← Back to Species List
Andrena cornelli
Common Name: Azalea Miner
Authority: Viereck
Assessment
Least Concern
Date: 1/1/1900
Justification:
Andrena cornelli is a solitary bee species that occurs in the northeastern United States from South Carolina north to New York and Vermont. Using all records of the species the extent of occurrence is 628,725 km2. Recent records are relatively well distributed across its range. The species is a dietary specialist, collecting pollen from the plant genus Rhododendron (Ericaceae), and has been collected from deciduous forests, agricultural lands, and suburban areas. Across the range of the species, impacts from climate change, habitat loss and degradation, and exposure to pesticides have been observed. These threats may be acting on the species at local levels. More information is needed to assess the population status, and determine the degree to which threats are acting on the species. However, because the species is widespread, has been recently observed in numerous localities, and occurs in several habitat types, it is unlikely to be threatened with extinction at this time. As such, it is assessed as Least Concern for now.
Distribution
Country Occurrence:
United States:
ConnecticutGeorgiaMarylandMassachusettsNew JerseyNew YorkNorth CarolinaPennsylvaniaSouth CarolinaTennesseeVermontVirginiaWest Virginia
EOO:Unknown
AOO:322.00 km²
Map Notes:The map was created by generating a polygon around all records, generalizing it, and clipping it to the North American continent to remove areas of uninhabited habitat, such as the Atlantic Ocean.
Population
Trend:Unknown
Generation Length:1.00 years
Habitats and Ecology
Food habits comment: Andrena cornelli has been described as a dietary specialist (LaBerge 1980; Ulyshen et al. 2022), collects pollen from plants in the genus Rhododendron (Ericaceae), although the revision for the species (LaBerge 1980) notes that there was limited evidence to make this claim due to limited floral records at the time the revision was written.
Habitat comment: This species has been recorded in deciduous forest, pastureland, agricultural areas, and residential areas between 3 and 1833 m.
Reproduction comment: This species likely nests underground like all other Andrena (Danforth et al. 2019), but nests from this species have not been described. Nest cells from other members of this genus are located at the ends of the lateral burrows, which are typically lined with a waxy Dufour’s gland secretion (Cane 1981) that serves to both isolate the provision from pathogens in the surrounding soil and to regulate water uptake from the soil atmosphere (Cane and Love 2021). Females provision each cell with a ball of pollen moistened with nectar on which they lay a single egg (Michener 2007).
Phenology comment: Records of this species come from April through July, with most records from May through July (Chesshire et al. 2023; LaBerge 1980). Adults are assumed to emerge annually (Danforth et al. 2019).
Habitat Types
- 1 Forest
- 1.4 Forest – Temperate
- 14 Artificial - Terrestrial
- 14.1 Arable Land
- 14.2 Pastureland
- 14.4 Rural Gardens
- 14.5 Urban Areas
Use and Trade
This species is not known to be utilized commercially.
Threats
Threat comments:
Certain aspects of this species' biology may make it more vulnerable to some threats. Andrena cornelli is a ground nesting species, and nests may be harmed by certain agricultural practices such as tilling, which can kill bees nesting close to the surface (Williams et al. 2010). This species is a dietary specialist, which has been linked to higher risk of extinction due to reduced host plant availability, especially under climate change scenarios (Roberts et al. 2011) and reduced effective population sizes (Packer et al. 2005). Additionally, Andrena have been reported to have low reproductive output because of the short adult life span, and a low rate of brood cell provisioning (reviewed in Danforth et al. 2019). Other threats to bees generally include habitat loss or modification, climate change, pesticide use, exposure to pathogens from managed bee species, and competition with honey bees (Brown and Paxton 2009; Potts et al. 2010; Wojcik et al. 2018; Grab et al. 2019; Raven and Wagner 2021).
Threats Threats:
Timing: Scope: Severity: Impact Score:
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.1. Housing & urban areas
1. Residential & commercial development -> 1.2. Commercial & industrial areas
2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry farming
8. Invasive and other problematic species, genes, and diseases -> 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien species/diseases -> 8.1.2. Named species
9. Pollution -> 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents -> 9.3.3 Herbicides and Pesticides
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.1. Habitat shifting & alteration
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.2.Droughts
11. Climate change & severe weather -> 11.3.Temperature extremes
Conservation Actions
Conservation needs
No known conservation actions are in place for this species.
Protected/Managed area comment: Observations of this species are known from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service land, but this does not confer any specific protections to the species.
Management comment: Specific conservation needs for this species have not been identified. Due to the importance of supporting wild bee populations for pollination services, general conservation practices are recommended including, restoring, creating, and preserving natural high-quality habitats to include suitable forage and nesting sites; limiting pesticide use on or near suitable habitat, particularly during the adult bee’s flight period; promoting farming and urban practices that increase pollinator-friendly plants in margin space; minimizing exposure of wild bees to diseases transferred from managed bees; and lastly, avoiding honey bee introduction to high-quality native bee habitat.
Conservation Actions Needed
1. Land/water protection -> 1.2. Resource & habitat protection
2. Land/water management -> 2.3. Habitat & natural process restoration
4. Education & awareness -> 4.3. Awareness & communications
5. Law & policy -> 5.2. Policies and regulations
Research needs
Research need comment: More information is needed about the population status, population trend, existing threats, range limits, habitat, and ecology of this species. Surveys targeting this species are needed throughout its range to determine its persistence throughout its historic range.
Research Needed
1. Research -> 1.2. Population size, distribution & trends
1.3. Life History and Ecology
1.5. Threats
1.6 Conservation actions
3. Monitoring -> 3.1. Population trends
3.4. Habitat trends
Assessment
Date of assessment (month-day-year):
Assessors names (use * to indicate primary assessor, typically the participant with most experience/knowledge of the species):
Reviewer(s):
Contributors(s): For a full list of the 162 institutions that contributed to the Chesshire et al. dataset, please see Chesshire et al. 2023, S1.
Facilitator(s) and compiler(s): Paige R. Chesshire, Erica E. Fischer, Nicolas J. Dowdy, Terry L. Griswold, Alice C. Hughes, Michael C. Orr, John S. Ascher, Laura M. Guzman, Keng-Lou James Hung, Neil S. Cobb and Lindsie M. McCabe
Red List Category and Criteria: Least Concern
Justification:
Andrena cornelli is a solitary bee species that occurs in the northeastern United States from South Carolina north to New York and Vermont. Using all records of the species the extent of occurrence is 628,725 km2. Recent records are relatively well distributed across its range. The species is a dietary specialist, collecting pollen from the plant genus Rhododendron (Ericaceae), and has been collected from deciduous forests, agricultural lands, and suburban areas. Across the range of the species, impacts from climate change, habitat loss and degradation, and exposure to pesticides have been observed. These threats may be acting on the species at local levels. More information is needed to assess the population status, and determine the degree to which threats are acting on the species. However, because the species is widespread, has been recently observed in numerous localities, and occurs in several habitat types, it is unlikely to be threatened with extinction at this time. As such, it is assessed as Least Concern for now.
Rank reasons
This species is a solitary bee that occurs in the eastern United States, from south Carolina north to New York and Vermont. Using all verified records of the species, the range extent is 628,725 km2. This species occurs in deciduous forests, agricultural lands, and suburban areas. It is a dietary specialist and forages from the genus Rhododendron (Ericaceae). Across the range of the species, impacts from climate change, pesticide exposure, and urbanization have been observed. These threats may be acting on the species at local levels. Because the species is relatively widespread, occurs in several different habitat types, and has been recently observed in many localities, it is unlikely to be threatened with extinction at this time.
NatureServe Specific Text (NOT OTHERWISE INCLUDED IN ABOVE TEXT):
For Rank Calculator:
1. Element occurrences (using separation distance of 5,000 m): 43 (C)
1. Estimated Number of Element Occurrences Comments: Using all records from the last 30 years (since 1995), this species is known from at least 43 occurrences using a 5 km separation distance.
2. Population size: Unknown
3. Viability/Ecological integrity (choose one)
1. Number of occurrences with good viability/ecological integrity: Unknown
2. Percent of area occupied (For Species with Known AOO): N/A
4. Environmental Specificity: B. Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common.
1. Environmental specificity comments: This species is a dietary specialist, using pollen from the plant genus Rhododendron (Ericaceae), which likely restricts its distribution and phenology.
5. Intrinsic Vulnerability: B. Moderately vulnerable
1. Intrinsic vulnerability comments: Andrena have been reported to have low reproductive output because of the short adult life span, and a low rate of brood cell provisioning (reviewed in Danforth et al. 2019).
6. Trend
1. Short Term Trend: Unknown
2. Comments: Abundance estimates and population trends are not known for this species.
3. Long Term Trend: Unknown
4. Comments: Abundance estimates and population trends are not known for this species.
For Biotics Global Element Characterization:
1. Habitat
Forest/Woodland, Cropland/Hedgerow, Suburban/Orchard
2. Food Habits
1. Adult: nectarivore
2. Immature: nectarivore
Literature References:
Brown, Mark J. F., and Robert J. Paxton. 2009. “The Conservation of Bees: A Global Perspective.” Apidologie 40 (3): 410–16.
Cane, James H., and Byron G. Love. 2021. “Hygroscopic Larval Provisions of Bees Absorb Soil Water Vapor and Release Liquefied Nutrients.” Apidologie 52 (6): 1002–16.
Cane, J. H. 1981. “Dufour’s Gland Secretion in the Cell Linings of Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea).” Journal of Chemical Ecology 7 (2): 403–10.
Chesshire, Paige R., Erica E. Fischer, Nicolas J. Dowdy, Terry L. Griswold, Alice C. Hughes, Michael C. Orr, John S. Ascher, et al. 2023. “Completeness Analysis for over 3000 United States Bee Species Identifies Persistent Data Gap.” Ecography, February. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.06584.
Danforth, Bryan N., Robert L. Minckley, John L. Neff, and Frances Fawcett. 2019. The Solitary Bees: Biology, Evolution, Conservation. Princeton University Press.
GBIF.org (13 February 2024) GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.w5txw8
GBIF.org (23 January 2025) GBIF Occurrence Download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.sa4f3r
Grab, Heather, Michael G. Branstetter, Nolan Amon, Katherine R. Urban-Mead, Mia G. Park, Jason Gibbs, Eleanor J. Blitzer, Katja Poveda, Greg Loeb, and Bryan N. Danforth. 2019. “Agriculturally Dominated Landscapes Reduce Bee Phylogenetic Diversity and Pollination Services.” Science 363 (6424): 282–84.
LaBerge, Wallace E. 1980. “A Revision of the Bees of the Genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part X. Subgenus Andrena.” Transactions of the American Entomological Society 106 (4): 395–525.
Michener, Charles Duncan. 2007. The Bees of the World. Vol. 1. JHU Press.
Packer, Laurence, Amro Zayed, Jennifer C. Grixti, Luisa Ruz, Robin E. Owen, Felipe Vivallo, and Haroldo Toro. 2005. “Conservation Genetics of Potentially Endangered Mutualisms: Reduced Levels of Genetic Variation in Specialist versus Generalist Bees.” Conservation Biology: The Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 19 (1): 195–202.
Potts, Simon G., Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Claire Kremen, Peter Neumann, Oliver Schweiger, and William E. Kunin. 2010. “Global Pollinator Declines: Trends, Impacts and Drivers.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25 (6): 345–53.
Raven, Peter H., and David L. Wagner. 2021. “Agricultural Intensification and Climate Change Are Rapidly Decreasing Insect Biodiversity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (2). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002548117.
Roberts, Stuart, Simon Potts, Koos Biesmeijer, Michael Kuhlmann, William Kunin, and Ralf Ohlemüller. 2011. “Assessing Continental-Scale Risks for Generalist and Specialist Pollinating Bee Species under Climate Change.” BioRisk : Biodiversity & Ecosystem Risk Assessment 6 (December):1–18.
Rousseau, Josée S., S. Hollis Woodard, Sarina Jepsen, Brianne Du Clos, Alison Johnston, Bryan N. Danforth, and Amanda D. Rodewald. 2024. “Advancing Bee Conservation in the US: Gaps and Opportunities in Data Collection and Reporting.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2024.1346795.
Ulyshen, Michael, Katherine Elliott, Joel Scott, Scott Horn, Patsy Clinton, Ning Liu, Chelcy F. Miniat, et al. 2022. “Effects of Rhododendron Removal and Prescribed Fire on Bees and Plants in the Southern Appalachians.” Ecology and Evolution 12 (3): e8677.
Williams, A. Park, B. I. Cook, and S. E. Smerdon. 2022. “Rapid Intensification of the Emerging Southwestern North American Megadrought in 2020–2021.” Nature Climate Change 12 (3): 232–34.
Williams, N. M., Elizabeth E. Crone, T’ai H. Roulston, Robert L. Minckley, Laurence Packer, and Simon G. Potts. 2010. “Ecological and Life-History Traits Predict Bee Species Responses to Environmental Disturbances.” Biological Conservation 143 (10): 2280–91.
Wojcik, Victoria A., Lora A. Morandin, Laurie Davies Adams, and Kelly E. Rourke. 2018. “Floral Resource Competition Between Honey Bees and Wild Bees: Is There Clear Evidence and Can We Guide Management and Conservation?” Environmental Entomology 47 (4): 822–33.
No threats recorded
Conservation Actions
Conservation needs
No known conservation actions are in place for this species.
Protected/Managed area comment: Observations of this species are known from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and U.S. Forest Service land, but this does not confer any specific protections to the species.
Management comment: Specific conservation needs for this species have not been identified. Due to the importance of supporting wild bee populations for pollination services, general conservation practices are recommended including, restoring, creating, and preserving natural high-quality habitats to include suitable forage and nesting sites; limiting pesticide use on or near suitable habitat, particularly during the adult bee’s flight period; promoting farming and urban practices that increase pollinator-friendly plants in margin space; minimizing exposure of wild bees to diseases transferred from managed bees; and lastly, avoiding honey bee introduction to high-quality native bee habitat.
Actions Needed
- 1.2 Resource & habitat protection
- 2.3 Habitat & natural process restoration
- 4.3 Awareness & communications
Research Needs
Research need comment: More information is needed about the population status, population trend, existing threats, range limits, habitat, and ecology of this species. Surveys targeting this species are needed throughout its range to determine its persistence throughout its historic range.
Taxonomic Notes
(a. any taxonomic concerns about the validity of the species? b. any taxonomic revisions underway that would require a species reassessment.