Andrena eremophila

Justification:
Andrena eremophila is a bee species that has been recorded from Kern County, California, United States. The species is known from only seven individuals and two localities, which are only 300 m apart. Because the species is only known from two localities it is not possible to calculate an extent of occurrence. The species has not been recorded since 1938. It is unclear if the species is extant. There is no available information about the habitat or ecology of this species. Its dietary and habitat preferences are unknown. This species, if still extant, may be threatened by impacts to bees generally, such as habitat loss and degradation, climate change, and exposure to pesticides. More information is needed to determine if this species is still extant, to better understand its life history, and threats that it faces. Because the species is known from so few observations and has no associated biological information, it is assessed as Data Deficient for now.

Food habits comment: There is no available habitat and ecology information for this species, thus its dietary breadth is not known. Habitat comment: The documented localities of this species are now urbanized. It may have been shrubland at the time of collection, and is located at 845 m in elevation. 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 (Chesshire et al. 2023). 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 eremophila 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 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: There are no observations of this species from any kind of protected land. All observations are from private land. 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): 4-15-2025 Assessors names (use * to indicate primary assessor, typically the participant with most experience/knowledge of the species): Saff Killingsworth 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: Data Deficient Justification: Andrena eremophila is a bee species that has been recorded from Kern County, California, United States. The species is known from only seven individuals and two localities, which are only 300 m apart. Because the species is only known from two localities it is not possible to calculate an extent of occurrence. The species has not been recorded since 1938. It is unclear if the species is extant. There is no available information about the habitat or ecology of this species. Its dietary and habitat preferences are unknown. This species, if still extant, may be threatened by impacts to bees generally, such as habitat loss and degradation, climate change, and exposure to pesticides. More information is needed to determine if this species is still extant, to better understand its life history, and threats that it faces. Because the species is known from so few observations and has no associated biological information, it is assessed as Data Deficient for now. Rank reasons This species is a solitary bee that has been recorded in Kern County, California, United States. It is only known from seven observations from two localities in close proximity to one another. Because this species is only known from two localities, it is not possible to calculate its range extent. It has not been recorded since 1938, and thus, it is not clear if the species is still extant. There is no available information about the habitat or ecology of this species. Its dietary and habitat preferences are unknown. This species, if still extant, may be threatened by impacts to bees generally, such as habitat loss and degradation, climate change, and exposure to pesticides. More information is needed to determine if this species is still extant, to better understand its life history, and threats that it faces. Because the species is known from so few observations and has no associated biological information it is not possible to rank this species 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): 0 1. Estimated Number of Element Occurrences Comments: Using all records from the last 30 years (since 1995), this species is known from zero occurrences using a 5 km separation distance. It has only been recorded from one element occurrence across all years. 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. Unknown 1. Environmental specificity comments: There is no available information about the habitat and ecology of this species, but it may have specific environmental needs that are not yet understood. 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 Unknown 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. 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. 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. 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. Thorp, Robbin W., and Wallace E. LaBerge. 2006. “A Revision of the Bees of the Genus Andrena of the Western Hemisphere: Part XV—Subgenus Hesperandrena.” Illinois Natural History Survey Bulletin 37 (1-6): 65–94. 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. 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. 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.

Conservation needs No known conservation actions are in place for this species. Protected/Managed area comment: There are no observations of this species from any kind of protected land. All observations are from private land. 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.

(a. any taxonomic concerns about the validity of the species? b. any taxonomic revisions underway that would require a species reassessment.