Quantifying bee assemblages and attractiveness of flowering woody landscape plants for urban pollinator conservation

Aphid infestations reduce monarch butterfly colonization, herbivory, and growth on ornamental milkweed

Anthropogenic disturbance is driving global biodiversity loss, including the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), a dietary specialist of milkweed. In response, ornamental milkweed plantings are increasingly common in urbanized landscapes, and recent evidence indicates they have conservation value for monarch butterflies. Unfortunately, sap-feeding insect herbivores, including the oleander aphid (Aphis nerii), frequently reach high densities on plants in nursery settings and urbanized landscapes. Aphid-infested milkweed may inhibit monarch conservation efforts by reducing host plant quality and inducing plant defenses. To test this, we evaluated the effects of oleander aphid infestation on monarch oviposition, larval performance, and plant traits using tropical milkweed (Asclepias curassavica), the most common commercially available milkweed species in the southern U.S. We quantified monarch oviposition preference, larval herbivory, larval weight, and plant characteristics on aphid-free and aphid-infested milkweed. Monarch butterflies deposited three times more eggs on aphid-free versus aphid-infested milkweed. Similarly, larvae fed aphid-free milkweed consumed and weighed twice as much as larvae fed aphid-infested milkweed. Aphid-free milkweed had higher total dry leaf biomass and nitrogen content than aphid-infested milkweed. Our results indicate that oleander aphid infestations can have indirect negative impacts on urban monarch conservation efforts and highlight the need for effective Lepidoptera-friendly integrated pest management tactics for ornamental plants.

Variation in pollinator visitation among garden cultivars of marigold, portulaca, and bidens

Due to declines in pollinator populations, many people are now interested in learning about which annual flowers they can plant in their garden to better support pollinators. However, reports of experimental evaluation of cultivars of annual flowers for attraction to pollinators are scarce. We sampled pollinators visiting six cultivars of marigold (Tagetes erecta and T. patula), ten cultivars of bidens (Bidens ferulifolia and B. aurea), and eight cultivars of portulaca (Portulaca oleracea and P. grandiflora) for two years to compare pollinator visitation rates among cultivars within each flower type. Pollinators collected on flowers in research plots were categorized into four groups, honey bees (Apis mellifera), common eastern bumble bees (Bombus impatiens), wild bees, and syrphids, to show the proportion of different pollinator visitors to each cultivar. Pollinator visitation rates varied significantly among cultivars of marigold, bidens, and portulaca, with some cultivars having as much as 10-fold the visitation rate of other cultivars of the same flower type. In the second year we also evaluated nectar production and nectar quality of the most and least visited cultivars of portulaca and bidens. Our results show that pollinators have a strong preference for cultivars that produce the most nectar or nectar with the highest sugar content. This research will better inform entomologists, growers, educators, and plant breeders, about which cultivars of marigold, portulaca, and bidens are visited the most by pollinators, and how to accurately determine this at the cultivar level.

Contribution of Home Gardens to Sustainable Development: Perspectives from A Supported Opinion Essay

Home gardening has a long history that started when humans became sedentary, being traditionally considered an accessible source of food and medicinal plants to treat common illnesses. With trends towards urbanization and industrialization, particularly in the post-World War II period, the importance of home gardens as important spaces for growing food and medicinal plants reduced and they began to be increasingly seen as decorative and leisure spaces. However, the growing awareness of the negative impacts of agricultural intensification and urbanization for human health, food quality, ecosystem resilience, and biodiversity conservation motivated the emergence of new approaches concerning home gardens. Societies began to question the potential of nearby green infrastructures to human wellbeing, food provisioning, and the conservation of traditional varieties, as well as providers of important services, such as ecological corridors for wild species and carbon sinks. In this context. and to foster adaptive and resilient social-ecological systems, our supported viewpoint intends to be more than an exhaustive set of perceptions, but a reflection of ideas about the important contribution of home gardens to sustainable development. We envision these humble spaces strengthening social and ecological components, by providing a set of diversified and intermingled goods and services for an increasingly urban population.

Where Does Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Pollen Come from? A Study of Pollen Collected from Colonies at Ornamental Plant Nurseries

Ornamental nursery plants are both a major agricultural industry in the U.S. and a major feature of the urban and suburban landscape. Interest in their relationship with pollinators is two-fold: the extent to which they provide a nutritional benefit to pollinators, and the extent to which they have the potential to harm pollinators by exposing them to pesticide residues in nectar and pollen. We identified plant genera as sources of trapped pollen collected by honey bee colonies located at commercial ornamental plant nurseries in Connecticut in 2015 and 2018 and quantified the percentage of pollen volume collected from each genus for each weekly sample over two seasons. Plant genera grown at these nurseries, particularly Rosa, Rhus, and Ilex, contributed substantially to pollen volume during weeks 23-27 of the year. Among the genera not grown in nurseries, Toxicodendron was also important during weeks 23 and 24, and Trifolium was important in both frequency and quantity throughout the season. Zea was a major component of pollen volume from weeks 28-36 in both sites, even though cropland was not over 11% of land cover at either site.

Non-Native Non-Apis Bees Are More Abundant on Non-Native Versus Native Flowering Woody Landscape Plants

Simple Summary

Bees and other pollinators play a vital role in food production and natural ecosystems. Native bee populations are declining due in part to habitat loss. Individuals can help bees by landscaping with plants that provide pollen and nectar. Most information on bee-friendly plants concerns herbaceous ornamentals, but flowering trees and shrubs, too, can provide food for urban bees. Conservation organizations recommend landscaping mainly with native plants to support native bees, but some studies suggest that including some non-invasive non-native plants that bloom earlier or later than native plants can help support bees when resources from native plants are scarce. That strategy might backfire, however, if such plants disproportionately host invasive bee species. This study tested that hypothesis by identifying all non-native bees among 11,275 bees previously collected from 45 species of flowering woody plants across hundreds of urban sites. Besides the ubiquitous honey bee, six other non-native bee species comprised 2.9% of the total collection. Two alien species considered to have invasive tendencies by outcompeting native bees were more abundant on non-native plants. Planting their favored hosts might facilitate those bees’ spread in urban areas. Pros and cons of non-native woody landscape plants for urban bee conservation warrant further study.

Abstract

Urban ecosystems can support diverse communities of wild native bees. Because bloom times are conserved by geographic origin, incorporating some non-invasive non-native plants in urban landscapes can extend the flowering season and help support bees and other pollinators during periods when floral resources from native plants are limiting. A caveat, though, is the possibility that non-native plants might disproportionately host non-native, potentially invasive bee species. We tested that hypothesis by identifying all non-native bees among 11,275 total bees previously collected from 45 species of flowering woody landscape plants across 213 urban sites. Honey bees, Apis mellifera L., accounted for 22% of the total bees and 88.6% of the non-native bees in the collections. Six other non-native bee species, accounting for 2.86% of the total, were found on 16 non-native and 11 native woody plant species. Non-Apis non-native bees in total, and Osmia taurus Smith and Megachile sculpturalis (Smith), the two most abundant species, were significantly more abundant on non-native versus native plants. Planting of favored non-native hosts could potentially facilitate establishment and spread of non-Apis non-native bees in urban areas. Our host records may be useful for tracking those bees’ distribution in their introduced geographical ranges.

Effects of urban greenspace configuration and native vegetation on bee and wasp reproduction

Pollinator welfare is a recognized research and policy target, and urban greenspaces have been identified as important habitats. Yet, landscape-scale habitat fragmentation and greenspace management practices may limit a city's conservation potential. We examined how landscape configuration, composition, and local patch quality influenced insect nesting success across inner-city Cleveland, Ohio (U.S.A.), a postindustrial legacy city containing a high abundance of vacant land (over 1600 ha). Here, 40 vacant lots were assigned 1 of 5 habitat treatments (T1, vacant lot; T2, grass lawn; T3, flowering lawn; T4, grass prairie; and T5, flowering prairie), and we evaluated how seeded vegetation, greenspace size, and landscape connectivity influenced cavity-nesting bee and wasp reproduction. Native bee and wasp larvae were more abundant in landscapes that contained a large patch (i.e., >6 ha) of contiguous greenspace, in habitats with low plant biomass, and in vacant lots seeded with a native wildflower seed mix or with fine-fescue grass, suggesting that fitness was influenced by urban landscape features and habitat management. Our results can guide urban planning by demonstrating that actions that maintain large contiguous greenspace in the landscape and establish native plants would support the conservation of bees and wasps. Moreover, our study highlights that the world's estimated 350 legacy cities are promising urban conservation targets due to their high abundance of vacant greenspace that could accommodate taxa's habitat needs in urban areas.

Herbaceous perennial ornamental plants can support complex pollinator communities

Human-designed landscapes can host diverse pollinator communities, and the availability of floral resources is central to supporting insect biodiversity in highly modified environments. However, some urban landscapes have relatively few pollinator-attractive plant species and management in urban environments rarely considers the function of these plants in generating and supporting a stable ecological community. Evaluations of 25 cultivars within five commercially popular herbaceous perennial ornamental plant genera (Agastache, Echinacea, Nepeta, Rudbeckia, and Salvia) revealed variation in the total and proportional abundance of visitors attracted. These varieties supported multiple pollinator functional groups, however bees were the primary visitors to in this system. Cultivars were assessed according to their function within a plant–pollinator network. Comparisons of artificial networks created with the six most attractive and six least attractive cultivars demonstrated that a planting scheme using the most attractive cultivars would attract nearly four times as many bee species, including several specialists and rare species. Plant diversity in the landscape was correlated with abundance and diversity of pollinator visitors, demonstrating that community context shapes a plant’s relative attractiveness to pollinators. We conclude that herbaceous perennial cultivars can support an abundance and diversity of pollinator visitors, however, planting schemes should take into consideration the effects of cultivar, landscape plant diversity, floral phenology, floral area, and contribution to a stable ecological community.

Supporting Bees in Cities: How Bees Are Influenced by Local and Landscape Features

Simple Summary

Cities are complex ecosystems that, while generally contributing to an overall reduction in biodiversity, can support surprisingly unique communities of organisms including bees. Bees are both ecologically and economically essential, therefore preserving and conserving these insects represents a significant challenge as cities continue to expand and diminish surrounding landscapes. Some attempts to support bees in cities have included establishing and improving urban green spaces. Exactly how bees and, to a lesser extent, other pollinators respond to these green spaces in addition to other urban landscape and local features, however, remains incompletely understood. Therefore, this review summarizes the current literature and generalizable trends in pollinator response to urban landscape and local features. While some functional traits or characteristics of bees such as dietary breadth and nesting strategy are more conclusively understood and supported, other characteristics such as sociality remain less generalizable. Lack of knowledge on bee responses to city features is in part due to the individual variation exhibited across different groups and species. To promote greater biodiversity in urban spaces, research should focus on specific responses to urban local and landscape features and how green spaces can be optimized for sustainable bee conservation.

Abstract

Urbanization is a major anthropogenic driver of decline for ecologically and economically important taxa including bees. Despite their generally negative impact on pollinators, cities can display a surprising degree of biodiversity compared to other landscapes. The pollinating communities found within these environments, however, tend to be filtered by interacting local and landscape features that comprise the urban matrix. Landscape and local features exert variable influence on pollinators within and across taxa, which ultimately affects community composition in such a way that contributes to functional trait homogenization and reduced phylogenetic diversity. Although previous results are not easily generalizable, bees and pollinators displaying functional trait characteristics such as polylectic diet, cavity-nesting behavior, and later emergence appear most abundant across different examined cities. To preserve particularly vulnerable species, most notably specialists that have become underrepresented within city communities, green spaces like parks and urban gardens have been examined as potential refuges. Such spaces are scattered across the urban matrix and vary in pollinator resource availability. Therefore, ensuring such spaces are optimized for pollinators is imperative. This review examines how urban features affect pollinators in addition to ways these green spaces can be manipulated to promote greater pollinator abundance and diversity.

Evaluation of the importance of ornamental plants for pollinators in urban and suburban areas in Stuttgart, Germany

Urban landscapes are often characterized by a wide range of diverse flowering plants consisting of native and exotic plants. These flower-rich habitats have proven to be particularly valuable for urban pollinating insects. However, the ability of ornamental plants in supporting urban pollinator communities is still not well documented. For this study, we established flower beds at 13 different urban testing sites, which were planted with identical sets of ornamental garden plants. The pollinator visitation patterns were then observed throughout the summer seasons. Over a two-year period, a total of 10,565 pollinators were recorded with wild bees (> 50%, excluding bumblebees) being the most abundant pollinator group. Our results revealed that (I) the assortment of ornamental plants was visited by a high number of urban pollinators for collecting pollen and nectar, and (II) the pollinator abundance and composition varied significantly within the tested ornamental plants. These differences occurred not only among plant species but to the same extent among cultivars, whereby the number of pollinators was positively correlated with number of flowering units per plant. By using a generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and redundancy analysis (RDA) we identified further significant impacts of the two variables year and location on the insect pollinator abundance and richness. Despite of the local and yearly variations, our approach provided a good and field-applicable method to evaluate the pollinator friendliness in ornamental plants. Such tools are urgently required to validate labels like ‘bee friendly’ or ‘pollinator friendly’ used by plant breeding companies.

Butterfly richness and abundance along a gradient of imperviousness and the importance of matrix quality

Heterogeneity in quantity and quality of resources provided in the urban matrix may mitigate adverse effects of urbanization intensity on the structure of biotic communities. To assess this we quantified the spatial variation in butterfly richness and abundance along an impervious surface gradient using three measures of urban matrix quality: floral resource availability and origin (native vs. exotic plants), tree cover, and the occurrence of remnant habitat patches. Butterfly richness and abundance were surveyed in 100 cells (500 × 500 m), selected using a random-stratified sampling design, across a continuous gradient of imperviousness in Melbourne, Australia. Sampling occurred twice during the butterfly flight season. Occurrence data were analyzed using generalized linear models at local and mesoscales. Despite high sampling completeness, we did not detect 75% of species from the regional species pool in the urban area, suggesting that urbanization has caused a large proportion of the region's butterflies to become absent or extremely rare within Melbourne's metro-area. Those species that do remain are largely very generalist in their choice of larval host plants. Butterfly species richness and abundance declined with increasing impervious surface cover and, contrary to evidence for other taxa, there was no evidence that richness peaked at intermediate levels of urbanization. Declines in abundance appeared to be more noticeable when impervious surface cover exceeded 25%, while richness declined linearly with increasing impervious surface cover. We find evidence that the quality of the urban matrix (floral resources and remnant vegetation) influenced butterfly richness and abundance although the effects were small. Total butterfly abundance responded negatively to exotic floral abundance early in the sampling season and positively to total floral abundance later in the sampling season. Butterfly species richness increased with tree cover. Negative impacts of increased urbanization intensity on butterfly species richness and abundance may be mitigated to some extent by improving the quality of the urban matrix by enhancing tree cover and the provision of floral resources, with some evidence that native plants are more effective.

Suitability of native milkweed (Asclepias) species versus cultivars for supporting monarch butterflies and bees in urban gardens

Public interest in ecological landscaping and gardening is fueling a robust market for native plants. Most plants available to consumers through the horticulture trade are cultivated forms that have been selected for modified flowers or foliage, compactness, or other ornamental characteristics. Depending on their traits, some native plant cultivars seem to support pollinators, specialist insect folivores, and insect-based vertebrate food webs as effectively as native plant species, whereas others do not. There is particular need for information on whether native cultivars can be as effective as true or “wild-type” native species for supporting specialist native insects of conservation concern. Herein we compared the suitability of native milkweed species and their cultivars for attracting and supporting one such insect, the iconic monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus L.), as well as native bees in urban pollinator gardens. Wild-type Asclepias incarnata L. (swamp milkweed) and Asclepias tuberosa L. (butterfly milkweed) and three additional cultivars of each that vary in stature, floral display, and foliage color were grown in a replicated common garden experiment at a public arboretum. We monitored the plants for colonization by wild monarchs, assessed their suitability for supporting monarch larvae in greenhouse trials, measured their defensive characteristics (leaf trichome density, latex, and cardenolide levels), and compared the proportionate abundance and diversity of bee families and genera visiting their blooms. Significantly more monarch eggs and larvae were found on A. incarnata than A. tuberosa in both years, but within each milkweed group, cultivars were colonized to the same extent as wild types. Despite some differences in defense allocation, all cultivars were as suitable as wild-type milkweeds in supporting monarch larval growth. Five bee families and 17 genera were represented amongst the 2,436 total bees sampled from blooms of wild-type milkweeds and their cultivars in the replicated gardens. Bee assemblages of A. incarnata were dominated by Apidae (Bombus, Xylocopa spp., and Apis mellifera), whereas A. tuberosa attracted relatively more Halictidae (especially Lasioglossum spp.) and Megachilidae. Proportionate abundance of bee families and genera was generally similar for cultivars and their respective wild types. This study suggests that, at least in small urban gardens, milkweed cultivars can be as suitable as their parental species for supporting monarch butterflies and native bees.

Plant Origin and Other Attributes Impact Bee Forage Patterns in a Common Garden Study in Maine, United States; Part II

In a common garden study in Maine from 2012 to 2015, we used two bee species (Apis mellifera L. and Bombus ternarius Say (1837)) and three field-recognizable bee categories ('Most Bombus', 'Halictidae', and 'Other Bees') plus an 'All Bees' data aggregation to compare 17 native and 68 introduced plant taxa. Data were from three 1-min timed periods per flowering plant taxon on a given day at a site. We observed 17,792 bees and found that their response varied by bee species or group. Using mixed models to analyze our data, we found that native bees had higher visitation rates on native plants, while A. mellifera visited both native and introduced plants. Most groups visited native late-flowering and native mid-late-flowering plants at higher rates. 'All Bees' were attracted to native perennials (vs annuals and shrubs) and to tall plants, both native and introduced; A. mellifera was attracted to introduced perennials, to introduced tall plants, and to lower-growing native plants. Asclepias tuberosa L. elicited a strong response from B. ternarius. In only two of six pairs of wild types and cultivars, bees visited wild types more. Plants with long bloom periods and with small, densely arranged white flowers attracted higher bee visitation than did other configurations (e.g., Origanum vulgare L., one of our most attractive taxa). A general linear model showed that linear combinations of flower density, floral resource height, flower corolla depth, and flowering duration explained significant variation in visitation rates for each of the different bee taxa groups.

Opportunities and threats for pollinator conservation in global towns and cities

Urban expansion is considered to be one of the main threats to global biodiversity yet some pollinator groups, particularly bees, can do well in urban areas. Recent studies indicate that both local and landscape-level drivers can influence urban pollinator communities, with local floral resources and the amount of impervious cover in the landscape affecting pollinator abundance, richness and community composition. Urban intensification, chemicals, climate change and increased honey bee colony densities all negatively affect urban pollinators. Maintaining good areas of habitat for pollinators, such as those found in allotments (community gardens) and domestic gardens, and improving management approaches in urban greenspace and highly urbanised areas (e.g. by increasing floral resources and nesting sites) will benefit pollinator conservation. Opportunities for pollinator conservation exist via multiple stakeholders including policymakers, urban residents, urban planners and landscape architects.

More Than Meets the Eye? The Role of Annual Ornamental Flowers in Supporting Pollinators

Ornamental flowers are commonly planted in urban and suburban areas to provide foraging resources for pollinator populations. However, their role in supporting broad pollinator biodiversity is not well established as previous studies have been conducted in urban landscapes with pollinator communities that are distinct from those in natural systems. We observed pollinator visitation patterns to five ornamental annual plant genera and their cultivars over multiple years at two semi-natural sites in Pennsylvania to understand their potential for supporting diverse pollinator communities. There was significant variation in visitor abundance and diversity by season and year for many annual ornamental cultivars. Within some genera, cultivars had similar visitor abundance, diversity, and main visitor taxa, while cultivars in other genera varied greatly in these measures. We observed only polylectic (pollen generalist) bee species visiting annual ornamentals, despite the presence of oligolectic (pollen specialist) bee species in the background population. We conclude that the attractiveness of annual ornamental plants likely depends on both cultivar characteristics and environmental context. While their role in supporting complex pollinator populations is limited both based on the number of and dietary breadth of the species they support, ornamental plants may nonetheless provide long-lasting supplemental foraging resources for the generalist pollinator communities characteristic of urban and suburban environments.

A screening-level assessment of the pollinator-attractiveness of ornamental nursery stock using a honey bee foraging assay

In urban and suburban landscapes characterized by extensive designed greenspaces, the support of pollinator communities hinges significantly on floral resources provided by ornamental plants. The attractiveness of ornamental plants to pollinators, however, cannot be presumed, and some studies suggest that a majority of ornamental plant varieties receive little or no pollinator visitation. Here, we harness the sampling power of the western honey bee, a generalist pollinator whose diet breadth overlaps substantially with that of other pollinators, to survey the utilization of ornamental plants grown at three commercial nurseries in Connecticut, USA. Using a combination of DNA metabarcoding and microscopy, we identify, to genus-level, pollen samples from honey bee colonies placed within each nursery, and we compare our results with nursery plant inventories to identify the subset of cultivated genera that were visited during pollen foraging. Samples were collected weekly from May to September, encompassing the majority of the growing season. Our findings show that some plant genera known to be cultivated as ornamentals in our system, particularly ornamental trees and shrubs (e.g. Hydrangea, Rosa, Spiraea, Syringa, Viburnum), functioned as major pollen sources, but the majority of plants inventoried at our nurseries provided little or no pollen to honey bees. These results are in agreement with a growing body of literature highlighting the special importance of woody plants as resources for flower-visiting insects. We encourage further exploration of the genera highlighted in our data as potential components of pollinator-friendly ornamental greenspace.

The effects of urbanization on bee communities depends on floral resource availability and bee functional traits

Wild bees are important pollinators in many ecosystems threatened by anthropogenic disturbance. Urban development can reduce and degrade natural habitat for bees and other pollinators. However, some researchers suggest that cities could also provide refuge for bees, given that agricultural intensification may pose a greater risk. In this study, we surveyed bee communities at 15 farms and gardens across an urban-rural gradient in southeastern Michigan, USA to evaluate the effect of urbanization on bees. We examined how floral resources, bee functional traits, temperature, farm size, and the spatial scale of analysis influence bee response to urbanization. We found that urbanization positively affected bee diversity and evenness but had no effect on total abundance or species richness. Additionally, urbanization altered bee community composition via differential effects on bee species and functional groups. More urbanized sites supported a greater number of exotic, above-ground nesting, and solitary bees, but fewer eusocial bees. Blooming plant species richness positively influenced bee species diversity and richness. Furthermore, the amount of available floral resources was positively associated with exotic and eusocial bee abundances. Across sites, nearly 70% of floral resources were provided by exotic plants, most of which are characterized as weedy but not invasive. Our study demonstrates that urbanization can benefit some bee species and negatively impact others. Notably, Bombus and Lasioglossum (Dialictus), were two important pollinator groups negatively affected by urbanization. Our study supports the idea that urban environments can provide valuable habitat for diverse bee communities, but demonstrates that some bees are vulnerable to urbanization. Finally, while our results indicate that increasing the abundance and richness of floral resources could partially compensate for negative effects of urbanization on bees, the effectiveness of such measures may be limited by other factors, such as urban warming.

Screening Drought-Tolerant Native Plants for Attractiveness to Arthropod Natural Enemies in the U.S. Great Lakes Region

Arthropods provide a variety of critical ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes; however, agricultural intensification can reduce insect abundance and diversity. Designing and managing habitats to enhance beneficial insects requires the identification of effective insectary plants that attract natural enemies and provide floral resources. We tested the attractiveness of 54 plant species with tolerance to dry soils, contrasting perennial forbs and shrubs native to the Great Lakes region to selected non-native species in three common garden experiments in Michigan during 2015-2016. Overall, we found 32 species that attracted significantly more natural enemies than associated controls. Among these, Achillea millefolium and Solidago juncea were consistently among the most attractive plants at all three sites, followed by Solidago speciosa, Coreopsis tripteris, Solidago nemoralis, Pycnanthemum pilosum, and Symphyotrichum oolantangiense. Species which attracted significantly more natural enemies at two sites included: Asclepias syriaca, Asclepias tuberosa, Monarda fistulosa, Oligoneuron rigidum, Pycnanthemum virginianum, Dasiphora fruticosa, Ratibida pinnata, Asclepias verticillata, Monarda punctata, Echinacea purpurea, Helianthus occidentalis, Silphium integrifolium, Silphium terebinthinaceum, Helianthus strumosus, and Symphyotrichum sericeum. Two non-native species, Lotus corniculatus, and Centaurea stoebe, were also attractive at multiple sites but less so than co-blooming native species. Parasitic Hymenoptera were the most abundant natural enemies, followed by predatory Coleoptera and Hemiptera, while Hemiptera (Aphidae, Miridae, and Tingidae) were the most abundant herbivores. Collectively, these plant species can provide floral resources over the entire growing season and should be considered as potential insectary plants in future habitat management efforts.

Vegetation communities on commercial developments are heterogenous and determined by development and landscaping decisions, not socioeconomics

In urban ecosystems, woody vegetation communities and the ecosystem functions and habitat they provide are largely controlled by humans. These communities are assembled during development, landscaping, and maintenance processes according to decisions made by human actors. While vegetation communities on residential land uses are increasingly well studied, these efforts generally have not extended to other land uses, including commercial property. To fill this gap, I surveyed tree and shrub communities on office developments located in Redmond and Bellevue, Washington, USA, and explored whether aggregated neighborhood and parcel scale socio-economic variables or variables describing the outcome of development and landscaping actions better explained variation in vegetation communities. I found that both tree and shrub communities on office developments are heterogenous, with sites characterized by native or ornamental vegetation. The heterogeneity I observed in vegetation communities within one land use suggests that different ecosystem functions, habitat quality, and habitat quantities are provided on office developments. Greater provision of e.g. native conifer habitat is possible using currently existing developments as models. Additionally, the outcome of development and landscaping decisions explained more variation in community composition than the socio-economic factors found significant on residential property. Together with previous research showing that residential property owner attitudes and actions are more important than socio-economic descriptors, my results suggest that individual motivators, including intended audience, may be the primary determinant of urban vegetation communities. Future urban ecology research should consider sampling the vegetation gradient within land uses, better understanding individual motivation for vegetation management, and creating models of the urban ecosystems that account for alternate decision pathways on different land uses.