No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests
Abstract Spatial patterns in biodiversity are used to establish conservation priorities and ecosystem management plans. The environmental filtering of communities along urbanization gradients has been used to explain biodiversity patterns but demonstrating filtering requires precise statistical test...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-10-01
|
| Series: | Ecology and Evolution |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9360 |
| _version_ | 1811213184530382848 |
|---|---|
| author | Garland Xie Nicholas Sookhan Kelly A. Carscadden James Scott MacIvor |
| author_facet | Garland Xie Nicholas Sookhan Kelly A. Carscadden James Scott MacIvor |
| author_sort | Garland Xie |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Spatial patterns in biodiversity are used to establish conservation priorities and ecosystem management plans. The environmental filtering of communities along urbanization gradients has been used to explain biodiversity patterns but demonstrating filtering requires precise statistical tests to link suboptimal environments at one end of a gradient to lower population sizes via ecological traits. Here, we employ a three‐part framework on observational community data to test: (I) for trait clustering (i.e., phenotypic similarities among co‐occurring species) by comparing trait diversity to null expectations, (II) if trait clustering is correlated with an urbanization graient, and (III) if species' traits relate to environmental conditions. If all criteria are met, then there is evidence that urbanization is filtering communities based on their traits. We use a community of 46 solitary cavity‐nesting bee and wasp species sampled across Toronto, a large metropolitan city, over 3 years to test these hypotheses. None of the criteria were met, so we did not have evidence for environmental filtering. We do show that certain ecological traits influence which species perform well in urban environments. For example, cellophane bees (Hylaeus: Colletidae) secrete their own nesting material and were overrepresented in urban areas, while native leafcutting bees (Megachile: Megachilidae) were most common in greener areas. For wasps, prey preference was important, with aphid‐collecting (Psenulus and Passaloecus: Crabronidae) and generalist spider‐collecting (Trypoxylon: Crabronidae) wasps overrepresented in urban areas and caterpillar‐ and beetle‐collecting wasps (Euodynerus and Symmorphus: Vespidae, respectively) overrepresented in greener areas. We emphasize that changes in the prevalence of different traits across urban gradients without corresponding changes in trait diversity with urbanization do not constitute environmental filtering. By applying this rigorous framework, future studies can test whether urbanization filters other nesting guilds (i.e., ground‐nesting bees and wasps) or larger communities consisting of entire taxonomic groups. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:41:35Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f68a9916a18a43a1957d218c07423548 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-7758 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T05:41:35Z |
| publishDate | 2022-10-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Ecology and Evolution |
| spelling | doaj.art-f68a9916a18a43a1957d218c074235482022-12-22T03:45:38ZengWileyEcology and Evolution2045-77582022-10-011210n/an/a10.1002/ece3.9360No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nestsGarland Xie0Nicholas Sookhan1Kelly A. Carscadden2James Scott MacIvor3Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto Toronto Ontario CanadaEcology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto Toronto Ontario CanadaEcology and Evolutionary Biology University of Colorado Boulder Boulder Colorado USAEcology and Evolutionary Biology University of Toronto Toronto Ontario CanadaAbstract Spatial patterns in biodiversity are used to establish conservation priorities and ecosystem management plans. The environmental filtering of communities along urbanization gradients has been used to explain biodiversity patterns but demonstrating filtering requires precise statistical tests to link suboptimal environments at one end of a gradient to lower population sizes via ecological traits. Here, we employ a three‐part framework on observational community data to test: (I) for trait clustering (i.e., phenotypic similarities among co‐occurring species) by comparing trait diversity to null expectations, (II) if trait clustering is correlated with an urbanization graient, and (III) if species' traits relate to environmental conditions. If all criteria are met, then there is evidence that urbanization is filtering communities based on their traits. We use a community of 46 solitary cavity‐nesting bee and wasp species sampled across Toronto, a large metropolitan city, over 3 years to test these hypotheses. None of the criteria were met, so we did not have evidence for environmental filtering. We do show that certain ecological traits influence which species perform well in urban environments. For example, cellophane bees (Hylaeus: Colletidae) secrete their own nesting material and were overrepresented in urban areas, while native leafcutting bees (Megachile: Megachilidae) were most common in greener areas. For wasps, prey preference was important, with aphid‐collecting (Psenulus and Passaloecus: Crabronidae) and generalist spider‐collecting (Trypoxylon: Crabronidae) wasps overrepresented in urban areas and caterpillar‐ and beetle‐collecting wasps (Euodynerus and Symmorphus: Vespidae, respectively) overrepresented in greener areas. We emphasize that changes in the prevalence of different traits across urban gradients without corresponding changes in trait diversity with urbanization do not constitute environmental filtering. By applying this rigorous framework, future studies can test whether urbanization filters other nesting guilds (i.e., ground‐nesting bees and wasps) or larger communities consisting of entire taxonomic groups.https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9360ecological traitsfunctional diversityHymenopteraland cover gradientpollinatorsRLQ analysis |
| spellingShingle | Garland Xie Nicholas Sookhan Kelly A. Carscadden James Scott MacIvor No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests Ecology and Evolution ecological traits functional diversity Hymenoptera land cover gradient pollinators RLQ analysis |
| title | No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests |
| title_full | No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests |
| title_fullStr | No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests |
| title_full_unstemmed | No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests |
| title_short | No evidence for environmental filtering of cavity‐nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests |
| title_sort | no evidence for environmental filtering of cavity nesting solitary bees and wasps by urbanization using trap nests |
| topic | ecological traits functional diversity Hymenoptera land cover gradient pollinators RLQ analysis |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9360 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT garlandxie noevidenceforenvironmentalfilteringofcavitynestingsolitarybeesandwaspsbyurbanizationusingtrapnests AT nicholassookhan noevidenceforenvironmentalfilteringofcavitynestingsolitarybeesandwaspsbyurbanizationusingtrapnests AT kellyacarscadden noevidenceforenvironmentalfilteringofcavitynestingsolitarybeesandwaspsbyurbanizationusingtrapnests AT jamesscottmacivor noevidenceforenvironmentalfilteringofcavitynestingsolitarybeesandwaspsbyurbanizationusingtrapnests |