The Bee Communities of Young Living Lavender Farm, Mona, Utah, USA
1
Department of Biology, Utah State University—Tooele, Tooele, UT 84074, USA
2
D. Gary Young Research Institute, Lehi, UT 840432, USA
3
Native Pollinator Project, Stansbury Park, UT 84074, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(2), 119; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16020119
Submission received: 10 January 2024
/
Revised: 1 February 2024
/
Accepted: 7 February 2024
/
Published: 13 February 2024
Abstract
:It is now widely recognized that bees are among the most important pollinators worldwide, yet the bee faunas of many regions and habitats remain inadequately documented. The Great Basin Desert in North America is thought to host some of the richest bee communities in the world, as indicated by several studies documenting diverse bee faunas in the region’s natural habitats. However, limited attention has been given to the bee communities present on agricultural lands within the Great Basin Desert. Here, we describe a rich bee community housed at the Young Living Lavender Farm in Juab County, Utah, near the eastern edge of the Great Basin Desert. Our survey of bees on this farm identified 68 bee species across 22 genera. This represents 34% of the bee species known from the county, including 34 new county records. Among the numerous flower species cultivated at the farm, we found that lavender supported the richest bee community, with 32 species collected from cultivated lavender fields. While lavender is frequently recommended for homeowners to plant in support of pollinators, our study is among the first to provide a list of bee species that visit lavender in western North America. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that agricultural lands, particularly those implementing pollinator-friendly farming practices, can support rich bee communities in the Great Basin Desert.
1. Introduction
While declines in bee populations have been documented in a variety of species across North America (e.g., [1,2,3,4]), the bee fauna of many ecosystems remains largely unknown. Often, the limited understanding of bee communities poses challenges for land managers attempting to assess the quality and distinctiveness of their bee faunas without a contextual basis from other published reports. Furthermore, documenting bee declines, while important, is challenging in the absence of baseline data.
The Great Basin Desert in western North America is predicted to host some of the highest bee species richness in the world [5], with numerous studies chronicling these diverse bee communities. For example, Wilson et al. [6] documented 146 bee species from 31 genera in a two-year study focusing on sand dune habitat in Dugway Proving Ground (DPG), a military facility spanning roughly 3200 km2 in Tooele County, Utah. Similarly, Bohart and Knowlton [7] reported 132 bee species from 33 genera in their four-year survey of the Curlew Valley (CV), a 600 km2 area spanning the Utah/Idaho border.
While these studies clearly demonstrate the potential for diverse bee communities on arid lands in the Great Basin, there remains a notable gap in faunal research concerning the region’s agricultural lands. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) prevails as the most predominant crop across the West [8,9], yet other small-scale, agriculturally diverse farms exist, which might also harbor diverse bee communities. One such farm is situated on the eastern edge of the Great Basin Desert, adjacent to the Wasatch Mountains in Juab County Utah. The Young Living Lavender Farm and Distillery (YL), established in 1994, is a roughly 680-hectare organic lavender farm (USDA organic certificate number 6001-1266) and events center that also grows 18 other species of aromatic plants. In addition to the crops, which cover about 40 hectares, the YL farm also maintains a 2.5-hectare conservation area that houses nesting raptors and shore birds, as well as a monarch waystation with native milkweed plants.
It is becoming evident that bees, particularly wild bees, can have a mutually beneficial relationship with farms. Several studies have highlighted the substantial role played by wild bees in crop pollination, even in the presence of managed European Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) (e.g., [10,11,12,13,14]. Many other studies have emphasized the contribution of gardens and farms in maintaining diverse bee communities, particularly when farm/garden plans incorporate a variety of flowering plants. (e.g., [15,16,17,18]). This recognition, that planting diverse gardens can benefit wild bees, has prompted many to seek lists of plants that support bees in their community. When searching “what flowers should I plant for bees” on the internet, lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) is frequently recommended, despite being non-native to North America (e.g., [19,20,21]). Although lavender is commonly suggested for pollinator-friendly planting, there is limited knowledge about which bee species visit lavender, particularly in western North America.
A recent study on how pollinators affect lavender essential oil yield and quality documented 12 different bee species visiting their study plot [22]. Of these 12 species, 9 were native bees and 3 were non-native species. The most common visitor was the European Honey Bee, significantly outnumbering other visitors, including multiple species of bumble bee (Bombus spp.) [22]. These findings are in contrast to several studies from Europe (where lavender is native) that found bumble bees as the most abundant pollinator [23,24,25,26].
Our primary goals in this study were to (1) document the bee richness present on the Young Living Lavender Farm, and (2) investigate which bee species visit the farm’s flagship crop, lavender.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
The Young Living Lavender Farm and Distillery (YL) is situated in the eastern Great Basin Desert in Juab County Utah (39.872052, −111.846272) (Figure 1). The farm sits on the valley floor (~1493 m) about 4 km west of the base of the Wasatch Mountains. The farm is flanked to the north and the south by agricultural lands, primarily dedicated to the cultivation of alfalfa and wheat. Toward the west, the property is bounded by a seasonal reservoir and an adjoining riparian habitat while to the east, a major interstate highway runs alongside native sagebrush scrubland. Although the primary focus of the YL farm lies in the cultivation of lavender (33 hectares), the farm also features fields of goldenrod (Solidago canadensis: 2.8 hectares), melissa (Melissa officinalis: 2.5 hectares), and yarrow (Achillea millefolium: 2.4 hectares), In addition to these crops, YL farm maintains a demonstration garden with smaller patches (less than 0.15 hectares) of floral crops including Salvia sclarea, Salvia officinalis, Hyssopus officinalis, Lycium sp., Artemisia dracunculoides, Tanacetum anuum, Chamomilla nobile, Matricaria recutita, Satureja montana, Gaillardia aristata, Thymus vulgaris, Valeriana officinalis, Nepeta cataria, Angelica archangelica, Vitex agnus-castus and Ruta graveolens. The western boundary of the farm, which abuts the seasonal reservoir, has been set aside as a conservation area, hosting a variety of wildflowers comprising both non-native and native plant species. Among these are Salix sp., Asclepias speciosa, Sphaeralcea sp., Taraxacum officinale, Potentilla anserina, Melilotus officinalis, Grindelia sp., Lactuca serriola, Hedysarum boreale, Oenothera sp. Helianthus nuttallii, and Asclepias incarnata.
All crops grown on the farm strictly adhered to organic guidelines, prohibiting the use of both pesticides and herbicides. Weed management was carried out manually or through the controlled grazing of sheep. Sheep were purposefully introduced during the growing season as they targeted weeds and grasses, leaving the lavender undisturbed. All fields were bordered by dirt roads, which, based on our observations, provided a habitat for ground-nesting bees.
2.2. Collection Methods
Collections were made from May through October of 2022 using aerial nets to collect bee specimens directly on flowers. To obtain a broad understanding of bee diversity, opportunistic sampling was conducted across YL farm, targeting wild bees from a variety of plants and locations. In total, seven different locations were sampled (Figure 1). Many parts of the farm were not actively sampled (e.g., the northern fields and the southern fields: see Figure 1) because these areas were newly planted and were not actively flowering. Each location was visited every other week from May through October, with weekly visits in June and July, when lavender is more likely to be blooming. All specimens were euthanized, pinned, labeled and recorded in a relational database. Each entry included the specific area of the farm where the specimen was collected, the date of collection, and, if ascertainable, the flower it was visiting at the time of collection. Where possible, bee specimens were identified to species using available taxonomic keys and compared to referential collections for validation. However, if/when species-level identification keys were not available, those specimens were sorted into morpho-species. Sorting specimens to morphospecies can be useful because it allows us to measure species richness, even when precise species identifications are not possible.
2.3. Online Database Bee Data
There is no published bee species list for the state of Utah, or for any of its counties. In order to compare the bee fauna of YL farm to the bee fauna known from Juab County we had to make a county-specific species list based on online, publicly available data. While several online databases of natural history collections exist, we downloaded bee data from the Symbiota Collections of Arthropods Network (https://scan-bugs.org/portal/: accessed 30 January 2023) as it has a user-friendly search and download interface. Also, SCAN contains occurrence records from over 225 North American providers (over 33 million records) including dozens of university arthropod collections, federal institutions and private collections [27].
To create a Juab County bee species list we first downloaded all specimen records for each North American bee family (Andrenidae, Apidae, Megachilidae, Colletidae, Halictidae, and Melittidae) using the “Locality Criteria” search parameters with data filtered to include records from only Juab County Utah. We then combined the individual family-level datasets into one large dataset. Because online datasets often contain some amount of error, some data cleaning is often needed [5]. Duplicate records were removed as well as records identified above the species level (i.e., specimens only identified to family). Data were then uploaded into ArcMap 10.3 and specimen records that were located outside of the Juab County boundaries were removed (occasionally collectors label a specimen as “Juab County” but the Latitude and Longitude coordinates show the locality was actually outside of the county boundaries). We then used this dataset to create our Juab County species list (Appendix A). Because Juab County extends into the Wasatch Mountains, including high-elevation habitats, we created a second dataset excluding bee species only found higher in the mountains (above 1800 m). This provided a list of bee species known from the valleys and foothills of Juab County so we could make comparisons between the bee community found at the farm to the broader bee community from the surrounding area.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Bees of Young Living Lavender Farm
A total of 566 bee specimens were collected from the Young Living Lavender Farm (YL), representing 68 species in 22 genera (Table 1). Bee species diversity was spread among the five most common bee families in North America (Figure 2). Among the species collected at the farm, 34 were new county records (Appendix A). In total, the YL farm housed approximately 34% of the bee species known from Juab County, accounting for the inclusion of the 34 new county records on the species list. This is particularly noteworthy given that the farm covers less than 0.08% of the county’s land area. Excluding bees collected from high elevations, the farm supported nearly 50% of the bees known from the valleys and foothills of Juab County. We acknowledge that this understanding of Juab County bee species richness is likely an underestimate due to limited collecting in the area. Currently, 200 species are documented in the county (Appendix A), and this number will undoubtedly grow with additional collection. Similarly, further sampling at the YL farm is likely to yield additional species. In fact, several studies have shown significant variations in estimates of bee diversity from year to year. [6,28]. For example, collections made in Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument found 384 species in the first year of sampling, with an additional 50 species found in the second year. By the end of the 4-year study, a total of 660 species were documented [28].
While our study of bees on the YL farm found fewer species compared to other faunal surveys from the Great Basin (Dugway Proving Ground (DPG): 146 spp.; Curlew Valley (CV): 132 spp.), this discrepancy could be expected given the smaller sampling area both in terms of km2 and habitat. Despite the reduced bee diversity in this study compared to other regional faunal surveys, noteworthy patterns emerge when comparing the bee fauna at the YL farm to both DPG and CV [6,7]. For instance, one of the most species-rich genera found in DPG was Perdita, with 22 species. Only seven Perdita species were found in CV, and none were found at the YL farm. This discrepancy might be attributed in part to the floral specialization of many Perdita species, suggesting their host flowers might not be present at the farm. For example, many Perdita species in the Great Basin specialize on fall blooming composites like rabbit brush (Ericameria spp.) while others specialize on wirelettuce (Stephanomeria spp.) [6], which was not present at the farm. When comparing bumble bee (Bombus) richness, we found five species were present at YL, eight at CV, and only one was found at DPG. Similarly, no Hylaeus were collected at DPG, five species were found in CV, and four at YL. In total, 31 of the species collected at YL (Table 1), nearly half of the farm’s collected species, were not documented in other published faunal surveys of bees in the Great Basin (DPG and CV). While interesting, this is not particularly surprising because bee faunal surveys are generally limited in most habitats, especially in the Great Basin. Furthermore, the current study investigating bee diversity in agricultural lands is markedly different from other published studies, which focused on desert sand dunes and grassland areas, respectively [6,7]. All of the 68 species collected at the YL farm have also been found at other sites in Utah based on searches of online databases like www.discoverlife.org (accessed on 30 January 2023).
Many of the bee species found at YL were not common; in fact, 25 of the species collected at the farm were represented by a single specimen, while 10 other species were only represented by two specimens. Conversely, some species were more abundant, represented by dozens of specimens. The top five most abundant bee species found at the farm (excluding European Honey Bees) were Halictus ligatus (N = 113), Lasioglossum incompletum (N = 75), Melissodes communis (N = 52), Anthophora urbana (N = 30), and Halictus rubicundus (N = 25).
The YL farm hosted a diverse floral community, encompassing various crops and vegetation in the conservation area and along the margins of the fields. In total, bees were collected from 34 different plant species. Some of the plants that supported rich bee communities were crops at the farm, while others were weedy species found in other areas of the property. The plants found to support the most bee species were Lavandula angustifolia (N = 31), Salvia sclarea (N = 13), Gaillardia aristate (N = 12), Taraxacum officinale (N = 11), and Melilotus officinalis (N = 10).
Of the 68 bee species collected at YL farm, 29 were found in the conservation area and 59 species were found across the cultivated farm area. Of these, 40 of the 68 species were only detected on farmland, and 9 were only detected in the conservation area. This could suggest that both the farmlands and the conservation lands play important roles in maintaining the diverse bee community found in the area.
3.2. Bees Visiting Lavender
A total of 149 bee specimens were collected on lavender, representing 32 bee species (Figure 3, Table 2). Excluding the European Honey Bees, which were ubiquitous in all the fields, the five most abundant wild bees were Lasioglossum incompletum (N = 45), Melissodes communis (N = 29), Anthophora urbana (N = 14), Agapostemon angelicus (N = 6), and Halictus ligatus (N = 6). The majority of bees collected on lavender were male specimens (N = 103 male, N = 46 female). This might indicate that lavender serves as an important nectar resource for bees on the farm, rather than a prominent pollen resource. This is further reinforced by the presence of multiple specialist bee species (bees that exclusively collect pollen from a limited number of plant species but visit a variety of plants for nectar) observed visiting lavender, despite it not being their host plant. For example, a male Eucera (Peponapis) pruinosa, a specialist of squash flowers (Cucurbitaceae), and a female Svastra obliqua, a sunflower (Helianthus) specialist, were both collected while visiting lavender. It is well established that both male and female specialist bees will visit a variety of floral hosts for nectar [29]. Therefore, the fact that specialist bees were collected visiting lavender, a floral resource they do not specialize on, is not uncommon, but indicative that lavender is being used for nectar rather than pollen by many wild bees.
4. Conclusions
In addition to providing a bee species list for Juab County, Utah, our analyses clearly demonstrate that agricultural lands in the Great Basin Desert, particularly those like the Young Living Lavender Farm (YL), employing pollinator-friendly farming practices (diversifying crops, avoiding pesticides, setting aside land for conservation, and leaving space like dirt roads and trails for nesting sites) can house diverse pollinator communities. It is probable that additional sampling at YL farm will yield even more bee species, consistent with findings in other faunal surveys (e.g., [28]). Moreover, this study marks the first comprehensive survey of bees visiting lavender. Although lavender is frequently recommended as a beneficial plant for homeowners to “help pollinators,” there have been limited data on the bee species that visit lavender in western North America until now. Our discovery of 31 bee species from 15 genera supports the notion that lavender can indeed sustain a diverse bee community. Studies like this one are vital as they furnish baseline data valuable for comparative faunal analyses and future investigations into bee declines.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.S.W. and L.T.W.; methodology, J.S.W. and L.T.W.; formal analysis, J.S.W. and L.T.W.; investigation, J.S.W., J.G.Y. and L.T.W.; data curation, J.S.W.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S.W., J.G.Y. and L.T.W.; writing—review and editing, J.S.W. and L.T.W.; funding acquisition, J.S.W., J.G.Y. and L.T.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Young Living Essential Oils and Native Pollinator Project.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their assistance with this project: Isaac Wilson, Colby Olds and the D. Gary Young Research Institute. Also, the authors wish to thank Olivia Messinger Carril and Tyler Wilson for reviewing early drafts of this manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Appendix A
Table A1.
Bee species list for Juab County, Utah. An * indicates species collected in the current study that were not previously known from the county.
Table A1.
Bee species list for Juab County, Utah. An * indicates species collected in the current study that were not previously known from the county.
| Family | Species | Author |
|---|---|---|
| Andrenidae | Andrena amphibola | (Viereck 1904) |
| Andrenidae | Andrena angustitarsata | Viereck 1904 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena arabis | Robertson 1897 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena candida * | Smith 1879 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena costillensis | Viereck & Cockerell 1914 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena crataegi | Robertson 1893 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena forbesii | Robertson 1891 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena hallii | Dunning 1898 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena helianthi | Robertson 1891 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena medionitens | Cockerell 1902 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena microchlora * | Cockerell 1922 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena pallidiscopa | (Viereck 1904) |
| Andrenidae | Andrena pertristis | Viereck & Cockerell 1914 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena piperi | Viereck 1904 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena prunorum | Cockerell 1896 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena salicifloris | Cockerell 1897 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena scurra × capricornis × arabis | NA |
| Andrenidae | Andrena sola | Viereck 1916 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena specularia | Donovan 1977 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena striatfrons * | Cockerell 1897 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena subtilis | Smith 1879 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena thaspii | Graenicher 1903 |
| Andrenidae | Andrena vicinoides | Viereck 1904 |
| Andrenidae | Calliopsis coloratipes | Cockerell 1898 |
| Andrenidae | Calliopsis personata | Cockerell 1897 |
| Andrenidae | Calliopsis scutellaris * | Fowler 1899 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita albipennis | Cresson 1868 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita amoena | Timberlake 1956 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita crotonis | Cockerell 1896 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita lepidosparti | Timberlake 1958 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita lingualis | Cockerell 1896 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita oregonensis | Timberlake 1929 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita salicis | Cockerell 1896 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita similis | Timberlake 1958 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita subfasciata | Cockerell 1897 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita xanthochroa | Timberlake 1960 |
| Andrenidae | Perdita zebrata | Cresson 1878 |
| Andrenidae | Protandrena sp. | NA |
| Andrenidae | Pseudopanurgus aethiops | (Cresson 1872) |
| Apidae | Anthophora affabilis * | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Anthophora albata | Cresson 1876 |
| Apidae | Anthophora dammersi | Timberlake 1937 |
| Apidae | Anthophora lesquerellae | (Cockerell 1896) |
| Apidae | Anthophora maculifrons | Cresson 1879 |
| Apidae | Anthophora neglecta | Timberlake & Cockerell 1936 |
| Apidae | Anthophora pacifica | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Anthophora petrophila | Cockerell 1905 |
| Apidae | Anthophora porterae | Cockerell 1900 |
| Apidae | Anthophora terminalis | Cresson 1869 |
| Apidae | Anthophora urbana | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Anthophora ursina | Cresson 1869 |
| Apidae | Apis mellifera | Linnaeus 1758 |
| Apidae | Bombus appositus | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Bombus auricomus | (Robertson 1903) |
| Apidae | Bombus bifarius | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Bombus centralis | Cresson 1864 |
| Apidae | Bombus fervidus | (Fabricius 1798) |
| Apidae | Bombus griseocollis * | (De Geer 1773) |
| Apidae | Bombus huntii | Greene 1860 |
| Apidae | Bombus morrisoni | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Bombus nevadensis | Cresson 1874 |
| Apidae | Bombus occidentalis | Greene 1858 |
| Apidae | Bombus rufocinctus | Cresson 1863 |
| Apidae | Ceratina acantha * | Provancher 1895 |
| Apidae | Ceratina pacifica | H.S. Smith 1907 |
| Apidae | Diadasia australis | (Cresson 1878) |
| Apidae | Diadasia diminuta | (Cresson 1878) |
| Apidae | Diadasia enavata | (Cresson 1872) |
| Apidae | Diadasia lutzi | Cockerell 1924 |
| Apidae | Eucera (Peponapis) pruinosa * | (Say 1837) |
| Apidae | Eucera acerba | (Cresson 1879) |
| Apidae | Eucera actuosa * | (Cresson 1878) |
| Apidae | Eucera edwardsii | (Cresson 1878) |
| Apidae | Eucera fulvitarsis | (Cresson 1878) |
| Apidae | Eucera primiveris | (Timberlake 1969) |
| Apidae | Eucera territella | (Cockerell 1909) |
| Apidae | Melissodes agilis | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Melissodes appressa | LaBerge 1961 |
| Apidae | Melissodes coloradensis | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Melissodes communis | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Melissodes dagosa | Cockerell 1909 |
| Apidae | Melissodes glenwoodensis | Cockerell 1905 |
| Apidae | Melissodes lupinus * | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Melissodes lutulenta | LaBerge 1961 |
| Apidae | Melissodes menuachus | Cresson 1868 |
| Apidae | Melissodes microsticta | Cockerell 1905 |
| Apidae | Melissodes pallidisignata | Cockerell 1905 |
| Apidae | Melissodes rivalis | Cresson 1872 |
| Apidae | Melissodes subagilis | Cockerell 1905 |
| Apidae | Melissodes tristis * | Cockerell 1894 |
| Apidae | Melissodes utahensis | LaBerge 1961 |
| Apidae | Nomada argentea | (Schwarz 1966) |
| Apidae | Nomada bohartorum | Moalif 1988 |
| Apidae | Nomada suavis | Cresson 1878 |
| Apidae | Nomada utahensis | Moalif 1988 |
| Apidae | Svastra obliqua | (Say 1837) |
| Apidae | Triepeolus concavus | (Cresson 1878) |
| Apidae | Triepeolus diversipes | (Cockerell 1924) |
| Apidae | Triepeolus helianthi | (Robertson 1897) |
| Apidae | Triepeolus paenepectoralis * | Viereck, 1905 |
| Apidae | Xeromelecta californica | (Cresson 1878) |
| Colletidae | Colletes compactus | Cresson 1868 |
| Colletidae | Colletes fulgidus * | Swenk 1904 |
| Colletidae | Colletes gypsicolens | Cockerell 1897 |
| Colletidae | Colletes kincaidii * | Cockerell 1898 |
| Colletidae | Colletes louisae | Cockerell 1897 |
| Colletidae | Colletes lutzi | Timberlake 1943 |
| Colletidae | Colletes phaceliae | Cockerell 1906 |
| Colletidae | Colletes simulans | Cresson 1868 |
| Colletidae | Colletes sphaeralceae | Timberlake 1951 |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus annulatus | (Linnaeus 1758) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus basalis | (Smith 1853) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus episcopalis | (Cockerell 1896) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus hurdi | Snelling 1966 |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus leptocephalus | (Morawitz 1871) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus mesillae | (Cockerell 1907) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus modestus | (Cockerell 1896) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus rudbeckiae | (Cockerell & Casad 1895) |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus rudbeckiae * | (Cockerell & Casad 1895) |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon angelicus/texanus | Cockerell 1924 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon cockerelli | Crawford 1901 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon femoratus | Crawford 1901 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon melliventris | Cresson 1874 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon virescens * | (Fabricius 1775) |
| Halictidae | Dieunomia nevadensis | (Cresson 1874) |
| Halictidae | Dieunomia triangulifera | (Vachal 1897) |
| Halictidae | Dufourea marginata | (Cresson 1878) |
| Halictidae | Halictus confusus | Smith 1853 |
| Halictidae | Halictus farinosus | Smith 1853 |
| Halictidae | Halictus ligatus | Say 1837 |
| Halictidae | Halictus rubicundus | (Christ 1791) |
| Halictidae | Halictus tripartitus | Cockerell 1895 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum athabascense * | (Sandhouse 1933) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum cinctipes | (Provancher 1888) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum foxii | (Robertson 1890) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum glabriventre | (Crawford 1907) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum hyalinum * | (Crawford 1907) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum incompletum * | (Crawford 1907) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum kincaidii * | (Cockerell 1898) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum lampronotum | McGinley 1986 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum nevadense * | (Crawford, 1907) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum pruinosum | (Robertson 1892) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum pulveris * | (Cockerell 1930) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum semicaeruleum * | (Cockerell 1895) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum sisymbrii | (Cockerell 1895) |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum tegulare group * | NA |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum trizonatum | (Cresson 1874) |
| Halictidae | Nomia melanderi | Cockerell 1906 |
| Halictidae | Sphecodes sp. 1 * | NA |
| Halictidae | Sphecodes sp. 2 * | NA |
| Megachilidae | Anthidium maculosum | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Anthidium manicatum * | (Linnaeus 1758) |
| Megachilidae | Anthidium utahense * | Swenk 1914 |
| Megachilidae | Ashmeadiella californica | (Ashmead 1897) |
| Megachilidae | Coelioxys octodentatus * | Say 1824 |
| Megachilidae | Coelioxys productus | Cresson 1865 |
| Megachilidae | Coelioxys rufitarsis * | Smith 1854 |
| Megachilidae | Dianthidium curvatum | (Smith 1854) |
| Megachilidae | Dianthidium pudicum | (Cresson 1879) |
| Megachilidae | Dianthidium subparvum | Swenk 1914 |
| Megachilidae | Dianthidium ulkei | (Cresson 1878) |
| Megachilidae | Heriades carinatus | Cresson 1864 |
| Megachilidae | Heriades cressoni | Michener 1938 |
| Megachilidae | Heriades micropthalma | Michener 1954 |
| Megachilidae | Heriades variolosus | (Cresson 1872) |
| Megachilidae | Hoplitis albifrons | (Cresson 1864) |
| Megachilidae | Hoplitis fulgida | (Cresson 1864) |
| Megachilidae | Hoplitis hypocrita | (Cockerell 1906) |
| Megachilidae | Lithurgus apicalis | (Cresson 1875) |
| Megachilidae | Megachile agustini | Cockerell 1905 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile apicalis * | Spinola 1808 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile brevis | Say 1837 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile fidelis * | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile montivaga | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile onobrychidis * | Cockerell 1908 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile parallela | Smith 1853 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile perihirta | Cockerell 1898 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile pugnata | Say 1837 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile relativa | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile rotundata | (Fabricius 1793) |
| Megachilidae | Megachile texana | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia albolateralis | Cockerell 1906 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia bakeri | Sandhouse 1924 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia bruneri * | Cockerell 1897 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia cyanella | Cockerell 1897 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia grinnelli | Cockerell 1910 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia integra | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia latisulcata | Michener 1936 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia lignaria | Cresson 1864 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia marginipennis | Cresson 1878 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia montana | Cresson 1864 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia nemoris | Sandhouse 1924 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia pentstemonis | Cockerell 1906 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia pusilla | Cresson 1864 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia rawlinsi | Sandhouse 1939 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia subaustralis | Cockerell 1900 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia texana | Cresson 1872 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia tristella | Cockerell 1897 |
| Melittidae | Hesperapis oliviae | (Cockerell 1897) |
References
- Cameron, S.A.; Lozier, J.D.; Strange, J.P.; Koch, J.B.; Cordes, N.; Solter, L.F.; Griswold, T.L. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 662–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burkle, L.A.; Marlin, J.C.; Knight, T.M. Plant-Pollinator Interactions over 120 Years: Loss of Species, Co-Occurrence, and Function. Science 2013, 339, 1611–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goulson, D.; Nicholls, E.; Botías, C.; Rotheray, E.L. Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers. Science 2015, 347, 1255957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- LeBuhn, G.; Luna, J.V. Pollinator decline: What do we know about the drivers of solitary bee declines? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2021, 46, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Orr, M.C.; Hughes, A.C.; Chesters, D.; Pickering, J.; Zhu, C.-D.; Ascher, J.S. Global patterns and drivers of bee distribution. Curr. Biol. 2021, 31, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, J.S.; Griswold, T.; Messinger, O.J. Sampling bee communities (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in a desert land-scape: Are pan traps sufficient? J. Kans. Entomol. Soc. 2008, 81, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohart, G.E.; Knowlton, G.F. The Bees of Curlew Valley (Utah and Idaho). Proc. Utah Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 1973, 50, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Messmer, T.A.; Schroeder, S. Perceptions of Utah alfalfa growers about wildlife damage to their hay crops: Implica-tions for managing wildlife on private land. Great Basin Nat. 1996, 56, 254–260. [Google Scholar]
- Bradley, B.A.; Mustard, J.F. Comparison of phenology trends by land cover class: A case study in the Great Basin, USA. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008, 14, 334–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Breeze, T.D.; Bailey, A.P.; Balcombe, K.G.; Potts, S.G. Pollination services in the UK: How important are honey-bees? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 142, 137–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoehn, P.; Tscharntke, T.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Functional group diversity of bee pollinators in-creases crop yield. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2008, 275, 2283–2291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garibaldi, L.A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Winfree, R.; Aizen, M.A.; Bommarco, R.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Carvalheiro, L.G.; Harder, L.D.; Afik, O.; et al. Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance. Science 2013, 339, 1608–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campbell, A.J.; Wilby, A.; Sutton, P.; Wäckers, F.L. Do sown flower strips boost wild pollinator abundance and pol-lination services in a spring-flowering crop? A case study from UK cider apple orchards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 239, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallinger, R.E.; Gratton, C. Species richness of wild bees, but not the use of managed honeybees, increases fruit set of a pollinator-dependent crop. J. Appl. Ecol. 2015, 52, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rahimi, E.; Barghjelveh, S.; Dong, P. A review of diversity of bees, the attractiveness of host plants and the effects of landscape variables on bees in urban gardens. Agric. Food Secur. 2022, 11, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makinson, J.C.; Threlfall, C.G.; Latty, T. Bee-friendly community gardens: Impact of environmental variables on the richness and abundance of exotic and native bees. Urban Ecosyst. 2017, 20, 463–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lanner, J.; Kratschmer, S.; Petrović, B.; Gaulhofer, F.; Meimberg, H.; Pachinger, B. City dwelling wild bees: How communal gardens promote species richness. Urban Ecosyst. 2020, 23, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samnegård, U.; Persson, A.S.; Smith, H.G. Gardens benefit bees and enhance pollination in intensively managed farmland. Biol. Conserv. 2011, 144, 2602–2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sweetser, R. The Best Flowers for Bees. 2023. Available online: https://www.almanac.com/best-flowers-bees (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Balogh, A. Flowers for a Bee-Friendly Garden. 2023. Available online: https://www.gardendesign.com/flowers/bees.html (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Cane, J.H.; Kervin, L. Gardening for Native Bees in Utah and Beyond. 2013. Available online: https://extension.usu.edu/pdfs/sustainability/files/Gardening-for-Native-Bees-in-Utah-and-Beyond.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Ingram, S.; Wilson, T.M.; Wilson, J.S.; Ziebarth, E.A.; Young, J.G.; Carlson, R.E. Impacts of Pollination (Anthophila) on Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (Lamiaceae) essential oil. In Prep.
- Valchev, H.; Kolev, Z.; Stoykova, B.; Kozuharova, E. Pollinators of Lavandula angustifolia Mill., an important factor for optimal production of lavender essential oil. BioRisk 2022, 17, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balfour, N.J.; Gandy, S.; Ratnieks, F.L.W. Exploitative competition alters bee foraging and flower choice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2015, 69, 1731–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balfour, N.J.; Garbuzov, M.; Ratnieks, F.L. Longer tongues and swifter handling: Why do more bumble bees (Bom-bus spp.) than honey bees (Apis mellifera) forage on lavender (Lavandula spp.)? Ecol. Entomol. 2013, 38, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benachour, K. Insect visitors of lavender (Lavandula officinalis L.): Comparison of quantitative and qualitative interac-tions of the plant with its main pollinators. Afr. Entomol. 2017, 25, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SCAN. 2023. Available online: https://scan-bugs.org/portal/ (accessed on 10 January 2024).
- Carril, O.M.; Griswold, T.; Haefner, J.; Wilson, J.S. Wild bees of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument: Richness, abundance, and spatio-temporal beta-diversity. PeerJ 2018, 6, e5867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waser, N.M.; Ollerton, J. (Eds.) Plant-Pollinator Interactions: From Specialization to Generalization; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
Map of the Young Living Lavender Farm (YL) showing the boundaries of the farmed areas of the property and the conservation area. Collection locations are also shown. The star symbol on the map in the upper left indicates the location of the farm in the state of Utah.
Figure 1.
Map of the Young Living Lavender Farm (YL) showing the boundaries of the farmed areas of the property and the conservation area. Collection locations are also shown. The star symbol on the map in the upper left indicates the location of the farm in the state of Utah.
Figure 2.
Graph of the species richness of bees collected at the Young Living Lavender Farm categorized by family. Andrenidae included 8.8% of the total species richness, Apidae included 27.9%, Colletidae contained 8.8%, Halictidae had 32.4% and Megachilidae had 22.1% of the bee fauna (see Table 1 for details). Examples of bees collected at the farm are also presented for each family.
Figure 2.
Graph of the species richness of bees collected at the Young Living Lavender Farm categorized by family. Andrenidae included 8.8% of the total species richness, Apidae included 27.9%, Colletidae contained 8.8%, Halictidae had 32.4% and Megachilidae had 22.1% of the bee fauna (see Table 1 for details). Examples of bees collected at the farm are also presented for each family.
Figure 3.
Photos of bees visiting lavender (Lavandula angustifolia). (A) Anthophora urbana female, (B) Megachile rotundata male, (C) Melissodes communis male, and (D) Lasioglossum (Dialictus) sp. male.
Figure 3.
Photos of bees visiting lavender (Lavandula angustifolia). (A) Anthophora urbana female, (B) Megachile rotundata male, (C) Melissodes communis male, and (D) Lasioglossum (Dialictus) sp. male.
Table 1.
Bee species found at the Young Living Farm with their abundance and the flowers they were collected on.
Table 1.
Bee species found at the Young Living Farm with their abundance and the flowers they were collected on.
| Family | Species | Abundance | Floral Association |
|---|---|---|---|
| Andrenidae | Andrena candida | 2 | air/ground, Salvia sp. |
| Andrenidae | Andrena microchlora | 2 | Chamomilla recutita, Chorispora sp. |
| Andrenidae | Andrena prunorum | 2 | Valeriana officinalis |
| Andrenidae | Andrena sp. | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Andrenidae | Andrena striatifrons | 1 | Taraxacum officinale |
| Andrenidae | Calliopsis scutellaris | 8 | air/ground, Potentilla anserina, Cleome serriulata, Trifolium sp. |
| Apidae | Anthophora affabilis | 1 | Salvia sclarea |
| Apidae | Anthophora urbana | 30 | Calendula sp., Carduus nutans, Gaillardia aristate, Lavandula angustifolia, Melilotus officinalis, Nepeta × faassenii, Salvia officinalis, Salvia sclarea, Vitex agnus-castus |
| Apidae | Apis mellifera | 464 | Cynoglossum officianale, Gaillardia aristate, Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia Thymus vulgaris |
| Apidae | Bombus fervidus | 2 | Salvia sclarea, Vitex agnus-castus |
| Apidae | Bombus griseocollis | 4 | Carduus nutans, Circium sp., Lavandula angustifolia, Vitex agnus-castus |
| Apidae | Bombus huntii | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Apidae | Bombus morrisoni | 1 | Salvia sclarea |
| Apidae | Bombus nevadensis | 1 | Salvia officinalis |
| Apidae | Ceratina acantha | 3 | Chorispora sp., Taraxacum officinale |
| Apidae | Diadasia diminuta | 11 | Sphaeralcea sp. |
| Apidae | Diadasia enavata | 1 | Circium sp. |
| Apidae | Eucera (Peponapis) pruinosa | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Apidae | Eucera actuosa | 1 | air/ground |
| Apidae | Melissodes communis | 52 | Carduus nutans, Circium sp., Gaillardia aristate, Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia, Melissa officinalis, Salvia sclarea, Vitex agnus-castus |
| Apidae | Melissodes lupinus | 5 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Apidae | Melissodes tristis | 3 | Gaillardia aristate, Lavandula angustifolia |
| Apidae | Svastra obliqua | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Apidae | Triepeolus paenepectoralis | 15 | Gaillardia aristate, Lavandula angustifolia |
| Apidae | Brachymelecta californica | 3 | Gaillardia aristate, Lavandula angustifolia |
| Colletidae | Colletes fulgidus | 10 | Mentha piperita, Sphaeralcea sp., Vitex agnus-castus |
| Colletidae | Colletes kincaidii | 10 | Melilotus officinalis, Salix sp., Solidago canadensis, Valeriana officinalis |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus leptocephalus | 12 | Chamomilla recutita, Melilotus officinalis, Nepeta × faassenii, Salvia officinalis, Salvia sp., Solidago canadensis, Valeriana officinalis |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus mesillae | 7 | Achillea millefolium, Solidago canadensis |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus rudbeckiae | 1 | Achillea millefolium |
| Colletidae | Hylaeus sp. 1 | 2 | Potentilla anserina |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon angelicus | 18 | Gaillardia aristate, Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia, Melissa officinalis, Origanum vulgare, Taraxacum officinale |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon femoratus | 3 | Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon virescens | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Halictidae | Halictus farinosus | 2 | Solidago canadensis |
| Halictidae | Halictus ligatus | 113 | Achillea millefolium, air/ground, Calendula sp., Carduus nutans, Chamaemelum nobile, Chamomilla recutita, Circium sp., Convolvulus arvensis, Gaillardia aristate, Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia, Melissa officinalis, Mentha piperita, Origanum vulgare, Potentilla anserina, Potentilla sp., Salvia sclarea, Solidago canadensis, Sphaeralcea sp., Taraxacum officinale, Valeriana officinalis |
| Halictidae | Halictus rubicundus | 25 | air/ground, Melilotus officinalis, Origanum vulgare, Potentilla anserina, Salvia officinalis, Solidago canadensis |
| Halictidae | Halictus tripartitus | 23 | air/ground, Convolvulus arvensis, Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia, Salvia sclarea, Solidago canadensis, Sphaeralcea sp., Taraxacum officinale |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum athabascense | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum glabriventre | 1 | Melilotus officinalis |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum hyalinum | 5 | Achillea millefolium, Lavandula angustifolia, Salvia sclarea |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum incompletum | 75 | Achillea millefolium, Chorispora sp., Circium sp., Gaillardia aristate, Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia, Melilotus officinalis, Melissa officinalis, Mentha piperita, Origanum vulgare, Salsola sp., Salvia sclarea, Taraxacum officinale |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum kincaidii | 3 | Potentilla anserina, Potentilla sp. |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum nevadense | 6 | Carduus nutans, Chorispora sp., Lavandula angustifolia, Salvia sclarea, Taraxacum officinale |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum pulveris | 3 | Potentilla anserina, Salvia sclarea |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum semicaeruleum | 1 | Ruta graveolens |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum sisymbrii | 16 | Lavandula angustifolia, Origanum vulgare, Ruta graveolens, Salvia officinalis, Salvia sclarea |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum sp. 1 | 2 | air/ground |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum sp. 2 | 1 | Chamomilla recutita |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum spp. | 6 | Lavandula angustifolia, Melilotus officinalis, Ruta graveolens |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum tegulare group | 1 | Melissa officinalis |
| Halictidae | Sphecodes sp. 1 | 3 | air/ground, Taraxacum officinale |
| Halictidae | Sphecodes sp. 2 | 2 | air/ground, Lavandula angustifolia |
| Megachilidae | Anthidium manicatum | 11 | Lavandula angustifolia, Melilotus officinalis, Melissa officinalis, Salvia sclarea |
| Megachilidae | Anthidium utahense | 1 | Carduus nutans |
| Megachilidae | Coelioxys octodentata | 1 | Origanum vulgare |
| Megachilidae | Coelioxys rufitarsis | 2 | Carduus nutans, Gaillardia aristata |
| Megachilidae | Megachile apicalis | 6 | Lavandula angustifolia, Nepeta × faassenii, Thymus vulgaris |
| Megachilidae | Megachile brevis | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Megachilidae | Megachile fidelis | 1 | Gaillardia aristata |
| Megachilidae | Megachile montivaga | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Megachilidae | Megachile onobrychidis | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Megachilidae | Megachile parallela | 3 | Gaillardia aristata |
| Megachilidae | Megachile perihirta | 1 | Lavandula angustifolia |
| Megachilidae | Megachile pugnata | 1 | Taraxacum officinale |
| Megachilidae | Megachile rotundata | 21 | Hyssopus officinalis, Lavandula angustifolia, Lotus lorilulatus, Melilotus officinalis, Mentha piperita, Salvia officinalis, Thymus vulgaris |
| Megachilidae | Osmia bruneri | 3 | air/ground, Lavandula angustifolia, Nepeta × faassenii |
| Megachilidae | Osmia texana | 2 | Achillea millefolium, Melilotus officinalis |
Table 2.
Bee species collected on lavender.
| Family | Species | Abundance |
|---|---|---|
| Andrenidae | Andrena sp. | 1 |
| Apidae | Anthophora urbana | 14 |
| Apidae | Apis mellifera | 464 |
| Apidae | Bombus griseocollis | 1 |
| Apidae | Bombus huntii | 1 |
| Apidae | Eucera (Peponapis) pruinosa | 1 |
| Apidae | Melissodes communis | 29 |
| Apidae | Melissodes lupinus | 5 |
| Apidae | Melissodes tristis | 1 |
| Apidae | Svastra obliqua | 1 |
| Apidae | Triepeolus paenepectoralis | 4 |
| Apidae | Xeromelecta californica | 2 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon angelicus | 6 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon femoratus | 1 |
| Halictidae | Agapostemon virescens | 1 |
| Halictidae | Halictus ligatus | 6 |
| Halictidae | Halictus tripartitus | 1 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum athabascense | 1 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum hyalinum | 1 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum incompletum | 45 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum nevadense | 2 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum sisymbrii | 4 |
| Halictidae | Lasioglossum spp. | 3 |
| Halictidae | Sphecodes sp. 2 | 1 |
| Megachilidae | Anthidium manicatum | 2 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile apicalis | 4 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile brevis | 1 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile montivaga | 1 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile onobrychidis | 1 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile perihirta | 1 |
| Megachilidae | Megachile rotundata | 6 |
| Megachilidae | Osmia bruneri | 1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Wilson, J.S.; Young, J.G.; Wilson, L.T. The Bee Communities of Young Living Lavender Farm, Mona, Utah, USA. Diversity 2024, 16, 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16020119
AMA Style
Wilson JS, Young JG, Wilson LT. The Bee Communities of Young Living Lavender Farm, Mona, Utah, USA. Diversity. 2024; 16(2):119. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16020119
Chicago/Turabian StyleWilson, Joseph S., Jacob G. Young, and Lindsey Topham Wilson. 2024. "The Bee Communities of Young Living Lavender Farm, Mona, Utah, USA" Diversity 16, no. 2: 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16020119
APA StyleWilson, J. S., Young, J. G., & Wilson, L. T. (2024). The Bee Communities of Young Living Lavender Farm, Mona, Utah, USA. Diversity, 16(2), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16020119
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
