphological traits of more than 1 common species (18), unknown individuals from various other genera (9), and damaged specimens (8). We generated a species-accumulation curve (n = 270, pooled samples from all 30 dunes for all sampling events in both years) that showed Sorenson distances between subsamples declining appreciably after just 50 sampling events and confidence intervals collapsing at 200 sampling events. The species curve had a long tail characteristic of the presence of singletons in the samples. Of the 121 species collected and identified, 88 (73%) were represented by fewer than 10 individuals, and 31 (26%) were represented by only a single individual. The 5 most-dominant species represented nearly half (48%) of the total number of specimens and included the sweat bee Lasioglossum floridanum (851 individuals; noteworthy because this species is primarily southern in its distribution), the mason bee Osmia pumila (411 individuals), the small carpenter bee Ceratina calcarata (394 individuals), the sweat bee L. subviridatum (376 individuals), and the mason bee Osmia sandhouseae (298 individuals). These dominant bees include ground-nesters (L. floridanum), cavity- and stem-nesters (O. pumila and C. calcarata) and log-nesters (L. subviridatum) (Cane 1994; Cane et al. 2007; Gibbs 2011; Medler 1967a, b; Rehan and Richards 2010). The nesting biology of O. sandhouseae is unknown. Annual variation We found 5 species more commonly in 2008 and 4 species in 2009 (Table 1). Lasioglossum oblongum, a log-nester, was collected only in 2009 (represented by 47 females). Table 1. Indicators-species analysis (ISA) results for bees exhibiting significant annual variation. Comparisons are based on the observed indicator values (IV) for species versus values for randomized groups (1000 randomizations). Species Max group Observed IV Mean SD P Agapostemon splendens 2008 15.1 7.1 1.52 0.001 Augochlora pura 2008 29.2 17.8 2.33 0.001 Ceratina strenua 2009 19.9 14 2.04 0.015 Colletes inaequalis 2009 11.2 6.4 1.45 0.007 Habropoda laboriosa 2009 18.5 14.1 1.96 0.038 Lasioglossum bruneri 2008 22.6 12.9 2.12 0.001 Lasioglossum coeruleum 2008 10.1 5.6 1.33 0.006 Lasioglossum oblongum 2009 19.3 7.1 1.46 0.001 Lasioglossum tegulare 2008 22.6 15.9 2.11 0.009 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 427 Seasonal variation As expected, there were significant seasonal differences in the bee fauna across the sampling periods: spring, summer, and fall (Table 2). We collected some species exclusively in only 1 season, while others were collected in 2 or more seasons but exhibited higher abundance in 1 or more seasons. Appendix 1 lists the exclusive or dominant season (Max group) in which each species was collected. We report indicator species analysis (ISA) results for all species regardless of the numbers collected because seasonality is largely phylogenetically constrained and thus significance is not necessarily dependent on the number of individuals in the sample. We also report the nesting preferences of each species (if known or presumed) and the social structure (if known or presumed) based on available literature in order to look at seasonality data within the context of bee natural history. The large majority of bee species collected during this study are ground nesters (69%), followed by those that utilize hollow or pithy stems (12%), existing cavities (9%), rotten logs (4%), a combination of stems and cavities (3%), unknown nesting sites (3%), or external or surface nests (less than 1%). In terms of social structures represented in our samples, 58% of the species we collected are solitary, 23% are primitive eusocial or semisocial species, 19% are cleptoparasites or social parasites, and >1% are advanced eusocial (represented by only 1 species, the Western Honey Bee). There were no family-level seasonal trends evident from our results, although genus-level trends were apparent, many of which were expected based on prior research (see Hurd 1979, Michener 2007, references noted in Appendix 2). The ISA did not indicate significant trends for most species, mainly because so few individuals were collected for many taxa; significant trends are indicat ed in Appendix 1. Habropoda laboriosa (Southeastern Blueberry Bee) and all species of Hoplitis and Nomada were collected only in the spring. Andrena were also collected exclusively in the spring with the exception of Andrena asteroides, which is a well-established autumnal species (LaBerge 1967). Similarly, nearly all Osmia spp. complete their development in the fall and almost always emerge in the spring; thus, we detected them only in the spring, with the exception of a single Osmia sandhouseae individual, which was collected in early summer on 7–8 July 2009. All Melissodes were collected in the summer. Other genera were less limited Table 2. Multiple-response permutation procedure (MRPP) results for seasonal variation. The table reports the test statistic (T) describing the separation between groups, a measure of effect size (A) describing within-group agreement, and a P-value representing the likelihood of finding an equal or smaller delta than the observed based on all possible partitions of the dataset using the Pearson Type III distribution of deltas. Groups T A P Overall -21.360 0.040 less than 0.001 Spring vs. summer -19.197 0.033 less than 0.001 Spring vs. fall -15.090 0.024 less than 0.001 Summer vs. fall -7.262 0.025 less than 0.001 Northeastern Naturalist 428 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 in terms of flight period; Megachile, Sphecodes, and Lasioglossum all showed variation in their abundance amongst seasons. Most Lasioglossum exhibited peak abundance in the summer or fall. Discussion Dune habitats likely contain additional species that were not documented in our study and those that are very rare, and therefore, infrequently encountered, as well as species that are better represented by collecting methods not employed in our study (e.g., netting or blue-vane traps) (Cane et al. 2000, Geroff et al. 2014, Gibbs et al. 2017, Joshi et al. 2015). As other studies have shown (McCravy et al. 2016, Williams et al. 2001), collecting in different years and seasons helps to maximize the number of species recorded, especially in terms of documenting the presence of rare or infrequently collected species. Annual variation may depend on temperature, rainfall, increased or decreased predation or parasitism, or changes in resource availability (Cane and Payne 1993, Richards and Packer 1995, Roulston and Goodell 2011, Tuell and Isaacs 2010). Our records were also determined, in part, by chance because our traps were deployed only on certain dates and only for a 48-h period. We know that some species exhibit significant annual variation; thus, increased collection effort across multiple years and on multiple dates may serve to increase the number of species documented, especially rare species. Seasonal variation is largely phylogenetically constrained (Michener 2007). Pollen specialization may further constrain flight seasons if suitable hosts flower for a limited period (Fowler 2016). For example, bees exhibiting a preference for Vaccinium spp. (blueberries), including Andrena bradleyi, Colletes validus, Habropoda laboriosa, and Osmia virga, were collected only in the spring when these hosts were in flower. Cleptoparasitic bees necessarily exhibit similar flight times as their hosts, as was the case with Nomada and their Andrena hosts (Miliczky and Osgood 1995, Osgood 1989) and with Stelis lateralis and their Hoplitis hosts (Graenicher 1905, Medler 1961, Michener 1955); we trapped these cleptoparasites only in the spring, when their hosts were active. We collected some species of bees throughout the seasonal gradient, although most peaked in abundance in 1 or more seasons. This pattern is typical of social (e.g., Bombus and Lasioglossum [Dialictus]) and occasionally solitary taxa (e.g., Augochlora pura). These trends were most evident in species that were abundant in our samples, including many species of Lasioglossum. Some species were collected in all 3 seasons but peaked in abundance in the summer (e.g., L. floridanum, L. fuscipenne, L. oblongum, L. pectorale, L. subviridatum) or the fall (e.g., L. bruneri, L. pilosum, L. tegulare, and L. vierecki). Lasioglossum arantium was completely absent from spring collections, and L. coeruleum was completely absent from fall collections. The results appear to be independent of social structure or nesting substrate. Other species that were relatively abundant in our study and collected throughout the sampling period in all 3 seasons included all species of Ceratina (C. calcarata and C. strenua reached peak abundance in the summer, C. dupla in the fall), Agapostemon splendens (summer), Augochlora pura (fall), Augochlorella Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 429 aurata (summer), and Augochloropsis metallica (summer). The results appear to be independent of social structure. Ceratina may be primarily solitary, although some females (mother–daughter and daughter–daughter) have a division of labor and share a nest or nests, and are considered subsocial (Michener 2007, Rehan and Richards 2010). Ceratina calcarata can also have dwarf, non-reproductive eldest daughters that forage for their mothers as in eusocial species (Lawson et al. 2016). Agapostemon splendens and A. pura are solitary. Augochloropsis metallica are most likely semisocial or eusocial; there is little published information on the nesting biology of this species (but see Gibbs 2017). The flight period for many species may be broader than what we documented in our study because our results may have been limited by rarity of the species, collection methods, or both. Habitat specialization Although many bees are pollen specialists and may be restricted in their distribution based on their host-plant distribution (e.g., Davis and LaBerge 1975, Eickwort et al. 1986), relatively few bees are known to be narrowly restricted to a specialized habitat type. Xeric, sandy soil habitats like inland dune and ridge woodlands may be one of the few examples of specialized habitats that are a limiting factor for specialist bees (Droege et al. 2009). The reason for the specialization of these apparently habitat-restricted species is unknown, but it may be related to both the presence and abundance of specialist plants (J. Selfridge and C. Frye, unpubl. data; Sorrie 2011) and on the sandy soil substrates (Cane 1991) that may be required for nesting. The specific characteristics used to select nest sites are unclear for most bee species. Several of the bee species we collected are known sand specialists. However, there are differing degrees of habitat specialization, and discerning the level of specialization for rare or uncommonly collected species is difficult. Most of the sand-loving bee species we collected are fairly widespread and occur in a variety of habitat types as long as sandy soil is a component. These include Agapostemon splendens and its assumed nest parasite Nomada rubicunda (S. Droege, pers. comm.), as well as the solitary, ground-nesting Lasioglossum vierecki. Other species of Lasioglossum assumed to be ground nesters, including L. floridanum, L. raleighense, and L. sopinci, are also found in areas with loose sandy soil, but may differ in their level of specialization (e.g., Knerer 1969, Michener 1974, Packer 1993, Sakagami and Michener 1962). Although these species are not as widespread as A. splendens and L. vierecki, they exhibit some level of habitat flexibility and again, may not require specialized habitats. Lasioglossum raleighense may be the most specialized of the 3 taxa, with a majority of specimens collected from GA to NC, including the Sandhills Region. The Maryland sand dune records are significant because they represent the northernmost record for the species and, like the Sandhills Region, they are considered unique, specialized natural communities. The Sandhills are xeric habitats that are adapted to fire and which support many specialist plants and animals (Sorrie 2011). Although L. raleighense is not strictly limited to inland dune and ridge woodland habitats, it certainly appears to exhibit some level of habitat specialization. Lasioglossum sopinci is another species that occurs Northeastern Naturalist 430 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 both in dune habitats and in the Sandhills, but in Maryland has also been recorded from sandy, non-specialized habitats on the coastal plain (S. Droege, unpubl. data). Lasioglossum floridanum was the most frequently collected species in our study, and interestingly, has not been collected anywhere else in the state to date. The reasons for the absence of previous records are unknown but suggest that there is an element to this rare community that provides a resource for the species that other sandy areas throughout the state do not. The only species we collected that can be linked exclusively to inland dune and ridge woodlands in the mid-Atlantic region is Lasioglossum arantium, which has only been collected in dune habitats in Maryland and New Jersey (Gibbs 2011) and illustrates the importance of these rare natural communities to this apparent habitatspecialist. Why sand-loving species differ so dramatically in their degree of habitat specialization is a mystery that we can only piece together with continued study of species’ life histories. Inventories of bees and other insects in specialized habitats remain a critical first step in the process of increasing our understanding of these organisms and their habitats. Acknowledgments We are especially thankful to Sam Droege for reviewing early drafts of the manuscript, sharing data on Maryland bee distribution, and providing assistance with species identification. We thank the land managers of Chesapeake Forest, Pocomoke State Forest, Shad Landing State Park, and The Nature Conservancy for allowing us to conduct surveys on those properties, and Paula Becker, Dana Limpert, Amanda Accamando, Andy Kough, Sarah Majerowicz, and numerous DNR volunteers for assisting with data collection and specimen processing. This project was funded through a State Wildlife Grant administered by the USFWS. Literature Cited Abrams, J., and G.C. Eickwort. 1980. Biology of the communal sweat bee Agapostemon virescens (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in New York State. Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station, Search: Agriculture 1:1–20. Abrams, J., and G.C. Eickwort. 1981. Nest switching and guarding by the Communal Sweat Bee Agapostemon virescens (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). Insectes Sociaux 28:105–116. Ascher, J.S., and J. Pickering. 2017. Discover Life bee species guide and world checklist (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila). Available online at http://www.discoverlife.org/ mp/20q?guide=Apoidea_species. Accessed March 2017. Ashmead, W.H. 1894. The Habits of the Aculeate Hymenoptera, I. Psyche 7:19–26. Baker, J.R. 1975. Taxonomy of five nearctic subgenera of Coelioxys (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 50:49–730. Baker, J.R., E.D. Kuhn, and S.B. Bambara. 1985. Nests and immature stages of leafcutter bees (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 58:290–313. Bartomeus, I., J.S. Ascher, J. Gibbs, B.N. Danforth, D.L. Wagner, S.M. Hedtke, and R. Winfree. 2013. Historical changes in northeastern U.S. bee pollinators related to shared ecological traits. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110:4656–4660. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 431 Batra, S.W.T. 1964. Behavior of the social bee Lasioglossum zephyrum within the nest (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Insectes Sociaux 11:159–186. Batra, S.W.T. 1980. Ecology, behavior, pheromones, parasites, and management of the sympatric vernal bees Colletes inaequalis, C. thoracicus and C. validus. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 53:509–538. Biesmeijer, J.C., S.P.M. Roberts, M. Reemer, R. Ohlemüller, M. Edwards, T. Peeters, A.P. Schaffers, S.G. Potts, R. Kleukers, C.D. Thomas, J. Settele, and W.E. Kunin. 2006. Parallel declines in pollinators and insect-pollinated plants in Britain and the Netherlands. Science 313:351–354. Bouseman, J.K., and W.E. LaBerge. 1979. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part IX. Subgenus Melandrena. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 104:275–389. Breed, M.D. 1975. Life cycle and behavior of a primitively social bee, Lasioglossum rohweri (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 48:64–80. Cameron, S.A., J.B. Whitfield, C.L. Hulslander, W.A. Cresko, S.B. Isenberg, and R.W. King. 1996. Nesting biology and foraging patterns of the solitary bee Melissodes rustica (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Northwest Arkansas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 69:260–273. Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Corder, L.F. Solter, and T.L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662–667. Cane, J.H. 1991. Soils of ground-nesting bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea): Texture, moisture, cell depth, and climate. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 64:406–413. Cane, J.H. 1994. Nesting biology and mating behavior of the Southeastern Blueberry Bee, Habropoda laboriosa (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 67:236–241. Cane, J.H., and J.A. Payne. 1993. Regional, annual, and seasonal variation in pollinator guilds: Intrinsic traits of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) underlie their patterns of abundance at Vaccinium ashei (Ericaceae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 86:577–588. Cane, J.H., R.L. Minckley, and L.J. Kervin. 2000. Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator-community studies: Pitfalls of pan-trapping. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 73:225–231. Cane, J.H., T. Griswold, and F.D. Parker. 2007. Substrates and materials used for nesting by North American Osmia bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes: Megachilidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 100:350–358. Clement, S.L. 1973. The nesting biology of Melissodes (Eumelissodes) rustica (Say), with a description of the larva (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 46:516–525. Cloudsley-Thompson, J.L. 1975. Adaptations of Arthropoda to arid environments. Annual Review of Entomology 20:261–283. Coelho, B.W.T. 2004. A review of the bee genus Augochlorella (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Augochlorini). Systematic Entomology 29:282–323. Colla, S.R., and L. Packer. 2008. Evidence for decline in eastern North American bumble bees (Hymenoptera: Apidae), with special focus on Bombus affinis Cresson. Biodiversity and Conservation 17:1379–1391. Northeastern Naturalist 432 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Colla, S.R., M.C. Otterstatter, R.J. Gegear, and J.D. Thomson. 2006. Plight of the bumble bee: Pathogen spillover from commercial to wild populations. Biological Conservation 129:461–467. Cross, E.A., and G.E. Bohart. 1960. The Biology of Nomia (Epinomia) triangulifera with comparative notes on other species of Nomia. University of Kansas Science Bulletin 41:761–792. Daly, H.V. 1961. Biological observations on Hemihalictus lustrans, with a description of the larva (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 34:134–141. Davis, L.R., and W.E. LaBerge. 1975. The nest biology of the bee Andrena (Ptilandrena) erigeniae Robertson (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 95:1–24. Denny, C.S., J.P. Owens, L.A. Sirkin, and M. Rubin. 1979. The Parsonsburg Sand in the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware: Surface and shallow subsurface geologic studies in the emerged coastal plain of the Middle Atlantic States. Geological Survey professional paper 1067-B. US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 16 pp. Droege, S. 2006. Impact of color and size of bowl trap on numbers of bees captured. ResearchGate. 7 pp. Available online at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 265563502_Impact_of_Color_and_Size_of_Bowl_Trap_on_Numbers_of_Bees_ Captured. Accessed 15 June 2016. Droege, S. 2016. Nomada. Discover Life. Available online at http://www.discoverlife.org/ mp/20q?search=Apoidea. Accessed 11 November 2016. Droege, S., C.A. Davis, W.E. Steiner Jr., and J. Mawdsley. 2009. The lost micro-deserts of the Patuxent River using landscape history, insect and plant specimens, and field work to detect and define a unique community. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 111:132–144. Droege, S., V.J. Tepedino, G. LeBuhn, W. Link, R.L. Minckley, Q. Chen, and C. Conrad. 2010. Spatial patterns of bee captures in North American bowl-trapping surveys. Insect Conservation and Diversity 3:15–23. Dunn, M., P.L. Mitchell, and L. Packer. 1998. Phenology and social biology of 2 sibling species of Halictus in an area of sympatry. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:2207–2213. Eickwort, G.C. 1977. Aspects of the nesting biology and descriptions of immature stages of Perdita octomaculata and P. halictoides (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 50:577–599. Eickwort, G.C. 1981. Aspects of the nesting biology of 5 nearctic species of Agapostemon (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 54:337–351. Eickwort, G.C., and S.F. Sakagami. 1979. A classification of nest architecture of bees in the tribe Augochlorini (Hymenoptera: Halictidae; Halictinae) with description of a Brazilian nest of Rhinocorynura inflaticeps. Biotropica 11:28–37. Eickwort, G.C., P.F. Kukuk, and F.R. Wesley. 1986. The nesting biology of Dufourea novaeangliae (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) and the systematic position of the Dufoureinae based on behavior and development. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 59:103–120. Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2016. ArcMap Version 9.3. Redlands, CA. Available at: http://www.esri.com/software/arcgis. Accessed 31 October 2016. Fernandes, G.W. and P.W. Price. 1992. The adaptive significance of insect-gall distribution: Survivorship of species in xeric and mesic habitats. Oecologia 90:14–20. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 433 Fischer, R.L. 1955. A nest of Heriades variolosus (Cress.); (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). The Canadian Entomologist 87:33–36. Fowler, J. 2016. Specialist bees of the mid-Atlantic: Host plants and habitat conservation. The Maryland Entomologist 6:2–40. Frye, J.A., C.T. Frye, and T.W. Suman. 2014. The ant fauna of inland sand-dune communities in Worcester County, Maryland. Northeastern Naturalist. 21:446–471. Fye, R.E. 1965. Biology of Apoidea taken in trap nests in northwestern Ontario (Hymenoptera). The Canadian Entomologist 97:863–877. Garibaldi, L.A., I. Steffan-Dewenter, R. Winfree, M.A. Aizen, R. Bommarco, S.A. Cunningham, C. Kremen, L.G. Carvalheiro, L.D. Harder, O. Afik, I. Bartomeus, F. Benjamin, V. Boreux, D. Cariveau, N.P. Chacoff, J.H. Dudenhoffer, B.M. Freitas, J. Ghazoul, S. Greenleaf, J. Hipolito, A. Holzschuh, B. Howlett, R. Isaacs, S.K. Javorek, C.M. Kennedy, K.M. Krewenka, S. Krishnan, Y. Mandelik, M.M. Mayfield, I. Motzke, T. Munyuli, B.A. Nault, M. Otieno, J. Petersen, G. Pisanty, S.G. Potts, R. Rader, T.H. Ricketts, M. Rundlöf, C.L. Seymour, C. Schuepp, H. Szentgyorgyi, H. Taki, T. Tscharntke, C.H. Vergara, B.F. Viana, T.C. Wanger, C. Westphal, N. Williams, and A.-M. Klein. 2013. Wild pollinators enhance fruit-set of crops regardless of honey-bee abundance. Science 339:1608–1611. Geroff, R.K., J. Gibbs, and K.W. McCravy. 2014. Assessing bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) diversity of an Illinois restored tallgrass prairie: Methodology and conservation considerations. Journal of Insect Conservation 18:951–964. Gibbs, J. 2011. Revision of the metallic Lasioglossum (Dialictus) of eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Halictidae: Halictini). Zootaxa (Monograph) 3073:1–216. Gibbs, J. 2017. Notes on the nests of Augochloropsis metallica fulgida and Megachile mucida in central Michigan (Hymenoptera: Halictidae, Megachilidae). The Great Lakes Entomologist 50:17– 24 Gibbs, J., J. Albert and L. Packer. 2012a. Dual origins of social parasitism in North American Dialictus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) confirmed using a phylogenetic approach. Cladistics 28:195–207. Gibbs, J., S.G. Brady, K. Kanda, and B.N. Danforth. 2012b. Phylogeny of halictine bees supports a shared origin of eusociality for Halictus and Lasioglossum (Apoidea: Anthophila: Halictidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 65:926–939. Gibbs, J., L. Packer, S. Dumesh, and B.N. Danforth. 2013. Revision and reclassification of Lasioglossum (Evylaeus), L. (Hemihalictus) and L. (Sphecodogastra) in eastern North America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Halictidae). Zootaxa 3672:1–117. Gibbs, J., N.K. Joshi, J.K. Wilson, N.L. Rothwell, K. Powers, M. Haas, L. Gut, D.J. Biddinger, and R. Isaacs. 2017. Does passive sampling accurately reflect the bee (Apoidea: Anthophila) communities pollinating Apple and Sour Cherry orchards? Environmental Entomology 89:138–157. Goldstein, P.Z., and J.S. Ascher. 2016. Taxonomic and behavioral composition of an island fauna: A survey of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Anthophila) on Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 118:37–92. Graenicher, S. 1905. Some observations on the life history and habits of parasitic bees. Bulletin of the Wisconsin Natural History Society 3:153–167. Greenleaf, S.S., and C. Kremen. 2006a. Wild bee species increase tomato production and respond differently to surrounding land use in Northern California. Biological Conservation 133:81–87. Greenleaf, S.S., and C. Kremen. 2006b. Wild bees enhance honey bees’ pollination of hybrid sunflower. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:13890–13895. Northeastern Naturalist 434 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Grixti, J.C., L.T. Wonga, S.A. Cameron, and C. Favret. 2009. Decline of bumble bees (Bombus) in the North American Midwest. Biological Conservation 142:75–84. Grundel, R., R.P. Jean, K. Lynn, J. Frohnapple, G.A. Glowacki, P.E. Scott, and N.B. Pavlovic. 2010. Floral and nesting resources, habitat structure, and fire influence bee distribution across an open-forest gradient. Ecological Applications 20:1678–1692. Grundel, R., K. Lynn, J. Frohnapple, R.P. Jean, and N.B. Pavlovic. 2011a. Effectiveness of bowl trapping and netting for inventory of a bee community. Environmental Entomology 40:372–380. Grundel, R., R.P. Jean, K. Lynn, J. Frohnapple, J. Gibbs, G.A. Glowacki, and N.B. Pavlovic. 2011b. A survey of bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) of the Indiana Dunes and Northwest Indiana, USA. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 84:105–138. Hartman, C.G., P. Hartman, P. Hartman, and C. Rettenmeyer. 1944. Note on the habits of Osmia georgica Cresson as ascertained by the glass-tube method. Psyche 51:162–165. Hicks, B., T. Barlett, J. Bishop, S. Cicciarella, B. Hiscock, and R. Woodford. 2012. Does trap colour influence sampling of bee pollinators on blueberry fields? The Osprey 43:5–9. Hogendoorn, K., and Leys, R. 1997. Life-cycle of Halictus rubicundus Christ (Hymenoptera: Halictidae) in the Netherlands: Comparison of two populations. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 70:347–352. Hurd, P.D. 1979. Superfamily Apoidea. Pp. 1741–2209, In K.V. Krombein, P.D. Hurd Jr., D.R. Smith, and B.D. Burks (Eds.). Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Volume II. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 2145 pp. Hurd, P.D., E.G. Linsley, and A.E. Michelbacher. 1974. Ecology of the squash and gourd bee Peponapis pruinosa on cultivated cucurbits in California (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 168:1–17. Joshi, N.K., T. Leslie, E.G. Rajotte, M.A. Kammerer, M. Otieno, and D.J. Biddinger. 2015. Comparative trapping efficiency to characterize bee abundance, diversity, and community composition in apple orchards. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 108:785–799. Kevan, P.G., and H.G. Baker. 1983. Insects as flower visitors and pollinators. Annual Review of Entomology 28:407–453. Kislow, C.J. 1976. The comparative biology of two species of small carpenter bees, Ceratina strenua F. Smith and C. calcarata Robertson (Hymenoptera, Xylocopinae). Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Georgia, Athens, GA. 221 pp. Knerer, G. 1969. Synergistic evolution of halictine nest architecture and social behavior. Canadian Journal of Zoology 47:925–930. Kremen, C., N.M. Williams, and R.W. Thorp. 2002. Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:16812–16816. Krombein, K.V. 1953. A note on the nesting habits of Megachile texana Cresson (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 55:84–85. Krombein, K.V. 1967. Trap-Nesting Wasps and Bees: Life Histories, Nests, and Associates. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. 570 pp. LaBerge, W.E. 1961. A revision of the bees of the genus Melissodes in North and Central America. Part III (Hymenoptera, Apidae). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 42:283–663. LaBerge, W.E. 1967. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part I. Callandrena (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 7:1–316. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 435 LaBerge, W.E. 1971. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part IV. Scrapteropsis, Xiphandrena, and Raphandrena. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 97:441–520. LaBerge, W.E. 1973. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part VI. Subgenus Trachandrena. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 99:235–371. LaBerge, W.E. 1986. A revision of the bees of the genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part XI. Minor subgenera and subgeneric key. Transactions of the American Entomological Society 111:440–567. Larkin, L.L., R. Andrus, and S. Droege. 2016. Andrena. Discover Life. Available online at http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Apoidea. Accessed 10 November 2016. Lawson, S.P., K.N. Ciaccio, and S.M. Rehan. 2016. Maternal manipulation of pollen provisions affects worker production in a small carpenter bee. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 70:1891–1900. Leong, J.M., and R.W. Thorp. 1999. Color-coded sampling: The pan-trap color preferences of oligolectic and nonoligolectic bees associated with a vernal-pool plant. Ecological Entomology 24:329–335. Litvaitis, J.A., D.L. Wagner, J.L. Confer, M.D. Tarr, and E.J. Snyder. 1999. Early-successional forests and shrub-dominated habitats: Land-use artifacts or critical community in the northeastern United States. Northeast Wildlife 54:101–118. McCravy, K.W., R.K. Geroff, and J. Gibbs. 2016. Malaise-trap sampling efficiency for bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) in a restored tallgrass prairie. Florida Entomologist 99:321–323. McCune, B., and J.B. Grace. 2002. Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OR. 300 pp. McGinley, R.J. 1986. Studies of Halictinae (Apoidea: Halictidae), I: Revision of New World Lasioglossum Curtis. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 429:1–294. Medler, J.T. 1961. A note on Hoplitis producta (Cress.) in Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). The Canadian Entomologist 93:571–573. Medler, J.T. 1965. A note on Megachile mendica Cresson in trap-nests in Wisconsin. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 67:113–116. Medler, J.T. 1967a. Hoplitis cylindrica in trap nests in Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 40:137–140. Medler, J.T. 1967b. Biology of Osmia in trap nests in Wisconsin (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 60:338–344. Medler, J.T., and J.F. Lussenhop. 1968. Leafcutter bees of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Research Bulletin 274:1–80. Michener, C.D. 1947. Some observations on Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) lustrans (Hymenoptera, Halictidae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 55:49–50. Michener, C.D. 1953. The biology of a leafcutter bee (Megachile brevis) and its associates. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 35:1659–1748. Michener, C.D. 1955. Some biological observations on Hoplitis pilosifrons and Stelis lateralis (Hymenoptera, Megachilidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 28:81–87. Michener, C.D. 1974. The Social Behavior of the Bees. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA. 404 pp. Michener, C.D. 1978. The parasitic groups of Halictidae. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 51:291–339. Northeastern Naturalist 436 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Michener, C.D. 2007. The Bees of the World, 2nd Edition. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 953 pp. Michener, C.D., and A. Wille. 1961. The bionomics of a primitively social bee, Lasioglossum inconspicuum. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 42:1123–1202. Mielke, P.W., Jr., and K.J. Berry. 2001. Permutation Methods: A Distance-function Approach. Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY. 363 pp. Miliczky, E.R. 1985. Observations on the nesting biology of Tetralonia hamata Bradley with a description of its mature larva (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 58:686–700. Miliczky, E.R. 1988. Observations on the bionomics of the bee Andrena (Tylandrena) erythrogaster Ashmead (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae) with notes on A. (Micrandrena) personata Robertson and A. (Holandrena) c. cressoni. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 130:1–28. Miliczky, E.R., and E.A. Osgood. 1995. Bionomics of Andrena (Melandrena) vicina Smith in Maine and Washington, with new parasite records for A. (M.) regularis Malloch and a review of Melandrena biology. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 68:51–66. Mitchell, T.B. 1960. Bees of the eastern United States, Volume I. The North Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, Technical Bulletin Number 141, Raleigh, NC. 538 pp. Mitchell, T.B. 1962. Bees of the eastern United States, Volume II. The North Carolina Agricultural Experimental Station, Technical Bulletin Number 152, Raleigh, NC. 557 pp. Mueller, U.G. 1996. Life history and social evolution of the primitively eusocial bee Augochlorella striata (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 69:116–138. NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.0. Arlington, VA. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed March 2017. National Research Council of the National Academies. 2007. Status of Pollinators in North America. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 322 pp. Newell, W.L., and B.D. Dejong. 2011. Cold-climate slope deposits and landscape modifications of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain, Eastern USA. Pp. 259–276, In I.P. Martini, H.M. French, and A.P. Alberti (Eds.). Ice-Marginal and Periglacial Processes and Sediments. Geological Society, Special Publication 354. London, UK. 284 pp. Norden, B.B., and A.G. Scarborough. 1979. Nesting biology of Andrena (Larandrena) miserabilis Cresson and description of the prepupa (Hymenoptera, Andrenidae). Brimleyana 2:141–146. Ollerton, J., R. Winfree, and S. Tarrant. 2011. How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos 120:321–326. Ordway, E. 1966. The bionomics of Augochlorella striata and A. persimilis in eastern Kansas. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 39:270–313. Osgood, E.A. 1989. Biology of Andrena crataegi Robertson (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae), a communally nesting bee. Journal of the New York Entomological Society 97:56–64. Packer, L. 1990. Solitary and eusocial nests in a population of Augochlorella striata (Provancher) (Hymenoptera; Halictidae) at the northern edge of its range. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 27:339–344. Packer, L. 1993. Multiple foundress associations in sweat bees. Pp. 309–313, In L. Keller (Ed.). Queen Number and Sociality in Insects. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. 439 pp. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 437 Packer, L., E. Ali, S. Dumesh, and K. Walker. 2016. The identification of pollinators: Where are we and where should we go? Pp. 57–73, In B. Gemmill-Herren (Ed.). Pollination Services to Agriculture: Sustaining and Enhancing a Key Ecosystem Service. Routledge, New York, NY. 310 pp. Potts, S.G., J.C. Biesmeijer, C. Kremen, P. Neumann, O. Schweiger and W.E. Kunin. 2010. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts, and drivers. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:345–353. Rader, R., I. Bartomeus, L.A. Garibaldi, M.P.D. Garratt, B.G. Howlett, R. Winfree, S.A. Cunningham, M.M. Mayfield, A.D. Arthur, G.K.S. Andersson, R. Bommarco, C. Brittain, L.G. Carvalheiro, N.P. Chacoff, M.H. Entling, B. Foully, B.M. Freitas, B. Gemmill- Herren, J. Ghazoul, S.R. Griffin, C.L. Gross, L. Herbertsson, F. Herzog, J. Hipólito, S. Jaggar, F. Jauker, A.-M. Klein, D. Kleijn, S. Krishnan, C.Q. Lemos, S.A.M. Lindström, Y. Mandelik, V.M. Monteiro, W. Nelson, L. Nilsson, D.E. Pattemore, N. de O. Pereira, G. Pisanty, S.G. Potts, M. Reemer, M. Rundlöf, C.S. Sheffield, J. Scheper, C. Schüepp, H.G. Smith, D.A. Stanley, J.C. Stout, H. Szentgyörgyi, H. Taki, C.H. Vergara, B.F. Viana, and M. Woyciechowski. 2016. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113:146–151. Rajotte, E.G. 1979. Nesting, foraging, and pheromone response of the bee Colletes validus Cresson and its association with Lowbush Blueberries. (Hymenoptera: Colletidae) (Ericaceae: Vaccinium). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 52:349–361. Rau, P. 1930. The nesting habits of the twig-dwelling bee, Prosopis modestus Say. Psyche 37:173–175. Rehan, S.M., and M.H. Richards. 2010. Nesting biology and subsociality in Ceratina calcarata (Hymenoptera: Apidae). The Canadian Entomologist 142:65–74. Rehan, S.M., and C.S. Sheffield. 2011. Morphological and molecular delineation of a new species in the Ceratina dupla species-group (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Xylocopinae) of eastern North America. Zootaxa 2873:35–50. Ribble, D.W. 1967. The monotypic North American Larandrena of Andrena (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum 6:27–42. Richards, M.H., and L. Packer. 1995. Annual variation in survival and reproduction of the primitively eusocial sweat bee Halictus ligatus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:933–941. Richards, M.H., J.L. Vickruck, and S.M. Rehan. 2010. Colony social organization of Halictus confusus in southern Ontario, with comments on sociality in the subgenus H. (Seladonia). Journal of Hymenoptera Research 19:144–158. Roulston, T.H., and K. Goodell. 2011. The role of resources and risks in regulating wild bee populations. Annual Review of Entomology 56:293–312. Rozen, J.G. 1964. The biology of Svastra obliqua obliqua (Say), with a taxonomic description of its larvae (Apoidea, Anthophoridae). American Museum Novitates 2170:1–13. Rozen, J.G. 1967. Review of the biology of panurgine bees, with observations on North American forms (Hymenoptera, Andrenidae). American Museum Novitates 1–44. Rozen, J.G., and M.S. Favreau. 1968. Biological notes on Colletes compactus compactus and its cuckoo bee, Epeolus pusillus (Hymenoptera: Colletidae and Anthophoridae). Journal of the New York Entomological Society 76:106–111. Sakagami, S.F., and C.D. Michener. 1962. The Nest Architecture of the Sweat Bees (Halictinae), a Comparative Study of Behavior. The University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS. 135 pp. Northeastern Naturalist 438 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Scheffer, J. 2002. Dealing with missing data. Research Letters in the Information and Mathematical Sciences 3:153–160. Schrader, M.N., and W.E. LaBerge. 1978. The nest biology of the bees Andrena (Melandrena) regularis Malloch and A. (M.) carlini Cockerell. Illinois Natural History Survey Biological Notes 108:1–24. Schwarz, M., and F. Gusenleitner. 2004. Beitrag zur Klärung und Kenntnis parasitärer Bienen der Gattungen Coelioxys and Nomada (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Linzer biologische Beiträge 36:1413–1485. Shapiro, L.H., V.J. Tepedino, and R.L. Minckley. 2014. Bowling for bees: Optimal sample number for “bee bowl” sampling transects. Journal of Insect Conservation 18:1105– 1113. Sheffield, C.S., C. Ratti, L. Packer, and T. Griswold. 2011. Leafcutter and mason bees of the genus Megachile Latreille (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae) in Canada and Alaska. Canadian Journal of Arthropod Identification 18:1–107. Shinn, A.F. 1967. A revision of the bee genus Calliopsis and the biology and ecology of C. andreniformis (Hymenoptera, Andrenidae). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 46:753–936. Sorrie, B.A. (Ed). 2011. A Field Guide to Wildflowers of the Sandhills Region: North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC. 378 pp. Soucy, S.L. 2002. Nesting biology and socially polymorphic behavior of the sweat bee Halictus rubicundus (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America 95:57–65. Stephen, W.P. 1954. A revision of the bee genus Colletes in America North of Mexico. The University of Kansas Science Bulletin 36:149–527. Stockhammer, K.A. 1966. Nesting habits and life cycle of a sweat bee, Augochlora pura (Hymenoptera: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 39:157–192. Stockhammer, K.A. 1967. Some notes on the biology of the Blue Sweat Bee, Lasioglossum coeruleum (Apoidea: Halictidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 40:177–189. Toler, T.R., E.W. Evans, and V.J. Tepedino. 2005. Pantrapping for bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Utah’s west desert: The importance of color diversity. Pan-Pacific Entomologist 81:103–113. Tuell, J.K., and R. Isaacs. 2010. Weather during bloom affects pollination and yield of Highbush Blueberry. Journal of Economic Entomology 103:557–562. Vickruck, J.L., S.M. Rehan, C.S. Sheffield, and M.H. Richards. 2011. Nesting biology and DNA barcode analysis of Ceratina dupla and C. mikmaqi, and comparisons with C. calcarata (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Xylocopinae). The Canadian Entomologist 143:254–262. Wagner, D.L., M.W. Nelson, and D.F. Schweitzer. 2003. Shrubland Lepidoptera of southern New England and southeastern New York: Ecology, conservation, and management. Forest Ecology and Management 185:95–112. Westphal, C., R. Bommarco, G. Carré, E. Lamborn, N. Morison, T. Petanidou, S.G. Potts, S.P.M. Roberts, H. Szentgyörgyi, T. Tscheulin, B.E. Vaissière, M. Woyciechowski, J.C. Biesmeijer, W.E. Kunin, J. Settele, and I. Steffan-Dewenter. 2008. Measuring bee diversity in different European habitats and biogeographical regions. Ecological Monographs 78:653–671. Williams, N.M., R.L. Minckley, and F.A. Silveira. 2001. Variation in native bee faunas and its implications for detecting community changes. Conservation Ecology 5:1–7. Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 439 Williams, P.H., S.A. Cameron, H.M. Hines, B. Cederberg, and P. Rasmont. 2008. A simplified subgeneric classification of the bumblebees (genus Bombus). Apidologie 39:46–74. Williams, P.H., R.W. Thorp, L.L. Richardson, and S.R. Colla. 2014. Bumble Bees of North America: An Identification Guide. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 208 pp. Winfree, R., N.M. Williams, H. Gaines, J.S. Ascher, and C. Kremen. 2008. Wild bee pollinators provide the majority of crop visitation across land-use gradients in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, USA. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:793–802. Northeastern Naturalist 440 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Appendix 1. List of all bee species collected in 2008 and 2009 across 30 inland dune and ridge woodland sites in Worchester County, MD. Nests are categorized as ground burrows (G), existing cavities (C), hollow or pithy stems (S), external/surface nests (EX) and rotten logs (W). Cleptoparasites are indicated using parentheses under the “nests” heading. Social behaviors are categorized as advanced eusocial (A), primitively eusocial or semisocial (E), solitary to communal (S), and cleptoparasites and social parasites (P). In the highly variable genus Lasioglossum, species with published nesting studies are marked with an asterisk (*) under the “nests” heading; all others are predicted based on phylogenetic data (Gibbs et al. 2012). Peak abundance evident from our data (Max group) is described as spring (SPR), summer (SUM), fall (FAL) or (N/A) if peak abundance is the same in all 3 seasons; an asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference between seasons. For species in which we detected a significant difference, seasons with the same letter in the same row are not significantly different. Numbers in parenthesis denote actual number of bees collected in a given season throughout the sampling period. A designation of (ns) denotes that the difference between seasons was not significant. Comparison of abundance across seasons takes into account the maximum number of sampling events for each season, determined by the number of dunes surveyed (30) multiplied by the number of sampling events in each season per year (150 spring, 60 summer, 60 fall total). Observed Social Max indicator Total # Total # Species Nests Behavior group value SPR SUM FAL males females Agapostemon (Agapostemon) splendens (Lepeletier) G S SUM 9.3 ns (15) ns (27) ns (25) 2 65 Agapostemon (Agapostemon) virescens (Fabricius) G S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Andrena (Callandrena) asteroides Mitchell G S FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 1 0 Andrena (Archiandrena) banksi Malloch G S SPR 2.0 ns (6) ns (0) ns (0) 0 6 Andrena (Conandrena) bradleyi Viereck G S SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 2 0 Andrena (Melandrena) carlini Cockerell G S SPR 4.7 ns (9) ns (0) ns (0) 2 7 Andrena (Andrena) cornelli Viereck G S SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 0 2 Andrena (Holandrena) cressonii Robertson G S SPR 2.0 ns (3) ns (0) ns (0) 2 1 Andrena (Scrapteropsis) fenningeri Viereck G S SPR 4.0 ns (7) ns (0) ns (0) 2 5 Andrena (Trachandrena) forbesii Robertson G S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Andrena (Melandrena) hilaris Smith G S SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 2 0 Andrena (Scrapteropsis) imitatrix Cresson G S SPR 2.7 ns (5) ns (0) ns (0) 0 5 Andrena (Larandrena) miserabilis Cresson G S SPR* 10.7 (28)A (0)B (0)B 1 27 Andrena (Andrena) tridens Robertson G S SPR 2.7 ns (4) ns (0) ns (0) 0 4 Andrena (Melandrena) vicina Smith G S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Andrena (Lomelissa) violae Robertson G S SPR 4.7 ns (9) ns (0) ns (0) 5 4 Anthidiellum (Loyolanthidium) notatum (Latreille) EX S FAL 3.3 ns (0) ns (0) ns (2) 0 2 Apis (Apis) mellifera L.1 C A FAL 4.8 ns (3) ns (5) ns (7) 0 15 Augochlora (Augochlora) pura (Say) W S FAL* 31.8 (12)A (89)B (99)B 21 179 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 441 Observed Social Max indicator Total # Total # Species Nests Behavior group value SPR SUM FAL males females Augochlorella aurata (Smith) G E SUM* 22.9 (23)A (83)B (76)B 2 180 Augochloropsis (Paraugochloropsis) metallica fulgida (Smith) G E SUM* 7.6 (3)A (7)B (1)AB 0 11 Augochloropsis (Paraugochloropsis) metallica metallica (Fabricius) G E SUM* 6.1 (1)A (4)B (0)AB 1 4 Bombus (Pyrobombus) bimaculatus Cresson C E SPR/SUM 2.4 ns (1) ns (1) ns (0) 0 2 Bombus (Thoracobombus) fervidus (Fabricius) C E SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Bombus (Cullumanobombus) griseocollis (DeGeer) C E SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Bombus (Pyrobombus) impatiens Cresson C E FAL* 7.7 (6)A (5)AB (10)B 4 11 Bombus (Thoracobombus) pensylvanicus (DeGeer) C E FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (2) 0 2 Calliopsis (Calliopsis) andreniformis Smith C S FAL 3.3 ns (0) ns (0) ns (3) 0 3 Ceratina (Zadontomerus) calcarata Robertson S S SUM* 34.7 (71)A (201)B (122)C 194 200 Ceratina (Zadontomerus) dupla Say S S SUM 6.4 ns (2) ns (14) ns (11) 2 25 Ceratina (Zadontomerus) strenua Smith S S SUM* 29.1 (29)A (132)B (35)A 71 125 Coelioxys (Xerocoelioxys) immaculatus Cockerell (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Coelioxys (Boreocoelioxys) porterae Cockerell C P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Colletes americanus Cresson G S FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (2) 2 0 Colletes inaequalis Say G S SPR* 16.7 (48)A (0)B (0)B 3 45 Colletes thoracicus Smith G S SPR 4.0 ns (12) ns (0) ns (0) 1 11 Colletes validus Cresson G S SPR 4.7 ns (9) ns (0) ns (0) 5 4 Epeolus pusillus Cresson (G) P FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 1 0 Eucera hamata (Bradley) G S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Habropoda laboriosa (Fabricius) G S SPR* 42.0 (270)A (0)B (0)B 178 92 Halictus (Odontalictus) ligatus Say/H. (O.) poeyi Lepeletier2 G E FAL 2.0 ns (1) ns (2) ns (5) 4 4 Halictus (Protohalictus) rubicundus (Christ) G E SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 0 2 Heriades (Neotrypetes) variolosa (Cresson) S S FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 0 1 Hoplitis (Alcidamea) pilosifrons (Cresson) S S SPR 2.7 ns (4) ns (0) ns (0) 4 0 Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Cresson) S S SPR 3.3 ns (5) ns (0) ns (0) 1 4 Hoplitis (Alcidamea) spoliata (Provancher) S S SPR 2.0 ns (3) ns (0) ns (0) 1 2 Hylaeus (Prosopis) affinis (Smith) S S FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 0 1 Hylaeus (Prosopis) modestus Say S S N/A 0.7 ns (1) ns (1) ns (1) 2 1 Hylaeus (Metziella) sparsus (Cresson) S S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) arantium Gibbs G E SUM* 21.6 (0)A (154)B (60)C 7 207 Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) birkmanni (Crawford) G S FAL 5.6 ns (2) ns (0) ns (3) 0 5 Northeastern Naturalist 442 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Observed Social Max indicator Total # Total # Species Nests Behavior group value SPR SUM FAL males females Lasioglossum (Dialictus) bruneri (Crawford) G E FAL* 20.1 (4)A (61)B (73)B 4 134 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) coeruleum (Robertson) W E* SUM* 9.8 (10)A (18)AB (0)B 2 26 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) coreopsis (Robertson) G E SPR 4.9 ns (8) ns (3) ns (6) 0 17 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) cressonii (Robertson) W E FAL 4.4 ns (1) ns (0) ns (3) 0 4 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) floridanum (Robertson) G E SUM* 31.6 (173)A (488)B (190)A 14 837 Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) foxii (Robertson) G S SUM 3.3 ns (0) ns (2) ns (0) 2 0 Lasioglossum (Lasioglossum) fuscipenne (Smith) G S SUM 5.3 ns (5) ns (8) ns (5) 3 15 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) hitchensi Gibbs 2012 G E SPR 1.9 ns (4) ns (2) ns (0) 0 6 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) illinoense (Robertson) G E FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 0 1 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) imitatum (Smith) G E* FAL 1.1 ns (0) ns (1) ns (2) 0 3 Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) lustrans (Cockerell) G S* SUM 3.3 ns (0) ns (2) ns (0) 0 2 Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) nelumbonis (Robertson) G S SPR/SUM 1.9 ns (1) ns (1) ns (0) 0 2 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) oblongum (Lovell) W E SUM* 9.9 (15)AB (28)A (4)B 0 47 Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) pectorale (Smith) G S SUM* 15.9 (3)A (16)B (1)A 2 18 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) pilosum (Smith) G E FAL* 10.4 (4)A (13)AB (23)B 3 38 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) platyparium (Robertson) G P SPR/FAL 1.2 ns (1) ns (0) ns (1) 0 2 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) raleighense (Crawford) G E SPR/FAL 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (1) 0 2 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) smilacinae (Robertson) G E SUM 2.8 ns (0) ns (2) ns (1) 0 3 Lasioglossum (Hemihalictus) sopinci (Crawford) G S SUM 5.6 ns (6) ns (9) ns (2) 0 17 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) subviridatum (Cockerell) W E SUM* 53.5 (94)A (275)B (7)C 0 376 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) tegulare (Robertson) G E FAL* 21.9 (33)A (35)AB (91)B 3 156 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) versatum (Robertson) G E* FAL* 20.1 (4)A (0)AB (5)B 1 8 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) vierecki (Crawford) G S* FAL 12.9 ns (21) ns (78) ns (84) 5 178 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) weemsi (Mitchell) G E SUM 1.7 ns (0) ns (3) ns (0) 0 3 Lasioglossum (Dialictus) zephyrum (Smith) G E* SUM/FAL 0.8 ns (0) ns (1) ns (1) 0 2 Megachile (Litomegachile) brevis Say S/C S FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 0 1 Megachile (Chelostomoides) exilis Cresson C S FAL 1.7 ns (0) ns (0) ns (1) 0 1 Megachile (Xanthosarus) gemula Cresson S/C S SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 1 1 Megachile (Litomegachile) mendica Cresson S/C S SUM 4.4 ns (1) ns (3) ns (0) 4 0 Megachile (Xanthosarus) mucida Cresson G S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Megachile (Litomegachile) texana Cresson G S SUM 3.3 ns (0) ns (1) ns (0) 0 1 Melissodes (Melissodes) bimaculatus (Lepeletier) G S SUM 3.3 ns (0) ns (2) ns (0) 0 2 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 443 Observed Social Max indicator Total # Total # Species Nests Behavior group value SPR SUM FAL males females Melissodes (Melissodes) comptoides Robertson G S SUM* 8.3 (0)A (5)B (0)A 2 3 Melissodes (Eumelissodes) denticulatus Smith G S SUM 3.3 ns(0) ns (2) ns (0) 0 2 Melissodes (Eumelissodes) druriellus (Kirby) G S SUM 5.0 ns (0) ns (3) ns (0) 1 2 Melissodes (Eumelissodes) trinodis Robertson G S SUM* 11.7 (0)A (10)B (0)A 0 10 Nomada armatella Cockerell (G) P SPR 4.7 ns 10) ns (0) ns (0) 8 2 Nomada articulata Smith (G) P SPR 2.7 ns (7) ns (0) ns (0) 6 1 Nomada composita Mitchell (G) P SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 0 2 Nomada cressonii Robertson (G) P SPR 4.0 ns (6) ns (0) ns (0) 6 0 Nomada denticulata Robertson (G) P SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 2 0 Nomada luteoloides Robertson (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Nomada luteola Olivier (G) P SPR 3.3 ns (4) ns (0) ns (0) 4 0 Nomada maculata Cresson (G) P SPR 3.3 ns (8) ns (0) ns (0) 6 2 Nomada parva Robertson (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Nomada pygmaea Cresson (G) P SPR* 8.0 (9)A (0)B (0)B 6 3 Nomada rubicunda Olivier (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Nomada sulphurata Smith (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 1 0 Nomia (Acunomia) maneei Cockerell G S SUM* 6.7 (0)A (6)B (0)AB 1 5 Osmia (Melanosmia) atriventris Cresson S S SPR* 41.3 (181)A (0)B (0)B 130 51 Osmia (Melanosmia) collinsiae Robertson ? S SPR 1.3 ns (3) ns (0) ns (0) 3 0 Osmia (Helicosmia) georgica Cresson S S SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 1 1 Osmia (Melanosmia) inspergens Lovell and Cockerell S S SPR* 16.7 (69)A (0)B (0)B 67 2 Osmia (Osmia) lignaria lignaria Say S S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Osmia (Melanosmia) pumila Cresson S S SPR* 45.3 (411)A (0)B (0)B 373 38 Osmia (Melanosmia) sandhouseae Mitchell ? S SPR* 39.0 (297)A (1)B (0)B 273 25 Osmia (Osmia) taurus Smith S S SPR 3.3 ns (5) ns (0) ns (0) 4 1 Osmia (Melanosmia) virga Sandhouse ? S SPR* 24.7 (62)A (0)B (0)B 43 19 Panurginus atramontensis Crawford G S SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Peponapis (Peponapis) pruinosa (Say) G S SUM 3.3 ns (0) ns (3) ns (0) 2 1 Perdita (Alloperdita) bradleyi Viereck G S SPR 1.3 ns (3) ns (0) ns (0) 0 3 Perdita (Perdita) octomaculata (Say) G S FAL 5.0 ns (0) ns (0) ns (3) 1 2 Sphecodes aroniae Mitchell (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Sphecodes banksii Lovell (G) P FAL 2.8 ns (1) ns (0) ns (2) 2 1 Northeastern Naturalist 444 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 Vol. 24, No. 4 Observed Social Max indicator Total # Total # Species Nests Behavior group value SPR SUM FAL males females Sphecodes confertus Say (G) P SPR 1.3 ns (2) ns (0) ns (0) 0 2 Sphecodes coronus Mitchell (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Sphecodes cressonii (Robertson) (G) P SPR 2.7 ns (4) ns (0) ns (0) 0 4 Sphecodes mandibularis Cresson (G) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Sphecodes fattigi Mitchell (G) P SUM 1.7 ns (0) ns (1) ns (0) 0 1 Stelis (Stelis) lateralis Cresson (S) P SPR 0.7 ns (1) ns (0) ns (0) 0 1 Svastra (Epimelissodes) obliqua (Say, 1837) G S SUM 1.7 ns (0) ns (1) ns (0) 0 1 1Introduced 2The two species cannot currently be separated morphologically (Packer et al. 2016). Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 24, No. 4 J.A. Selfridge, C.T. Frye, J. Gibbs, and R.P. Jean 2017 445 Appendix 2. Literature cited summary for each genus listed in Appendix 1. Genus Literature Cited Agapostemon Abrams and Eickwort 1980, Eickwort 1981 Andrena Miliczky 1988, Miliczky and Osgood 1995, Norden and Scarborough 1979, Osgood 1989, Schrader and LaBerge 1978 Anthidiellum Baker et al. 1985 Apis Michener 1974 Augochlora Stockhammer 1966 Augochlorella Mueller 1996, Ordway 1966, Packer 1990 Augochloropsis Eickwort and Sakagami 1979, Gibbs 2017 Bombus Michener 1974 Calliopsis Shinn 1967 Ceratina Kislow 1976, Lawson et al. 2016, Rehan and Richards 2010, Vickruck et al. 2011 Coelioxys Baker 1975 Colletes Batra 1980, Rajotte 1979 Epeolus Rozen and Favreau 1968 Eucera Miliczky 1985 Habropoda Cane 1994 Halictus Dunn et al. 1998, Richards and Packer 1995, Richards et al. 2010, Soucy 2002 Heriades Fischer 1955 Hoplitis Fye 1965; Medler 1961, 1967a; Michener 1955 Hylaeus Krombein 1967, Rau 1930 Lasioglossum Batra 1964; Breed 1975; Daly 1961; Gibbs 2011; Gibbs et al. 2012a, 2012b, 2013; Michener 1947; Michener and Wille 1961; Mitchell 1960; Sakagami and Michener 1962; Stockhammer 1967 Megachile Krombein 1953, Medler 1965, Michener 1953, Sheffield et al. 201 1 Melissodes Ashmead 1894, Cameron et al. 1996, Clement 1973, Graenicher 1905 Nomada Abrams and Eickwort 1981, Goldstein and Ascher 2016, Miliczky and Osgood 1995, Osgood 1989 Nomia Cross and Bohart 1960 Osmia Fye 1965, Hartman et al. 1944, Krombein 1967, Hogendorn and Leys 19987, Medler 1967b, Medler and Lussenhop 1968 Panurginus Rozen 1967 Peponapis Hurd et al. 1974 Perdita Eickwort 1977 Sphecodes Michener 1978 Stelis Graenicher 1905, Medler 1961, Michener 1955 Svastra Rozen 1964