Andrena forbesii

Justification:
Forbes’ Miner is a solitary bee known from over 2,600 observations. It occurs across most of the United States and southern Canada, but is most abundant in the Midwest United States and east to the Atlantic Ocean. Using all observations of the species the extent of occurrence is 8,895,208 km2. The species is a dietary generalist, using pollen from a wide range of plant families to provision nests for offspring. It shows an apparent preference for plants in the families Rosaceae and Salicaceae. The species occurs in deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, shrublands, agricultural areas and orchards, and urban areas. Across the range of the species, impacts from climate change, habitat degradation and loss, and exposure to pesticides have been observed. These threats may be acting on the species at local levels. More information is needed to determine a population trend for this species, and the degree to which threats are acting on the population. Rank Sentence

Food habits comment: Forbes’ Miner is a dietary generalist, and collects pollen from specific wide variety of plants including from the families Rosaceae, Salicaceae, Brassicaceae, Apiaceae, Fabaceae, Asteraceae, Ranunculaceae, and Ericaceae, among others. It may exhibit a preference for plants in the families Rosaceae and Salicaceae (LaBerge 1973). Habitat comment: This species has been recorded in deciduous and evergreen forest, shrublands, orchards and other agricultural areas, and urban areas between -3 and 3,006 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 March through August, with most records from April through June (Chesshire et al. 2023; LaBerge 1973). Adults are assumed to emerge annually (Danforth et al. 2019).

Threat comments: Specific threats to this species have not been identified. Certain aspects of this species' biology may make it more vulnerable to some threats. Andrena forbesii 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). 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 7. Natural system modifications -> 7.1. Fire & fire suppression -> 7.1.1.Increase in fire frequency/intensity 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 Conservation needs No known conservation actions are in place for this species. Protected/Managed area comment: Observations of this species are known from Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and US Forest Service land. 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): 6-24-2025 Assessors names (use * to indicate primary assessor, typically the participant with most experience/knowledge of the species): Reviewer(s): Contributors(s): Faye Benjamin, Bethanne Bruninga-Socolar, Tina Harrison, Molly MacLeod, Michael Roswell, Rachael Winfree. 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: Rank/Criteria Justification: Forbes’ Miner is a solitary bee known from over 2,600 observations. It occurs across most of the United States and southern Canada, but is most abundant in the Midwest United States and east to the Atlantic Ocean. Using all observations of the species the extent of occurrence is 8,895,208 km2. The species is a dietary generalist, using pollen from a wide range of plant families to provision nests for offspring. It shows an apparent preference for plants in the families Rosaceae and Salicaceae. The species occurs in deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, shrublands, agricultural areas and orchards, and urban areas. Across the range of the species, impacts from climate change, habitat degradation and loss, and exposure to pesticides have been observed. These threats may be acting on the species at local levels. More information is needed to determine a population trend for this species, and the degree to which threats are acting on the population. Rank Sentence Rank reasons This species is a solitary bee that occurs across most of the United States and southern Canada. Using all verified records of the species, the range extent is 8,895,208 km2. This species occurs in deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests, shrublands, agricultural areas and orchards, and urban areas. The species is a dietary generalist, using pollen from a wide range of plant families to provision nests for offspring. It shows an apparent preference for plants in the families Rosaceae and Salicaceae.Across the range of the species, impacts from climate change, pesticide exposure, and habitat loss and degradation have been observed. These threats may be acting on the species at local levels. Number of localities, specific threats, projected decline. Therefore, this species is likely/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): 159 (D) 1. Estimated Number of Element Occurrences Comments: Using all records from the last 30 years (since 1995), this species is known from approximately 160 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: A. Broad. Generalist or community with all key requirements common. 1. Environmental specificity comments: This species is a dietary generalist, using pollen from a broad range of plants. It may have specific environmental requirements that we don’t yet understand. 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-Hardwood, Forest-Conifer, Forest-Mixed, Shrubland/chaparral, Cropland/Hedgerow, Suburban/Orchard, Urban/edificarian 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 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. 1973. “A Revision of the Bees of the Genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere. Part VI. Subgenus Trachandrena.” Transactions of the American Entomological Society 99 (3): 235–371. Michener, Charles Duncan. 2007. The Bees of the World. Vol. 1. JHU Press. 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. 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. 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.

Conservation needs No known conservation actions are in place for this species. Protected/Managed area comment: Observations of this species are known from Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and US Forest Service land. 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.

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.

Western specimens of this species show some variation in tarsi and hind tibiae color, which is hypothesized to be a result of hybridization with Andrena hippotes. If these specimens are considered a separate species, they would be named Andrena lincolni (LaBerge 1973).