If too many poor habitats are adjacent to each other, habitat fragmentation can occur. On the other hand, if suitable forage habitat is adjacent to each other across the landscape, habitat connectivity will be gained, which would be beneficial to bee pollination networks. This research started to explore the characteristics which define suitable bee habitat, analyzed in terms of spatial and temporal relationships. Overall, in the Arboretum, it can be said that though some gardens are not very good, they are close enough in proximity to better habitat that the effects are not sufficiently strong enough to prevent bee foraging.By careful examination of bee habitat usage, we can identify more precisely the habitat’s shortcomings and make precise habitat improvements and recommend best design and management practices for bees. Chapter 1 results showed how native bees are using far more foraging plants than are currently promoted through pollinator literature. The difference between the partial and full WHR results, which encompass the broader bee diet preference findings, suggest that bringing more data to our models will provide . The partial WHR models are inferior and show a smaller portion of pollinator foraging potential. Conversely, flower bucket the full models reflect a more robust planning tool. This research has helped to identify possible floral genera to fill in temporal gaps as a result.

We examined habitat for its degree of continuity and/or fragmentation as a function of patch dynamics. Regardless of whether partial or full WHR foraging plants were accurate or not, we were still able to determine where bees were foraging or were not and investigate the spatial implications. This research explored in-depth analysis bee habitat continuity and its converse, fragmentation, which is known to be the major habitat obstacle facing bees today in landscapes lacking plant diversity. By building and empirically testing bee spatial and temporal habitat models, we can begin to improve habitat remedies and their accuracy. This research demonstrates how high quality and connected habitats can support an incredible diversity of bees. The full WHR map results demonstrate what an ideal landscape would look like in terms of annual patch dynamics. Effective conservation strategies are needed to help bees maintain sustainable and thriving populations. he characteristics of the diverse MWB and STOR gardens holds the key to developing more effective best design practices.Reconciliation ecology has proven to be an effective conservation practice in human-dominated landscapes . We propose that a reconciliation ecology paradigm provides the best framework for future resilient bee habitat design.

In Chapter 1 we found both native and naturalized bees are opportunistic anthroscape foragers. The data have shown there are benefits to using both California native plants as well as non-natives to achieve peak foraging habitat for California native bees. As seen in the Arboretum’s themed gardens, bees utilize the novel plantings that were selected for drought tolerance and aesthetics. It is unlikely that human-dominated landscapes only contain native plants. Therefore, a realistic ‘compromise’ should be struck with garden design to maximize foraging habitat for bees. By combining the best foraging Arboretum plants, landscape designers can measurably improve foraging habitats for native bees. However, defining which plants constitute the “best” is a nuanced decision to be made by a designer depending on the design priorities. Does the designer want to cater to a variety of bees? Or perhaps one bee genus? Other designers may prioritize native bees or include European Honey bees. . Design responses for improving bee habitat are likely to be very specialized to increase foraging optimization at the design sites. For example, in California’s Central Valley drought tolerance is a very important plant attribute since water will likely become less available in the future. Though native bees do not drink water directly, drought can affect vegetation by contributing to smaller and less prolific flowering and presumably nectar which can result in less flower visits for bumble bees . Furthermore, these plant selection trends are not unique to California. For example, research from the United Kingdom has shown the need to check and update recommended plant lists to achieve the desired results . In regard to native bees’ contribution to agriculture there are many factors to consider if California native bees can aid in crop pollination.

Much research is currently being done on how to best design for these novel ecosystems . Therefore, a landscape design framework should be responsive to a site’s prioritized ecological needs. It is fortunate that human, ecological, and bees’ needs can all be integrated for greater effects.Current prescriptions to combat bee habitat fragmentation often suggest choosing long blooming plants . Appropriate plants should be chosen which will help to fulfill the temporal aspects of bee genera foraging to satisfy their annual resource needs. Table 3 and Appendix 1 both suggest that in some cases, lack of floral resources may be an issue to some bees. In some cases, bees were found outside of their expected seasonality. Exact phenological patterns should be studied at a site to determine exact local timing trends. This is an opportunity for studies such as Anderson et al. to explore regularly using foraging feedback data to inform and update local plant lists for bees. Furthermore, patterns of habitat utilization are extremely important in determining a bee’s degree of habitat fragmentation . Habitat fragmentation gaps in time and space, or both, contribute negatively to the greater pollination networks and pollination ecosystem services. This is an essential component to gaining more insight into the extent bees are impacted by fragmentation in the landscape. Only then can we begin to remedy habitat shortcomings with strategically based conservation solutions.While these results are compelling, there is likely a threshold of bee foraging observations of which is helpful to this type of modeling and should be explored in future research. Additional analysis could still be completed on the characteristics which drive success or failure of bee habitat. For example, spatial planting densities and proximities of suitable plants may be another important indicator of habitat quality from the bee’s perspective. Gardens with both the most diversity and total count in bee visitation had similarities in terms of their planting designs and therefore habitat quality. For example, the STOR, EASI and MWB gardens had high densities of many varieties of plants. Landscape structure also appears to be an essential factor to consider, square flower bucket but more research should be done on this subject which is beyond the scope of this project. Native bee foraging requirements are emphasized in this study, rather than other habitat requirements such as nesting or cover, though nesting requirements are reported in the WHR predicted and actual foraging matrix models . Furthermore, the characteristics which make each garden successful as habitat should be examined in more detail. Despite these limitations, the findings from this research can still be used to give conservation designers specific instructions on how to improve landscapes for particular bees.More research should be done to explore how habitat fragmentation themes play out for bees. From our findings, it would seem that fragmentation may occur at the scale landscape cover is mapped. For example, a town, a park, or parking lot can have very different ecological values to bees.

Depending on the type of landscape cover, some bees may find value in it or not. For example, an orchard landscape cover consisting of Prunus would in theory be quite attractive to Osmia bees , but not to Diadasia. In contrast, a suitable Diadasia habitat would be composed of Opuntia and Sphaeralcea and would be without value to Osmia bees. Therefore, the habitat solutions for Osmia and Diadasia in the above examples would be at odds with each other. Future projects should evaluate how common landscape plants are functioning as habitat for various bee genera. Though research has started to look into these complicated topics, more research should be done to tease out land cover-habitat value trends for different bees . Much of the current fragmentation research focuses purely on agricultural areas. However, all land cover has potential as bee habitat and to also provide ecosystem service benefits . The data from this research demonstrates how richly valued anthroscapes can be to bees if they possess the characteristics of the Arboretum, particularly the best performing gardens. These areas could act as source populations for bees, acting as valuable habitat patches amongst an otherwise more hostile landscape matrix. Furthermore, other research has shown that bees are critical for achieving sustainable development . Climate change in particular is putting fragmentation pressures on bees and this should be observed carefully to preserve ecosystem services . There is already evidence that habitat fragmentation is negatively affecting most bee populations at the landscape scale . For example, bumble bees’ ranges have shifted northward with higher temperatures, but the north most ranges are still constrained by cold temperatures . It is likely bees’ responses to climate change is species-specific and not unlike what has been seen with more charismatic animals, which have been observed to move poleward or to higher elevations but thus far has not been studied among a variety of bees. Like other mammals, climate change tests how far bees can adjust their ranges in coordination with host plant range and temperature changes. More quantitative research should be done to evaluate how various human landscape types act for specific bee genera. It is likely that conservation priorities may need to be chosen . For example, bees which are the best at providing pollination ecosystem services should be prioritized and accommodated with resilient pollination networks by design . Bee genera dispersal abilities should be studied more as well . Moreover, management of novel ecosystems should be done with the priority of conserving ecosystem services . We must strive to precisely identify and remedy land cover which act as fragmented habitats. We must analyze landscapes from the point of view of bees, and genera thereof. Only then can we actually take the next steps in filling conservation gaps. Bee habitat improvements should be prioritized both for agriculture and urban systems, but also natural systems conservation. Every plant a landscape designer chooses can make a difference to bee conservation at local and regional scales. We must strategize to maximize bee habitat area with every plant choice in every kind of land cover, which is the main topic in Chapter 3.This research has shown that by implementing WHR models for bees in spatial terms in the form of showing spatial and temporal habitat continuity over time, better habitat can ultimately be designed for native bees in areas lacking this continuity. Moreover, habitat solutions could be strategic and applied in a defensible manner to preserve ecosystem services. Using data from this study, garden plantings for ideal garden design and plant location for native bee conservation could be created from a bee genus’ point of view. Many bees in this research project were found to be opportunistic foragers—neither exclusively utilizing native or non-native plants. Reconciliation ecology appears to be the best conservation strategy for building the best foraging bee habitats for the future. In the Anthropocene, we must make the best out of our current landscapes and make resilient pollinator anthroscapes with the main goal of preserving pollination ecosystem services. In this way, anthroscapes could act as sources or refugia for native bees. Furthermore, bees may have more opportunities to thrive if they are given a targeted spectrum of suitable plants, which can be done through strategic conservation actions. Knowing the spatial suitability levels of urban habitats for bees will inform landscape designers in habitat remediation and enhancing ecosystem services. Conservation efforts should target a diversity of bees in order to create an array of solutions that effectively improve habitat. By using strategic plantings habitat gaps could be eliminated to create continuous habitat and robust pollination networks to ensure pollination ecosystem services into the future.Urban spaces have the potential to provide bee habitat , however, the quality of design work can have varied effects. As seen in Chapters 1 and 2 , the plant palette and spatial characteristics of a site have a large impact on the quality of that habitat. Strategies for improving bee habitat can help make design decisions for habitat landscapes facing climate change. To protect ecosystem services we must focus on bolstering and building resilience among bee populations .