MAY 19, 2015

Report of the Pollinator Health Task Force

POLLINATOR R ESEARCH 

ACTION PLAN

★ i ★

May 19, 2015

On behalf of the Pollinator Health Task Force, we are pleased to transmit the National Strategy to Promote 

the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators (Strategy). Developed through a collaborative effort across 

the Executive Branch, this Strategy outlines a comprehensive approach to tackling and reducing the 

impact of multiple stressors on pollinator health, including pests and pathogens, reduced habitat, lack 

of nutritional resources, and exposure to pesticides. Building on the current state of the science, and 

with a renewed emphasis on expanding our understanding of the complex interactions among the 

various factors impacting pollinator health, the Strategy lays out current and planned Federal actions 

to achieve the following overarching goals:

• Honey Bees: Reduce honey bee colony losses during winter (overwintering mortality) to no 

more than 15% within 10 years. This goal is informed by the previously released Bee Informed 

Partnership surveys and the newly established quarterly and annual surveys by the USDA 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. Based on the robust data anticipated from the national, 

statistically-based NASS surveys of beekeepers, the Task Force will develop baseline data and 

additional goal metrics for winter, summer, and total annual colony loss.

• Monarch Butterflies: Increase the Eastern population of the monarch butterfly to 225 million butterflies occupying an area of approximately 15 acres (6 hectares) in the overwintering 

grounds in Mexico, through domestic/international actions and public-private partnerships, 

by 2020.

• Pollinator Habitat Acreage: Restore or enhance 7 million acres of land for pollinators over the 

next 5 years through Federal actions and public/private partnerships.

The Strategy addresses the four themes central to the June 2014 Presidential Memorandum “Creating 

a Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,” namely: conducting 

research to understand, prevent, and recover from pollinator losses; expanding public education 

programs and outreach; increasing and improving pollinator habitat; and developing public-private 

partnerships across all these activities. A critical component of the Strategy is to advance the science 

underpinning the government’s land management and regulatory decisions. To this end, the Task 

Force has prepared the accompanying “Pollinator Research Action Plan,” which outlines gaps in current 

knowledge of pollinators and pollinator declines, and identifies priority research efforts needed to close 

these gaps. 

The Strategy also advances ambitious Federal commitments to increase and improve habitat for pollinators, both directly through the large variety of facilities and acreages of land managed by the Federal 

government, and indirectly through the leadership role that Federal agencies can play in interactions 

with states, localities, the private sector, and citizens. These actions range from planting pollinator 

gardens and improving land management practices at Federal facilities, to advancing the availability 

and use of pollinator-friendly seed mixes in land management, restoration, and rehabilitation actions 

nationwide. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ ii

By expanding the conversation through enhanced public education and outreach, as well as stronglybuilt public/private partnerships, the Strategy seeks to engage all segments of our society so that, 

working together, we can take meaningful and important steps to reverse pollinator declines. 

Pollinators are critical to our Nation’s economy, food security, and environmental health. Honey bee 

pollination alone adds more than $15 billion in value to agricultural crops each year, and provides the 

backbone to ensuring our diets are plentiful with fruits, nuts, and vegetables. Through the actions discussed in this Strategy, and by working with partners across our country, we can and will help restore 

and sustain pollinator health nationwide.

Hon. Tom Vilsack 

Secretary of Agriculture 

Hon. Gina McCarthy

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
★ iii ★

Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Section I: Status and Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Key Priority Research Themes 13

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 18

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Section II: Habitat (Including Stressors) 22

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Key Priority Research Themes 22

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 26

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Section III: Nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Key Priority Research Themes 32

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 35

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Section IV: Pollinator Pathogens and Pests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Key Priority Research Themes 38

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 41

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ iv

Section V: Pesticides and Toxins 44

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Key Priority Research Themes 45

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 50

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Section VI: Genetics, Breeding, and Biology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Key Priority Research Themes 54

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 57

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Section VII: Native Plant Development and Deployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Key Priority Research Themes 61

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Research Gaps/Needs 63

Priority Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Section VIII: Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Key Priority Research Themes 70

Existing/Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions 74

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Section IX: Collections and Informatics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Introduction/Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Key Priority Research Themes 78
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ v ★

Current Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Agency Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Section X: From Research to Application: Models, Tools and Best Practices . . . . . . . . . . 83

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Current Decision Tools and Areas for Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Databases and Information-Sharing Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Information Dissemination 89

Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Research Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Research Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Data and Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Citizen Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Conclusion 96

Appendix A—Web Sites with Resources and Tools for Pollinator Health . . . . . . . . . . .A-2

Pollinator Health Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-2

Risk Management for Pesticides A-2

Best Management Practices for Beekeepers and Growers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A-2

Appendix B—Mattrix of Current Federal Pollintor Research A-4

Appendix C—Abbreviations Used in the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15

Agencies/Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16

Appendix D—Common and Scientific Names Used in Report A-17

References A-18
★ 1 ★

Executive Summary

Pollinator health is a crucial component of managed and natural landscapes. Thriving pollinator populations promote healthy food systems and healthy ecosystems. Recently, some pollinator populations 

have experienced notable declines, due to changes in habitat size and structure, pests and pathogens, 

pesticides and toxins present in the environment, and nutritional quality of forage, among other factors. 

The impacts of these factors individually and the interactions among them are not well understood. 

On June 20, 2014, President Obama issued the Presidential Memorandum “Creating a Federal Strategy to 

Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators,” establishing a Task Force to develop a Strategy 

to promote the health of honey bees and other pollinators. The Strategy has three overarching goals: 

to reduce honey bee losses, increase the Eastern population of the monarch butterfly, and restore or 

enhance 7 million acres of land for pollinator habitat. To achieve these goals through evidence-based 

decision-making, Federal agencies must work together and with government, university, and private 

sector partners, including international partners, to prioritize and address critical knowledge gaps in 

the influences on, and impacts of, pollinator health. The Pollinator Research Action Plan (Action Plan), a 

stand-alone component of the Strategy, is a roadmap for Federally-supported pollinator health research. 

The priorities in the Action Plan fall into five main action areas, covered in ten subject-specific chapters. 

These action areas are:

1. Setting a Baseline: Assessing the status of pollinator populations requires inventories to 

establish baseline conditions, with subsequent monitoring and longitudinal studies to detect 

deviations from the baseline, and causes of those deviations. Federal agencies will expand 

current surveys of beekeepers to include questions on management practices and hive losses, 

and will continue to support ongoing monitoring efforts of honey bee health. By developing 

appropriate monitoring and modeling approaches, we will increase our understanding of native 

managed bees that offer promising alternatives to honey bee pollination for some crops in 

some regions. Research will explore native managed pollinators’ impact on ecosystems, how 

the factors driving their population trends are the same as, or different from, the factors driving 

population trends of honey bees, and the economic impacts on crop pollination. 

Unmanaged native pollinators, representing thousands of species in North America alone, are 

the least understood group of pollinators. The first step to setting a baseline for native pollinators 

is proper identification. Federal agencies will devote resources to developing better genetic and 

taxonomic tools, and to training more taxonomic professionals. Research will assess population patterns, interactions with other native and non-native pollinator species, and habitat use. 

Federal agencies will also seek better understanding of the environmental stressors impacting 

habitat functionality, both now and under future climate and land-use change scenarios.

2. Assessing Environmental Stressors: Many individual environmental factors have the potential 

to impact pollinator populations. These impacts will vary by species and can be mitigated or 

exacerbated by co-occurring environmental factors. Agencies will not only examine these factors individually in controlled laboratory experiments, but will also explore how these factors 

interact with each other in real-world situations through longitudinal studies of pollinator health. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 2 ★

Pollinators are exposed to a variety of pests and pathogens, some well-known and some emerging. The movement of managed bees opens avenues for pest and disease transfer into and out 

of those colonies. Agencies will develop monitoring protocols for new and re-emerging diseases 

in managed and native pollinators. Agencies will work to identify new control methods for pests 

and pathogens that are safe and effective for managed bees. Additionally, research will explore 

the role that the microbiome plays in pest and pathogen resistance, and the potential to exploit 

the microbiome as a natural protectant in managed colonies.

Pollinators also come into contact with a wide variety of pesticides and agrochemicals applied 

with different methods, at different rates, and at different times of year. Agencies will develop 

proper assessment tools for evaluating the lethal and sublethal effects of these substances 

on managed and native pollinators. Research will assess field-level exposure of pollinators to 

pesticides, the routes of exposure, the internal fate of agrochemicals, and the impacts of field 

levels of exposure on pollinator health.

Adequate nutrition has the potential to make pollinators more resilient to other stressors, 

including agrochemicals, pests, and pathogens. Future research will identify the key elements 

of proper nutrition for managed native bees and honey bees, and put them in the context of 

geography and time of year. Additionally, research will explore the role of the microbiome in 

proper nutrition. 

3. Restoring Habitat: Pollinator populations depend directly on plant populations for nutrition, 

and, in turn, plants depend on pollinators for reproduction. There is much more to learn about 

the relationships between plants and their pollinators. Research will focus on understanding 

the spatial and temporal relationships between plants and their pollinators, and identifying 

habitat with the highest potential for pollinator benefits through restoration. Agencies will use 

this information to develop locally-adapted species mixes that provide adequate resources 

for pollinators throughout the year (both now and under future climate scenarios) and design 

techniques for collecting, processing, storing, and germinating these species on scales relevant 

to restoration. Lastly, agencies will research how to effectively establish these mixes in a way 

that is affordable in the short term and self-sustaining in the long term. 

4. Understanding and Supporting Stakeholders: The choices that land managers and beekeepers make depend on a complex web of cultural and economic values. Research will explore the 

costs and benefits to land managers and the public of adopting pollinator-friendly practices, 

such as the use of buffer zones and tailored forage seed mixes. Bioeconomic models will be 

developed to link beekeeper survey data on colony numbers and overwintering survival to 

hive management practices and forage availability. Advances in our understanding of pollinator health and the social and economic factors influencing beekeepers and land managers will 

allow us to improve current decision-support tools and best management practices, as well as 

develop needed new resources and guidance. 

5. Curating and Sharing Knowledge: Long-term monitoring and sound research require an 

extensive and well-curated knowledge base. This includes traditional data from individual 

specimens verified with their taxonomic and geographic data, as well as data from emerging 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 3

technologies such as whole-genome sequencing. Priority actions include identifying and using 

existing infrastructure, tools, and expertise to digitize, standardize, and share Federal pollinator 

and associated plant-collection data. To support quality data collection of traditional plant and 

pollinator specimens, as well as genetic material, best practices will be developed for specimen 

identification and confirmation, as well as associated electronic data. Coordinated collection 

efforts among Federal agencies and non-Federal partners will expedite efforts and conserve 

resources required to catalog pollinator species and their relationships with plant species.

Together, these five action areas represent the bodies of knowledge currently understood to be most 

critical to the recovery of pollinator populations in the United States and globally. The proposed research 

is built on a solid foundation of existing data from Federal agencies, as well as academic institutions. Task 

Force agencies will use emerging research findings to inform other actions in the Strategy and update 

goals and metrics as necessary, such as updates to best management practices for lands. Timelines for 

these activities are included in the Action Plan. Agencies will support Action Plan activities through 

prioritization and coordination of existing Federal budgetary and staff resources, and collaboration 

with private-sector activities.
★ 4 ★

Introduction

Pollinators are crucial members of various ecosystems, from farmland to wilderness. There are an estimated 352,000 flowering plant species, many of which depend on pollinators to reproduce (National 

Research Council 2007; “The Plant List” 2013). A variety of organisms serve as pollinators: bees, wasps, 

flies, butterflies, moths, bats, birds, and more. There are over 4,000 native bee species in the United States 

alone (Moisset and Buchmann 2011). The attributed value of crops in the United States that are directly 

dependent on insect pollination was estimated at $15.12 billion in 2009, including an estimated $11.68 

billion of crop value directly attributable to honey bees (Calderone 2012). Estimates for both insect pollination, generally, and honey bee pollination, specifically, for crop values are dependent on the amount 

of acres cultivated and crop prices (Calderone 2012). The value of pollinators in natural systems is much 

more difficult to discern, given that the maintenance of natural plant communities through pollination 

contributes to a variety of valuable ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, water filtration, 

and erosion control (National Research Council 2007). Simultaneous declines in native and managed 

pollinator populations globally, with highly visible decreases in honey bees, bumble bees, and monarch 

butterflies, have brought into focus the importance of pollinator conservation (National Research Council 

2007; van Engelsdorp et al. 2009; Pettis and Delaplane 2010; Cameron et al. 2011).

In 2006, some beekeepers in the United States began to notice unusually high overwinter mortality of 

their honey bee colonies. In some hives, all or the majority of adult bees disappeared, leaving behind 

their brood and food reserves. This phenomenon is known as “colony collapse disorder” (CCD). Though 

the trademark symptoms of CCD have continued to account for some colony losses in the years since 

2006, the proportion is shrinking, and other factors appear to be impacting bee health. In 2012–2013, 

30.6% of U.S. honey bee colonies were lost during overwintering, up from 22.5% the previous year 

(Steinhauer et al. 2013; Spleen et al. 2013). Intensive public and private research in the United States and 

abroad over the past 8 years has shown that no single culprit is responsible for CCD or for the general 

declines in pollinator health (USDA 2012). Today, honey bees in the United States are exposed to a variety 

of environmental stressors, including pesticides, disease, pests (parasites), migratory stress from longdistance transport, and changes in habitat quality or outright habitat loss (USDA 2012). 

Though honey bees are the most economically important—and hence the best-monitored—pollinators in the United States, there are indications that some species of native pollinators are in decline as 

well. Baseline information on native pollinator populations, however, is very sparse (National Research 

Council 2007). Some bumble bee populations are suffering from introduced pests and diseases, 

potentially transferred from managed bees (Colla et al. 2006). Native bees, butterflies, bats, and other 

native pollinators are all impacted by habitat loss and degradation, and there is strong evidence that 

for some species such factors have led to population declines (National Research Council 2007; Potts 

et al. 2010). Additionally, both honey bees and native pollinators must cope with the effects of climate 

change, which may have direct impacts on behavior and physiology, and indirect impacts through floral 

resource availability and changing dynamics of pests, pathogens, predators, and competitors (Potts et 

al. 2010; Le Conte and Navajas 2008).
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 5

The U.S. government plays a large role in the pollinator research that supports land management and 

regulatory decisions. On June 20, 2014, as part of a larger Federal strategy to ensure pollinator health, 

President Obama issued the Presidential Memorandum “Creating a Federal Strategy to Promote the 

Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators.” The memorandum called on the Federal government to 

draft a pollinator research action plan (hereafter referred to as “Action Plan”) that includes:

1. Studies of the health of managed honey bees and native bees that assess stressors leading to 

species declines and Colony Collapse Disorder, as well as strategies for mitigation.

2. Plans for expanding and automating data collection and data sharing related to pollinator losses, 

in partnership with the private sector. 

3. Assessments of native bee and monarch butterfly population patterns, and modeling of the 

relationship of those population patterns to habitat variables.

4. Development of affordable pollinator-friendly seed mixes and guidelines for evaluating their 

effectiveness in restoration and reclamation.

5. Identification of best practices for minimizing pollinator exposure to pesticides, and new costeffective ways to manage pests and diseases.

6. Creation of strategies for targeting restoration efforts at areas that will yield the greatest 

expected net benefits for pollinator health. 

This Action Plan addresses the six requirements specified in the Presidential Memorandum by outlining 

ongoing research that targets knowledge gaps and then identifying future priority actions to close those 

gaps. The Action Plan is structured around the major factors that have been associated with declines 

in pollinator health, as identified by a team of Federal experts and peer-reviewed by non-Federal 

subject-matter experts. The Action Plan also includes sections that identify current resources and gaps 

in fundamental scientific infrastructure, and decision tools related to pollinator-health research. Where 

appropriate, the Action Plan makes reference to relevant research activities outside of the United States 

and encourages international engagement. Such an approach is valuable because pollinator declines are 

occurring around the world, can provide transnational comparative insights into causal factors, are often 

driven by factors that can act transnationally and/or globally (e.g., migration, transport of pesticides, 

invasive species, climate change), and are of sufficient urgency to compel many nations, including the 

United States, to cooperate in relevant global research activities. Not only does international cooperation financially and scientifically leverage U.S. investments with investments made by other nations, it 

also provides an opportunity for the United States, with its diversity of ecosystems and large Federal 

and Federally-funded research community, to contribute to solving the global challenge of pollinator 

declines.

The Action Plan contains elements that have received appropriations, as well as some that require 

additional funding to address. Completion of the latter is contingent on Federal budgeting outcomes.
★ 6 ★

Section I: Status and Trends

Leads: Terry Griswold (USDA-ARS), Jamie Strange (USDA-ARS), Jake Weltzin (DOI-USGS)

Members: Jerry Freilich (NPS-NCCN), Regina Rochefort (NPS-NCCN), William Meikle (USDA-ARS), Jay 

Evans (USDA-ARS), Pat Manley (USDA-FS), Dan Kerestes (USDA-NASS), Gary Krupnick (SI), Sam Droege 

(DOI-USGS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

While many attempts have been made to quantify the issues surrounding honey bee loss (Spivak et al.

2011) and CCD, few have provided longitudinal, statistically-defensible estimates that can be widely used 

by government and industry. Equally difficult is the task of quantifying the status and long-term trends 

of populations of other managed bees and wild native bees. Generally, the quantification of pollinator 

trends has come from comparing current population levels to historical population levels (Cameron et 

al. 2011). For honey bees, this is measured in the number of managed hives used in honey production 

that are registered; for native bees, assessments of their status rely on disparate historical collection data 

and limited contemporary surveys.

Recent work has documented the decline in the number of managed honey bee colonies in the United 

States (Spivak et al. 2011) dating back to the 1940s. Decline in some native species has been anecdotally 

noted (National Research Council 2007), but only collapses in bumble bee species (Cameron et al. 2011) 

have been statistically documented. 

The impact of accidentally introduced bee species that are clearly spreading in range and increasing in 

number, e.g., Anthidium manicatum (Strange et al. 2011), is unclear. Pollinator ranges and populations 

are changing (Winfree et al. 2007; Bartomeus et al. 2011; Cameron et al. 2011; Strange et al. 2011), but 

the lack of consistently collected and statistically valid information for at least invertebrate pollinators 

makes determining those patterns difficult. Determining the current status of pollinator communities, 

documenting shifts in distribution and abundance of various species, and refining methodologies for 

documenting changes (Lebuhn et al. 2013) remain important areas of research, as does the taxonomic 

capacity that supports such research. 

Timely, accurate, and useful data are needed to address the following questions:

1. What are honey bee colony loss levels with respect to management level, region, and time of 

year, and what are the causes of those losses (such as queen loss, CCD, pest infestation, disease, 

or starvation) based on standardized surveys of beekeepers, apiary inspections, and longitudinal 

studies of hives?

2. What is the status of native pollinators in the United States, as a whole, in terms of distribution, 

abundance, and beneficial impact on the Nation’s managed (e.g., agricultural) ecosystems and 

unmanaged ecosystems?

3. What species, genera, or functional groups of pollinators are showing significant trends over 

space and time?
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 7 ★

4. What proximate and ultimate biotic and abiotic factors are driving population changes, and 

how do these factors vary over space and time?

5. What impacts are non-native bees having on native communities?

6. How can studies of pollinators conducted in other countries inform our understanding of 

declines in the United States?

Key Priority Research Themes

1. Develop the taxonomic capacity to establish a system of surveys and assessments that 

provide statistically-defensible estimates of change in range, distribution, abundance, 

and health of pollinators. Using standardized methodologies to understand the inter- and 

intra-annual cycles of distribution and abundance is critical. Recent innovations in sampling 

methodologies (Lebuhn et al. 2013) (e.g., use of coordinated volunteers) can facilitate the collection of data and information at scales heretofore impossible considering the limited resources 

for the research and professional monitoring communities. Accurate assessments of pollinator 

status and trends depend on gathering baseline pollinator data in habitats of interest, and correct identifications of the diverse pollinator communities. The current shortage of practitioners 

skilled at bee identification is limiting research and monitoring. Training and employing a new 

generation of invertebrate taxonomists is also key. Finally, revisionary studies of common pollinator species that are currently difficult or impossible to identify—coupled with Web-accessible 

identification tools (e.g., Droege 2015)—are strongly needed.

2. Quantify the status and trends of managed and non-managed pollinator species. 

Identifying the historical and current distribution and abundance of species is critical to understanding current and future trends. Among managed pollinators, declines in honey bee colonies 

(Spivak et al. 2011) are generally well-documented; among non-managed pollinators, some 

populations are known as stable (e.g., common Eastern bumble bee (Cameron et al. 2011)), but 

the status of most is unknown (e.g., alfalfa leaf-cutter bee (Pitts-Singer and Cane 2011), blue 

orchard bee). Documented declines are only known for social species (honey bees and bumble 

bees (Spivak et al. 2011; Cameron et al. 2011)); little is known about trends for the solitary bees 

that are the majority of pollinators (Winfree et al. 2007; Lebuhn et al. 2013).

3. Identify impacts of specific biotic and abiotic factors on pollinator populations. A variety 

of biotic and abiotic factors can impact pollinator status, including climate change (Bartomeus 

et al. 2011), land-use changes (Winfree et al. 2007), pathogens (Cameron et al. 2011; Fürst et 

al. 2014), parasites, and invasive species (Strange et al. 2011). Understanding the effects of 

climate on bees (Bartomeus et al. 2011) is important in predicting which species will be suitably 

adapted to pollinate U.S. crops. Understanding the role of land management practices (Winfree 

et al. 2007) (including pesticides and crop management practices) and land-use factors on bee 

health and abundance can elucidate how we can modify management to benefit pollinators. 

Information is needed to understand how, when, and where viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogens and parasites—major causes of bee mortality (Cameron et al. 2011; Spivak et al. 2011; Fürst 

et al. 2014)—are transmitted across species or among pollinator communities (Fürst et al. 2014). 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 8

The impacts of expanding ranges of recently arrived exotic solitary bees (Strange et al. 2011) on 

native plant and pollinator assemblages are not known and must be evaluated.

Existing/Current Research 

1. Developing baseline data on pollinator status.

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) has 

two programs that gather and estimate data on the honey industry. An annual bee and honey 

inquiry produces state-level estimates of the maximum number of colonies from which honey 

was taken during the year, as well as production, stocks, and values of honey. NASS also collects 

information on honey bee colonies (i.e., number of operations with colonies on December 31st, 

honey collected, and honey value) every five years as part of its Census of Agriculture. Due to 

concerns of underreporting by beekeepers, data-collection methodology is constantly being 

evaluated by agricultural statisticians. Insect collections represent large datasets on historical 

native pollinator communities. University and government researchers have been mining these 

data by cataloging and georeferencing specimen information. Researchers are conducting 

revisionary studies of bees that will improve baseline development. 

• Federally-funded research, allocated primarily through the National Science Foundation (NSF) 

and USDA, is supporting university researchers across the Nation and in a variety of natural and 

agricultural ecosystems as they establish baseline biodiversity and abundance data for native 

bees. One large USDA-funded program, the Integrated Crop Pollination Project (ICP) is looking 

at the status and diversity of native pollinators in 10 states and four major cropping systems: 

almonds, cucurbits, berries, and tree fruit. Models of bee abundance and distribution are being 

developed in this partnership. In the Northeast, the ICP is also determining which species are 

tree fruit pollinators, their relative significance, and economic importance. Between 40 and 

50 species have been identified pollinating apple trees, and a northeastern integrated pest 

management (IPM) guide was developed by a Federally-funded public-private partnership 

(Park et al. 2012).

• Researchers have conducted native bee inventories in multiple National Park Service units to 

document the distribution of pollinator species (e.g., Rykken et al. 2014). 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), universities, and others on native bee surveys. This 

collaboration has led to the development of a database representing more than a million bee 

specimens from across North America, and provides identification and survey design support 

for a broad array of private, academic, state, and Federal investigators. Projects are ongoing, 

with national survey programs limited in scope by the available level of funding. 

• Beekeepers and researchers need the ability to monitor hives remotely and continuously for 

signs of distress. Federal small-business innovation grants fund entrepreneurs to develop 

remote-monitoring capabilities, including solar-powered colony-health monitoring systems. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 9

2. Understanding pollinator population trends.

• University and government researchers have been actively involved in investigations of pollinator population changes (Winfree et al. 2007; Cameron et al. 2011; Strange et al. 2011) and theory 

(Lebuhn et al. 2013), and have launched research programs to monitor bee health, agrochemical 

exposure, microbiota changes, and colony growth in commercial migratory operations. 

• USGS has created and vetted national programs for estimating population trends for native 

and invasive bee species, developed and evaluated bee survey protocols (Lebuhn et al. 2013) 

and native bee monitoring manuals, created online identification guides for the bees of North 

America, and held workshops on native bee identification. 

• The Smithsonian Institution (SI) is conducting international studies to understand global trends. 

The “Arthropod Initiative” of the SI Center for Tropical Forest Science is monitoring key arthropod 

assemblages over the long term and studying insect-plant interactions over the network of the 

SI Global Earth Observatories designed to detect long-term changes in native and managed 

ecosystems driven by climate cycles, climate change, and habitat alteration. 

• USGS and USFWS, in conjunction with the monarch Joint Venture, are developing a national 

monarch butterfly monitoring framework intended to track populations and assess effectiveness 

of conservation actions as part of the Federal monarch conservation initiative.

• Federal agencies are participating in the forthcoming assessment of pollinators associated 

with food production, led by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem 

Services (IBPES), that will assess the status of, and trends in, pollinator populations worldwide.

3. Quantifying the impacts of specific effects of drivers on pollinator populations.

• An ARS-led project to mine large datasets to evaluate the effects of land use and crop production on honey bee declines is currently underway. 

• Studies funded by USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and NSF are focused 

on understanding the proximal causes of bee declines (e.g., pathogen prevalence, land-use 

factors, and climate change). 

• A survey by ARS of National Parks in the Pacific Northwest is documenting distributional changes 

of bumble bee species and habitat connectivity across high-elevation corridors. Comparing 

drivers and resultant declines for the United States versus for other countries (e.g., the United 

Kingdom and the Netherlands) could provide additional insights.

• Studies funded by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Farm Service 

Agency (FSA), and conducted by USGS and the Pollinator Partnership, are designed to better 

understand the uses and benefits of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands to pollinator 

populations. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 10

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

1. There is a lack of consistent data on the honey bee industry in regards to colony loss and 

associated economic and production impacts (Spivak et al. 2011). Further research is 

needed to determine the number of colonies lost and to clarify the effects of landscape 

factors, including forage and commercial agriculture, on colony-level health and activity. 

• Priority Actions: Conduct colony loss surveys. NASS will expand its honey bee program to 

include two new colony loss surveys: quarterly and annual. Both surveys will collect data on 

colony numbers, colony loss, newly-added/replacement colonies, colony health, and instances 

of CCD. The quarterly survey will be used to capture data from operations with five or more 

colonies every three months. Operations with fewer than five colonies will receive one survey 

for the entire year in December. Questions are also to be added to the current bee and honey 

inquiry on the costs associated with loss and colony maintenance.

2. A survey of bee communities in various ecosystems is needed to determine the status of 

native pollinators (Lebuhn et al. 2013). Further work is needed to document the current 

spread of non-native bees and understand the impacts these species have on native 

species (Strange et al. 2011).

• Priority Actions: Develop a framework for collecting standardized status and trends information 

for native and introduced pollinator species. This will include evaluating the importance and 

possibility of including other pollinators besides bees in such a framework.

3. For the native (non-Apis) managed bees (i.e., alfalfa leaf-cutting bees, blue orchard bees, 

alkali bees, bumble bees) further research is needed to fully understand the factors 

(pathogens, parasites, abiotic) that drive population trends (Pitts-Singer and Cane 2011), 

as well as commercial factors that influence grower decisions on purchasing alternative 

pollinators. 

• Priority Actions: Develop methodology and models for determining the factors that drive 

changes in native pollinator populations, and for determining the relative value of non-Apis 

pollinators in various ecosystems. Engage NASS to collect data on the commercialtraffic in nonApis pollinators in order to understand the economic value of alternative pollinators. 

4. Most honey bee colonies in the United States belong to commercial operations (Spivak 

et al. 2011). More research is needed on how bee management practices affect bees on 

the colony level, especially for hives that are involved in migratory operations and thus 

exposed to a variety of agricultural systems. University-led research is being done to 

evaluate bee management practices at the colony level; however, this information is 

collected by surveying beekeepers, who may provide subjective or conflicting information1

. These surveys are valuable in helping researchers formulate testable hypotheses 

on practices that potentially influence colony levels. 

1. http://beeinformed.org/programs/management-surveys/
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 11

• Priority Action: Further investments are needed using science-based methods (e.g., replicated 

studies with controls and treatments) to confirm which management practices are impacting 

honey bee colonies. 

5. In many countries, estimates for pollinator populations and the magnitude of different possible stressors are not available for comparison to the United States. The 

Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessment 

on pollination, pollinators, and food production, due out in 2015, may reveal other 

sources of information or significant international gaps. 

• Priority Action: Expand/explore research collaboration with countries that share pollinators, 

stressors, and/or complementary research strengths.

6. Currently, staffing of insect collections is not sufficient to meet the needs of agencies 

and universities seeking to identify specimens obtained through pollinator surveys. 

The quantification of trends in populations first depends on the ability of researchers to 

identify correctly the target species.

• Priority Action: Develop infrastructure for identification of pollinator species, including additional development of accessible taxonomic keys in print and online, taxonomic training for 

students, researchers, and field workers, development of genetic tools, and development of the 

next generation of taxonomic expertise.

Agency Roles

Priority Actions Lead Agencies Primary Support Secondary Support

Quarterly and annual colony loss surveys NASS

Statistical framework for assessing status 

and trends

NASS, USGS USGS, ARS NIFA, SI, NSF

Develop baseline status data USFWS, ARS, USGS NIFA, NSF, NASS USFS, NPS

Assess trends in pollinator populations USFWS, ARS, USGS NIFA, NSF, NASS USFS, NPS

Develop bee identification capability ARS, USGS NIFA, NSF

Expand/explore research collaboration ARS, NASS, USGS, USFWS, 

NIFA, SI, NSF
★ 12 ★

Section II: Habitat (Including Stressors)

Leads: Monica Tomosy (USDA-FS), Steve Hilburger (DOI-USGS)

Members: Jim Cane (USDA-ARS), Theresa Pitts-Singer (USDA-ARS), James Strange (USDA-ARS), Deahn 

Donner Wright (USDA-FS), Diane Larson (DOI-USGS), Ralph Grundel (DOI-USGS), Michele Schoeneberger 

(USDA-FS), Skip Hyberg (USDA-FSA), Danielle Flynn (UDSA-NRCS), Eunice Padley (USDA-NRCS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Pollinator populations and the many services they provide are threatened by the degradation, fragmentation, and loss of their habitats (National Research Council 2007). For pollinator populations to be 

sustained, adequate habitats for nesting, foraging, mating, dispersing, and migrating will be required. 

Understanding of the habitat requirements for pollinators, as well as how to identify and manage habitats effectively over time and across the variety of land uses and conditions, is limited. 

Key Priority Research Themes 

1. Understanding pollinator habitat requirements. Information on characteristics of quality 

habitat is necessary to define habitat requirements and to assess the pollination services provided to commercial and natural ecosystems. Understanding landscape characteristics, such 

as patch size and structure, corridors and connectivity, and the composition of the matrix that 

surrounds habitat for pollinator populations, is important. 

2. Understanding habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation effects on pollinators, as well 

as stressors that interact with and exacerbate these impacts. Predicting the impact of landuse changes on habitat suitability for pollinators is fundamentally important. Understanding 

habitat changes—compounded by disease, climate change, invasive species, and/or other 

stressors—is critically important to understanding population responses. Assessing links 

between changes in habitat and changes in pollinator populations is necessary to determine 

when habitats are sources or sinks for pollinators. 

3. Identifying viable approaches to protect, manage, and enhance pollinator habitat. 

Incorporating the roles of natural disturbance in creating temporally-variable habitats and 

emulating habitat structure and ecosystem function while maintaining multiple uses of landscapes, including other ecosystem services, and human habitation, and livelihood, is important. 

Broad-scale assessments of pollinator distribution across management regimes, and ultimately 

research that links habitat condition to pollinator demographic processes, are also important. 

4. Identifying viable approaches to restore and create pollinator habitat. There is a need to 

restore or create habitat where it has been lost or degraded. Developing viable and achievable 

restoration practices is needed. While some resources exist, additional needs remain.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 13 ★

Existing/Current Research

Research is being carried out throughout the United States and covers a wide suite of pollinators (e.g., 

native and non-native bees, moths, butterflies, beetles, flies, bats, and birds); however, projects to date 

have been geographically and taxonomically limited. Current pollinator habitat research projects include 

partnerships with universities, the Xerces Society, state agencies, local governments, utility companies, 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), corporations, tribes, and Federal non-research agencies (such 

as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Department of Defense (DOD)).

Scientists are currently conducting studies that examine the role of pollination in the fitness of rare 

plants and animals, the effects of climate change on pollinator habitats (especially with regard to shifts 

in phenology and range (e.g., Forrest 2015)), the effects of invasive plant species on pollination networks, pollinator responses to fires and other natural disturbances, the effects of forest and grassland 

management and restoration activities on pollinators and host plants, the effects of invasive predators, 

factors associated with hive location, and the effects of road management. University researchers in the 

Northeast and Midwest are evaluating the impact of several habitat types and developing landscapelevel models to understand better the value and range of bee habitat next to fruit tree orchards, and 

the cost to fruit growers of removing existing habitat.

Habitat studies of bees date to the turn of the 20th century, when natural history studies of individual 

taxa were common. This is a rich literature that can provide descriptive work on nest architecture and 

location, brood-cell provisioning, and plant-species visitation (e.g., Alcock 1975; Eickwort 1975; Alcock 

1979; Torchio 1984; Neff and Simpson 1997).

More recent work has largely focused on habitat associated with agricultural and urban landscapes and 

the benefits (i.e., ecosystem services) associated with such habitat. In particular, scholars (Menz et al.

2011; Williams et al. 2012; Kennedy et al. 2013; Morandin and Kremen 2013) have examined agriculturalnatural area interactions with respect to pollinator habitat, and others have examined pollinator habitat 

restoration (Nyoka 2010; Williams 2011; Cusser and Goodell 2013). Monarch butterfly habitat has 

received attention from university researchers (Stevens and Frey 2010; Pleasants and Oberhauser 2013). 

Research on bee habitat-use characteristics in agricultural and urban settings is conducted by many 

non-Federal entities, including many universities, the Pollinator Partnership, Xerces Society, and the 

American Museum of Natural History. Urban bee populations and their habitat associations have been 

researched considerably over the past several decades (Hernandez et al. 2009; Pawelek et al. 2009; 

Tonietto et al. 2011; MacIvor et al. 2014; Potter and LeBuhn 2015). Tallamy and Shropshire (2003) compared lepidopteran and bee diversity between habitats that consisted of native versus non-native plant 

communities. On agricultural lands, the multi-state, collaborative Integrated Pollinator Management 

Project, funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), 

supports scientific research on practices, outcomes, and economics of different pollinator management strategies in diverse fruit and vegetable crops, ranging from complete reliance on honey bees, to 

on-farm floral supplements to enhance suitability for wild pollinators, to use of managed native bees 

to enhance yields. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 14

A relatively small amount of research has been devoted to pollinators in forested habitats. Logging and 

other forest management effects have been studied in several places (Nyoka 2010; Summerville 2013; 

Jackson et al. 2014). Other studies have focused on temporal asynchrony for forest-dependent pollinators that forage on early-spring tree blossoms and ephemeral wildflowers (Visser and Holleman 2001). 

One study discusses pollinator abundance and diversity in forest fragments (Williams and Winfree 2013), 

but it is unclear how attempts to manage for local pollinator diversity may affect native pollinators and 

mutualistic relationships with plants (Schemske et al. 1978). 

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

The top priority is to better understand the basic life histories of pollinator relationships with their 

habitats, particularly to determine the extent to which pollinator populations are habitat-limited. 

Characteristics of good pollinator habitat must first be defined. 

1. Understanding pollinator habitat requirements.

• Natural history of habitat use. Increase knowledge on the fundamental building blocks of 

pollinator habitat, such as distribution, nest-site preferences, plant preferences and degree of 

specialization, phenology, dispersal ability, and effective ranges over which pollinators perceive 

and use their environment.

• Species’ habitat requirements. Identify the temporal and spatial requirements of stationary 

or migratory species (e.g., monarch butterfly) at local and landscape levels, and whether species 

have an ability to switch to other plants or locations when preferred plants are not available.

• Site-specific habitat assessments. Assess assemblages of vegetation types and species, and 

habitat features needed by various groups and/or species of pollinators for nesting, foraging, 

roosting, overwintering, and dispersal. Identify pollinator species or groups in need of habitat 

improvements. 

• Landscape-scale assessments. Determine landscape characteristics of quality habitat. Evaluate 

whether there is adequate landscape-scale habitat structure (e.g., patch sizes, arrangement, 

connectivity) to sustain habitats for pollinator species. Determine the dispersal capacity and 

needs of pollinators. 

2. Understanding habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, and stressors that exacerbate these impacts.

• Status and trends. Develop metrics that associate pollinator populations with specific habitat 

changes.

• Stressors. Assess and predict how pollinators and their host plants respond, in terms of diversity, 

abundance, and interactions, to stressors of climate instability, carbon dioxide increase, fire 

intensity and frequency increase, invasive species, control of invasive and undesirable species, 

and extreme weather events. 

• Habitat functionality loss. Assess and predict how pollinators and their host plants respond 

to habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation. Identify pollinator-habitat tension zones due 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 15

to land-use changes from road management, grazing, forest management, urbanization, and 

agricultural intensification. 

• Future projections. Project future habitat suitability for key pollinator functional groups and/

or species given projected impacts of urbanization, agricultural intensification, climate change, 

shifting phenologies, and other stressors.

3. Identifying approaches to protect, manage, enhance, restore, and create pollinator 

habitat (“stewardship activities”).

• Landscape-scale analyses. Conduct landscape analyses to identify critical, limiting distances 

between suitable habitats required to meet pollinator needs (i.e., distance between nesting/

roosting and pollen/nectar areas), including providing migratory capacity under current and 

projected climate conditions.

• Site condition analyses. Analyze phenological data and use zone mapping to design habitat 

management or enhancement strategies and evaluate site-specific habitat value and condition.

• Effectiveness of site specific techniques. Evaluate conditions (what, where, when, how) that 

make site-specific management techniques supportive of pollinator habitat (e.g., fire management, forest management, invasive species management, plantings). Identify assemblages of 

plant species to enhance the diversity of floral resources, food types, and their duration. Using 

heterogeneity of microclimates and landscapes, optimize the design and management for the 

heterogeneity of habitat within both landscapes and habitats (e.g., floral variety to provide 

pollen and nectar in time, space, and under a myriad of conditions) to provide resilience/buffer 

capacity so pollinator populations can survive and persist under the uncertainty of extreme 

weather events and changing climates that are being projected.

• Future projections. Develop predictive capacity for measuring how management activities 

affect pollinator habitats.

• Decision Science. Use structured decision-making processes to identify priority habitat research 

projects: for example, criteria-based ratings derived via expert panels. Create decision-support 

tools to facilitate strategic habitat conservation choices, considering diverse protocols/procedures/sites/landscapes. Incorporate effectiveness monitoring and adaptive management 

into these tools. Decision-science tools will help target resources toward areas of high risk and 

restoration potential, and will support prioritization of plans for restoring pollinator habitat 

based on those areas that will yield the greatest expected net benefits.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 16

Agency Roles

Priority Actions

(Planned for 2015)

Lead 

Agencies

Primary 

Support

Secondary 

Support Comments

Species Lists: Bees that use trees, and 

trees that need bees.

USFS USFS, NPS Simple, but no one has done it 

yet, and it will be foundational 

for pollinator habitat research.

“Working Trees for Pollinators”: 

Synthesize existing research on which 

pollinator taxa are critical to carrying 

out pollinating functions. Distill into 

principles for enhancing and creating 

pollinator habitat on agricultural lands 

using conservation practices.

USFS/ NAC,

USGS,

ARS,

NRCS

USFS, NRCS, 

ARS, NPS

Agencies have multiple studies 

with different questions/

approaches. Synthesizing 

research is a critical first step 

in developing a foundation for 

action, both to provide timely 

science-based guidance to 

meet immediate management 

needs, as well as identifying 

where the major gaps in 

information are to then guide 

future research.

Effects of environmental stressors 

and land management practices on 

pollinators.

USFS

USGS

USFS

USGS, NPS

Many site-level research 

projects are underway and 

include studies of effects of land 

management at the population 

(e.g., honey bee productivity) 

and community (e.g., plant-andanimal interaction networks) 

levels, as well as pollinator 

effects on fitness of imperiled 

plant species.

Capitalize on existing habitat 

reconstruction and restoration 

programs to improve benefits to 

pollinators.

USGS

USFS

NPS Currently, habitat restoration 

in DOI focuses on trust species. 

These programs should 

be evaluated for benefit to 

pollinators; the seeding/

planting data could be collated 

and examined for floral 

resources at minimal additional 

expense.

For host plant community restoration, 

identify the important plant species 

to support priority pollinator natural 

history needs across all ecosystem 

types across all seasons.

USGS USFS, NPS NRCS, NSF What are the highly generalist 

plant species that will jumpstart a restoration, providing 

habitat for the priority 

pollinator species?

Construct and then manage for the 

heterogeneity of habitat within a 

landscape and within a habitat.

USGS,

USFS
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 17 ★

Priority Action 

(Planned for 2015)

Lead 

Agencies

Primary 

Support

Secondary 

Support Comments

Compare pollinator use of high-quality 

managed and remnant areas across 

a broad variety of ecosystems to 

determine essential qualities of habitat 

that will most benefit pollinators. 

Develop management plans to favor 

this high-quality habitat in other 

managed areas.

USGS, USFS NPS For example, use of silvopasture 

systems in the southeastern 

United States as a potential 

means to expand flowering 

season for pollinators.

Design schemes for monitoring 

ecosystem function by establishing 

coordinated ecological experiments 

to assess relationships among primary 

productivity, habitat patch structure 

and connectivity, and pollinator 

efficiency.

USGS NPS NSF Recognize that environmental 

conditions will continue to 

change rapidly, and utilize 

monitoring systems to adjust 

management guidance 

adaptively.

Use Structured Decision Making to 

identify the top priority natural history 

research gaps to fill.

USFS, USGS ARS
★ 18 ★

Section III: Nutrition

Leads: Gloria Hoffman (USDA-ARS), Mary Purcell-Miramontes (USDA-NIFA)

Members: Jim Cane (USDA-ARS), Frank Forcella (USDA-ARS), Jay Evans (USDA-ARS), Miguel Corona 

(USDA-ARS), Michelle Elekonich (NSF) 

Introduction/Problem Statement

Nutrition is the foundation for health in all organisms. In honey bees and most other pollinators, all 

nutritional needs are met by consuming nectar and pollen. Nectar provides carbohydrates, and pollen 

supplies protein and all other nutrients required for growth and reproduction. Determining the nutritional components in pollen and nectar that affect the physiology of individual pollinators and—in 

social species—overall colony health is fundamental. 

Pollinators rely on flowering plants for food, but when flowers are unavailable, nectar and pollen substitutes can be fed to them as an alternative. This practice is especially common for commercial honey 

bee colonies. Such diets can prevent starvation in the short term but in their present formulations do 

not sustain colonies for extended periods. Though considerable research directed at bee nutrition was 

conducted in the past, the advent of molecular tools and sequencing of the honey bee genome have 

resulted in new insights into the role of nectar and pollen on gene expression, immunity, and colony 

health. Similarly, the role of microorganisms (hereafter referred to as “microbes”) in storage and digestion of pollen and nectar has been known for decades, but, with the development of metagenomic 

tools, we are embarking on a new era in the study of the microbial communities in individuals and in 

colonies. We are finding that the beneficial microbes that bees rely on for optimum health can originate 

from pollen and nectar (Anderson et al. 2013). These microbes also affect pollination efficiency (Raguso 

2004; Pozo et al. 2009; Herrera and Pozo 2010), thus linking pollinator health and the environment at a 

new and deeper level. These studies also have generated new questions on the role of beekeeping and 

crop management practices in microbial communities and the resulting effects on pollinator health.

Key Priority Research Themes 

1. Determining the changing nutritional needs of honey bee colonies and key managed 

solitary bees throughout the year. Specifically, the roles of nutrition in physiological processes such as brood rearing, pheromone production, and immunity are key research areas, as 

are identifying factors that might promote or interfere with the acquisition of nutrients (e.g., 

beneficial microbes, pathogens, parasites, and environmental toxins). 

2. Identifying combinations of plants by geographical region that will meet nutritional 

needs of honey bees and key managed solitary bees. This research can be enhanced by 

breeding traits back into crop species that attract pollinators and provide the nutrients they 

need to thrive. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 19

3. Fully comprehending the nutritional needs of honey bee colonies and key managed 

solitary bees. This requires a greater understanding of the role of microbes in food storage 

and digestion. 

• Methods to identify malnutrition. Such methods, particularly in commercial honey bee colonies, are essential to prevent colony losses. Identifying key components in pollen and nectar 

that bees require to optimize their health is essential for improving supplemental diets to feed 

colonies when flowering plants are unavailable. 

Existing/Current Research2

The nutrients available to bees in nectar and pollen have been determined for many crop species. 

Methods to improve nectar production have been known for decades for forage plants like alfalfa (Barnes 

and Furgala 1978; Teuber and Barnes 1979; Teuber et al. 1980; Teuber et al. 1983). Our understanding 

of the molecular genetics of nectaries in plants used as bee forage (e.g., the mustards) has increased 

greatly (Kram and Carter 2009). This information can be used to improve the attractiveness and resource 

production of these plants, as well as other related crops that are attractive to bees (e.g., canola and 

new/alternative crops like camelina, crambe, and pennycress). 

In the past, the role of microorganisms in bee nutrition was limited to only those microbes that could 

be cultured in laboratories. Metagenomic techniques, however, have expanded the study of microorganisms to those that cannot be cultured outside the bee. Using these techniques, a core bacterial 

community has been determined in the digestive tract of honey bees (Martinson et al. 2011; Moran et al.

2012), suggesting that these bacteria have a positive impact on bee health, such as assisting in digestion 

of pollen (Engel et al. 2012). Further, a diverse set of bacteria and fungi have been found in nectar and 

can affect flower choice (Good et al. 2014; Schaeffer et al. 2014). Microorganisms also are found in stored 

pollen and were thought to play a role in its preservation and digestion (Gilliam 1997). Recent studies 

suggest, though, that microbes have limited impacts on digestion of stored pollen but may play a role 

in preventing spoilage (Anderson et al. 2014).

When flowering plants are unavailable, beekeepers feed colonies protein and carbohydrate supplements. Pollen substitutes with high protein and lipid content can improve honey bee nutrition and 

health when compared with carbohydrate diets alone, but are not as nutritious as the diverse pollen 

collected by colonies (Robinson and Nation 1966; DeGrandi-Hoffman et al. 2010). In addition, it has been 

found that bees simultaneously fed mixtures of pollen and lethal doses of pesticides lived longer than 

those fed artificial diets, suggesting interactions between the nutritional state of bees and pesticide 

sensitivity (Schmehl et al. 2014). Pollen substitutes lack specific nutritional components needed to sustain colony health, such as certain essential amino acids. The use of these supplements under different 

environmental conditions, as well as their effects on bee physiology, disease, and pesticide tolerance, 

is only recently being determined (Alaux et al. 2010; DeGrandi-Hoffman et al. 2010). 

In addition to pollen substitutes, beekeepers often feed high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) or sucrose to 

colonies after harvesting honey or during periods of nectar dearth. Relative to honey, long-term feeding 

2. The focus of this section is primarily on honey bees because they are the most-studied and economicallyimportant pollinator; however, findings from studies on honey bees often can be applied to other pollinators.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 20

of either of these alternative carbohydrate sources elicits hundreds of differences in gene expression 

in the fat body (a nutrient-sensing tissue analogous to our liver and adipose tissues). These expression 

differences include genes involved in protein and amino acid metabolism needed for pollen digestion 

(Wheeler and Robinson 2014). Furthermore, there is growing evidence that bees receive nutrients in 

honey that are not found in sucrose and HFCS, and that positively affect detoxification systems of bees 

(Mao et al. 2011).

Nutritional stress often goes unnoticed in honey bee colonies until the repercussions of malnutrition 

become evident (e.g., poor colony growth, disease, queen loss). Recent work has shown that malnutrition causes substantial changes in gene expression during early adult development in worker honey 

bees (Corby-Harris et al. 2014). Furthermore, the aging process itself differs when bees are deprived of 

pollen. Though molecular markers of malnutrition are being found, these need to be translated into 

monitoring tools suitable for beekeepers. It is critical to identify malnutrition early in colonies because 

diet affects normal age-related development (Alaux et al. 2011; Ament et al. 2011) and can have longterm consequences on colony growth and winter survival. 

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

1. Determining the role of pollen and nectar in sustaining the health and reproductive 

capacity of pollinators, including how nutritional needs might change throughout the 

year and under different levels of stress.

• Priority Actions: Expand on studies to define the nutritional needs of honey bees and key 

managed solitary bees, which should begin with analyses of healthy populations. These studies 

should take into consideration time of year and geographic location. 

2. Identifying combinations of plantings that meet the nutritional needs of pollinators 

throughout the year for major geographical regions of the United States, and developing 

biomarkers that can be used in the field to identify nutritional stress in order to prevent 

pollinator losses. 

• Priority Actions: The nutritional value of incoming pollen and stored food should be determined to find associations between incoming nutrients and pollinator health. Field-based 

markers of malnutrition need to be developed.

3. Identifying key microbes in colonies and in individual pollinators, understanding the 

acquisition and transmission of these microbes, and determining their role in digestion 

and disease prevention. This includes understanding the role of these microbes and the 

effects of food sources and environmental contaminants on microbial communities. 

• Priority Actions: Further investigate the role of microbial organisms in nutrition of honey bees 

and key managed solitary bees. 

4. Understanding the complex interactions between bee diet, nutritional state, and susceptibility to pests, diseases, and pesticides. This will support improving supplemental diets 

in a cost-effective manner, which is essential to preventing colony losses during times 

when flowering plants are not available. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 21 ★

• Priority Actions: Conduct multifactorial studies to determine these interactions. Increase 

understanding of the role of nutrition for other pollinators. 

The priorities listed above can be accomplished by USDA-ARS researchers and through existing extramural grants to researchers funded by USDA-NIFA and/or NSF. Public-private partnerships will also 

be explored to leverage funding. Research findings will be published in refereed scientific journals 

and presented to beekeepers, pollinator groups (e.g., ABF, AHPA, NAPPC), and at scientific meetings. 

Other products should include improved seed mixtures for pollinator plantings and development of 

supplemental diet formulas for pollinators. These actions can be accomplished over an estimated 3–5 

year timeframe. 

Agency Roles

Priority 

Actions

Lead 

Agencies

Primary 

Support

Secondary 

Support Comments

Define nutritional 

needs of pollinators

ARS NIFA NSF To leverage funding, public-private 

partnerships will also be explored.

Research findings will be published in 

refereed scientific journals and presented 

to beekeepers, to pollinator research 

groups (e.g., ABF, AHPA, NAPPC), and 

at scientific meetings. Other products 

should include improved seed mixtures for 

pollinator plantings and development of 

supplemental diets. 

Time frame: 3–5 years

Determine nutritional 

value of incoming 

pollen and stored food

ARS NIFA NSF

Investigate role of 

microbial organisms in 

pollinator nutrition

ARS NIFA NSF

Conduct multifactorial 

studies to determine 

interactions of 

nutritional stress with 

immune response, 

pesticides, and disease 

susceptibility

ARS NIFA NSF, APHIS
★ 22 ★

Section IV: Pollinator Pathogens and Pests

Leads: Jeff Pettis USDA-ARS), Kevin Hackett (USDA-ARS)

Members: Theresa Pitts-Singer (USDA-ARS), James Strange (USDA-ARS), William Meikle (USDA-ARS), 

Gloria Hoffman (USDA-ARS), Robyn Rose (USDA-APHIS), Bob Danka (USDA-ARS), Tom Rinderer (USDAARS), Judy Chen (USDA-ARS), Jay Evans (USDA-ARS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Managed honey bees, bumble bees, and solitary bees are threatened by invasive mites, small hive 

beetles, predators, and pathogens including viruses, bacteria, and fungi (Biesmeijer et al. 2006; Potts et 

al. 2010; Cameron et al. 2011; Vanbergen et al. 2013). These threats can become more severe when bees 

are nutritionally deficient because of lack of forage or are exposed to pesticides (Gill et al. 2012; Pettis 

et al. 2013). Research should be aimed at diagnosing, preventing, and controlling bee pathogens and 

pests, and gaining an understanding of their epidemiology and impact. 

Key Priority Research Themes

1. Reducing the impact of the parasitic mite Varroa on managed honey bees. Varroa, a 

destructive parasite that attacks honey bees on all continents except Australia (and Antarctica), 

has the greatest impact on honey bee colony performance because it feeds off the blood of 

immature and adult bees and serves as a vector to transmit and activate certain viral diseases 

(Mondet et al. 2014). Best management practices (BMPs), breeding for resistance, and new and 

improved controls (including RNAi targeted at Varroa and associated viruses) are needed to 

reduce the impact of this mite. Substantial research investments by other countries in these 

areas may provide opportunities for leverage and more rapid progress.

2. Understanding factors that increase the impacts of viral and fungal infections in honey 

bees and bumble bees. Some pathogens, such as the bacterial disease American foulbrood, 

independently cause bee mortality. Other pathogens, including important fungi and viruses, 

are especially damaging in conjunction with environmental, nutritional, and pesticide stresses. 

Understanding under what conditions these pathogens become problematic is vital for maintaining healthy honey bees and bumble bees. 

3. Determining the extent of pathogen movement from managed bees to native bees. There 

is evidence of pathogen movement from managed to non-managed species (Colla et al. 2006; 

Fürst et al. 2014). A better understanding is needed of how pathogens move among species 

and the resulting impact. 

4. Improving pathogen identification and control in managed bees other than honey bees. 

Populations of managed solitary bees can be affected by chalkbrood, parasitic wasps, predatory 

beetles, and pollen-feeding mites. Relatively little is known about the diversity and distributions 

of bumble bee pathogens and parasites. A U.S. baseline of these parasites and pathogens is 

needed. Efforts are also needed to develop realistic disease and parasite thresholds by examining current bumble bee production practices.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 23

5. Identification of exotic threats and border vigilance to prevent unwanted introductions. 

Honey bee pests and pathogens are a major factor in the regulation of movement of honey 

bees and hive products across borders. Any country wanting to send bees to the United States 

is required to conduct a rigorous risk assessment. Surveys of bees shipped into the United States 

should continue to verify the absence of exotic pests (e.g., Apis cerana, Tropilaelaps spp. mites). 

Existing/Current Research

1. Reducing the impact of the parasitic mite Varroa on managed honey bees. Studies to 

determine mite migration rates and Varroa population growth are being conducted as part of 

a USDA-ARS Areawide Project. New methods to control Varroa are being developed and tested, 

including biological agents, plant-based oils and acids, RNAi, and compounds to disrupt Varroa 

host-finding behaviors. Monitoring for acaricide resistance is ongoing in an effort to support 

strategies to reduce resistance buildup.

2. Understanding factors that increase the impacts of virus and fungal infections in honey 

bees and bumble bees. Research is underway to investigate the role of viral and fungal infections on managed bee health (Cornman et al. 2012), including interactions with stress factors 

such as poor nutrition, pesticide exposure, and Varroa. Methods are being developed to detect 

and quantify infection levels of diseases and pests in bumble bees. Determination of the timing 

of detection and the level of infection will be critical in the development of a reliable tool for 

use in commercial systems that provide bumble bee colonies for pollination.

3. Determine the extent of pathogen spillover from managed bees to native bees. The 

potential for pathogen movement from honey bees to other species, and between wild and 

managed bumble bee populations, has been documented in Canada and Europe, and is being 

assessed in the United States (Colla et al. 2006; Fürst et al. 2014). Pathogen outbreaks may be 

mitigated by using improved BMPs and pathogen detection.

4. Improving pathogen identification and control in alfalfa leaf-cutter bees and blue orchard 

bees. For alfalfa leaf-cutter bees, researchers are examining environmental impacts on the 

occurrence of disease and parasites in commercial production, the dynamics of infections composed of more than one fungal pathogen, and the ability of fungal pathogens to cross-infect 

with honey bees. Plans are to determine effective attractants for pests of blue orchard bees and 

to use the attractants to create “attract and kill” traps for pests.

5. Identification of exotic threats and border vigilance to prevent unwanted introductions. 

The development of rapid techniques for diagnostic tools and new pest response guidelines 

for exotic pests such as Tropilaelaps spp. mites and Apis cerana (Asian honey bee) are underway 

in the United States and in other countries (Pettis et al. 2012).
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 24

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

1. Longitudinal studies with honey bees.3

• Priority Actions: Evaluate the roles of nutrition, enhanced forage, and pesticide exposure on 

pathogen buildup and honey bee colony growth and activity using longitudinal studies. The 

health of honey bee colonies placed on CRP and non-CRP lands would be monitored over time 

as colonies are moved between pollination (e.g., of almonds) and honey production. Nutritional 

value, diversity of pollen, pesticide load, pathogen levels, queen loss, colony growth, survival, 

pollination availability, and honey production would be monitored. This builds on existing collaborations within ARS, NRCS, FSA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), USGS, 

and others. 

2. Varroa control.

• Priority Actions: There is a need for better methods to control Varroa, including (1) identification 

of Varroa-resistant or -tolerant genes in A. mellifera, (2) identification of genes associated with 

avirulent mites and mites with low fecundity, (3) development of new Varroa biopesticides such 

as RNAi and novel chemical miticides to disrupt mite reproduction, (4) identification of resistance 

mechanisms to Varroa in the original host bee, A. cerana, and molecular mechanisms to better 

understand the mite’s vulnerabilities, (5) clarification of developmental metabolic pathways in 

mites using genomic (Honey bee Genome Sequencing Consortium 2006) and transcriptomic 

approaches, and (6) improvement of BMPs.

3. Using microbes as natural protectants against disease.

• Priority Actions: Bees carry known pathogens and parasites as well as a community of gut 

symbionts whose impacts on bee health are poorly known. Laboratory and field experiments 

are needed to identify and exploit beneficial associations that may fend off disease in managed 

bees. 

4. Identifying and controlling new and emerging pathogens.

• Priority Actions: New or emerging diseases caused by previously unidentified pathogens or 

the reemergence of known pathogens with new properties is inevitable but unpredictable. 

There is a need to develop, in concert with international partners, integrated approaches that 

make it possible to address the emergence of new diseases or the reemergence of disease 

threats, especially in the context of moving managed bees among crops and regions. These 

approaches include such specific research as clarification of strain variation, and virulence in 

deformed wing virus.

3. A longitudinal study is defined as “an observational research method in which data is gathered for the same 

subjects repeatedly over a period of time”. In this context, we are using the basic longitudinal study framework to layer 

on treatments that might affect honey bee health. It is not a “true” longitudinal study as honey bee hives do not survive 

long (1–3 years at best).
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 25

Agency Roles

Priority Actions Lead Agencies Primary Support Secondary 

Support Comments

Longitudinal studies ARS NIFA APHIS

Varroa controls ARS NIFA APHIS

Beneficial microbes ARS NIFA APHIS, NSF

Emerging pathogens ARS APHIS NIFA, NSF
★ 26 ★

Section V: Pesticides and Toxins

Leads: David Epstein (USDA-OPMP), Anita Pease (EPA-OPP), Tom Steeger (EPA-OPP)

Members: Theresa Pitts-Singer (USDA-ARS), James Strange (USDA-ARS), Tim Bargar (DOI-USGS), Howie 

Ginsberg (DOI-USGS), John Adamczyk (USDA-ARS), Gloria Hoffman (USDA-ARS), Kathy Kuivila (DOI-USGS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Pesticide use has become an integral part of the Nation’s agricultural economy. Many growers in the 

United States depend on pesticides, as a whole and as a core component of integrated pest management (IPM) programs. A more thorough understanding of current pesticides and the development of 

new products are needed to balance crop production requirements with sustaining pollinator health 

in agricultural settings and adjacent landscapes. 

Pesticides and herbicides, used individually or in combination, can have direct and/or indirect effects on 

non-target organisms and have been identified as one of the factors contributing to declines in pollinator health. Such effects may be worsened if they occur with other stressors associated with pollinator 

declines (e.g., diseases, habitat modification, improper nutrition, arthropod pests, and overwintering). 

Beyond the direct lethal effects of pesticides on individual pollinators, an increasing number of sublethal 

effects continue to be identified. There is uncertainty regarding whether sublethal effects measured at 

the level of the individual bee impact whole colonies/populations to cause pollinator declines.

To assess pesticide products for managed bee-safe use, domestic and international labs in academia, 

industry, and government are developing laboratory- and field-based methods to assess potential 

exposure to, and effects from, pesticides on both honey bees and native bees. 

Key Priority Research Themes

1. Determining whether current methods/tools used to assess pesticide exposure and effects 

are sufficient to support regulatory decision-making for all pollinators. As many as 121 

different pesticides have been identified in honey bee colonies and within pollen, honey, and 

wax (Mullin et al. 2010). While test methods exist to evaluate acute effects on individual honey 

bee adults (OECD 1998a, 1998b; EPA 2012a, 2012b) and larvae (OECD 2013), and some progress 

has been made in evaluating acute exposure effects on native (non-Apis) bees, there is a limited 

understanding of chronic exposure effects on insect pollinators in general. Continued review 

of draft protocols and development of formal test guidelines and guidance documents for 

pesticide exposure and effect studies at environmentally-relevant concentrations is needed to 

inform regulatory decisions. 

2. Understanding the relation between sublethal effects (e.g., subcellular, organ-level, 

behavioral) reported for individual bees and the effects (i.e., impaired survival, growth, 

and reproduction) typically used by regulators to support quantitative risk assessments.

Qualitative and quantitative links between effects reported at various levels of biological organization need to be developed to enable extrapolation from lower to higher levels of biological 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 27

organization in what has been characterized as an “adverse outcome pathway” (Ankley et al.

2009). 

3. Determining how pesticides interact with each other and other stressors (e.g., poor nutrition/food quality, pest infestation, environmental conditions, etc.) to impact pollinator 

health. A wide range of pesticides has been detected in bee-related matrices (e.g., bees, pollen, honey, beeswax). Available research has demonstrated potential interactive effects (e.g., 

antagonism, synergism) on bees from some pesticide combinations, and in some cases the 

inerts/adjuvants that may be formulated with the pesticides. 

4. Assessing effectiveness of mitigation measures (e.g., BMPs). Efforts are underway to 

develop measures to mitigate exposure to, or effects from, pesticides, and to provide a means 

of monitoring/evaluating the efficacy of such mitigation measures. These include the development of effective means of disseminating information to growers/applicators and beekeepers 

for reducing the effects of pesticides on bees.

5. Identifying effective chemical, mechanical, and managerial tools that can be developed 

for combatting arthropod pests of managed bees. The development of effective tools (discovery/testing/registration) in support of the chemical control of Varroa mites and small hive 

beetles includes research examining potential adverse effects of these control measures on 

bees, either directly or indirectly, through interactive effects with other compounds. 

Existing/Current Research

1. Determining whether current methods/tools used to assess pesticide exposure and effects 

are sufficient to support regulatory decision-making for all pollinators.

• Evaluating factors associated with exposure to pesticide-abraded dust during planting of 

pesticide-treated seed (DeGrandi-Hoffman et al. 2014), including honey bee colony development, health, and overwintering ability relative to pesticide exposure (Hoffman et al. 2013; 

Anderson 2014; Purucker et al. 2014). 

• Studies specifically to evaluate direct exposure to, and effects of, pesticides (e.g., neonicotinoid 

insecticide seed and foliar applications) on honey bee colonies. Studies are also underway to 

evaluate the effects of neonicotinoid insecticide exposure on honey bee colony growth and 

activity using continuous monitoring, colony measurements, and laboratory cage studies 

(Carrol 2014).

• Research on environmental fate and effects of pesticides on pollinating insects, including effects 

of herbicide applications for habitat restoration, pesticide exposure to native bees found in CRP 

landscapes (Hladik et al. 2014), and effects of pesticides on butterflies from exposure related 

to mosquito control.

2. Understanding the relation between sublethal effects (e.g., subcellular, organ-level, 

behavioral) reported for individual bees and the effects (i.e., impaired survival, growth, 

and reproduction) typically used by regulators to support quantitative risk assessments.

• Evaluation of the ability to detect nervous system impairment due to exposure to neonicotinoids, and examination of the effects of overwintering stress on colony susceptibility to pesti-
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 28

cides (Rinderer and Danka 2013). Research on how pesticides adversely affect bee physiological 

mechanisms and how expression of genes controlling pesticide detoxification provides insights 

into maintaining the health of migratory bee colonies.

• Evaluation of the effects of winter dormancy on detoxification enzymes (Johnson 2012), honey 

bee susceptibility to sub-lethal doses of pesticides and other chemicals (Stoner and Eitzer 2013), 

and the effects of pesticides on mating biology of queen honey bees and the benefits of withinhive genetic diversity (Rangel et al. 2012).

• Investigation of the effects of organic contaminants on reproductive and endocrine systems 

(Jenkins et al. 2014), and evaluation of systemic pesticides (i.e., fipronil, thiamethoxam, and 

clothianidin) on behavior as well as blood, neuron, and sperm cell quality and function in 

honeybees.

3. Determining how pesticides interact with each other and other stressors (e.g., poor nutrition/food quality, pest infestation, environmental conditions, etc.) to impact pollinator 

health.

• Research on the effects of pesticide mixtures and inert ingredients on bees, and evaluation of 

differential sensitivity of larval and adult worker bees to pesticides.

• Monitoring of health and performance of commercial bee colonies as they move through their 

pollination service cycles and are exposed to multiple pesticides/inerts. Residues measured in 

pollen will be compared to reported pesticide usage in areas where bees are used.

• Assessment of pesticide interaction with pollinators’ pests/pathogens and nutrition stress. 

• Evaluation of the effects of fungicides on honey bee metabolism and immunity. Evaluation 

of the exposure levels and effects of fungicides, insecticides, and adjuvants used for tree fruit 

and blueberry production on managed native (non-Apis) bees (bumble bees and blue orchard 

bees), including sublethal effects such as changes in nesting and foraging behavior and disease 

susceptibility (Pitts-Singer and Strange 2013). 

4. Assessing effectiveness of mitigation measures (e.g., BMPs). 

• Identification of current actions and activities involving pesticide application intended to protect 

pollinators in three representative commercially-pollinated specialty crops (almonds, apples, 

and melons) and in one commodity crop (corn) (Wojcik et al. 2014). 

• Monitoring of residues to evaluate how land management practices (e.g., buffer strips, hedge 

rows) influence pesticide exposure, and developing guidelines for management of vector-borne 

diseases to minimize negative effects on pollinators (Ginsberg 2014).

• Collaboration with European counterparts to understand whether the temporary suspensions 

of some neonicotinoid uses by the European Commission are having an effect on pollinator 

populations within the European Union (EU). Several countries within the EUhave had monitoring studies in place for multiple years and have sufficient baseline information with which to 

compare more recent data collected subsequent to the suspensions. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 29

5. Identifying effective chemical, mechanical, and managerial tools that can be developed 

for combatting arthropod pests of managed bees. 

• Monitoring and identification of factors affecting Varroa population growth in commercial and 

noncommercial colonies to determine the effects of miticides and/or agricultural chemicals on 

queen health and sperm viability, and to define sublethal pesticide effects against all castes 

and life stages of bees.

• Research examining the efficacy of insect growth regulators (IGRs) in the control of small hive 

beetles through inclusion in supplemental bee protein diets (Rennich et al. 2012), and developing genomic tools for examining the susceptibilities of non-target species to pesticides, with 

case studies for neonicotinoids and IGRs. This technology may prove to be an effective means 

of screening pesticides for control of Varroa mites.

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

Research is necessary to address uncertainties regarding the extent to which pollinators may be exposed 

to pesticides (both singularly and in combination), the effects of such exposures, whether suitable measures can be developed to reduce exposure, and characterization of the relationship between sublethal 

effects reported at the individual level to impacts at the colony or population level. 

Priority Actions:

• Develop appropriate assessment tools for sublethal effects of pesticides, adjuvants, and combinations of pesticides with other products on the fitness, development, and survival of managed 

and wild pollinators (EPA OPP).

• Add features to existing population models to improve in-field predictive power, including 

incorporating sensitivity to pesticides. Models should predict colony (social bees) and/or offspring survival (solitary bees) to support the further development of a priori hypothesis testing 

in advance of the deployment of extensive, and expensive, empirical investigations (EPA OPP/

ORD; USDA ARS).

• Determine field-level exposure rates to managed pollinators in commercial operations, and 

perform field and laboratory evaluations of the effects of such exposures on managed and 

wild pollinators (EPA OPP). 

• Determine routes of field exposure of bees to pesticides from seed treatments by evaluating 

pollen, nectar, nesting materials (leaf pieces and soil), and plant fluids containing pesticide 

residues that are transported by adult bees and that contaminate larval provisions and nest 

cells (USDA ARS). 

• Determine the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) of agriculturallyrelevant chemicals and xenobiotics in Apis and non-Apis pollinators (USDA; USGS). 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 30 ★

Agency Roles

Priority Actions Lead Agencies Primary Support Secondary 

Support Comments

Develop appropriate assessment 

tools for sublethal effects. EPA OPP

Add features to existing 

population models.

EPA OPP/ORD and 

USDA ARS

Determine field-level exposure 

rates to managed pollinators. EPA OPP

Determine routes of field exposure 

of bees to pesticides. USDA ARS

Determine the absorption, 

distribution, metabolism, and 

excretion (ADME) of agriculturallyrelevant chemicals and 

xenobiotics.

USDA; USGS
★ 31 ★

Section VI: Genetics, Breeding, and Biology

Leads: Tom Rinderer (USDA-ARS), Bob Danka (USDA-ARS), Michelle Elekonich (NSF) 

Members: James Strange (USDA-ARS), Gloria Hoffman (USDA-ARS), Jay Evans (USDA-ARS), Jeff Pettis 

(USDA-ARS), Judy Chen (USDA-ARS), Lanie Bourgeois (USDA-ARS), George Yocum (USDA-ARS), Jim 

Hanula (USDA-FS), Jill Jenkins (DOI-USGS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Developing hazard-resistant stocks of pollinators can help alleviate their reduced availability. USDA 

research has produced two stocks that are resistant to Varroa: Russian honey bees and those exhibiting 

Varroa-Sensitive Hygiene (VSH) (Rinderer et al. 2010). Current efforts use prior knowledge of stock-specific resistance to improve selection methods and develop novel resistance traits. Additionally, molecular 

markers are being developed for marker-assisted selection of bees with VSH and other resistance traits. 

Combining selection for resistance with selection for honey production and general vigor will improve 

bee health, particularly in environments with multiple stressors. 

Development of selected honey bee stocks leads to a need for germplasm conservation. Unlike the 

vast majority of other domesticated species, there is no organized germplasm repository for the honey 

bee (Hopkins et al. 2012). Hence, the development of protocols that support the creation of a National 

Honey Bee Germplasm Repository is critical.

Key Priority Research Themes

1. Genetics and breeding of honey bees resistant to Varroa destructor. The USDA held a 

“Varroa Summit” in February 2014 and identified the following research priorities: develop 

simplified resistance measurement tools, select and identify key mechanisms of resistance 

(VSH, grooming, and non-reproduction are high priority), characterize genetic architecture and 

heritability, and test for variation in mite virulence. Overcoming the challenges of transferring 

the products of breeding was also highlighted. Meeting these research and technology transfer 

needs will enable beekeepers to manage Varroa effectively, while reducing reliance on miticides 

and the attendant problems of acaricide-resistant mites, high costs of treatment, and the threat 

of chemical contamination of hive products. 

2. Genetics, breeding, and biology of honey bees to mitigate hazards other than Varroa. 

Numerous parasites, pests, and pathogens negatively affect the strength and survival of honey 

bee colonies. Significant effort is needed to develop new resistance traits, with priorities for 

Nosema ceranae, deformed wing virus, and combined resistance to multiple pests and pathogens. Improved molecular technologies and information, including the genome sequences 

of the honey bee (Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium 2006) and Varroa, open new 

avenues for marker-assisted selection. 

3. Establishment of a National Honey Bee Germplasm Repository. Three issues must be 

addressed to establish a repository: (1) develop an improved sperm cryopreservation proto-
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 32

col, (2) develop a protocol for the cryopreservation of honey bee embryos, and (3) develop a 

cryogenically-based system for the safe importation of honey bee germplasm. 

4. Genetics and breeding of native (non-Apis) bees to enhance health and pollination ability. 

To understand the causes of declines in both wild and managed bee species, it is imperative to 

understand first the relation of population genetic structure and species vulnerabilities to environmental disturbances. Identifying evolutionarily significant units of species and differential 

susceptibility to stresses is necessary for initiating breeding regimes in captivity. Selection and 

breeding in managed species for disease resistance and other management traits, such as physiological adaptations to diverse climates, are needed. There is a need for molecular systematic 

studies of native bees to support the taxonomic needs of the broader research community.

Existing/Current Research

1. Genetics and breeding of honey bees resistant to Varroa destructor. 

• USDA has developed basic and applied information about breeding Varroa-resistant bees and 

has developed and released two resistant types of bees to industry: Russian honey bees and 

honey bees with the Varroa Sensitive Hygiene (VSH) trait.

• USDA has ongoing collaboration with an industry group to select Russian honey bees to 

maintain the stock and to improve Varroa resistance and honey production. In addition, USDA 

is breeding and selecting for VSH-based resistance in commercial populations, and plans to 

continue refining the population. 

• USDA is conducting further selection of VSH bees in large-scale, migratory beekeeping operations to enhance general fitness and beekeeping functionality of the population.

• USDA is seeking simpler selection tools for VSH because the trait is technically challenging to 

measure. Potential tools include the stimuli that elicit the behavior and molecular markers to 

support marker-assisted selection.

• USDA also is evaluating new potential Varroa-resistance traits.

2. Genetics, breeding and biology of honey bees to mitigate hazards other than Varroa.

• USDA is capitalizing on known patriline-based variation to produce lines with differential susceptibility to Nosema to develop a resistant line of honey bees. 

• USDA is selecting for bees with resistance to deformed wing virus through stock screening 

and line-based selection. USDA is also determining the genetic basis of resistance or tolerance 

through genomic marker identification, and differential expression analysis at both transcriptomic and proteomic levels. 

• USDA will collect genomic information from honey bee stocks used in research and breeding programs. The new set of genomic sequences will lead to customized in-house markers 

for mapping, analysis of differential allele frequencies or identification of rare alleles present 

among stocks, and comparison of genomic structure (gene order and gene copy number) 

among stocks. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 33

3. Establishment of a National Honey Bee Germplasm Repository.

• USDA is developing protocols for improved spermatozoa and embryonic cryopreservation to 

overcome limits of current technology (Harbo 1977; Hopkins et al. 2012).

4. Genetics and breeding of native (non-Apis) bees to enhance health and pollination ability.

• USDA is developing molecular tools for studies of managed and wild bee species (the alfalfa 

leaf-cutter bee, the alkali bee, the blue orchard bee, and several bumble bee species). 

• USDA is investigating the genetics of immune response in bees. USGS and NSF-supported 

researchers are investigating the structure of immune response pathways to understand commonalities in how bees respond to pathogens.

• USDA is studying the population genetic structure of bumble bee species, blue orchard bees, 

and alfalfa leaf-cutter bees to understand the effects of mass rearing and movement of bees on 

wild bee populations. Special focus is placed on understanding the degree of gene flow from 

domesticated stocks into wild bees, and its impact on the health of wild populations.

• Few native bee genomes have been sequenced. The genome of the halictid bee Lasioglossum 

albipes recently has been sequenced with support from NSF.

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

1. Develop simplified tools to enhance selection of Varroa-resistant bees.

• Priority Actions: Tools should include methods to measure resistance based on phenotypes 

and molecular-marker-assisted selection to enable selection based on genotypes, proteomes, 

etc. Characterize Varroa resistance mechanisms in honey bees and ways to measure them. 

Research on mechanisms would benefit from research on Varroa-resistance in Apis cerana.

2. Improve acceptability and adoption of Varroa-resistant bees.

• Priority Actions: Researchers should engage in breeding in close partnership with commercial 

beekeepers and bee breeders, whose participation provides guidance for commercial acceptability, serves as the foundation for education among beekeepers, and will increase buy-in to 

new technology. A future opportunity could employ USDA-funded “Tech Transfer Teams” to 

help bee breeders select for Varroa resistance. 

3. Genomic sequencing of multiple honey bee stocks.

• Priority Actions: The single honey bee that was initially sequenced and made publically 

available was derived from a colony that exhibited VSH. However, many other economically 

important stocks of honey bees are used as research sources due to their specific economically 

valuable traits, and researchers would benefit from their genomic information to allow more 

effective marker-assisted selection.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 34

4. Develop technologies and allocate existing infrastructure for a National Honey Bee 

Germplasm Repository.

• Priority Actions: Supporting technologies can be developed by USDA, beginning with genetically diverse strains identified by collaborators at Washington State University and elite breeding 

strains selected by the USDA. The resulting collection can be housed and curated by the USDA 

ARS-managed National Animal Germplasm Program, which curates similar collections in accord 

with an FAO global plan (FAO 2007). The cryopreservation of honey bee sperm requires refinement to increase the quality after storage, and protocols to assess sperm quality. An embryonic 

honey bee cryopreservation protocol is needed. 

5. Develop molecular markers for native (non-Apis) managed species. Currently, research in 

multiple areas, including studies of disease, decline, phylogenies, and management is hindered 

by the lack of molecular tools. Reference genetic data are not available for most species of 

native bees that are of interest for domestication. Thus, little is known about the variability that 

exists in nature and our ability to select from various traits during the development of native 

bee pollinators. 

Agency Roles

Priority Actions Lead Agencies Primary 

Support

Secondary 

Support Comments

Varroa ARS NIFA NSF, APHIS

Other ARS NIFA NSF

Germplasm ARS USGS NIFA

Non-Apis bees ARS NIFA NSF
★ 35 ★

Section VII: Native Plant 

Development and Deployment

Leads: Jessica Wright (USDA-FS), Kas Dumroese (USDA-FS) 

Members: Amy Symstad (DOI-USGS), Theresa Pitts-Singer (USDA-ARS), Jim Cane (USDA-ARS), Gary 

Krupnick (SI), Peggy Olwell (BLM), Byron Love (USDA-ARS), Elizabeth Sellers (DOI-USGS), John Englert 

(USDA-NRCS), Troy Wood (DOI-USGS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Native plant materials are needed to create, enhance, or restore pollinator habitat. They provide critical 

foraging and breeding areas for wild and managed pollinator species, including transnational migratory species such as hummingbirds and monarch butterflies. Although many pollinators and plants are 

generalists, some have limited, obligate relationships (i.e., one requires the other for survival) (Proctor 

1996). While reproduction and propagation information is available for many commercially important 

plant species, this information is lacking for most native species. Commercially available native plant 

seed has typically gone through a selection process for particular genetic traits (USDA-NRCS 2014a), 

often for agricultural and production purposes. Sometimes these selections have been sold and planted 

across the country without regard to their origin. Today, Federal land-managing agencies are the largest 

purchasers of native plant seeds (US Government 2014), chiefly for native plant community restoration. 

Because Federal mandates require consideration of the conservation of native plant communities 

commensurate with multiuse management (Richards et al. 1998), plant community integrity, function, 

genetic diversity, and stability are paramount considerations when selecting plant materials for restoration purposes (Johnson et al. 2010). Native plants are adapted to their local conditions, but they can be 

moved by using seed transfer guidelines with good promise of establishment and persistence (Bower et 

al. 2014). For most native plant species, however, because we know neither the limits to genetic adaptability nor their specific seed transfer guidelines, provisional zones can be applied until better data are 

available (Bower et al. 2014). 

Key Priority Research Themes 

Although developing and deploying native plant materials specifically to sustain pollinators are emerging needs, many Federal programs and projects already include these topics as parts of an overarching, 

general strategy for habitat creation, enhancement, and restoration. Native plant communities provide 

critical ecosystem services (e.g., clean water and economic activities such as ranching and recreation) 

and other benefits (e.g., supporting sage-grouse and other wildlife). 

Thus, existing knowledge and current projects should be leveraged to address these four priority 

research themes:

1. Reproductive biology. Identifying pollinator-plant associations and plant reproductive biology 

issues that should be considered when assembling native plant materials for habitat restoration.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 36 ★

2. Native plant species mixtures. Identifying local and regional native plant species mixtures 

that provide the best temporal support for the most pollinators now and under future climate 

scenarios.

3. Propagation. Identifying the most efficient propagation methods for native plants required by 

pollinators to ensure plant establishment, resilience, persistence, and genetic diversity within 

restored habitats.

4. Establishment. Identifying the most efficient, economic, and effective methods for the establishment and persistence of these plant mixtures in wildland, agricultural, and urban landscapes.

Existing/Current Research

1. Reproductive biology. Reports are available on general pollination requirements for some native 

plants, particularly those that are endangered (Tepedino et al. 1999) or have interesting specialized mechanisms (Lipow et al. 2002). Specific information about ecological and reproductive 

needs, community and pollination ecologies, and responses to wildfire and competition from 

exotic plants is available for fewer native species, and their responses to restoration and management techniques remain poorly understood. Current efforts are underway to complete or provide 

the information missing for prevalent native species, or for the ecotypes needed by diverse, 

valuable, native pollinators, in order to rehabilitate habitat in certain United States regions, such 

as the Great Basin (Cane 2008). Other regions have received less attention (Reed 1995). 

2. Native plant species mixtures. Some research has been completed correlating pollinator 

populations with plant communities, as well as on the pollination needs of focal plants (Cane et 

al. 2013) and whether those needs are (or can) be met by pollinator populations in agricultural 

landscapes (e.g., Cane 2011). While some excellent resources exist for promoting pollinator 

habitat on a small scale (such as Mader et al. 2011), completed and current research on practical plant species mixtures for native plant community restoration at larger scales is lacking. 

For instance, the two native species seeded most commonly because of their low cost and 

successful establishment in the Great Basin are proving unattractive to native bees (Cane and 

Love, unpublished data). 

3. Propagation. Much research exists for general seed collection, increase, storage, and certification (e.g., USDA-NRCS 2014b). General plant propagation techniques (Dumroese et al. 2008), 

and specific information on native plants, albeit limited, continue to be developed (e.g., Borders 

and Lee-Mäder 2014). Although the appropriate seed-transfer guidelines are known for most 

commercial tree species (see Wright 2014), this information is lacking for all but a few other 

native plants. Provisional seed-transfer zones for all native plants, based on ecoregions and 

current climates, have been proposed (Bower et al. 2014). Putting seed into suitable habitats/

climates enhances chances for success. 

4. Establishment. Much research has been completed for seeding and planting restoration sites, 

but these generally involve limited species compositions and can be prone to failures, especially on harsh or competitive sites (Knutson et al. 2014). Some work evaluates optimal seeding 

depths for a few native forbs (Rawlins et al. 2009). More recent work has begun to evaluate novel 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 37

techniques (e.g. Herron et al. 2013) and combinations of techniques, which are particularly 

needed for reliable establishment and persistence of native plants on restored sites (Steinfeld 

et al. 2007). Researchers are determining proper plant material transfer guidelines (Bower et al.

2014) and discussing how these may be adjusted to meet future climatic conditions (Williams 

and Dumroese 2013). Research continues on pollinator community response to restoration 

(Cane and Neff 2011).

Research Gaps/Needs

1. Reproductive biology. A better understanding is required of the spatial and temporal relationships of native plants and their pollinators, especially in areas identified as critical for pollinators. 

Investigating large-scale (transnational and nationwide) and small-scale (landscape-level) 

relations between plant and pollinator distributions will help determine where specific plant 

species are appropriate, and elucidate which species are “broad-spectrum” (appropriate in many 

locations and contexts and for many pollinators) and “specialist” (appropriate to support one 

or a few obligate pollinators). Documenting the phenology of plant-pollinator interactions in 

high-priority settings, and how those may be influenced by, for example, invasive species and 

changes in climate, will help ensure that resilient plant species mixtures provide resources critical 

to pollinators throughout all life stages of species in the pollinator community.

2. Native plant species mixtures. Information is needed to assemble sustainable, contextappropriate plant mixtures that ensure the availability of seasonal, essential needs of all life 

stages of targeted pollinators locally and regionally, including species that migrate transnationally. Most native bees are highly seasonal and feed their larvae specific ratios of nectar and 

particular kinds of pollen. Research is needed to identify (a) plant species that are compatible 

with each other and complementary in the resources they provide for pollinators, (b) critical 

site conditions (e.g., soil type, aspect, elevation, level of degradation) in which different mixtures 

are needed to assure success within wildland, agricultural, and urban landscapes, (c) individual 

and population genetic characteristics critical for perpetuating resilient pollinator support, and 

(d) spatial distribution of plant species’ genetic variants for delineating seed-transfer guidelines 

under current and future climate scenarios.

3. Propagation. There is an essential need for information about the propagation of native plants. 

Research is needed to identify cost-effective means for properly collecting, processing, storing, 

and germinating seeds of high-priority plants, and for growing these plants for large-scale seed 

or seedling production. Different and/or multiple techniques will likely be needed and practical 

to conserve genetic diversity within species, establish an array of important pollinator plants, 

and provide efficient and economically-feasible strategies to address appropriate restoration 

of pollinator habitat in wildland, agricultural, and urban landscapes.

4. Establishment. Site properties, plant propagation quality, and the scale of the habitat to be 

created, enhanced, or restored should influence the type and mix of plant materials used. 

We require new concepts and techniques—which may include novel combinations of existing techniques—for establishing the broad palette of plants required for pollinator habitat 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 38

restoration at different spatial scales across diverse regions to address variable levels of site 

degradation. Understanding how best to deploy those materials spatially and temporally is 

imperative, especially for recovery of habitats within wildlands and at the wildland/agriculture 

interface, reflecting Federal mandates to ensure species and genetic diversity. Research is 

needed to compare the cost and effectiveness of establishment techniques for high-priority 

species mixtures to identify optimal establishment techniques for different species, mixtures, 

and settings. Projects should span several years to monitor the full impact of different seed 

mixes on pollinator species as the restored communities mature. 

Priority Actions

Priority Actions 1 and 2 summarize the existing state of knowledge of the relationship between native 

plants and pollinators, and catalog the current status of available native plant materials that benefit 

pollinators. This foundation allows Action 3 to assess gaps to determine priorities for future research in 

pollinator plant development. Based on the gaps and priorities, Action 4 begins the process of enhancing 

the available inventory of native plant species for wildland, agricultural, and urban use. Finally, Action 

5 establishes a mechanism to assess long-term success of native plant development and deployment. 

The scope, timeframes, and outcomes of all priority actions are contingent on available resources and 

staffing.

1. Synthesize existing science to identify geographic, taxonomic, ecological, and temporal gaps 

in knowledge of which plant species provide broad-spectrum pollinator support. This action 

will help ensure land-managers can make sound science-based decisions now, and help enable 

scientists to focus new research most effectively. 

• Strategy: Identify existing science capacity to develop an inter-agency synthesis document. 

Subdivide pertinent areas among agencies based on specialties/expertise (e.g., ARS: pollinators; 

NRCS: seed increase; USFS: genetic conservation). 

• Timeframe: 2 years. 

• Metric: Document(s) summarizing best available science for land managers to implement and 

critical knowledge gaps to be addressed. 

• Future opportunities: Develop and maintain a national, on-line clearinghouse for “best restoration science and practice” with emphasis on pollinators.

2. Develop a science-based plant selection decision support tool to assist land managers in 

appropriate deployment of the most effective and affordable plant materials currently commercially available for pollinator habitat in wildland, agricultural, or urban areas. These materials 

may be named cultivars or germplasm or local selections, and their appropriate use determined 

by management objectives. 

• Strategy: Identify existing science capacity to produce a decision-support tool. 

• Timeframe: 2–3 years. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 39

• Metric: A decision-support tool that land managers can use to select appropriate available plant 

materials for improving pollinator habitat in their restoration projects.

3. Systematically address important science and resource gaps,using knowledge from Actions 

1 and 2, concerning the Priority Research Themes to inform future priorities for development and 

deployment of locally-adapted, pollinator-friendly, native plant materials suitable for wildland, 

agricultural, and urban landscapes. 

• Strategy: Identify existing science capacity to combine the results of the science synthesis with 

the plant section decision-support tool to determine where geographical and/or ecological gaps 

exist in either knowledge or seed resources available for restoring particular habitat. 

• Timeframe: 3 years. 

• Metric: Knowledge and resource gaps identified to inform future research and seed mix development priorities.

4. Initiate work on additional, critical native plant species needed specifically to restore and 

enhance pollinator habitat, leveraging Action 3. This four-step process follows the Priority 

Research Themes and adds native plant species to those currently available as described in 

Action 2. Progress on this action item will be commensurate with the amount of available 

funding. 

I. Develop comprehensive knowledge of specific native plant-pollinator species’ reproductive 

biology (e.g., “broad-spectrum” and/or threatened and endangered species) for wildland, 

agricultural, and urban settings. 

II. Identify resilient, self-sustaining native plant species mixtures for public lands and plant 

species mixtures appropriate for private lands of important pollinator-appropriate native 

plants, and determine appropriate seed transfer guidelines. 

III. Discover information about the propagation of these plant species, especially annual plants, 

as it pertains to seed collection, processing, storage, germination, and increase. Many native 

plants are difficult to propagate. Thus it is likely that research is required to increase their 

availability for use. 

IV. Identify and develop novel outplanting techniques to increase the efficient, economic, and 

efficacious establishment of selected native plant materials, particularly as site degradation 

increases. Native plants have an immense variety of establishment requirements. Thus, 

ensuring that all species within desired mixtures are present after restoration likely will 

require novel and integrated methods. 

• Strategy: Leverage existing Federal and NGO/private industry knowledge to expand the 

currently-available native plant palette through the four steps outlined above. 

• Timeframe: 10 years. 

• Metric: For key habitat restoration priorities: expanded knowledge of the reproductive biology of key plant-pollinator species associations, quantified seed mixtures, with sound transfer 

guidelines and reliable techniques for seed propagation and establishment for those mixes.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 40

5. Develop a system for monitoring deployment of native plant materials. We currently lack 

a mechanism for tracking deployment of native plants, the long-term success of those deployments, and their benefit(s) to pollinators on Federally-managed (e.g., BLM, USFS, USFWS) and 

Federally-subsidized (e.g., CRP, EQIP) restoration projects. This missed opportunity to assess 

success and failure condemns land managers to repeat the same mistakes. 

• Strategy: Develop an interagency, online, searchable database based on the USGS Land 

Treatment Digital Library to collect and analyze relevant data efficiently (species, plant material type, location, acreage, year, establishment, impacts on pollinators, etc.) to evaluate the 

developed and deployed native plant materials. 

• Timeframe: 2 years. 

• Metric: An online database available to land managers and researchers.

Agency Roles

The USDA and DOI are members of the Plant Conservation Alliance (PCA), a collaborative partnership 

among 12 Federal agencies and almost 300 non-Federal cooperators. PCA, through its proposed 

Interagency Seed Strategy, proposes similar research work. Research coordinated through the PCA 

framework could ensure focus, optimization of resources, and enhance dissemination of results. The 

following USDA/DOI agencies could provide collaborative leadership within PCA to address the five 

priority actions described above:

Priority Action 1: ARS, USFS, USGS

Priority Action 2: ARS, USGS, NRCS

Priority Action 3: BLM, ARS, USGS, USFS, NRCS

Priority Action 4: USFS, NRCS, BLM, USGS, NSF

Priority Action 5: USFS, NRCS, USGS, BLM, ARS
★ 41 ★

Section VIII: Economics

Leads: Mark Jekanowski (USDA-ERS), Jennifer Bond (USDA-ERS), Carl Shapiro (DOI-USGS)

Members: Theresa Pitts-Singer (USDA-ARS), James Strange (USDA-ARS), Greg Arthaud (USDA-FS), Wen 

Chang (ACE), Skip Hyberg (USDA-FSA), Elizabeth Hill (EPA-OPP)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Until recently, there was relatively little economics research focusing on pollinator health issues. Growing 

awareness of the complex interactions underlying increased hive mortality, coupled with concern about 

dietary consequences and environmental implications, underscores the need to improve understanding 

of the economic and social costs and benefits of pollinator health challenges and proposed solutions. 

Key Priority Research Themes

The major economics themes and research questions currently being addressed by the Federal government and through public-private partnerships include the following:

1. Economic value: Estimating the direct and indirect economic values and impacts of pollinators to the United States. What direct and indirect economic and social values do wild and 

managed pollinators contribute to the U.S. economy? What are the associated local, regional, 

and national economic impacts, including job creation, income, and sales that stem from various 

segments of the pollination service, bee supply, and honey, pollen, and wax production markets? 

Who has an economic incentive to promote pollinator health and what are the magnitudes of 

those incentives? 

2. Social welfare: Determination of the social values and costs of changes in the availability 

of pollinators. How do changes in the health and availability of honey bees affect food prices 

and food availability? What kinds of ecosystem services do pollinators provide and what is their 

social value? What social costs are associated with pollinator protection?

3. Adaptive management: Application of adaptive management techniques to conservation 

program management. How can pollinator health outcomes and the state of the science be 

improved through the application of adaptive management tools to beekeeping, land management, and conservation program practices?

4. Habitat enhancement: Assessment of availability of forage resources, habitat requirements, and pollinator support. What is the current availability and quality of pollinator forage 

resources and other habitat requirements, such as nesting sites? Are current forage programs 

effective in supporting pollinator health and increasing related ecosystem services? What are 

the economic trades offs associated with customizing seed mixes? 

5. Pesticides: Determining a method of valuing pollinator health in the context of pesticide 

regulation. How should changes in pollinator health be accounted for within the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) risk-benefit framework that is used in 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 42

pesticide registration and registration review programs? What are the economic impacts of 

changes in pesticide use on land managers and consumers, and what mechanisms exist to 

mitigate increased costs? 

Existing/Current Research

1. Economic value. A recently-submitted Report to Congress on the economic value of honey 

bees in the United States and supporting articles focused on the pollination services and honey 

sectors have addressed research questions under this theme. Complementary work related to 

the economic impact of the pollination services sector, for select geographic locations and for 

the United States as a whole, is being developed.

2. Social welfare. A 3-year project analyzing the impacts of variations in honey bee health and 

availability on social welfare has recently begun and involves collaborations with Montana State 

University and North Carolina State University. This project assesses how honey bee dynamics 

impact food prices, taking into account changing production patterns for almonds, other tree 

nuts, and vegetables that have augmented demand for pollination services.

Research on the yield and economic impacts associated with the use of alternatives to honey 

bees as managed pollinators is also underway. Pollinator foraging and hive survivability data 

are being gathered from the North Dakota Prairie Pothole Region and will be used to infer the 

magnitude of pollination services that support ecosystem services and their value (largely 

nonmarket benefits) to society.

3. Adaptive management. Adaptive management strategies are being applied to identify 

affordable and appropriate pollinator-friendly seed mixes for use on lands enrolled in the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program and grassland enrolled in the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP).

4. Habitat enhancement. A multiagency research team is addressing research questions included 

in this theme by conducting analyses of linkages between targeted land management practices, 

CRP forage habitat and honey bee use of this habitat, productivity, and health. Partnerships 

with several land-grant universities have been funded with the goal of comparing the health 

of honey bees and native pollinators that forage on cropland, lands participating in the CRP 

CP-42 Pollinator Habitat Initiative, and CRP lands without CP-42.

5. Pesticides. This theme addresses how Federal agencies can best account for the impacts of 

changes in pollinator health within the FIFRA risk-benefit framework that is used in pesticide 

registration and registration review programs. Agencies are developing methodologies that 

can be used to estimate the benefits and costs associated with changes in pesticide use aimed 

at enhancing pollinator health in agricultural settings. These methodologies will be used in 

economic analyses conducted as part of pesticide regulatory activities.

Further, social scientists at many Federal agencies, including the USDA-ERS, USDA-FSA, USGS, 

USACE, and EPA, have economics research underway or planned that is focused on a wide range 

of pollinator-related issues, including improving the understanding of trade-offs in management 

practices, and evaluating relations among various environmental and management variables. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 43

The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) assessment on 

pollination, pollinators, and food production, due out in 2015, will also address monetary and 

nonmonetary ecosystem services provided by pollinators across the world.

Research Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

Regarding research needs, data limitations are noted, and priority actions are predicated on having 

access to data gathered from two proposed NASS Colony Loss Surveys and an ARS-led longitudinal 

study of honey bee colony health, among other data sources.

1. Determination of environmental impacts on pollinator health. Economists regularly use 

dynamic, spatial, and bioeconomic statistical models to investigate complex systems and 

relationships over time and space. Applications of these tools to knowledge gaps for pollinator 

disease, pest loads, and environmental considerations such as pollinator migration, agricultural 

chemical exposure, and other stressors have been limited and are required in order to synthesize 

data collected from multiple disciplines and prepare holistic analyses. 

• Priority Actions: The roles of access to enhanced forage (on CRP and non-CRP land), provision of pollination services, and treatment for pests and diseases will be evaluated relative to 

colony numbers and overwinter survivability via application of spatial bioeconomic modeling 

techniques. 

2. Evaluation of agricultural practices on pollinator health. Current work that links land management practices and pollinator health is limited in geographic scope and largely focused on 

honey bees. This work needs to be expanded to include wider geographic coverage and other 

pollinators, including native species. Information on the costs and benefits to crop producers of 

adopting pollinator-friendly practices is critical but also lacking. An expansion of efforts to assess 

the availability and feasibility of substitutes for commercial pollination, such as development of 

self-pollinating cultivars, application of nanotechnology, and hand pollination is also needed.

• Priority Actions: Using costs of pollination services data and data gathered from a longitudinal 

study of pollinator health and migration, this research will build on an existing, though limited, 

land management project to examine relationships between pollinator health outcomes and 

the use of buffer zones and tailored forage seed mixes, both on contract and non-contract lands. 

Efforts should be made to quantify both private and social benefits and costs that are likely to 

stem from increased utilization of conservation practices.

3. Economic assessment of beekeeper management practices. While the biological sciences 

have advanced studies linking beekeeper management practices such as miticide and fungicide application, supplement feeding, and other practices to pollinator health, there is little 

information on the economic costs and benefits of such actions. Further, unlike crop and other 

livestock producers, beekeepers often lack access to applicable enterprise budgets, feasibility 

studies, and industry-specific financial benchmarks. It is also not clear whether current financial 

risk management tools, such as insurance products, are widely available and well-suited to 

modern apiary needs. 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 44

• Priority Actions: With input from beekeepers and USDA-RMA, the current suit of risk management tools available to beekeepers will be summarized. The limitations of current products will 

be identified and beekeeper input sought on improvements to available insurance products.

Agency Roles

Identified lead and support agencies are largely assigned on the basis of previous experience and 

potential capacity. Ability to conduct research will depend on resource availability, mission, and research 

priorities of individual Federal agencies.

Priority Actions Lead Agencies Primary Support Secondary Support

Environmental impacts ERS FSA, ARS EPA, USDA-NASS, USGS

Agricultural practices FSA ARS, USGS, ERS, NRCS, EPA

Beekeeper management ERS USDA-RMA FSA
★ 45 ★

Section IX: Collections and Informatics

Lead: Gary Krupnick (SI)

Members: Rosalind James (USDA-ARS), Jay Evans (USDA-ARS), Terry Griswold (USDA-ARS), Sam Droege 

(DOI-USGS), Liz Sellers (DOI-USGS)

Introduction/Problem Statement

Object-based scientific collections and their associated digital data are invaluable components of the 

Federal government’s and the Nation’s research infrastructure. Systematics collections are created and 

maintained because they provide permanent vouchers for past and ongoing research, are usually the 

basis for the only data available on the past status of pollinators and their associated plants, are always 

the final check for the difficult process of identifying species (insects in particular) and/or detecting the 

diseases, pathogens, and parasites they carried at the time of collection, and are often a storehouse of 

molecular, genetic, and isotopic information. In some instances, literature related to historical collections 

is the only evidence of species occurrence data remaining after specimens have deteriorated or been 

destroyed. Biological collections can also have unanticipated relevance to research being conducted 

in fields other than the one for which they were collected, and are often reanalyzed by using new 

instruments and techniques, providing new data from old specimens. Collections provide irreplaceable 

evidence of long-term historical trends, which also forms the basis for predictive research. 

The data associated with specimens in a collection must be made more readily available through 

specimen digitization (both photographs and metadata), adoption of data standards, and the creation 

and indexing of metadata about each collection. High-quality, high-resolution or highly granular, 

georeferenced pollinator and plant species-occurrence data derived largely from specimen collections 

form the basis for species distribution modeling and for determining current or predicting future species occurrence and habitat requirements: especially in response to environmental disturbances such 

as invasive species, fire, habitat loss, climate change, and conservation and management treatments 

applied by resource and land managers. 

Key Priority Research Themes

1. Characterizing the extent of specimen collections and collections data of North American 

pollinators, associated plants (or relevant plant derivatives such as pollen, germplasm, 

etc.), and plant-pollinator associations. Collections could be utilized to help understand the 

current decline of pollinating taxa and potential associated impacts on pollination-dependent 

species, if these collections were more available as datasets.

2. Developing precise vouchering standards for studies that create genetic and genomic 

analyses of pollinators and their biotic threats. Scientists make mistakes in species identifications. Taxonomy can change as groups are revised and new subspecies or unique populations 

are identified after genomic analysis is done. Thus, voucher specimens are needed to maintain 

the proper identification of the source of genetic material. Vouchering will also allow for long-
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 46

term sample preservation of nucleic acids for barcoding and sequencing projects, and isotopic 

and chemical analyses of migratory pollinators.

3. Developing national genetic preservation resources for honey bees and other managed 

bees. Though individual research groups are making progress on genome mapping, no national 

genetic preservation resource exists for honey bees or other bees. Genetic diversity is needed 

to maintain breeding programs that can help honey beekeepers deal with future invasive pests 

and climate changes. Similarly, a DNA and RNA sequence database is needed to enhance our 

scientific ability to identify gene function and the potential for breeding bees resistant to different environmental stresses.

Current Status

Federally-owned collections and collections datasets relevant to pollinators are currently housed at DOI, 

USDA, and Smithsonian Institution (SI) facilities and university partners’ facilities throughout the United 

States; however, the degree to which these collections and associated historical collections literature 

have been digitized and standardized for integration with other datasets varies widely. The U.S. government’s Federal Open Data Initiative, launched in 2013, offers an avenue through which Federal agencies 

are coordinating the cataloging and digitization of Federal collections data. Collaborative initiatives such 

as the Consortium of the Barcode of Life (CBOL), TraitBank (EOL), the Global Biodiversity Information 

Facility (GBIF), the EcoInformatics-based Open Resources and Machine Accessibility (EcoINFORMA) initiative, and other open-access data aggregators are encouraging the use of internationally-accepted data 

standards and procedures, and providing gateways for interactive data access. Similarly, complementary 

digitization efforts are being coordinated through national nongovernment networks, such as the U.S. 

Virtual Herbarium Network and regional Herbarium Consortia, the Southeast Regional Network of 

Expertise and Collections, and the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Advancing Digitization 

of Biodiversity Collections (ADBC) project.

Gaps/Needs and Priority Actions

1. Digitize existing collections/mobilize data. A better understanding is needed of pollinator 

and plant representation/gaps in Federal, state, university and private collections, their digital 

status in terms of photographs and metadata, and limited access to high quality/resolution 

specimen and literature-based collections/species occurrence data—especially those from 

longer-term, historical, continuous sampling efforts. 

• Priority Actions: Identify and use existing cyber-infrastructure, tools, and expertise to support 

taxonomic identification and mobilization of Federal pollinator and associated plant collections 

and collections-related literature by continuing to digitize, standardize, and share high-quality, 

high-resolution, georeferenced data, including via the Internet. Focus digitization efforts on 

specimens from longer-term, continuous monitoring efforts and locations that have been 

intensively sampled. Establish interagency species-occurrence data sharing and use agreements. Encourage and enable agencies to publish pollinator and plant species occurrence 

data in a format appropriate for use by other agencies, non-Federal researchers, and the public 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 47

through existing mechanisms such as the USGS Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation 

(BISON), which provides a gateway for Federal collections data, GBIF, EOL TraitBank, or other 

open-access data aggregators. Enhance access to large non-Federal pollinator data, including 

host plant-pollinator association information collected and held by non-Federal organizations. 

2. Coordinate collecting. Initiate new and coordinate existing Federal pollinator and plant 

specimen and observation-based species-occurrence data collection and curation efforts by 

identifying existing or developing new agency-approved standard protocols and tools for pollinator and plant specimen (including vouchers) and observation data collection, inventory, 

monitoring, digitization, and curation. Encourage partnerships with non-Federal entities, such 

as states, universities, and programs like Master Naturalists. Adopt policies that encourage 

research on Federal lands, such as making it easier to transfer ownership of specimens to nonFederal entities. 

• Priority Actions: Develop guidance/best management practices for pollinator and plant specimen collection.

3. Facilitate taxonomy/species identification. Identify tools, expertise, and resources for facilitating the accurate identification and taxonomy of pollinators (especially insects, including 

immature life stages), for example, by producing taxonomic revisions of key pollinators, creating 

online identification tools/software, conducting training workshops, funding additional identification service positions (taxonomists) in agencies, and building voucher-based species DNA 

barcode libraries for target taxa (pollinators, major pests and predators (pathogens, parasites, 

viruses, etc.), and pollen). Develop a national genetic preservation resource for honey bees and 

other managed pollinating species and a centralized national long-term repository for field 

samples. 

• Priority Actions: Ensure that pollinator DNA and RNA sequence datasets are preserved (with 

appropriate voucher systems), and create voucher-based DNA barcode libraries for taxonomic 

identification. Develop standard methods for creating vouchers for specimens used in nucleic 

acid sequencing and genomics studies.

Agency Roles

Priority Actions Lead Agencies Primary Support Secondary Support Comments

Digitize collections. SI, Biodiversity 

Heritage Library

Coordinate collecting. USDA, USGS

Facilitate taxonomy/

species identification.

USGS, Consortium for 

the Barcode of Life
★ 48 ★

Section X: From Research to Application: 

Models, Tools and Best Practices

Leads: Mary Purcell-Miramontes (USDA-NIFA), Tom Moriarty (EPA-OPP) 

Members: Gloria Hoffman (USDA-ARS), Kathryn Thomas (DOI-USGS), Steve McNulty (USDA-FS), Matt 

Thompson (USDA-FS), Eunice Padley (USDA-NRCS), Rosalind James (USDA-ARS), Jeff Pettis (USDA-ARS)

Introduction

Translating basic research into decision tools—and vetting those tools in real-world situations—is a critical component of improving pollinator health. Coordination among domestic research entities with a 

broad array of expertise, as well as participation in international activities such as the Intergovernmental 

Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) inaugural assessment on “Pollinators, Pollination 

and Food Production”, is necessary to synthesize data relevant to pollinator health into management 

tools applicable to the diverse needs and constraints of stakeholders. 

Decision tools inform decision-making processes, and provide informational and analytical content 

upon which decisions will be based (Thompson et al. 2013). Formulating a common understanding of 

the problem to be addressed, identifying decision-makers and stakeholders, and establishing clear and 

measurable management objectives are first steps in applying decision tools. Decision-support tools 

are not decision-making tools, but ideally provide an improved informational basis upon which to base 

decisions. Uncertainties may remain, and decision-makers will also have to balance considerations like 

available resources, timelines, and competing objectives.

Examples of information needs by stakeholder group are outlined below:

Communities of Decision 

Makers with Concern for 

Pollination Services

Examples of Information Needs and Decisions

Agriculturalists: crop farmers What government programs are available to develop bee habitat and forage? Where 

can I get seeds or plants for bee habitat? What plants should I grow? What plants should 

I use for bee forage? What pest control methods are safe for pollinators? Will planting 

pollinator habitat benefit me financially?

Beekeepers Where can I get the best information on keeping bees? How do I identify diseases in my 

colonies? What plants provide nectar for honey? What plants are good pollen resources? 

How do I become a pollination service provider?

Citizen scientists, general public What are pollination services and why do we need them? Are there ways I can help 

support pollination services?

Gardeners: urban and small vegetable gardeningWhat plants attract pollinators? What are the pollinators in my area? What plants are 

suitable to my area that attract pollinators?

Habitat managers: Federal, state, 

tribal, NGO managers of natural 

areas

How do I create high-quality pollinator habitats? How do I best plan restoration activities 

to protect and support pollinators? Do I manage areas that are important migration 

corridors for pollinators? What are my responsibilities to educate the public about pollinators and how do I fulfill those?

Horticultural consultants, landscape architects, extension specialists, Master GardenersWhere do I get the most current information on pollinator needs and best practices to 

manage pollinators for my consultations? What plants should I use to create visually 

appealing pollinator habitat? What integrated pest management strategies work best 

for the recommended plants?
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 49

Communities of Decision 

Makers with Concern for 

Pollination Services

Examples of Information Needs and Decisions

Policy makers What are the costs of providing pollination services? How do I get the best information 

on the adequacy of pollination services? What policies support pollination services?

Researchers What pollinators occur in wild lands, managed lands, or on weeds? How do managed 

and unmanaged pollinators respond to biotic and environmental stressors such as 

fire, invasive species, disease, climate change, pesticides, and habitat fragmentation?

Teachers and other education 

providers

Where can I get curriculum materials on pollinators?

Utility and road managers What are the best practices for supporting pollinators on my right-of-ways (RoW) and 

other managed areas? What plants are suitable for both pollination and our management constraints? How do pesticide applications affect surrounding crops, habitats, 

or gardens?

Current Decision Tools and Areas for Development

Various decision tools exist or are in development to address the wide variety of stakeholder needs. 

These tools perform several functions, from illuminating basic biological processes to helping land 

managers evaluate and mitigate risks from multiple stressors to pollinator health. Decision tools may 

be derived from various databases, information-sharing platforms, and research models, which may 

ultimately be formulated into a compendium of best management practices. Importantly, how this 

information is most effectively disseminated is critical to wide-scale adoption of practices to support 

pollinator health. Current and existing literature, as well as knowledge gaps for these kinds of decision 

tools, are covered in more detail below. 

Databases and Information-Sharing Platforms

There are many Federally-supported databases that serve pollinator research objectives. These vary 

widely in the quantity of data they host. For example, the University of Maryland-led Bee Informed 

Partnership has been developing a honey bee health database that stores information collected by 

surveying beekeepers about the management practices they use and what practices are most effective. From those data, epidemiological methods are used to find trends towards better beekeeping 

practices that result in healthier honey bees. Other examples include the Consortium for the Barcode 

of Life, which houses genetic data for classifying organisms; Biodiversity Information Serving our Nation 

(BISON), which stores data on species occurrence/location; and Discover Life, which houses species lists, 

maps, and ID guides for a wide variety of organisms, including pollinators. The USA National Phenology 

Network (USA-NPN) is a platform for sharing data on phenological events for pollinators and plants 

such as leafing, flowering, reproduction of plants, and pollinator migration. In addition to supporting 

research directly, USA-NPN also assists resource-management decision-making through development 

of decision tools (e.g., phenology “calendars” that assist planning of management activities). 

For the monarch butterfly, USGS is working with Federal, academic, and NGO partners on a series of 

monarch-related (Eastern population) science activities in order to develop a geospatial decision support tool for monarch habitat restoration. Researchers are currently assembling various data layers into 

an ArcGIS online data server (https://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/home). This tool is being designed to guide 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 50

the prioritization of restoration activities (i.e., which lands and actions have the most potential benefit 

to monarch butterflies?). This approach will characterize the value of habitats for Eastern monarch 

populations based on demographic models and habitat value information. Data gaps exist for this tool, 

and the team is working to fill those gaps.

Information platforms are needed for the human dimension of putting the results from pollinator 

research into practice as well. An information-sharing platform for social scientists, researchers, and 

extension specialists has the potential to guide the refinement and future improvements on decision 

tools and best management practices. Sharing case studies that document the results of pollinatorrelated policy interventions, such as those drawn from around the world in a recent FAO Policy Analysis 

Paper, can also provide valuable insights. 

Access to the scientific literature on pollination biology and pollinators is also an important resource 

for primary researchers, policy makers, and anyone interested in the ecosystem service of pollination. 

In partnership with a pollinator researcher, USGS has assisted in making a large (>11,700 citations) 

bibliographic database available on Mendeley, a free reference management software platform available online. 

Models

Models are critical tools for synthesizing complex information and exploring novel combinations of 

stressors on pollinator health. Models have been useful in exploring the relationship between native 

bees and their habitats, including mapping shifts in historic ranges (e.g., Cameron et al. 2011), and 

predicting how native bee abundance and biodiversity interacts with habitat to affect pollination 

services (Kremen et al. 2004; Lonsdorf et al. 2009; Jha and Kremen 2013; Kennedy et. al. 2013; Morales 

et al. 2013). Several models are available that predict climate-driven effects on pollinator abundance, 

species richness, and distribution and interactions with plants (Corbet et al. 1993; Kaiser-Bunbury et al.

2010; Vanbergen et al. 2013; Faagen et al. 2014). Conceptual models have been developed to explore 

the effects of land-use change on pollinators (Kremen et al. 2007), while other models have dug deeper 

into the impacts of specific land-use changes on pollinator communities in a given region (Priess et al.

2007, Ricketts et al. 2008).

Models can also help explore the dynamics within a honey bee hive. By inputting hive weight data 

into a model, researchers can model colony growth and survival (Meikle et al. 2006, 2008). Researchers 

have investigated the impacts of parasites (e.g., Fries et al. 1994; Boot et al. 1995; Martin 1998; Calais et. 

Al.1999; Wilkinson and Smith 2002; DeGrandi-Hoffman and Curry 2004) and pesticides (Thompson et al.

2005; Thompson and Maus 2007; Henry et al. 2012; Cresswell and Thompson 2012) on colony size and 

behavior by using models. Using models of parasite populations, researchers can determine thresholds 

for effective treatment and control of those parasites (Strange and Sheppard 2001; DeGrandi-Hoffman 

et al. 2014). Combining hive and habitat models, the honey bee model BEEHAVE integrates colony 

dynamics, mite population dynamics, epidemiology of mite-transmitted viruses, and habitat structure 

to explore interacting impacts on honey bee health (Becher et al. 2014). 

Better knowledge of the factors affecting pollinator health and improved methodologies open opportunities to improve models and increase understanding of the system. Four areas that would benefit 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ 51 ★

from expanded investment in modeling are: (1) integrated models that address multifactorial impacts on 

pollinators, (2) spatial models of plant and pollinator habitat applicable to restoration activities and for 

protection of pollinator migration corridors, (3) agent-based approaches that elucidate how pollinators 

interact with the landscape and how they respond to complex environmental drivers, and (4) predictive models of how the changing climate may affect pollinators and their forage/nutritional resources.

Best Management Practices 

Land managers and beekeepers need actionable recommendations that are specific to their management goals, geographic locations, and capabilities. Integrating natural and social science research 

can produce best management practices for a variety of user needs. In response to the Presidential 

Memorandum on pollinator health, Federal agencies are developing a set of best management practices 

for promoting pollinators on Federal lands. Additional efforts are targeting the needs of private land 

owners. For example, two USDA-funded Coordinated Agricultural Projects (CAPs) provide resources to 

beekeepers and land managers who are concerned about sustaining pollinator health. The first was the 

University of Georgia-led Managed Bee CAP, which, among several research objectives, established a 

virtual Community of Practice on bee health (CoP). This CoP is a group of university experts in apiculture 

and pollinator conservation, which arose out of the National eXtension initiative (http://about.extension.

org/foundation/). In collaboration with the nonprofit organization Project Apis m., the CoP populated a 

Web site with the most current literature on best management practices for managed bees. 

The second example is the Integrated Crop Pollination Project (ICP). The ICP is developing decision 

frameworks and models to design forage habitats for managed and unmanaged pollinators in specialty 

crops. The team is conducting research to develop BMPs to manage forage habitat that incorporates 

plant species choices, consideration of plant and pollinator phenology, and cost-benefit scenarios of 

different strategies. Future work can expand the ICP model to a more diverse array of land uses and 

target specific pollinator species. 

Information Dissemination

Practical and efficient mechanisms are required for disseminating information to stakeholders. Multiple 

forms of information delivery may be needed to assist different user communities in making better decisions. The Land-Grant University Cooperative Extension System provides science-based decision tools for 

improving pollinator health via educational workshops, websites, and technical guidance and training 

for farmers, beekeepers, and the general public. Similarly, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation 

Service and Farm Service Agency offer technical guidance and financial support to private landowners 

and tribes to improve habitat for pollinators.

The Managed Bee CAP’s Web site provides information on various topics relevant to managing honey 

bees, such as “Genetic Tool Kits” to diagnose diseases of honey bees. Similarly, the ICP project provides 

a list of tools and resources for managers and is conducting research on optimal delivery of information 

and measuring the level of adoption of decision tools by users.

The private sector also plays an important role in transmitting information to help protect pollinators 

from stressors and recommended measures to support pollinator populations. For example, labels on 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 52

pesticide products communicate both mandatory and precautionary measures established by EPA to 

guide pesticide users on ways to minimize potential adverse effects to pollinators. Drawing on recommendations from pollinator-promoting non-governmental organizations, various horticultural nurseries 

have marketed particular plant species as attractive to pollinator species or recommend combinations 

of plants to create habitats that support a diverse array of pollinators. 

Equally important information resources for improving pollinator health are distributed across government, university, non-profit organizations, and private sources (Appendix A). While many tools are 

available for assessing, maintaining, or improving pollinator health, gaps still exist in transferring this 

information in a user-friendly way to a wide audience of users. Public and private partners should be 

engaged on needed background research to determine the feasibility of creating a centralized Webbased location to ensure delivery and long-term maintenance of well-vetted decision tools and best 

management practices for pollinators. Existing resources, like the Web-based eXtension Communities 

of Practice, the USDA’s Integrated Pest Management Centers, and USDA Climate Hubs, could help fill 

this role. 
★ 53 ★

Partnerships

The research needs outlined in this plan are broad, encompassing a range of complex biological factors, 

taxonomic groups, and societal implications. Clearly, no single entity is capable of executing the entirety 

of this plan. A collective effort among organizations and sectors is needed to make significant gains 

in pollinator health. The current science described in this plan benefits from numerous partnerships 

already in place, and future work will increasingly rely on intellectual, financial, and related partnerships. 

Researchers from Federal, university, and private institutions have a long history of jointly conducting studies and authoring reports, contributing different aspects of knowledge and capabilities. The 

examples in this section provide an idea of the types of relationships that exist and can be built upon 

as Federal agencies work to implement this plan.

Research Coordination

Federal researchers are collaborating intellectually with multiple partners on a variety of practical and 

theoretical research activities, including programs to monitor bee health, agrochemical exposures, 

changes in pests and pathogens, and impacts of commercial migratory operations on pollinators, habitats, and ecosystem services. Activities include development of integrated pest management guidelines 

and best management practices, as well as outreach and education for beekeepers, agriculturalists 

requiring pollination services, and the public. 

For example, the Integrated Crop Pollination Project, a pollinator enhancement project funded by the 

USDA Specialty Crop Research Initiative, brings together university and Federal researchers and NGO 

partners to work on habitat enhancement and monitoring of pollinators in agricultural landscapes to 

benefit America’s farmers.

The Great Basin Native Plant Project and the Colorado Plateau Native Plant Program are two USFS and 

BLM efforts that coordinate research partnerships among more than 30 organizations within the Federal 

(e.g., NRCS, ARS, USGS), state (e.g., Utah Division of Wildlife Resources), university (e.g., Brigham Young 

University, Texas Tech), and private (e.g., Utah Crop Improvement Association) sectors to improve both 

the availability of native plant materials and the knowledge and technology required for their use in 

restoring diverse native plant communities. 

The EPA and USDA-ERS are collaborating to develop methodologies to estimate the benefits and costs 

of potential pesticide regulatory decisions in an agricultural setting. Current approaches estimate the 

impacts of regulatory decisions on changes in agricultural yields and production costs, but do not 

incorporate potential effects on pollinator health and beekeeper income. To address these limitations, 

the USDA-ERS and EPA research partnership aims to identify appropriate valuation methods that will 

account for the spectrum of direct and indirect economic effects of potential regulatory changes. The 

identified methodology will assist EPA in determining how pollinator health should be accounted for 

within the FIFRA risk-benefit framework that is used in pesticide registration and registration review 

programs.
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 54

Partnerships ensure that Federal research activities are responsive to beekeepers’ needs, and that the 

best available science is made available to beekeepers. By partnering with commercial beekeepers, 

USDA-ARS scientists are able to test ideas for mite controls, improved genetic stock, nutrition, and 

supplemental feeding on a larger scale and under more realistic conditions than would otherwise be 

possible. Much of this research depends on beekeeper input into the design and/or practicality of the 

research, and on beekeepers providing access to the large numbers of colonies necessary for research 

purposes. Testing improved management schemes within functioning beekeeping operations provides 

a rapid two-way flow of information: beekeepers can see for themselves if something works, or if it is 

not practical or does not appear to be making a difference, and in turn give important feedback to the 

researcher. Over the past few years, USDA-ARS scientists have worked with thousands of commercial 

hives from across the United States to field-test improved management schemes.

USDA-NIFA also supports the Bee Informed Partnership, a collaboration among researchers from a wide 

variety of disciplines and beekeepers across the United States. The Partnership takes an epidemiological 

approach to studying honey bee losses, surveying thousands of beekeepers about their colony losses 

and management practices. USDA-APHIS also partners with Bee Informed to collect more detailed data 

from beekeepers on diseases, pests, and pathogens. Bee Informed keeps beekeepers up-to-date on 

results, and also offers diagnostic services and technology transfer support.

Research Funding

Financial arrangements are obviously important partnerships for science, as research needs typically 

outnumber funding resources. USDA-ARS has been conducting mite and disease control products 

research with contributions from private industry. With funding from USDA, USGS is collaborating with 

the University of California at Davis to analyze linkages between land management practices and pollinator health (including honey bees and native bees). The National Science Foundation currently funds 

many university-based studies addressing basic science questions (Appendix B). USDA-ARS partners 

with, and receives research funding from, non-governmental organizations (Pollinator Partnership and 

Project Apis m.) and commodity boards (National Honey Board and the Almond Board of California) for 

a range of investigations. 

Data and Information Sharing

The Smithsonian Institution, USDA, USGS, and other Federal agencies are involved in a variety of partnerships with non-profits, museums, and universities to achieve the goals of expanding access to data and 

collections. These partnerships include Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON), Integrated 

Taxonomic Information System (ITIS), Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Consortium for the 

Barcode of Life (CBOL), Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), and the Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL), among 

others. 

Citizen Engagement

Federal and non-governmental organizations are also collaborating on the creation and maintenance of 

tools and outreach materials in support of pollinators and their habitats. These include online resources 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 55

and publications that inform the general public about pollinator health, such as the U.S. Forest Service 

and Pollinator Partnership’s Bee Basics: An Introduction to Native Bees, the Butterflies and Moths of North 

America Project, NatureServe Explorer, and iNaturalist. 

Citizen-science programs are increasing the prevalence of useful and popular partnerships that help 

to assess the status and trends of native pollinators across the country. These partner-based programs 

connect volunteers with researchers to provide volumes of observations on targeted topics. Federal 

agencies benefit greatly through data collected by programs such as Great Sunflower Project, Nature’s 

Notebook—A Project of the USA National Phenology Network, Journey North, eBird, Hummingbirds at 

Home, and others, which provide data at spatial and temporal scales previously impossible with limited 

Federal resources. 
★ 56 ★

Conclusion

Pollinators are facing a wide variety of stressors, including habitat loss, shifts in forage quality, pests and 

pathogens, pesticides and toxins, changing farm and hive management practices, and introduced (nonnative) species. In addition to the impacts of each individual stressor, stressors are interacting, and in 

some cases acting synergistically, to cause pollinator declines. The approach proposed in the Pollinator 

Research Action Plan supports better understanding of individual stressors as well as the cumulative 

influence of these stressors on overall pollinator health. The plan identifies a full suite of activities that 

considers both economically-important drivers as well as the biodiversity of ecosystems. It includes 

project areas that are readily practicable, as well as more ambitious goals. 

Research to address the objectives of the Presidential Memorandum fall into five main areas that overlap 

and interact to determine pollinator health:

1. Population trends and basic biology. Assessing the status of pollinator populations requires 

inventories to establish baseline conditions, and subsequent monitoring and longitudinal 

studies to detect deviations—and causes for these deviations—from the baselines. For managed bees, expanded quarterly and annual surveys of beekeepers, including questions on 

management practices and hive losses, and development of technologies to monitor hive 

health continuously, are a top priority. For native pollinators, research must address species 

distributions, population patterns and habitat use, which are poorly understood for many species. These fundamental data can feed into models of the larger system of interacting factors 

affecting pollinators. 

2. Environmental stressors. Many environmental factors have the potential to impact pollinator 

populations. Information is needed on these stressors individually, particularly the sublethal 

impacts of pesticides and mite parasites. Research must focus on developing miticides for honey 

bees that safely and effectively manage colony infestations. Just as importantly, information 

is needed on how these stressors interact in real-world situations to cause declines in both 

honey bees and native pollinators. Best management practices on public and private lands, 

and actions by Federal, state, and local governments, require synthetic studies of multiple 

stressors. Collaboration with scientists internationally will add to the information base from 

which stressors can be assessed under diverse conditions and habitat. 

3. Land managers. Human behavior influences environmental stressors on pollinator health. The 

choices that land managers make depend on a complex web of cultural and economic values. 

Best management practices have to balance what is best for the pollinator and best for the land 

manager. Information on how decisions are made, and how tools can support those decisions, 

is crucial to positively changing the environment for pollinators. 

4. Restoration. Pollinator populations depend directly on plant populations. Effective habitat 

restoration must be appropriate for the desired pollinator species, affordable to establish in the 

short term, and self-sustaining in the long term. Research that helps identify habitat with the 

highest potential for pollinator benefits, restore that habitat with appropriate seed mixtures, 
Pollinator Research Action Plan

★ ★ 57

and monitor that habitat for adaptive management, is essential to creating more and better 

pollinator habitat.

5. Knowledge curation. Long-term monitoring and sound research require an extensive and 

well-curated body of data. This includes traditional data from individual specimens validated 

with their identification and geographic data, as well as data from techniques as cutting-edge as 

whole-genome sequencing. Capacity to store information has expanded exponentially in recent 

years, and maintaining and sharing specimen and genomic collections, as well as population 

data, will aid in understanding patterns in decline and survival. 

Together, these main areas represent the bodies of knowledge currently understood to be most critical 

to the recovery of pollinator populations in the United States. The proposed actions are built upon a solid 

foundation of existing research from the Federal agencies as well as academic institutions. Activities 

outlined in the Pollinator Research Action Plan use existing research and development to apply new 

technologies and approaches to make immediate progress in protecting beekeeper and grower livelihood, and in sustaining agricultural crops and native plant habitats dependent on pollination services, 

while undertaking longitudinal studies to uncover the underlying causes of major bee health problems. 

Finally, the plan uses the interagency process to inform other relevant activities (e.g., BMP’s for habitat) 

of emerging research findings. 
★ A–1 ★

Appendices
★ A–2 ★

Appendix A—Web Sites with Resources 

and Tools for Pollinator Health

Pollinator Health Organizations

• Bee Informed Partnership: http://beeinformed.org/

• eXtension Bee Health Community of Practice: http://www.extension.org/bee_health

• Integrated Crop Pollination Project: http://icpbees.org/

• Managed Pollinator Coordinated Agricultural Project: http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/

• Pollinator Partnership (P2): http://www.pollinator.org/

• Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education’s (SARE’s) Managing Alternative Pollinators: 

http://www.sare.org/Learning-Center/Books/Managing-Alternative-Pollinators

• Xerces Society: http://www.xerces.org/

Risk Management for Pesticides

• Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)—Pesticide Exposure of 

Insect Pollinators: http://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-mitigation-pollinators/pesticideexposure-insect-pollinators.htm

• Pesticide Risk Assessment for Pollinators—Summary of a SETAC Pellston Workshop (Society 

of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 2011): http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.setac.org/

resource/resmgr/publications_and_resources/executivesummarypollinators_.pdf

• Purdue University—Protecting Honey Bees from Pesticides: http://extension.entm.purdue.edu/

publications/E-53.pdf

• The Guide to Seed Treatment Stewardship: http://seed-treatment-guide.com/

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--Reducing Pesticide Drift: http://www2.epa.gov/

reducing-pesticide-drift

• University of Florida—Minimizing Honey Bee Exposure to Pesticides: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/

in1027http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/in1027

Best Management Practices for Beekeepers and Growers

• Managed Pollinator Coordinated Agricultural Project—Best Management Practices (BMPs) For 

Beekeepers: http://www.beeccdcap.uga.edu/documents/bmpcalagr.html

• Pollinator Partnership—Securing Pollinator Health and Crop Protection: http://pollinator.org/

PDFs/SecuringPollinatorHealthCropProtection.pdf 

• 2015 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington—Bee Protection: http://www.tfrec.

wsu.edu/pages/cpg/Bee_Protection
POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–3 ★

• Farm Services Agency—FSA Pollinator Information: http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?

area=home&subject=ecpa&topic=nra-pl

• Natural Resources Conservation Service—Conservation Stewardship Program: http://www.

nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/csp/

• Natural Resources Conservation Service—How NRCS is Helping Pollinators: http://www.nrcs.

usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/pollinate/help/

• Natural Resources Conservation Service—Environmental Quality Incentives Program: http://

www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs/financial/eqip/

• New York Integrated Fruit Production Protocol for Apples: http://hdl.handle.net/1813/5219

• Pollination Overview—Honey Bees are Essential for a Successful Crop: http://www.almonds.

com/growers/pollination
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–4 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

DOI USGS Modeling/monitoring land-change effects on honey bee landscape 

suitability in the Northern Plains

x x x x x

DOI USGS Evaluating how invasive wasp management restores plantpollinator mutualisms in Hawaii

x x x x x

DOI USGS Effects of Herbicide Applications for Shrubland Habitat Restoration 

on Ground-Dwelling and Pollinator Insect Communities on the Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area

x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Pollinators of highbush blueberry in southern New England x x xDOI USGS Male Gamete Quality for Reproductive Assessment and Genetic 

Improvement

x x x x x

DOI USGS Systemic Fipronil, Thiamethoxam, and Clothianidin Effects on Cell 

Quality and Function in Amphibians, Crayfish, and Honeybees

x x x x

DOI USGS Baseline monitoring of indicator species (butterflies) at tallgrass 

prairie restorations

x x x x

DOI USGS Assessing the utility of CRP grasslands and rowcrops for native bees; 

in collaboration with USDA

x x x

DOI USGS Assessment of pesticide exposure to native bees found in USDA 

Conservation Reserve Program fields, rowcrop agriculture and rangeland

x x x x

DOI USGS Effects of climate change on the Karner blue butterfly x x x x

DOI USGS Distribution of native bees in climate sensitive habitats of the 

national parks

x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Assessment of Population Genetic Structure and Management 

Considerations for Threatened and Endangered Butterflies

x x x

DOI USGS Modeling pollinator communities for huckleberries in response to 

climate change near Glacier National Park, MT; in collaboration with Montana State University. 

x x x x x

DOI USGS Estimating mosquito control pesticide risk to butterflies in the 

Florida Keys.

x x x

DOI USGS Pollination interaction webs to understand effects of invasive plant 

species on native plants and pollinator communities

x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Evaluation of pollen limitation and pollinator efficacy for the rare 

endemic plant, Eriogonum visheri, at Badlands National Park

x x x x x

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–5 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

DOI USGS Importance of Canadian Thistle (Cirsium arvense) to pollinators: a 

removal experiment

x x x x x x

DOI USGS Effects of fire versus conservation grazing for management 

of tallgrass prairie remnants and their pollinator and butterfly communities (planned 2015)

x x x x x x

DOI USGS Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON) Prioritizing 

Access to High Quality Pollinator and Plant Species Occurrence and Association Data for the United States and U.S. Territories with Emphasis on (but not limited to) Invertebrate Pollinators including Native Bees and Monarch Butterflies.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) Global Update of 

World Bee Taxonomy and the World Bee Checklist of Over Twenty Thousand Valid Scientific Names for Bees.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Modeling honey bee habitat suitability in the Northern Great Plains x x x

DOI USGS Monarch Conservation Science Partnership x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Online Identification guide to the 162 Genera of Bees of the 

Caribbean, Mexico, United States, and Canada 

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Species level identification guides to 1200 North American bee 

species

x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Creation and Maintenance of the Handy Bee Manual x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Creation of the USFWS manual on Native Bee Monitoring x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Creation of North American Native Bee Monitoring Program x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Creation of 300,000 specimen National bee specimen database x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Pilot Program to Survey Native Bees in Woodlands x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Creation of Hi-Resolution Public Domain Photographs of Native and 

Introduced Bees

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS Pesticide National Synthesis Project a national-scale assessment 

of the occurrence and behavior of pesticides in the United States. http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/

x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS 

/ USA NPN

Vetted and published standardized phenology monitoring protocols for 41 pollinators, including 7 hummingbird species, 7 bee species, and 27 butterfly and moth species; protocols capture presence, absence, abundance, flower visitation, migration and other defined life cycle stages

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–6 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

DOI USGS 

/ USA NPN

Vetted and published standardized monitoring protocols for 18 pollinator-dependent, economically important crop species

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

DOI USGS 

/ USA NPN

Standardized output of phenology information on pollinators and pollinator plants including: data visualizations and maps, freely available customized data downloads, synthetic data products (e.g., onset, duration and peak of activity; site-based species richness and abundance for animals), and modeled data products (e.g., gridded indices, regional and national indicators linked to climatology)

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

EPA OPP Broad Spectrum Pesticide Residue Analysis of Bee Pollen in the 

Pacific Northwest Crops. Project Number B14-47

x x x

EPA OPP Development of a Honey Bee Colony Simulation Model for use in 

Ecological Risk Assessment of Pesticides

x x x x x x x x x x x

EPA OPP Imidacloprid Residue Analysis of Bee Matrices in Support of Science 

to Achieve Results (EPA STAR Grant) to Judy Wu (University of Minnesota)

x x x

EPA ORD Regionally Applied Research Effort Grant to Perform Data Analysis 

and Create an Experimental Design Concerning Bee Kill Incidents in the Upper Midwest Associated with Neonicotinoid Pesticides Treated Seed Plantings

x x x

EPA ORD Molecular target sequence similarity as a basis for species 

extrapolation to assess the ecological risk of chemicals with known modes of action.

x x x

EPA USGS Broad Spectrum Pesticide Residue Analysis of Bee Pollen from 

Honey Bees foraging on USDA Conservation Lands

x x x

NSF NSF Antibiotic Resistance in Honey bee Microbiota x x x

NSF NSF Genomics, functional roles, and diversity of the symbiotic gut 

microbiotae of honey bees and bumble bees

x x x x

NSF NSF Access, visualization, and statistical tools for the analysis of butterfly 

monitoring data

x x x x

NSF NSF A specimen-level database of the world’s bees (Apoidea) at the 

University of Kansas

x x x

NSF NSF New Software Tools for Genome Comparisons of Non-Model 

Organisms

x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ★ A–7 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

NSF NSF Community assembly of nectar-inhabiting microbes x x x

NSF NSF Organization of Social Structure and its Influence on Transmission 

Dynamics in a Honeybee Colony

x x x

NSF NSF Phenology, ontogeny and the consequences of shifts in the relative 

timing of milkweed-monarch interactions

x x x x

NSF NSF Probabilistic Frameworks for Studying Gene Regulatory Sequences 

and their Evolution

x x

NSF NSF Genomic Analysis of Pheromone-Mediated Behavior x x x

NSF NSF CC-NIE Network Infrastructure: Enabling data-driven research

NSF NSF Genomics across the speciation continuum in Heliconius butterflies x x x

NSF NSF Geographic Variation in Plant-Herbivore-Parasite Interactions: SelfMedication in Monarch Butterflies x x x x x x

NSF NSF Collaborative Databasing of North American Bee Collections within 

a Global Informatics Network

x x x x x x

NSF NSF Context-Dependency in the Exploitation of Pollination Mutualisms x x x x x

NSF NSF Epigenetic Gene Regulation in the Social Bee (Apis Mellifera) x x x x

NSF NSF Alternative strategies and evolutionary routes in the escalation of 

the bat-moth arms race: Ultrasonic stridulation in hawkmoths

x x x x x x

NSF NSF The role of floral secondary compounds in bee performance and 

disease transmission in a natural ecosystem

x x x x x

NSF NSF RCN:UrBioNet: A global network of urban biodiversity research and 

practice

x x x x x x x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: Bats, Bugs and Pecans: Using NextGeneration Pyrosequencing to Evaluate Ecosystem Services of 

Insectivorous Bats

x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: Evolution of diet breadth of Melissodes 

(Hymenoptera: Apidae)

x x x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: Microbial mediation of pollinator 

performance

x x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: Modeling Bird and Bat Mediated Pest 

Control Services Across Costa Rican Countryside

x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ★ A–8 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: The impact of ecological traits on the 

immunogenetic evolution of bats

x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: The role of phenology in plant-pollinator 

interactions and plant reproduction

x x x x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: Understanding how shifts from 

migratory to sedentary behavior influence host-pathogen dynamics

x x x

NSF NSF DISSERTATION RESEARCH: Social Capital and Policy Networks: 

Exploring the Factors that Influence Adoption of Pollinator Conservation

x x x x

NSF NSF EAGER: Climate change and phenological mismatch - an 

experimental test with cavity nesting bees, cleptoparasites, and floral resources

x x x x

NSF NSF EAGER: Re-thinking crop pollination by bees: How the interplay of 

agricultural and natural landscapes influences pollination by native bees in Southern California

x x x x

NSF NSF Epigenetic Influences on the Honey Bee Transcriptome and 

Behavior

x x x

NSF NSF ICOB: miRNAs and the social regulation of behavioral plasticity x x x

NSF NSF Independent effects of tropical forest fragmentation and habitat 

loss on hummingbird movement and pollination dynamics

x x x x

NSF NSF LiT: Phenotype-based models for ecological and evolutionary 

responses to climate change

x x x

NSF NSF MPS-BIO: Dynamics and stability of plant-pollinator mutualistic 

networks in response to ecological perturbations

x x x x x x x

NSF NSF Develop a statistical framework to integrate high-resolution 

spatially replicated field data, detailed case reports and molecular sequence data into mechanistic mathematical models of disease transmission.

x x x

NSF NSF OPUS: A synthesis of 55 years of research on the monarch butterfly x x x x

NSF NSF Pollinator Diversity and Foraging Specialization x x x x

NSF NSF Resin to Propolis: Biological origins and role in honey bee social 

immunity and health

x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–9 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

NSF NSF Scholar’s Award: A Social Scientific Study of how Stakeholders 

Produce Knowledge about the Cause and Treatment of Colony Collapse Disorder

x x x

NSF NSF The effect of sociality on transmission and spread of a multi-host 

pathogen (Geomyces destructans)

x x x

NSF NSF The Human Impact Pollen Database: Development of searchable 

internet image database of pollen taxa

x x x x x x x x x

NSF NSF The Hymenoptera Ontology: Part of a Transformation in Systematic 

and Genome Science

x x x x

NSF NSF The interplay of genes and ecology in the social behavior of a 

halictid bee

x x x

NSF NSF Understanding the Geographical and Community Context of 

Mutualism Dynamics: Fig-Pollinator-Parasite Interactions in the Sonoran Desert

x x x x

NSF NSF Olfactory processing and learning of complex scents in insects x x x x

NSF NSF Effects of pulsed floral resources on pollinator population dynamics x x x x x

NSF NSF EAGER: An Interoperable Information Infrastructure for Biodiversity 

Research (I3BR) 

x x x x x x x x x

NSF NSF CSBR: Natural History Collections: Building a central database and 

curation improvements for The McGuire Center for Lepidoptera at the Florida Museum of Natural History 

x x x

NSF NSF SusChEM: Atmospheric Fates of Neonicotinoids and Their Role in 

Food Security and Agricultural Sustainability 

x x x

NSF NSF LTREB Renewal: Drivers and consequences of phenological change 

at high altitudes 

x x x x

SI CTFS CTFS-ForestGEO Arthropod Initiative is monitoring key arthropod 

assemblages at selected ForestGEO sites in tropical rain forests

x x x x x

SI NMNH Digitize the full 46,000 specimen bumble bee collection from the 

entomological collections

x x x x x x x x x x x x

SI NMNH Digitize the full 5,000 specimen honeybee collection from the 

entomological collections

x x x x x x x x x x x x

SI NMNH Reconstruction and analysis of plant-pollinator networks from 

Plummers Island using next generation sequencing and DNA barcoding

x x x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ★ A–10 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

SI NMNH Pollinator competition and plant competition as mechanisms for 

evolutionary diversification, in collaboration with Amherst College

x x x x

SI SCBI Assessing pollinator diversity and abundance on private lands with 

differing agricultural practices, in collaboration with UVA Blandy Farm

x x x x x x x

SI SCBI Impact of native grass restoration activities on pollinator diversity 

and adundance, in collaboration with UVA Blandy Farm

x x x x x x x

SI / USBG

NMNH Compilation and detailed accounts of pollinators of every native 

North American orchid species

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA APHIS Determining the role of Varroa mites and other arthropod pests in 

vectoring disease pathogens.

x

USDA APHIS Developing control strategies for Varroa xUSDA APHIS Addressing acaricide resistance and develop strategies to control 

Varroa including genetic breeding for resistance in queens and colonies

x x

USDA APHIS Rapid identification and response of exotic pests and diseases. xUSDA APHIS Small hive beetle- IGR to prevent reproduction during protein 

feeding.

x

USDA APHIS/

ARS

Nosema sampling and effects of nutrition on Nosema incidence. x x

USDA APHIS Understanding forage opportunities for honey bees x x x xUSDA APHIS National survey of honey bee pests and diseases. x x x x x x x x x

USDA APHIS National survey of pesticides sampled from pollen in hives. x x x x x x x x x xUSDA APHIS/

ARS

National survey of bumblebee diseases. x x x x x x x x x

USDA APHIS Develop an online Bee Mite ID guide. x x x x x x x x x

USDA ARS Area-Wide Management of Agricultural Pests x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA ARS Advancing Sustainable and Resilient Cropping Systems for the 

Short Growing Seasons and Cold, Wet Soils of the Upper Midwest

x x x x x x x x x x

USDA ARS Mite Systematics and Arthropod Diagnostics with Emphasis on 

Invasive Species

x x x x

USDA ARS Chemical Biology of Insect and Plant Signaling Systems x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ★ A–11 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

USDA ARS Managing Honey Bees Against Disease and Colony Stress x x x x x x x x x

USDA ARS Managing and Conserving Diverse Bee Pollinators for Sustainable 

Crop Production and Wildland Preservation

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA ARS Production and Disease and Pest Management of Horticultural 

Crops

x x x x x

USDA ARS Understanding Honey Bee Microbiota to Improve Bee Nutrition and 

Colony Health

x x x x x x

USDA ARS Determining the Impacts of Pesticide and Nutrition-Induced Stress 

on Honey Bee Colony Growth and Survival

x x x x x

USDA ARS Genetics and Breeding in Support of Honey Bee Health x x x x

USDA ARS / 

NIFA

Genomic approaches to characterize & mitigate impact of Nosema disease in honey bees

x x x x x

USDA ERS An Economic Evaluation of Honeybees in the United States x x x x x x x x x xUSDA ERS Land Management and Pollinator Health x x x x x

USDA ERS Impact of Pollinator Health Challenges on Consumer Welfare x x x x x x x x x xUSDA ERS Risk Management Tools for Beekeepers x x x x x x x x xUSDA FS Creating monarch habitat at the USFS-PSW Institute of Forest 

Genetics

x x

USDA FSA Effect of CRP covers on honey bee and native pollinator 

populations, honey bee productivity

x x x x x x x x x

USDA FSA Monitoring CRP effects on pollinator presence in Playa Lakes x x x x x

USDA FSA Monitoring CRP effects on pollinator presence in short grass 

and mixed grass prairie ecosystems in agriculturally dominated landscapes

x x x x x x x

USDA FSA Monitoring and comparing the effect of ISU STRIPs and CRP contour 

strips on pollinator presence in agriculturally dominated landscapes

x x x x x x x

USDA NASS Quarterly Loss Survey x x x x x x x x x x

USDA NASS Annual Loss Survey x x x x x x x x x x

USDA NASS Cost of Pollination Survey x x x x x x x x x

USDA NIFA Sustainable Solutions to Problems Affecting Bee Health (20 

universities)

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ★ A–12 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

USDA NIFA Consequences of floral chemistry and bee pathogens for bee 

performance and crop pollination

x x x x x

USDA NIFA Co-formulants and pollinators x x

USDA NIFA Farming for native bees in California x x x x x

USDA NIFA Queen Supersedure in Honey bees: How do Agricultural Pesticides 

Impair Fertility in Queens and Drones?

x x x

USDA NIFA Pollination Security For Fruit And Vegetable Crops In The Northeast x x x x x

USDA NIFA Determining the Roles and Limiting Factors Facing Native 

Pollinators in Assuring Quality Apple Production in Pennsylvania; a Model for the Mid-Atlantic Tree Fruit Industry 

x x

USDA NIFA Developing Sustainable Pollination Strategies for U.S. Specialty 

Crops 

x x x x x x x x x

USDA NIFA Breeding Honey bees: From Evolutionary Biology & Functional 

Genomics to Sociology

x x x

USDA NIFA Interactions Between Honey Bee Nutrition and Viral Infection: An 

Integrative Approach to CCD

x x x x

USDA NRCS Evaluation of pollinator plant mixes for EQIP x x x x x

USDA NRCS Production and increase of five native wildflowers for range 

diversity

x x x x x

USDA NRCS Evaluation of commercially available wildflower mixes for NRCS 

conservation programs

x x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Establishing and managing pollinator meadows x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Evaluating native wildflowers for pollinator meadows x x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Establishing and managing pollinator hedgerows in crop 

production systems

x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Native plants for pollinator pastures x x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Propagation and production of milkweeds for Monarch habitat x x x

USDA NRCS Propagation and demonstration of pollinator friendly tree species x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Stabilizing irrigation reservoir shorelines with plant species 

beneficial to pollinators

x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Establishing Montana native plants to enhance pollinator habitat x x x x x x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN ★ A–13 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

USDA NRCS Testing seed mix proportions and a seed carrier for establishing 

pollinator habitat

x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Pollinator plant evaluations x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Propagation and production of milkweeds for Monarch habitat x x x

USDA NRCS Pollinator plant seeding and establishment x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Seed collection and evaluation of milkweeds for Monarch habitat x x x

USDA NRCS Establishment of plant species beneficial to pollinators x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Formulating pollinator seed mixes based on seeding dates and 

rates

x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Comparison and evaluation of commercially available pollinator 

mixes for NRCS conservation programs

x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Organic site preparation for pollinator habitat x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Evaluating plant and seed mixes for effective pollinator habitat x x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Determining optimum planting dates of native legumes and 

wildflowers for maximum establishment

x x x x x x x x

USDA NRCS Evaluating wildflower establishment for wildlife and pollinator 

habitat

x x x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Creating monarch habitat at the USFS-PSW Institute of Forest Genetics

x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Research study on relationships between butterflies and restoration management actions.

x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Effects of non-native predators on pollinators and native plant reproduction

x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Examining the effects of temperature, drought, CO2 concentration, on floral volatiles and pollinator attraction.

x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Understanding conditions for successful tree pollination by bees. x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Propagating milkweeds to restore habitat and provide waystations for monarch butterflies

x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Insect pollinator response to removal of invasive shrubs x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–14 ★

Study Title

Geographic Region Pollinator Research Plan Section

USDA USFS 

R&D

How insect pollinators are affected by forest management. x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Vertical distribution of pollinators in forests x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

“Working Trees for Pollinators” Develop scientific basis and science delivery for integrating pollinator concerns into planning/design of agroforestry systems.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Climate Smart Agriculture: Agroforestry as means to provide adaptive services in support of biodiversity, including pollinators.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Compilation of science resources to develop guidelines for supporting pollinators through agroforestry.

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Interaction of fire regimes and lepidopteran communities in firemaintained pine forests

x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Research study on effects of riparian restoration and wild and domestic ungulate herbivory on abundance, diversity, and composition of native pollinators, esp. bees

x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Development of pollinated forbs to restore sites damaged by fire and to re-establish lost pollinator relationships.

x x x x x x

USDA USFS 

R&D

Bee Monitoring across Experimental Forests and Ranges x x x x x x x x x

USDA/ DOI

USGS/ FSA

USGS Pollinator Library: Developing an online repository of pollinator forage information. 

x x x x x x x x x

USDA/ DOI

USGS/ FSA/ NRCS

Improving forage conditions for honey bees and native pollinators on US Department of Agriculture Conservation Lands 

x x x x x x x x x

Appendix B—Matrix of Current Federal Pollinator Research (Cont.)

Department

Agency

Pacific Northwest

Southwest

Northern Plains

Southern Plains

Midwest

Southeast

Northeast

Hawaii

International

Honeybee

Native Bee

Wasps

Moth/Butterfly

Fly

Vertebrate

Status & Trends

Habitats

Nutrition

Pesticides

Nativve Plants

Collections

Genetics

Pathogens

DecisionTools

Economics
★★ A–15 ★★

Appendix C—Abbreviations Used in the Report

Agencies/Organizations

ABF American Beekeeping Federation

AHPA American Honey Producers Association

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

ARS Agricultural Research Service

BLM Bureau of Land Management

DOI Department of the Interior

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERS Economic Research Service

FSA Farm Service Agency

IPBES Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

NAC National Agroforestry Center

NAPPC North American Pollinator Protection Campaign

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NGO Non-governmental organization

NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

NPS National Park Service

NRCS National Resources Conservation Service

NSF National Science Foundation

OPP Office of Pesticide Programs

ORD Organic Transitions Program

PCA Plant Conservation Alliance

RMA Risk Management Agency

SI Smithsonian Institution

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–16 ★

Other

BISON Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation

BMP Best management practice

CCD Colony Collapse Disorder

CP42 Pollinator Habitat under the Conservation Reserve Program

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

EOL Encyclopedia of Life

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

GBIF Global Biodiversity Information Facility

ICP Integrated Crop Pollination Project

IPM Integrated Pest Management

RNAi RNA interference

VSH Varroa-sensitive hygiene 
★★ A–17 ★★

Appendix D—Common and Scientific 

Names Used in Report

[NA, not applicable; spp., unspecified species of the preceding genus]

Common name Scientific name

Kingdom Animalia

NA Nosema spp.

NA Nosema bombi

NA Nosema ceranae

alfalfa leaf-cutter bee Megachile rotundata

alkali bee Nomia melanderi

arthropods Arthropodaria spp.

Asian honey bee Apis cerana

bats Order: Chiroptera

bees Order: Hymenoptera

beetles Apis spp.

blue orchard bee Osmia lignaria

bumble bees Bombus spp.

butterflies Order: Lepidoptera

common Eastern bumble bee Bombus impatiens

crayfishes Family: Cambaridae

halictid bee Lasioglossum albipes

honey bees Family Apidae; Apis mellifera

hummingbirds Family: Trochilidae

monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus

Tropilaelaps mite Tropilaelaps

Varroa mite Varroa destructor

Kingdom Plantae

almond Prunus dulcis

apples Malus spp.

blueberry Vaccinium spp.

canola Sinapis arvensis

corn Zea mays

crambe Crambe abyssinica

false flax Camelina spp.

melons Cucumis spp.

pennycress Thlaspi spp.

Kingdom Fungi

NA Ascosphaera spp.
★★ A–18 ★★

References

Alaux, C., et al. “Diet Effects on Honeybee Immunocompetence.” Biology Letters 6.4 (2010): 562-565.

Alaux, C., et al. “Nutrigenomics in Honey Bees: Digital Gene Expression Analysis of Pollen’s Nutritive 

Effects on Healthy and Varroa-Parasitized Bees.” BMC Genomics 12.1 (2011): 496.

Alcock, J. “Nesting-Behavior Of Philanthus multimaculatus Cameron (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae).” 

American Midland Naturalist 93 (1975): 222-226.

Alcock, J. “The relation between female body size and provisioning behavior in the bee Centris pallida 

Fox (Hymenoptera: Anthophoridae).” Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 52.3 (1979): 

623-32.

Ament, S.A., et al. “Mechanisms of Stable Lipid Loss in a Social Insect.” The Journal of Experimental 

Biology 214.22 (2011): 3808-3821.

Anderson, K.E., et al. “Microbial ecology of the hive and pollination landscape: bacterial associates 

from floral nectar, the alimentary tract and stored food of honey bees (Apis mellifera).” PLoS ONE, 

8, (2013): e83125.

Anderson, K.E., et al. “Hive-Stored Pollen of Honey Bees: Many Lines of Evidence are Consistent with 

Pollen Preservation, Not Nutrient Conversion.” Molecular Ecology 23.23 (2014): 5904-5917.

Anderson, K.E. “Large Scale Migratory Beekeeping Research.” Project Number 2022-21000-017-01. 

Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (2014). Available at 

<http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=427272>.

Ankley, G.T., et al. “Adverse Outcome Pathways: A Conceptual Framework to Support Ecotoxicology 

Research and Risk Assessment.” Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29.3 (2009): 730-741.

Barnes, D.K., and B. Furgala. “Nectar Characteristics Associated with Sources of Alfalfa Germplasm.” 

Crop Science 18.6 (1978): 1087-1089.

Bartomeus, I., et al. “Climate-Associated Phenological Advances in Bee Pollinators and Bee-Pollinated 

Plants.”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108.51 (2011): 20645-20649.

Becher, M.A., et al. “BEEHAVE: A Systems Model of Honeybee Colony Dynamics and Foraging to 

Explore Multifactorial Causes of Colony Failure.” Journal of Applied Ecology 51.2 (2014): 470-482.

Biesmeijer, J.C., et al. “Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-Pollinated Plants in Britain and the 

Netherlands.” Science 313.5785 (2006): 351-354.

Boot, W.J., M. van Baalen, and M.W. Sabelis. “Why Do Varroa Mites Invade Worker Brood Cells of the 

Honey Bee Despite Lower Reproductive Success?” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36.4 

(1995): 283-289. 

Borders, B., and E. Lee-Mäder. Milkweeds: A Conservation Practitioner’s Guide. Portland (OR): The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation (2014). Available at 

<http://www.xerces.org/milkweeds-a-conservation-practitioners-guide>.
POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–19 ★

Bower, A.D. J.B. St. Clair, and V. Erickson. “Generalized Provisional Seed Zones for Native Plants.” 

Ecological Applications 24.5 (2014): 913-919.

Calais, J.N.M., W.J. Boot, and J. Beetsma. “Model Evaluation of Methods for Varroa jacobsoni Mite 

Control Based on Trapping in Honey Bee Brood.” Apidologie 30.2-3 (1999): 197-207.

Calderone, N.W. “Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators, and U.S. Agriculture: Trend Analysis of 

Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009.” PLoS ONE 7.5 (2012): e37235.

Cameron, S.A., et al. “Patterns of Widespread declines in North American Bumble Bees.” Proceedings of 

the National Academy of Science 108 (2011): 662-667.

Cane, J.H. “Pollinating Bees Crucial to Farming Wildflower Seed for U.S. Habitat Restoration.” Bees in 

Agricultural Ecosystems. R.R. James, and T.L. Pitts-Singer (eds). New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press (2008): 48-64.

Cane, J.H. “Meeting Wild Bees’ Needs on Western US Rangelands.” Rangelands 33.3 (2011): 27-32.

Cane, J.H. and J.L. Neff. “Predicted Fates of Ground-nesting Bees in Soil Heated by Wildfire: Thermal 

Tolerances of Life Stages and a Survey of Nesting Depths.” Biological Conservation 144.11 (2011): 

2631-36.

Cane, J.H., B. Love, and K.A. Swoboda. “Breeding Biology and Bee Guild of Douglas’ Dustymaiden, 

Chaenactis douglasii (Asteraceae, Helenieae).” Western North American Naturalist 72.4 (2013): 

563-68.

Carrol, M. “Determining the Impacts of Pesticide and Nutrition-Induced Stress on Honey Bee Colony 

Growth and Survival.” Project Number 2022-21000-018-00. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (2014). Available at 

<http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=426270>.

Colla, S.R., et al. “Plight of the Bumble Bee: Pathogen Spillover from Commercial to Wild Populations.” 

Biological Conservation 129 (2006): 461-467.

Corbet, S.A., et al. “Temperature and the Pollinating Activity of Social Bees.” Ecological Entomology 18 

(1993): 17-30.

Corby-Harris, V., et al. “Transcriptional Markers of Sub-Optimal Nutrition in Developing Apis mellifera 

Nurse Workers.” BMC Genomics 15.1 (2014): 134.

Cornman, R.S., et al. “Pathogen Webs in Collapsing Honey Bee Colonies.” PLoS One 7.8 (2012): e43562.

Cresswell, J.E., and H.M. Thompson. “Comment on ‘A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success 

and Survival in Honey Bees.’” Science 337.6101 (2012): 1453-1453.

Cusser, S, and K. Goodell. “Diversity and distribution of floral resources influence the restoration of 

plant–pollinator networks on a reclaimed strip mine.” Restoration Ecology 21 (2013): 713-721.

DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., et al. “Population Growth of Varroa destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Commercial 

Honey Bee Colonies Treated with Beta Plant Acids.” Experimental and applied Acarology 64 (2014): 

171-186.
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–20 ★

DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., and R. Curry. “A Mathematical Model of Varroa Mite (Varroa destructor 

Anderson and Trueman) and Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Population Dynamics.” International 

Journal of Acarology 30.3 (2004): 259-274.

DeGrandi-Hoffman, G., Y. Chen, E. Huang, and H.M. Huang. “The Effect of Diet on Protein 

Concentration, Hypopharyngeal Gland Development and Virus Load in Worker Honey Bees (Apis 

mellifera L.).” Journal of Insect Physiology 56.9 (2010): 1184-1191.

Droege, S. “Photo I.D. of North American Bees.” Quizlet.com (2015). Available at 

<http://quizlet.com/64454746/photo-id-of-north-american-bees-flash-cards/>. 

Dumroese, R.K., T. Luna, and T.D. Landis (eds). “Nursery Manual for Native Plants: A Guide for Tribal 

Nurseries. Volume 1: Nursery Management.” USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 730 (2008).

Eickwort, G.C. “Gregarious nesting of the mason bee Hoplitis anthocopoides and the evolution of 

parasitism and sociality among megachilid bees.” Evolution 29 (1975): 142-50.

Engel, P., V.G. Martinson, and N.A. Moran. “Functional Diversity Within the Simple Gut Microbiota of 

the Honey Bee.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109.27 (2012): 11002-11007.

Fagan, W.F., et al. “Phenologically Explicit Models for Studying Plant-Pollinator Interactions under 

Climate Change.” Theoretical Ecology (2014): 1-9.

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the 

Interlaken Declaration. 3-7 Sept. 2007. Switzerland. International Technical Conference on Animal 

Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Interlaken. Commission on Genetic Resources for 

Food and Agriculture Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at 

<ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1404e/a1404e00.pdf>.

Forrest, J. “Plant-pollinator interactions and phenological change: what can we learn about climate 

impacts from experiments and observations?” Oikos 124 (2015): 4-13.

Fries, I., S. Camazine, and J. Sneyd. “Population Dynamics of Varroa jacobsoni: A Model and a Review.” 

Bee World 75.1 (1994): 5-28.

Fürst, M.A., et al. “Disease Associations between Honeybees and Bumblebees as a Threat to Wild 

Pollinators.” Nature 506.7488 (2014): 364-366.

Gill, R.J., O. Ramos-Rodriguez, and N.E. Raine. “Combined Pesticide Exposure Severely Affects 

Individual- and Colony-Level Traits in Bees.” Nature 491.7422 (2012): 105-108. 

Gilliam, M. “Identification and Roles of Non-Pathogenic Microflora Associated with Honey Bees.” FEMS 

Microbiology Letters 155.1 (1997): 1-10. 

Ginsberg, H.S. “Tick Control: Trapping, Biocontrol, Host Management and Other Alternative Strategies.” 

Biology of Ticks. 2nd ed. Sonenshine, D.E., and R.M. Roe (eds). New York, NY: Oxford University 

Press, 2014. 409-444.

Good, A.P, et al. “Honey Bees Avoid Nectar Colonized by Three Bacterial Species, but not by a Yeast 

Species, Isolated from the Bee Gut.” PloS ONE 9.1 (2014): e86494.
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–21 ★

Harbo, J.R. “Survival of Honey Bee Spermatozoa in Liquid Nitrogen.” Annals of the Entomological 

Society of America 70 (1977): 257-58.

Henry, M., et al. “A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees.” Science

336.6079 (2012): 348-350.

Hernandez, J.L., G.W. Frankie, and R.W. Thorp. “Ecology of urban bees: A review of current knowledge 

and directions for future study.” Cities and the Environment 2 (2009): 3-15

Herrera, C.M., and M.I. Pozo. “Nectar yeasts warm the flowers of a winter-blooming plant.” Proceedings 

of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277.1689 (2010): 1827-1834.

Herron, C.M., J.L. Jonas, P.J. Meiman, and M.W. Paschke. “Using Native Annual Plants to Restore PostFire Habitats in Western North American.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 22 (2013): 815-821

Hladik, M.L., D.W. Kolpin, and K.M. Kuivila. “Widespread Occurrence of Neonicotinoid Insecticides 

in Streams in a High Corn and Soybean Producing Region.” Environmental Pollution 193 (2014): 

189-196.

Hoffman, G., Y. Chen, and R. Simonds. “The Effects of Pesticides on Queen Rearing and Virus Titers in 

Honey Bees (Apis mellifera L.).” Insects 4.1 (2013): 71-89. Available at 

<http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4450/4/1/71>. 

Honeybee Genome Sequencing Consortium (HGSC). “Insights into Social Insects from the Genome of 

the Honeybee Apis mellifera.” Nature 443 (2006): 931-949.

Hopkins, B.K., C. Herr, and W.S. Sheppard. “Sequential Generations of Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) 

Queens Produced Using Cryopreserved Semen.” Reproduction, Fertility and Development 24 

(2012): 1079-1083. 

Jackson, M.M., M.G. Turner, and S.M. Pearson. “Logging legacies affect insect pollinator communities 

in Southern Appalachian forests.” Southeastern Naturalist 13.2 (2014): 317-336.

Jenkins, J.A., et al. “Assessing Endocrine and Reproductive Parameters in Male Largescale Suckers 

(Catostomus macrocheilus) along a Contaminant Gradient in the Lower Columbia River, USA.” 

Science of the Total Environment 484 (2014): 365-378. 

Jha, S., and C. Kremen. “Resource Diversity and Landscape-Level Homogeneity Drive Native Bee 

Foraging.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.2 (2013): 555-558. 

Johnson, R., L. Stritch, P. Olwell, S. Lambert, M.E. Horning, and R. Cronn. “What are the Best Seed 

Sources for Ecosystem Restoration on BLM and USFS Lands?” Native Plants Journal 11.2 (2010): 

117-131.

Johnson, R.M., W. Mau, H.S. Pollock, G. Niu, M.A. Schuler, and M.R. Berenbaum. “Ecologically appropriate xenobiotics induce cytochrome P450s in Apis mellifera.” PLoS ONE 7(2) (2012): e31051. 

Kaiser-Bunbury, C.N., et al. “The Robustness of Pollination Networks to the Loss of Species and 

Interactions: A Quantitative Approach Incorporating Pollinator Behavior.” Ecology Letters 13 (2010): 

442-52.
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–22 ★

Kennedy, C.M., et al. “A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems.” Ecology Letters 16.5 (2013): 584-99.

Knutson, K.C., D.A. Pyke1, T.A. Wirth, R.S. Arkle, D.S. Pilliod, M.L. Brooks, J.C. Chambers, and J.B. Grace. 

“Long-term Effects of Seeding after Wildfire on Vegetation in Great Basin Shrubland Ecosystems.” 

Journal of Applied Ecology 51.5 (2014): 1414-1424.

Kram, B.W., and C.J. Carter. “Arabidopsis thaliana as a Model for Functional Nectary Snalysis.” Sexual 

Plant Reproduction 22.4 (2009): 235-246.

Kremen, C., et al. “Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of landuse change.”Ecology Letters 10.4 (2007): 299-314.

Kremen, C., et al. “The Area Requirements of an Ecosystem Service: Crop Pollination by Native Bee 

Communities in California.” Ecology Letters 7.11 (2004): 1109-1119. 

Lebuhn, G., et al. “Detecting Insect Pollinator Declines on Regional and Global Scales.” Conservation 

Biology, 27.1 (2013): 113-120. 

Lipow, S.R., P. Bernhardt, and N. Vance. “Comparative Rates of Pollination and Fruit Set in Widely 

Separated Populations of a Rare Orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum).” International Journal of Plant 

Sciences 163 (2002): 775-82.

Lonsdorf, E., et al. “Modelling Pollination Services across Agricultural Landscapes.” Annals of Botany 

(2009).

MacIvor, J.S., A. Ruttan, and B. Salehi. “Exotics on exotics: Pollen analysis of urban bees visiting Sedum 

on a green roof.” Urban Ecosystems (2014): 1-12.

Mader, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. Hoffman Black, and G. LeBuhn. “Attracting Native Pollinators. 

Protecting North America’s Bees and Butterflies.” The Xerces Society Guide. North Adams, MA: 

Storey Publishing (2011). Available at 

<http://www.xerces.org/announcing-the-publication-of-attracting-native-pollinators/>.

Martin, S. “A Population Model for the Ectoparasitic Mite Varroa jacobsoni in Honey Bee (Apis mellifera) Colonies.” Ecological Modelling 109.3 (1998): 267-281.

Martinson, V.G., et al. “A Simple and Distinctive Microbiota Associated with Honey Bees and Bumble 

Bees.” Molecular Ecology 20.3 (2011): 619-628. 

Meikle, W., et al. “Determining the Impacts of Pesticide and Nutrition-Induced Stress on Honey Bee 

Colony Growth and Survival.” Project Number 2022-21000-018-00. U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Agricultural Research Service. 2014. Available at 

<http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=426270>. 

Meikle, W.G., et al. “Using balances linked to data loggers to monitor honey bee colonies.” Journal of 

Apicultural Research (2006) 45: 39-41.

Meikle, W.G., et al. “Within-day variation in continuous hive weight data as a measure of honey bee 

colony activity.” Apidologie 39.6 (2008): 694-707.
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–23 ★

Menz, M.H.M., et al. “Reconnecting plants and pollinators: challenges in the restoration of pollination 

mutualisms.” Trends in Plant Science 16 (2011): 4-12.

Mondet, F., et al. “On the Front Line: Quantitative Virus Dynamics in Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) 

Colonies along a New Expansion Front of the Parasite Varroa destructor.” PLoS Pathogen 10.8 

(2014): e1004323.

Morales, C.L., et al. “Rapid Ecological Replacement of a Native Bumble Bee by Invasive Species.” 

Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11.10 (2013): 529-534. 

Moran, N.A., et al. “Distinctive Gut Microbiota of Honey Bees Assessed Using Deep Sampling from 

Individual Worker Bees.” PLoS ONE 7.4 (2012): e36393. 

Morandin, L.A., and C. Kremen. “Bee Preference for Native versus Exotic Plants in Restored Agricultural 

Hedgerows.” Restoration Ecology 21 (2013): 26-32.

Mullin, C.A., et al. “High Levels of Miticides and Agrochemicals in North American Apiaries: 

Implications for Honey Bee Health.” PLoS ONE 5.3 (2010): e9754. Available at 

<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0009754>. 

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Plant Materials Program. “Part 540, Subpart C–Plant 

Selection.” National Plant Materials Manual. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (2010). 

Available at <http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/viewDirective.aspx?hid=27310>.

National Research Council (NRC). Status of Pollinators in North America. Committee on the Status of 

Pollinators in North America; Board on Life Sciences; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; 

Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (2007).

Neff, J.L., and B.B. Simpson. “Nesting and foraging behavior of Andrena (Callandrena) rudbeckiae

Robertson (Hymenoptera: Apoidea: Andrenidae) in Texas.” Journal of the Kansas Entomological 

Society 70 (1997): 100-13.

Nyoka, S.E. “Can restoration management improve habitat for insect pollinators in ponderosa pine 

forests of the American southwest?” Ecological Restoration 28 (2010): 280-290.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Test 

No. 237: Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera) Larval Toxicity Test, Single Exposure.” 

OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals Section 2: Effects on Biotic 

Systems (2013). Available at <http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/

test-no-237-honey-bee-apis-mellifera-larval-toxicity-test-single-exposure_9789264203723-en>.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Test No. 213: Honeybees, 

Acute Oral Toxicity Test.” OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals Section 2: Effects 

on Biotic Systems (1998a). Available at <http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/

test-no-213-honeybees-acute-oral-toxicity-test_9789264070165-en>.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). “Test No. 214: Acute Contact 

Toxicity Test.” OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals Section 2: Effects on Biotic Systems 
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–24 ★

(1998b). Available at <http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/environment/test-no-214-honeybees-acutecontact-toxicity-test_9789264070189-en;jsessionid=43gvto47wnue9.delta>.

Park, M., et al. “Wild Pollinators of Eastern Apple Orchards and How to Conserve Them.” Cornell 

University, Penn State University, and The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (2012). 

Available at <http://www.fruit.cornell.edu/tree_fruit/resources/wild_pollinators.pdf>.

Pawelek, J., et al. “Modification of a community garden to attract native bee pollinators in urban San 

Luis Obispo, California.” Cities and the Environment 2 (2009): 7-21.

Pettis, J.S., et al. “A Rapid Survey Technique for Tropilaelaps Mite (Mesostigmata: Laelapidae) 

Detection.” Journal of Economic Entomology 106.4 (2012): 1535-1544. 

Pettis, J.S., et al. “Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticide Which Alters Their Susceptibility to 

the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae.” PLoS One 8.7 (2013): e70182. 

Pettis, J.S., and K.S. Delaplane. “Coordinated Response to Honey Bee Decline in the USA.” Apidologie 41 

(2010): 256-263.

Pitts-Singer, T.L., and J. Strange. “Managing and Conserving Diverse Bee Pollinators for Sustainable 

Crop Production and Wildland Preservation.” Project Number 2080-21000-105-00. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (2013). Available at 

<http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=425663>.

Pitts-Singer, T.L., and J.H. Cane. “The Alfalfa Leafcutting Bee, Megachile rotundata: The World’s Most 

Intensively Managed Solitary Bee.” Annual Review of Entomology 56 (2011): 221-237. 

Pleasants, J.M., and K.S. Oberhauser. “Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: 

effect on the monarch butterfly population.” Insect Conservation and Diversity 6 (2013): 135–144.

Potter, A., and G. LeBuhn. “Pollination service to urban agriculture in San Francisco, CA.” Urban 

Ecosystems (2015): 1-9.

Potts, S.G., et al. “Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers.” Trends in Ecology and 

Evolution 25.6 (2010): 345-353.

Pozo, M.J., et al. “Presence of yeasts in floral nectar is consistent with the hypothesis of microbial-mediated signaling in plant-pollinator interactions.” Plant Signaling & Behavior 4.11 (2009): 1102-1104. 

Priess, J.A., et al. “Linking deforestation scenarios to pollination services and economic returns in coffee agroforestry systems.”Ecological Applications 17.2 (2007): 407-417.

Proctor, M., P. Yeo, and A. Lack. “The Natural History of Pollination.” Portland, OR: Timber Press (1996).

Raguso, R.A. “Why are some floral nectars scented?” Ecology 85.6 (2004): 1486-1494. 

Rangel J, Keller J, Tarpy, D. ”The effects of honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) queen reproductive potential 

on colony growth.” Insectes Sociaux. 60 (2012): 65-73.

Rawlins, J.R., V.J. Anderson, R. Johnson, and T. Krebs. “Optimal Seeding Depth of Five Forb Species 

from the Great Basin.” Native Plants Journal 10.1 (2009): 32-42.
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–25 ★

Reed, C.C. “Insects Surveyed on Flowers in Native and Reconstructed Prairies (Minnesota).” Restoration 

and Management Notes 13 (1995): 210-13.

Rennich, K., et al. 2011-2012 National Honey Bee Pests and Diseases Survey Report. USDA Animal Plant 

and Health Inspection (2012). Available at <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_

info/honey_bees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf >.

Richards, R.T., J.C. Chambers, and C. Ross. “Use of Native Plants on Federal Lands: Policy and Practice.” 

Journal of Range Management 51.6 (1998): 625-632.

Ricketts, T.H., et al. “Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns?”Ecology Letters 11.5 (2008): 499-515.

Rinderer, T., and R. Danka. “The Effect of Reducing Exposure to Certain Pesticides on Overwintering 

Ability of Managed Honey Bee Hives.” Project Number 6050-21000-014-03. Baton Rouge, LA, and 

Tucson, AZ: U.S. Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (2013). Available at 

<http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/projects/projects.htm?ACCN_NO=425599>.

Rinderer, T.E., et al. “Breeding for Resistance to Varroa destructor in North America.” Apidologie 41.3 

(2010): 409-424.

Robinson, F.A., and J.L. Nation. “Artificial Diets for Honey Bees.” Apis mellifera (1966): 175-184. 

Rykken, J., A. Rodman, S. Droege, and R. Grundel. “Pollinators in peril? A multipark approach to 

evaluating bee communities in habitats vulnerable to effects from climate change.” Park Science 

31 (2014): 84-90.

Schaeffer, R.N., et al. “Nectar Yeasts in the Tall Larkspur Delphinium barbeyi (Ranunculaceae) and 

Effects on Components of Pollinator Foraging Behavior.” PloS ONE 9.10 (2014): e108214. 

Schemske, D.W., et al. “Flowering ecology of some spring woodland herbs.” Ecology (Washington, DC) 

59.2 (1978): 351-66.

Schmehl, D.R., et al. “Genomic Analysis of the Interaction between Pesticide Exposure and Nutrition in 

Honey Bees (Apis mellifera).” Journal of Insect Physiology 71 (2014): 177-190. 

Spivak, M., et al. “The Plight of the Bees.” Environmental Science and Technology 45 (2011): 34-38. 

Spleen, A.M., et al. “A National Survey of Managed Honey Bee 2011-12 Winter Colony Losses in the 

United States: Results from the Bee Informed Partnership.” Journal of Apicultural Research 52.2 

(2013): 44-53.

Steinfeld, D.E., S.A. Riley, K.M. Wilkinson, T.D. Landis, and L.R. Riley. “Roadside Revegetation: An 

Integrated Approach to Establishing Native Plants.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration. FHWA-WFL/TD-07-005 (2007). 

Steinhauer, N.A., et al. “A National Survey of Managed Honey Bee 2012–2013 Annual Colony Losses in 

the USA: Results From The Bee Informed Partnership.” Journal of Apicultural Research 53.1 (2013): 

1-18.
 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

★ A–26 ★

Stevens, S., and D. Frey. “Host plant pattern and variation in climate predict the location of natal 

grounds for migratory monarch butterflies in western North America.” Journal of Insect 

Conservation 14 (2010): 731–744.

Stoner, K. and B. D. Eitzer. “Using a hazard quotient to evaluate pesticide residues detected in pollen trapped from honey bees (Apis mellifera) in Connecticut.” PLoS ONE 8(10) (2013): e77550. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077550

Strange, J.P., and W.S. Sheppard. “Optimum Timing of Miticide Applications for Control of Varroa 

destructor (Acari: Varroidae) in Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in Washington State, USA.” 

Journal of Economic Entomology 94.6 (2001): 1324-1331. 

Strange, J.P., et al. “Global Invasion by Anthidium manicatum (Linnaeus) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae): 

Assessing Potential Distribution in North America and Beyond.”Biological Invasions 13.9 (2011): 

2115-2133.

Summerville, K.S. “Forest lepidopteran communities are more resilient to shelterwood harvests compared to more intensive logging regimes.” Ecological Applications 23.5 (2013): 1101-1112. 

Tallamy, D.W., and K.J. Shropshire. “Ranking Lepidopteran use of native versus introduced plants.” 

Conservation Biology 23 (2009): 941–947.

Tepedino, V.J., S.D. Sipes, and T.L. Griswold. “The Reproductive Biology and Effective Pollinators of 

the Endangered Beardtongue Penstemon penlandii (Scrophulariaceae).” Plant Systematics and 

Evolution 219.1-2 (1999): 39-54.

Teuber, L.R., et al. “Structure of Floral Nectaries of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) in Relation to Nectar 

Production.” American Journal of Botany (1980): 433-439. 

Teuber, L.R., and D.K. Barnes. “Environmental and Genetic Influences on Alfalfa Nectar.” Crop Science 

19.6 (1979): 874-878.

Teuber, L.R., D.K. Barnes, and C.M. Rincker. “Effectiveness of Selection for Nectar Volume, Receptacle 

Diameter, and Seed Yield Characteristics in Alfalfa.” Crop Science 23.2 (1983): 283-289.

The Plant List. The Plant List: A Working List of All Plant Species. (2013). Available at 

<http://www.theplantlist.org/>.

Thompson, H.M., and C. Maus. “The Relevance of Sublethal Effects in Honey Bee Testing for Pesticide 

Risk Assessment.” Pest Management Science 63.11 (2007): 1058-1061.

Thompson, H.M., et al. “The Effects of Four Insect Growth-Regulating (IGR) Insecticides on Honeybee 

(Apis mellifera L) Colony Development, Queen Rearing, and Drone Sperm production.” 

Ecotoxicology 14.7 (2005): 757-769. 

Thompson, M.P., et al. “The Science of Decision Making: Applications for Sustainable Forest and 

Grassland Management in the National Forest System.” Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-GTR-88. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (2013). 54 p. 
★ A–27 ★

 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

Tonietto, R., et al. “A comparison of bee communities of Chicago green roofs, parks and prairies.” 

Landscape and Urban Planning 103 (2011): 102-108.

Torchio, P.F. “The Nesting Biology Of Hylaeus bisinuatus Forster And Development Of Its Immature 

Forms (Hymenoptera, Colletidae).” Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 57 (1984): 276-297.

 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Report on the National Stakeholders Conference on Honey 

Bee Health. National Honey Bee Health Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee. 15-17 Oct. 

2012. Alexandria, VA: Sheraton Suites Old Town Alexandria Hotel. National Honey Bee Health 

Stakeholder Conference Steering Committee (2012). Available at 

<http://www.usda.gov/documents/reporthoneybeehealth.pdf” www.usda.gov/documents/

reporthoneybeehealth.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). Conservation 

Plants Released by NRCS Plant Materials Centers. Plant Materials Program Web Site (2014a). 

Available at <http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/plantmaterials/technical/cp/>.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). Publications 

Relating to Seed and Plant Production. Plant Materials Program Web Site. (2014b). Available at 

<http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/rpublications/plantmaterials/technical/

publications/?ptype=PR>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “OCSPP 850.3040: Field Testing for Pollinators.” Ecological 

Effects Test Guidelines, EPA 712-C-017 (2012a). Available at 

<http://www.regulations.gov/” \l “!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0018” >.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “OCSPP 850.3030: Honey Bee Toxicity of Residues on 

Foliage.” Ecological Effects Test Guidelines, EPA 712-C-018 (2012b). Available at 

<http://www.regulations.gov/” \l “!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0017”>.

U.S. Government. USA Spending. Government Spending Web Site (2014). Available at 

<http://www.usaspending.gov/>.

Vanbergen, A.J., and the Insect Pollinators Initiative. “Threats to an Ecosystem Service: Pressures on 

Pollinators.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11.5 (2013): 251-259. 

vanEngelsdorp, D., et al. “Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study.” PLoS ONE 4.2 (2009): e6481. 

Visser, M.E., and L.J.M. Holleman. “Warmer springs disrupt the synchrony of oak and winter moth 

phenology.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. 268.1464 (2001): 289-294.

Wheeler, M.M., and G.E. Robinson. “Diet-Dependent Gene Expression in Honey Bees: Honey vs. 

Sucrose or High Fructose Corn Syrup.” Scientific Reports 4 (2014). 

Wilkinson, D., and G.C. Smith. “A Model of the Mite Parasite, Varroa destructor, on Honeybees Apis mellifera to Investigate Parameters Important to Mite Population Growth.” Ecological Modelling 148.3 

(2002): 263-275. 

Williams, M.I., and R.K. Dumroese. “Preparing for Climate Change: Forestry and Assisted Migration.” 

Journal of Forestry 111.4 (2013): 287–297.
★ A–28 ★

 POLLINATOR RESEARCH ACTION PLAN

Williams, N.M. “Restoration of Nontarget Species: Bee Communities and Pollination Function in 

Riparian Forests.” Restoration Ecology 19.4 (2011): 450-459.

Williams, N.M., and R. Winfree. “Local habitat characteristics but not landscape urbanization drive 

pollinator visitation and native plant pollination in forest remnants.” Biological Conservation 160 

(2013): 10-18.

Williams, N.M., J. Regetz, and C. Kremen. “Landscape-scale resources promote colony growth but not 

reproductive performance of bumble bees.” Ecology (Washington, DC) 93.5 (2012): 1049-58.

Winfree, R., T. Griswold, and C. Kremen. “Effect of Human Disturbance on Bee Communities in a 

Forested Ecosystem.” Conservation Biology 21.1 (2007): 213-223. 

Wojcik, V., L. Adams, and K. Rourke. Securing Pollinator Health and Crop Protection: Communication 

and Adoption of Farm Management Techniques in Four Crops. Prepared by the Pollinator 

Partnership for USDA. Contract Number: AG-32SB-P-13-0301 (2014). Available at 

<http://pollinator.org/PDFs/SecuringPollinatorHealthCropProtection.pdf>.

Wright, J.W. “Genetics of Forest Trees.” Science Synthesis to Support Socioecological Resilience in the 

Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range. J.W. Long, L. Quinn-Davidson, C.N. Skinner (eds). USDA 

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-247 (2014): 

129-139.