Urban plants and the design and maintenance of urban landscapes play a critical role in pollinator conservation and the preservation of essential ecosystem services. Effective conservation decisions and planning require careful assessment of the consequences of land use change, and the effects of local and landscape scale factors on bees, butterflies, flies, and other pollinators. Understanding and not under-estimating the needs of the various pollinator functional guilds to inform conservation strategies are critical to success. Research indicates that diverse pollinator assemblages can be enhanced and conserved in urban areas through local and landscape scale efforts. Education and communication are key elements needed to engage policy makers to move conservation forward at the accelerated pace required to address current (rapid urbanization) and impending (climate change and invasive species) challenges. Conservation and protection of urban pollinators and the ecosystem services that they provide require that we move from reactive to proactive activities that tie together regional efforts. Citizen science initiatives can be effective ways to communicate essential information, garner public support, and acquire valuable data concerning pollinators in a cost-effective manner. Improving our knowledge of bee life history, phenology, and nesting sites is essential. Understanding the role and lifecycles of lesser-known pollinators like flies (Diptera) and wasps (Hymenoptera) is vital while there is a critical need to expand our available taxonomic expertise. In this review, we discuss case studies integrating elements of pest and pollinator management through plant selection, landscape and recreational area design, and community engagement with the goal of pollinator conservation. Decision-making resources are included.

The American beekeeping industry continually experiences colony mortality with annual losses as high as 43%. A leading cause of this is the exotic, ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor Anderson & Trueman (Mesostigmata: Varroidae). Integrated Pest Management (IPM) options are used to keep mite populations from reaching lethal levels, however, due to resistance and/or the lack of suitable treatment options, novel controls for reducing mites are warranted. Oxalic acid for controlling V. destructor has become a popular treatment regimen among commercial and backyard beekeepers. Applying vaporized oxalic acid inside a honey bee hive is a legal application method in the U.S., and results in the death of exposed mites. However, if mites are in the reproductive stage and therefore under the protective wax capping, oxalic acid is ineffective. One popular method of applying oxalic is vaporizing multiple times over several weeks to try and circumvent the problem of mites hiding in brood cells. By comparing against control colonies, we tested oxalic acid vaporization in colonies treated with seven applications separated by 5 d (35 d total). We tested in apiaries in Georgia and Alabama during 2019 and 2020, totaling 99 colonies. We found that adult honey bees Linnaeus (Hymenoptera: Apidae), and developing brood experienced no adverse impacts from the oxalic vaporization regime. However, we did not find evidence that frequent periodic application of oxalic during brood-rearing periods is capable of bringing V. destructor populations below treatment thresholds.

The azalea lace bug, Stephanitis pyrioides (Scott) (Tingidae: Hempitera), is a major pest of azaleas (Rhododendron L. spp.). Since its introduction from Asia in the 1940s, the pest has spread considerably within and outside the US. It causes severe economic damage to azaleas and also attacks other ericaceous hosts. The widespread acceptance and cultivation of its preferred host plants, azaleas, in landscapes and home gardens prompted extensive research on S. pyrioides with respect to biology, damage and management. This review summarizes the work done on this pest and provides directions for future research.

The effect of taxa [common Bermuda grass, Cynodon dactylon (L.); centipedegrass, Eremochloa ophiuroides Munro Hack; St. Augustinegrass, Stenotaphrum

As urbanization continues throughout much of the world, there is great interest in better understanding the value of urban and residential environments to pollinators. We explored how landscape context affects the abundance and diversity of bees on 50 residential properties in northern Georgia, USA, primarily in and around Athens, GA. Over 2 years of pan trap sampling we collected 4938 bees representing 111 species, from 28 genera in five families, constituting 20% of the species reported for the state. Development correlated positively with bee diversity at small (< 2.5 square km) scales, and positively with six of eight individual bee species’ abundances. Agriculture often correlated positively with bee diversity at larger spatial scales (> 2.5 square km), and negatively at smaller spatial scales. Forest cover correlated negatively with bee diversity at small spatial scales, but positively at larger scales. This trend was also largely true for individual bee species abundances. Bee communities differed between sites by predominant land cover types (agriculture, forest and development). Simper and indicator species analysis revealed which species contributed heavily to the observed patterns and helped to determine group distinctions.Implications for insect conservation: Our results show that residential landscapes can support high bee diversity and that this diversity is sensitive to landscape context at different scales. Although development appears to have a negative effect on bee diversity overall, some bee species are favored by the open conditions characteristic of developed areas. Moreover, forest remnants appear to be valuable habitats for many species and are thus important to regional bee diversity. Urban planning that prioritizes and incorporates forest remnant conservation will promote bee abundance and diversity.