@article {1566,
	title = {Sampling bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) for pollinator community studies: pitfalls of pan-trapping},
	journal = {Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society},
	volume = {73},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {225 - 231},
	abstract = {With the growing interest in pollinator conservation, a need has emerged for a simple. unbiased method to reliably sample local bee faunas. One method. pan-trapping, has increased in popularity without critical evaluation of its efficacy and biases. We compared traditional net collecting at flowers and pan trapping concurrently, sampling the local bee fauna of the dominant desert shrub. creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) growing at the Silver-bell site of the International Biosphere Program (IBP) nw of Tucson Arizona. pan-traps on the ground yielded a faunal sample depauperate in many of the more common native bee species on creosote bush, particularly its floral specialists. This pan-trap sample also corresponded poorly with the previous four years{\textquoteright} faunal samples at this site, with pairs of neighboring net-sampled sites throughout the Southwest. and with all pairs of bee samples from Larrea across the Upper Sonoran desert. The likely causes of this disparity and the utility of pan trapping for bees in faunal and community studies is discussed},
	keywords = {Apoidea, COMMUNITIES, CONSERVATION, DIVERSITY, GUILD, LARREA, METHODS, POLLINATOR},
	author = {Cane, J. H. and Minckley,R.L. and Kervin,L.J.}
}
@article {1616,
	title = {What governs protein content of pollen: Pollinator preferences, pollen-pistil interactions, or phylogeny?},
	journal = {Ecol.Monog.},
	volume = {70},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {617 - 643},
	abstract = {Pollen ranges from 2.5\% to 61\% protein content. Most pollen proteins are likely to be enzymes that function during pollen tube growth and subsequent fertilization, but the vast range of protein quantity may not reflect only pollen-pistil interactions. Because numerous vertebrate and invertebrate floral visitors consume pollen for protein, protein content may influence floral host choice. Additionally, many floral visitors pollinate their host plants. If protein content influences pollinator visitation, then pollinators are hypothesized to select for increased protein content of host plants. We analyzed or gleaned from the literature crude pollen protein concentrations of 377 plant species from 93 plant families. Using this database, we compared pollen protein concentration with (1) pollination mode, (2) pollen collection by bees, and (3) distance from stigma to ovule, after accounting for phylogeny through paired phylogenetic comparisons and a nested ANOVA including taxonomic rank. We found that pollen protein concentrations were highly conserved within plant genera, families, and divisions. We found that bees did not collect pollen that was unusually rich in protein, whether they pollinated or merely robbed their host plant. Plant species with vibratile pollination systems, which require visitation by pollen-collecting bees in order to transfer pollen, tended to have very protein-rich pollen, but it was not clear whether this was due to plant enhancement of pollinator rewards or to the possession of very small pollen grains. We found that zoophilous species were not statistically richer in pollen protein than anemophilous species after accounting for phylogeny, although the three most species-rich anemophilous clades surveyed were generally poor in protein. Plant genera hosting specialist pollen-collecting bees did not have particularly protein-rich pollen. Both mass of protein per pollen grain and pollen grain volume were correlated with stigma-ovule distance. We suggest that the need for growing pollen tubes probably plays a more important role in determining pollen protein content than rewarding pollinators},
	keywords = {ANEMOPHILY, BUZZ POLLINATION, COEVOLUTION, EVOLUTION, PHYLOGENY, POLLEN, POLLEN TUBE, POLLEN-CHEMISTRY, POLLINATION, POLLINATOR, PROTEIN, STIGMA, VARIATION},
	author = {Roulston,T.H. and Cane, J. H. and Buchmann,S.L.}
}
@article {685,
	title = {Notas sobre el nido de Eulaema polychroma (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Euglossini).},
	journal = {Actualidades Biologicas},
	volume = {22},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000},
	chapter = {83-90},
	author = {Nates-Parra, G. and Gonzalez, V.H.}
}
@article {1618,
	title = {The effect of diet breadth and nesting ecology on body size variation in bees (Apiformes)},
	journal = {Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society},
	volume = {73},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {180 - 193},
	abstract = {Body size in animals influences survival, fecundity, and mating opportunity. For bees, parental provisioning behavior largely controls offspring body size. Because larger offspring of many bee species have fitness advantages, selection on body size should act through selection on parental provisioning behavior and restrict body size variation of each species. Many bet species show great variability in body size, however, which may indicate that adult females are often constrained in their ability to consistently produce large offspring. We compared body size variation within bee species for two life history traits that could influence offspring body size: dietary breadth (specialist or generalist) and nesting habit (ground-nesting or cavity-nesting). We determined the head width (a reliable correlate of body size) of 2276 bees belonging to 31 bee species from five families and calculated the body size variation fur each species. Body size variation, measured as the coefficient of variation in head size, did not differ between pollen specialists (oligoleges) and pollen generalists (polyleges) across 13 pairs of closely-related, sympatric bee species of similar body size. Cavity-nesting species showed significantly greater variation in body size than ground-nesting species, which suggests that the choice of nest cavities utilized may be a more important predictor of offspring body size than parental body size. The cleptoparasite Coelioxys sayi had similar body size variation to one of its hosts, Megachile brevis. The European honey bee, Apis mellifera, showed the least body size variation of any species measured},
	keywords = {APIS, Apoidea, BEE SIZE, BEHAVIOR, BEHAVIOR-NESTING, CLEPTOPARASITE, ECOLOGY, FITNESS, LARVAL PROVISIONS, LIFE HISTORY, MEGACHILE, MORPHOLOGY, OLIGOLECTY, POLLEN, POLYLECTY, SELECTION, SIZE, VARIATION},
	author = {Roulston,T.H. and Cane, J. H.}
}
@article {1608,
	title = {Origins and ecological consequences of pollen specialization among desert bees},
	journal = {Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B: Biological Sciences},
	volume = {267},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {265 - 271},
	abstract = {An understanding of the evolutionary origins of insect foraging specialization is often hindered by a poor biogeographical and palaeoecological record. The historical biogeography (20 000 years before present to the present) of the desert-limited plant, creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), is remarkably complete. This history coupled with the distribution pattern of its bee fauna suggests pollen specialization For creosote bush pollen has evolved repeatedly among bees in the Lower Sonoran and Mojave deserts. In these highly xeric, floristically depauperate environments, species of specialist bees surpass generalist bees in diversity, biomass and abundance. The ability of specialist bees to facultatively remain in diapause through resource-poor years and to emerge synchronously with host plant bloom in resource-rich years probably explains their ecological dominance and persistence in these areas. Repeated origins of pollen specialization to one host plant where bloom occurs least predictably is a counter-example to prevailing theories that postulate such traits originate where the plant grows best and blooms most reliably Host-plant synchronization, a paucity of alternative floral hosts, or flowering attributes of creosote bush alone or in concert may account for the diversity of bee specialists that depend on this plant instead of nutritional factors or chemical coevolution between floral rewards and the pollinators they have evolved to attract},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BIOGEOGRAPHY, COEVOLUTION, DIAPAUSE, DIVERSITY, EVOLUTION, FLOWERING, LARREA, OLIGOLECTY, PHENOLOGY, POLLEN, POLLINATOR, SPECIATION},
	author = {Minckley,R.L. and Cane, J. H. and Kervin,L.}
}
@article {1617,
	title = {Pollen nutritional content and digestibility for animals},
	journal = {Plant Systematics and Evolution},
	volume = {222},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {187 - 209},
	abstract = {This paper reviews the literature concerning digestion and nutrient content of pollen. Four topics are addressed in detail: 1) The mechanism of pollen digestion by animals; 2) The efficiency of mechanical and digestive removal of pollen content by various animals: 3) Range and taxonomic distribution of pollen nutrients, and 4) Adaptive hypotheses proposed to associate pollen chemistry with pollinator reward. Studies on the mechanism(s) of pollen digestion remain inconclusive, but suggest that differences in digestibility among pollen types may reflect differences in pollen wall porosity, thickness, and composition. Although hummingbirds reportedly digest pollen very poorly, most animals studied, including those that do not regularly consume pollen, can digest 50-100\% of ingested grains. Overlooked and recent research of pollen protein content shows that pollen grains may contain over 60\% protein, double the amount cited in some studies of pollen-feeding animals. Adaptive hypotheses that associate pollen starch and pollen caloric content with pollinator reward remain unsubstantiated when critically viewed through the lens of phylogeny},
	keywords = {Apoidea, BATS, BEHAVIOR-FORAGING, BIRD, DIGESTION, HUMMINGBIRD, PHYLOGENY, POLLEN, POLLEN- ANALYSIS, POLLEN-CHEMISTRY, POLLINATOR, PROTEIN, SUGAR},
	author = {Roulston,T.H. and Cane, J. H.}
}
@article {1622,
	title = {Pollination efficiencies of three bee (Hymenoptera : Apoidea) species visiting rabbiteye blueberry},
	journal = {Journal of Economic Entomology},
	volume = {93},
	year = {2000},
	month = {2000///},
	pages = {1726 - 1731},
	abstract = {Inadequate bee pollination limits rabbiteye blueberry, Vaccinium ashei Reade, production in the some areas of the southeastern United States. Honey bees, Apis mellifera L., are currently the only manageable pollinators available for pollinating V. ashei. However, a new adaptable pollinator for rabbiteye blueberry, Osmia ribifloris Cockerell, was successfully reared and flown in captivity. The bee nested successfully in wooden shelters and conferred superior fruit set to 2-yr-old potted, rabbiteye blueberry bushes. Pollination efficiency or the percentage of blueberry flowers to set fruit after being visited once by a female O. ribifloris was comparable to that of the female blueberry bee Habropoda laboriosa (F.) and worker honey bees. Interestingly, honey bees ante thought to be inefficient pollinators of rabbiteye blueberry were found to be very efficient, especially for {\textquoteright}Climax{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteright}Premier{\textquoteright} flowers},
	keywords = {ANTHOPHORIDAE, APIDAE, APIS, Apoidea, BOMBUS, FRUIT SET, HABROPODA, Megachilidae, OSMIA, POLLINATION, POLLINATION EFFICIENCY, POLLINATOR, VACCINIUM, VACCINIUM ASHEI},
	author = {Sampson,B.J. and Cane, J. H.}
}
