Andrena brooksi

This species has been documented in Madrean basin grasslands, lower Madrean Woodlands, Chihuahuan Basins and Playas. It is assumed to be a dietary specialist within the plant family Asteraceae, and has been most commonly collected from plants in the genus Simsia. Simsia is a plant genus with a largely Mesoamerican distribution and limited occurrences in the United States. Andrena brooksi has only been observed in September (Larkin 2004; Chesshire et al. 2023). This species likely nests underground like all other Andrena (Danforth et al. 2019), but nests for 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 before laying a single egg (Michener 2007). Adults are assumed to emerge annually (Danforth et al. 2019). Habitat:

Threats to this species include habitat loss and degradation due to climate change, cattle grazing, and agriculture. The small range and narrow diet of this species makes it especially vulnerable to climate change. Since 2000, the Southwest U.S. has seen the worst drought in 1200 years (A. P. Williams, Cook, and Smerdon 2022). Drought can reduce the abundance of flowering plants on a landscape scale, and also reduce pollen and nectar quality (Wilson Rankin, Barney, and Lozano 2020). A recent study has shown reduced diversity and abundance of native bees under drought conditions (Hung et al. 2021). The main land use within the EOO of the species is grazing, with over 6,500 km2 (over 70%) made up of grazing allotments managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Of these, 41 km2 did not meet the agency’s land health standard, with the cause attributed to grazing. The vast majority of grazing allotments (5,770 km2) have not had their land heath evaluated (BLM 2022). Impacts from grazing desert grasslands include soil erosion, hydrological shifts such as arroyo formation, and vegetation change (Curtin, Sayre, and Lane 2002). A study from near the range of this species showed that bee abundance was lower in areas that have been grazed, likely due to the continuous removal of floral resources upon which bees rely (Minckley 2014). Intensive grazing can also contribute to plant community shifts, including exotic species invasion and shrub encroachment (Rogstad et al. 2009), which may reduce the abundance thof forage plants used by Andrena brooksi. Much of the grassland in the range of this species is dominated by the exotic invasive species Lehmann's Lovegrass, (Eragrostis lehmanniana), which creates monotypic stands and displaces native vegetation (Schussman et al. 2006). Abundance of Lehmann’s Lovegrass has been associated with decreased richness and abundance of local invertebrate communities, including some families of bees (Litt and Steidl 2010). Approximately 300 km² of the EOO for Andrena brooksi is in agricultural production. Recent expansion of pecan farming in the region in the last decade contributes to some habitat loss (USDA 2024). Pesticides associated with agricultural production can cause lethal and sublethal effects for this species. Certain aspects of this species' biology may make it more vulnerable to some threats. Andrena brooksi 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 (N. M. Williams et al. 2010). This species is oligolectic, 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).

No known conservation actions are in place for this species. Observations of this species are from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service land, but this land ownership does not confer any specific protections to the species. Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument and White Sands National Park are within the EOO, but no observations have been recorded from these sites. Further research is needed to determine the overall size of the population and to identify trends and better understand existing threats. Specific conservation needs for this species have not been identified. Because more than 70% of the EOO is made up of BLM grazing allotments, reducing livestock pressure and protecting forage plants on these lands could benefit this species. 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; protecting the populations of forage plants in light of long-term drought; limiting pesticide use on or near suitable habitat, particularly during the bee’s adult flight period; promoting farming 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.

More information is needed about the population status, range limits, habitat, and ecology of this species.

Distribution Andrena brooksi is known from 120 observations from 1977 through 2012 and occurs in the southwest United States. The species is known from 6 localities in Cochise County, Arizona, and Hidalgo and Lincoln Counties, New Mexico (Larkin, 2004; Cheshire 2023). Of these localities, only two have a high degree of geographic certainty. Others were measured from place names based on limited collection data from the species description (Larkin 2004). Because of this, these localities have less geographic certainty. Given the proximity of the observations to the US-Mexico border, the species also likely occurs in Mexico, where search effort has been more limited. Records of this species come from Arizona State Trust lands, the Coronado National Forest, the Bureau of Land Management Land (Las Cruces District Office), the Gray Range Megasite Easement (managed by the Nature Conservancy), and private lands. The species may also occur on the Mescalero Reservation and/or the Lincoln National Forest, but these locations are less certain due to data quality. The extent of occurrence (EOO) for this species, using all known occurrence records, is 9,140 km2. Although there is relatively high search effort within the range of the species compared to other areas of the United States, there are large portions of the range of Andrena brooksi where there has been no apparent bee collection efforts during the appropriate flight period of the species. Using all known observations of this species, the area of occupancy for this species is 36 km2, but this may be an underestimate, as not all areas of its EOO have been surveyed during the flight period. Occurrence records for this and other bee species native to the U.S. were compiled by researchers using digitized bee data from 162 institutions or data repositories (Chesshire et al. 2023). The resulting database, which contains nearly 2 million records for 3,158 bee species, includes records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and the Symbiota Collection of Arthropod Network (SCAN). This dataset is currently the most comprehensive and accurate bee occurrence dataset available for the U.S. These records were systematically cleaned by removing duplicate records and records where specimens were not identified to species level. Additionally, the database was examined by a geodata expert, who corrected inaccurate coordinates and removed records with vague or no geodata, and examined by bee taxonomy experts, who revised scientific names for specimens with synonymy issues, removed observations with invalid names, and removed implausible records and species outliers. Additional observations of this species were added from Larkin (2004). The accuracy of conservation status assessments for bees is limited by the quantity and quality of available data. Although there are over 2 million digitized bee records, there are an estimated 4.7 million bee specimens housed in U.S. museums that are undigitized (Chesshire et al. 2023). Error rates in data transcription from museum specimen to digitized records can be high. Limited funding for taxonomists means that keys used in identification have not been revised for many decades, and that many recently collected specimens have not yet been identified. Additionally, few records are accompanied with search effort or sampling method data, limiting their utility (Rousseau et al. 2024). Lastly, there have been no systematic surveys for bees across much of the United States, contributing to limited understanding of even the most basic aspects of bee biology. The quality and accuracy of species status assessments will increase when funding is made available to digitize existing data and systematically survey the U.S. for bees, as well as to support taxonomists to identify the backlog of specimens collected in monitoring efforts, review specimens in collections, and revise identification keys. Overcoming these challenges with regard to bee data quality and quantity will take enormous time, effort, and funding. Conservation status assessments carried out in the meantime are done using the best available data, with limitations and assumptions clearly articulated, and many species assessments are likely to result in the category ‘Data Deficient’. Country Occurrence: United States (Arizona, New Mexico) EOO: 9,140 km2 EOO Justification The extent of occurrence was calculated using ArcGIS Pro. The minimum convex polygon was drawn around known occurrence records (Chesshire et al. 2023). AOO: 36 km2 Elevation range: 1352 - 1791 m Map notes: The map contains all known occurrence points for Andrena brooksi based on Larkin 2004, and Chesshire et al. 2023. Severely Fragmented: Unknown Number of Locations: 1 “Population” Size There are many variables that factor into a given species’s detectability, including survey period, sampling method, sampling location, and sampling effort. Data for some of these variables rarely accompany publicly available digitized specimen records, and make it difficult to determine the parameters of a survey that resulted in the detection of a given species. In order to determine if absence of recent records is due to limited search effort, we examined the search effort required to detect the species historically (before 2013), to assess if search effort in the recent time period (2013 and later) has been sufficient to detect it. To do this, we divided the total number of historic Andrena records from the species EOO during the appropriate phenological window (XXX records) by the total number of historic Genus species records (XX records) to generate a relative abundance metric. For each Genus species detected within the EOO, XX Andrena of all species were sampled. In the recent time period, XX Andrena of all species were recorded in the EOO during the appropriate phenological window (the period of Genus species adult activity). This is approximately XX times the number of all bees detected relative to each Genus species prior to 2013. As such, we suggest that the absence of recent Genus species records from its EOO is not due to insufficient search effort. There may be some factor limiting the detectability of this species, including a possible absence of the species. This species occurs in the vicinity of the annual American Museum of Natural History Bee Course, which contributes to considerable search effort in approximately half of the EOO for the species. In the area typically covered by Bee Course participants and instructors, there are approximately 26,000 digitized specimen records from the flight period of Andrena brooksi that have been collected since the species was first recorded. However, the species is seldom encountered, and there remain few known localities where it occurs, suggesting the rarity of the species. One known locality of the species, which previously hosted a large nesting aggregation, has been repeatedly visited since the early 2000s, but the species has not been encountered since (pers. comm. with R. Minckley, 28 Sept. 2023). Although there is no systematic monitoring or locality visit schedule, the two localities for the species with high geographic certainty, the vicinity of Animas, NM, and Animas Valley, NM, have both hosted collection efforts during the flight time of Andrena brooksi across several years since the species was first collected. The Animas vicinity, where the species was recorded in 1999, has seen collection efforts in 1976, 1988, 1989, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2013, and 2017 with no detection of Andrena brooksi. The Animas Valley, where the species was recorded in 1977, 2009, and 2012, has also seen collection efforts during the flight period in 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2011, and 2016 with no detection of the species. Overall, the population size and trend are not known for this species, as no studies have been conducted to examine population trends for this species. Trend: Unknown Number of Subpopulations: N/A Extreme Fluctuation: N/A Generation Length: 1 year Habitats and Ecology This species has been documented in Madrean basin grasslands, lower Madrean Woodlands, Chihuahuan Basins and Playas. It is assumed to be a dietary specialist within the plant family Asteraceae, and has been most commonly collected from plants in the genus Simsia. Simsia is a plant genus with a largely Mesoamerican distribution and limited occurrences in the United States. Andrena brooksi has only been observed in September (Larkin 2004; Chesshire et al. 2023). This species likely nests underground like all other Andrena (Danforth et al. 2019), but nests for 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 before laying a single egg (Michener 2007). Adults are assumed to emerge annually (Danforth et al. 2019). Habitat: 3. Shrubland -> Shrubland - Temperate 4. Grassland -> 4.4 Grassland - Temperate Use and Trade: This species is not known to be utilized commercially. Threats Threats to this species include habitat loss and degradation due to climate change, cattle grazing, and agriculture. The small range and narrow diet of this species makes it especially vulnerable to climate change. Since 2000, the Southwest U.S. has seen the worst drought in 1200 years (A. P. Williams, Cook, and Smerdon 2022). Drought can reduce the abundance of flowering plants on a landscape scale, and also reduce pollen and nectar quality (Wilson Rankin, Barney, and Lozano 2020). A recent study has shown reduced diversity and abundance of native bees under drought conditions (Hung et al. 2021). The main land use within the EOO of the species is grazing, with over 6,500 km2 (over 70%) made up of grazing allotments managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Of these, 41 km2 did not meet the agency’s land health standard, with the cause attributed to grazing. The vast majority of grazing allotments (5,770 km2) have not had their land heath evaluated (BLM 2022). Impacts from grazing desert grasslands include soil erosion, hydrological shifts such as arroyo formation, and vegetation change (Curtin, Sayre, and Lane 2002). A study from near the range of this species showed that bee abundance was lower in areas that have been grazed, likely due to the continuous removal of floral resources upon which bees rely (Minckley 2014). Intensive grazing can also contribute to plant community shifts, including exotic species invasion and shrub encroachment (Rogstad et al. 2009), which may reduce the abundance thof forage plants used by Andrena brooksi. Much of the grassland in the range of this species is dominated by the exotic invasive species Lehmann's Lovegrass, (Eragrostis lehmanniana), which creates monotypic stands and displaces native vegetation (Schussman et al. 2006). Abundance of Lehmann’s Lovegrass has been associated with decreased richness and abundance of local invertebrate communities, including some families of bees (Litt and Steidl 2010). Approximately 300 km² of the EOO for Andrena brooksi is in agricultural production. Recent expansion of pecan farming in the region in the last decade contributes to some habitat loss (USDA 2024). Pesticides associated with agricultural production can cause lethal and sublethal effects for this species. Certain aspects of this species' biology may make it more vulnerable to some threats. Andrena brooksi 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 (N. M. Williams et al. 2010). This species is oligolectic, 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). Threat: Timing: Scope: Severity: Impact Score: 2. Agriculture & aquaculture -> 2.1. Annual & perennial non-timber crops -> 2.1.3. Agro-industry farming 7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire suppression -> 7.1.2. Suppression in fire frequency/intensity 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 No known conservation actions are in place for this species. Observations of this species are from Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and United States Forest Service land, but this land ownership does not confer any specific protections to the species. Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument and White Sands National Park are within the EOO, but no observations have been recorded from these sites. Further research is needed to determine the overall size of the population and to identify trends and better understand existing threats. Specific conservation needs for this species have not been identified. Because more than 70% of the EOO is made up of BLM grazing allotments, reducing livestock pressure and protecting forage plants on these lands could benefit this species. 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; protecting the populations of forage plants in light of long-term drought; limiting pesticide use on or near suitable habitat, particularly during the bee’s adult flight period; promoting farming 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 More information is needed about the population status, range limits, habitat, and ecology of this species. 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): 4/4/2023 Assessors names (use * to indicate primary assessor, typically the participant with most experience/knowledge of the species): Saff Killingsworth Reviewer(s): Robert Minckley, Olivia Messinger Carril 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: Vulnerable B1ab(iii) Justification: Andrena brooksi is known from only six localities in New Mexico and Arizona. It may also occur in Mexico, but has not yet been observed there. The estimated extent of occurrence is 9,140 km2. There is uncertainty in this estimate because the species is known to be extant in very few localities, yet there is considerable potential habitat, where additional occurrences are possible. However, this species occurs in the vicinity of the American Museum of Natural History field station near Portal, AZ, where the Bee Course is held annually. The Bee Course contributes to considerable survey effort within the range of the species, yet there remain few localities and few observations of this bee, suggesting its rarity. While there has been no surveying specifically targeting this species, there has been repeated bee sampling at its known localities during the flight period with no detection. This species probably occurs in just one location, as prolonged and severe drought since 2000 has impacted the habitat of this species. Because this species is assumed to be a dietary specialist, drought and climate change can be particularly impactful to its persistence. Additionally, continuing decline in the quality of habitat, due to drought conditions and vegetation community conversion as a result of livestock grazing, has been observed across the range of the species. Therefore, this species qualifies as Vulnerable under criterion B1ab(iii). NatureServe Specific Text: For Rank Calculator: 1. Element occurrences (using separation distance of 5,000 m): 6 A 1. There are limited observations of this species overall, and none since 2012. Some known localities of the species have been revisited since their last observation without detecting the species. It is unclear if this indicates local extirpations or year-to-year variability. 1. Population size: Unknown 2. 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 3. Environmental Specificity: B. Narrow. Specialist or community with key requirements common. 1. Environmental specificity comments: This species is assumed to be a dietary specialist on plants in the family Asteraceae, although they are likely common and abundant across its range. 4. 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). 5. 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 Grassland/Herbaceous Literature References: Brown, Mark J. F., and Robert J. Paxton. 2009. “The Conservation of Bees: A Global Perspective.” Apidologie 40 (3): 410–16. Bureau of land Management (BLM) 2022. BLM Land Health Status (2020) Available online at https://mangomap.com/peer/maps/126421/blm-rangeland-health-status-2020-the-significance-of-livestock-grazing-on-public-lands?preview=true#. Accessed 2/1/2024 Cane, James H. 1981. “Dufour’s Gland Secretion in the Cell Linings of Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea).” Journal of Chemical Ecology 7 (2): 403–10. Cane, and Love. 2021. “Hygroscopic Larval Provisions of Bees Absorb Soil Water Vapor and Release Liquefied Nutrients.” Apidologie 52 (6): 1002–16. 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. Curtin, Charles G., Nathan F. Sayre, and Benjamin D. Lane. 2002. “Transformations of the Chihuahuan Borderlands: Grazing, Fragmentation, and Biodiversity Conservation in Desert Grasslands.” Environmental Science & Policy 5 (1): 55–68. Danforth, Bryan N., Robert L. Minckley, John L. Neff, and Frances Fawcett. 2019. The Solitary Bees: Biology, Evolution, Conservation. Princeton University Press. 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. Hung, Keng-Lou James, Sara S. Sandoval, John S. Ascher, and David A. Holway. 2021. “Joint Impacts of Drought and Habitat Fragmentation on Native Bee Assemblages in a California Biodiversity Hotspot.” Insects 12 (2). https://doi.org/10.3390/insects12020135. Larkin, Leah Laperle. 2004. “Four New Fall Species of Andrena from the Southwestern United States (Hymenoptera: Andrenidae).” Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 77 (3): 254–68. Litt, Andrea R., and Robert J. Steidl. 2010. “Insect Assemblages Change along a Gradient of Invasion by a Nonnative Grass.” Biological Invasions 12 (10): 3449–63. Michener, Charles Duncan. 2007. The Bees of the World. Vol. 1. JHU Press. Minckley, Robert L. 2014. “Maintenance of Richness despite Reduced Abundance of Desert Bees (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) to Persistent Grazing.” Insect Conservation and Diversity / Royal Entomological Society of London 7 (3): 263–73. 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. Rogstad, Alix, Travis M. Bean, Aaryn Olsson, and Grant M. Casady. 2009. “Fire and Invasive Species Management in Hot Deserts: Resources, Strategies, Tactics, and Response.” Rangelands 31 (3): 6–13. Schussman, Heather, Erika Geiger, Theresa Mau-Crimmins, and Judy Ward. 2006. “Spread and Current Potential Distribution of an Alien Grass, Eragrostis Lehmanniana Nees, in the Southwestern USA: Comparing Historical Data and Ecological Niche Models.” Diversity & Distributions 12 (5): 582–92. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Cropland Data Layer. {YEAR}. Published crop-specific data layer [Online]. Available at https://nassgeodata.gmu.edu/CropScape/ (accessed {DATE}; verified {DATE}). USDA-NASS, Washington, DC. 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. Wilson Rankin, Erin E., Sarah K. Barney, and Giselle E. Lozano. 2020. “Reduced Water Negatively Impacts Social Bee Survival and Productivity Via Shifts in Floral Nutrition.” Journal of Insect Science 20 (5). https://doi.org/10.1093/jisesa/ieaa114. 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.