DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees

Leafcutting bees (Megachile: Megachilidae) cut leaves from various trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses to partition and encase brood cells in hollow plant stems, decaying logs or in the ground. The identification of preferred plant species via morphological characters of the leaf fragments is cha...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: J. Scott MacIvor
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The Royal Society 2016-01-01
Series:Royal Society Open Science
Subjects:
Online Access:https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.150623
id doaj-ad07e63a8a5c42aca3257839305c024b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-ad07e63a8a5c42aca3257839305c024b2020-11-25T03:41:03ZengThe Royal SocietyRoyal Society Open Science2054-57032016-01-013310.1098/rsos.150623150623DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting beesJ. Scott MacIvorLeafcutting bees (Megachile: Megachilidae) cut leaves from various trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses to partition and encase brood cells in hollow plant stems, decaying logs or in the ground. The identification of preferred plant species via morphological characters of the leaf fragments is challenging and direct observation of bees cutting leaves from certain plant species are difficult. As such, data are poor on leaf preference of leafcutting bees. In this study, I use DNA barcoding of the rcbL and ITS2 regions to identify and compare leaf preference of three Megachile bee species widespread in Toronto, Canada. Nests were opened and one leaf piece from one cell per nest of the native M. pugnata Say (N=45 leaf pieces), and the introduced M. rotundata Fabricius (N=64) and M. centuncularis (L.) (N=65) were analysed. From 174 individual DNA sequences, 54 plant species were identified. Preference by M. rotundata was most diverse (36 leaf species, H′=3.08, phylogenetic diversity (pd)=2.97), followed by M. centuncularis (23 species, H′=2.38, pd=1.51) then M. pugnata (18 species, H′=1.87, pd=1.22). Cluster analysis revealed significant overlap in leaf choice of M. rotundata and M. centuncularis. There was no significant preference for native leaves, and only M. centuncularis showed preference for leaves of woody plants over perennials. Interestingly, antimicrobial properties were present in all but six plants collected; all these were exotic plants and none were collected by the native bee, M. pugnata. These missing details in interpreting what bees need offers valuable information for conservation by accounting for necessary (and potentially limiting) nesting materials.https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.150623megachilemegachilidaeits2rcblphylogenyantimicrobial properties
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author J. Scott MacIvor
spellingShingle J. Scott MacIvor
DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
Royal Society Open Science
megachile
megachilidae
its2
rcbl
phylogeny
antimicrobial properties
author_facet J. Scott MacIvor
author_sort J. Scott MacIvor
title DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
title_short DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
title_full DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
title_fullStr DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
title_full_unstemmed DNA barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
title_sort dna barcoding to identify leaf preference of leafcutting bees
publisher The Royal Society
series Royal Society Open Science
issn 2054-5703
publishDate 2016-01-01
description Leafcutting bees (Megachile: Megachilidae) cut leaves from various trees, shrubs, wildflowers and grasses to partition and encase brood cells in hollow plant stems, decaying logs or in the ground. The identification of preferred plant species via morphological characters of the leaf fragments is challenging and direct observation of bees cutting leaves from certain plant species are difficult. As such, data are poor on leaf preference of leafcutting bees. In this study, I use DNA barcoding of the rcbL and ITS2 regions to identify and compare leaf preference of three Megachile bee species widespread in Toronto, Canada. Nests were opened and one leaf piece from one cell per nest of the native M. pugnata Say (N=45 leaf pieces), and the introduced M. rotundata Fabricius (N=64) and M. centuncularis (L.) (N=65) were analysed. From 174 individual DNA sequences, 54 plant species were identified. Preference by M. rotundata was most diverse (36 leaf species, H′=3.08, phylogenetic diversity (pd)=2.97), followed by M. centuncularis (23 species, H′=2.38, pd=1.51) then M. pugnata (18 species, H′=1.87, pd=1.22). Cluster analysis revealed significant overlap in leaf choice of M. rotundata and M. centuncularis. There was no significant preference for native leaves, and only M. centuncularis showed preference for leaves of woody plants over perennials. Interestingly, antimicrobial properties were present in all but six plants collected; all these were exotic plants and none were collected by the native bee, M. pugnata. These missing details in interpreting what bees need offers valuable information for conservation by accounting for necessary (and potentially limiting) nesting materials.
topic megachile
megachilidae
its2
rcbl
phylogeny
antimicrobial properties
url https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.150623
work_keys_str_mv AT jscottmacivor dnabarcodingtoidentifyleafpreferenceofleafcuttingbees
_version_ 1724532117465989120