Colony Collapse Disorder

Action Plan

ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a significant disappearance of honey bee colonies that may be

affecting bees in more than 22 states, threatens the production of crops dependent on bees for

pollination as well as honey production. Pollination is responsible for $15 billion in added crop

value, particularly for specialty crops such as nuts, berries, fruits, and vegetables. Of the 2.4

million colonies of bees in the United States, the almond crop in California alone requires 1.3

million colonies, and this need is projected to increase significantly over the next few years. The

bee industry is facing difficulty meeting the demand for pollination in almonds because of bee

production shortages in California. Consequently, growers depend increasingly on beekeepers

from other states to transport honey bee colonies across the country to meet the pollination

demand (a phenomenon known as migratory beekeeping). If researchers cannot find a solution

to CCD, beekeepers will be unable to meet demand for this and other crops.

Current theories about the cause(s) of CCD include increased losses due to the invasive varroa

microporidian giardia); and pesticide poisoning (through exposure to pesticides applied for crop

pest control or for in-hive insect or mite control). In addition to these suspects, perhaps the most

highly-suspected cause of CCD is a potential immune-suppressing stress on bees, caused by one

or a combination of several factors. Stresses may include poor nutrition (due to apiary

overcrowding, pollination of crops with low nutritional value, or pollen or nectar dearth),

drought, and migratory stress brought about by the increased need to move bees long distances to

provide pollination services (which, by confining bees during transport, or increasing contact

among colonies in different hives, increases the transmission of pathogens). Researchers suspect

that stress could be compromising the immune system of bees, making colonies more susceptible

to disease.

Following the ad hoc formation of a CCD Working Team (a rapid response group comprised of

academic, private, and Federal scientists), the Department of Agriculture (USDA) took the lead

in the effort to determine causes contributing to CCD. Specifically, USDA organized

a two-day CCD Workshop in Beltsville, Maryland, for various apiculture experts to identify

research gaps and priorities as well as measures required to address these needs. Based

on information gathered at the Workshop, a newly formed CCD Steering Committee, composed

of Federal program leaders and Land Grant University scientists/administrators,

identified critical research and response needs and developed an Action Plan.

Direction of research to bee decline and protecting bee health has been accompanied by

considerable direction of Federal resources. In fiscal year (FY) 2007, ARS had a honey bee

research budget of $7.7 million, the focus of research being on controlling the varroa mite pest

and microbial pathogens and on improving honey bee nutrition. Between FY 2000 and FY 2006,

the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) spent an average

of $1.7 million per year on honey bee and pollinator research; roughly one third to one half of

this funding was spent on research on honey bee health. Additional funds are now being

directed by ARS’ Areawide Integrated Pest Management program to conduct a full-scale

areawide project on honey bee health in the amount of $1 million per year for the next 5 years.

Meanwhile, CSREES has tapped $117,000 in unexpended funds from the Critical and Emerging

Issues Program to provide seed grants for CCD. In addition, CSREES is tentatively planning to

direct additional funds in FY 2008. Land Grant University Experiment Stations have

committed to the support of a new Multi-state Rapid Response Research project administered by

the North Central region through the Hatch Multi-state Research allocation. This project will

begin in FY 2008 and will include scientists throughout the United States. Furthermore,

extension specialists are active in every State and many have specific responsibilities to

apiculture. Many of their activities are supported by Federal Smith-Lever appropriations to

States for the Cooperative Extension System.

The current strategy for addressing the CCD crisis involves four main components: 1) survey and

data collection; 2) analysis of samples; 3) hypothesis-driven research; and, 4) mitigation and

preventative action. Within each component topic area in this Plan, we have outlined the current

status of ongoing research and future plans needed to address the problem of poor honey bee

health, as well as the organizations(s) that will be involved in the effort. Furthermore, this plan

identifies many areas of research where specific expertise is lacking, and it recommends longterm

capacity building in these areas, accomplished through the hiring of new scientists. Finally,

as noted in a 2006 National Academy of Sciences study on the status of bee populations in North

America, honey bee health has been in decline for several years – long before the appearance of

CCD – and a concerted, well-funded research and extension effort is urgently needed to ensure

the viability of these essential pollinators in U. S. agriculture.

Despite the existence of several surveys for both honey production and bee health, these surveys

are either limited in scope, fundamentally flawed, or otherwise unable to provide an accurate

picture of bee numbers or products (honey and pollination services). New surveys are needed to

determine the extent of CCD in the United States and the current status of honey bee colony

production and health. At a minimum, this process will require participation from the National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and likely the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service (APHIS).

Researchers must collect and then analyze the bee samples collected. Presently, analysis is being

conducted to determine the prevalence of various pests and pathogens, bee immunity and stress,

and exposure to pesticides. These and other analyses will help researchers determine the

exposure of worker bees to various toxins and pests and pathogens and potentially to identify any

new pathogens. Various Federal agencies, universities, and private institutions will continue to

expand on this work, with the goal of identifying and characterizing pathogens, pests, and

pesticides or environmental contaminants that may be associated with CCD.

2

The largest component of this Plan is research. Scientists have identified four categories of

candidate factors based on the most reliable information available concerning what impacts bee

health and on recent analysis of affected bees: 1) new or re-emerging pathogens; 2) bee pests; 3)

environmental and nutritional stresses; and 4) pesticides. Research will focus on determining

whether these candidate factors, or specific stressors within these categories, are contributing

causes of CCD, either individually, in combination, or synergistically.

Since little is known about the cause(s) of CCD, mitigation, at present, must be based on

improving bee health and habitat and countering known mortality factors. Goals identified under

bees; developing strategies to maintain bees with resistance to parasites and pathogens;

improving the regulatory framework for better protection against pathogens, pests, and parasites;

developing an Areawide Program to improve honey bee colony health; and developing Webbased

sites for the dissemination of science-based information on bee health and CCD.

3

4

Co-chairs Kevin Hackett (ARS), Rick Meyer and Mary Purcell-Miramontes

(CSREES)

Sid Abel, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Charles Brown (APHIS)

Doug Holy, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

Bruce McPheron (PSU)

Sonny Ramaswamy, Purdue University

Evan Skowronski (DoD)

Co-chairs Diana Cox Foster, Pennsylvania State University (PSU) and Jeff Pettis,

USDA-Agricultural Research Service (ARS)

Departments of Agriculture of Florida and Pennsylvania

Universities of Arizona State, PSU, No. Carolina State, Illinois, and Montana

USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

USDA-Agricultural Research Service

USDA-Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES)

Bee Alert Technology, Inc., Montana

Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center,

Edgewood, Maryland N.E. Biodefense Center, Columbia University

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Protection, Environmental

Fate and Effects Division (EFED) and Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention

Division (BPPD)

AAPA American Association of Professional Apiculturists

AIA Apiary Inspectors of America

AMS Agricultural Marketing Service (USDA)

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA)

ARS Agricultural Research Service (USDA)

CCD colony collapse disorder (an unexplained rapid die-off of honey bee colonies)

CRP Conservation Reserve Program (NRCS)

CSREES Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA)

DoD U.S. Department of Defense

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program (NRCS)

GMO genetically modified organism

Hatch Fund provides funding for Land Grant Universities (CSREES, States)

in vitro testing done in a laboratory setting under artificial conditions outside the living host

in vivo testing done in living organisms

IR-4 program that funds research on minor use pesticides (USDA, States)

MAAREC Mid-Atlantic Apicultural Research Extension Consortium

NAS U.S. National Academy of Sciences

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA)

Nosema a microsporidian pathogen related to the fungi

NHB National Honey Board (USDA)

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA)

NRI National Research Initiative (CSREES)

OIE Office of International Epizooties (defines tests for pests and pathogens of animals)

PIPE Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (CSREES)

PSU Pennsylvania State University

qRT-PCR quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (quantifies PCR product)

RMA Risk Management Agency (USDA)

SARE Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (CSREES)

Smith-Lever provides funding for Extension (CSREES)

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

WRP Wetlands Reserve Program (NRCS)

WTO World Trade Organization

Priorities are ranked: Urgent, Very High, High, and Medium in order of importance

Duration is ranked: Short (less than 1 year), Medium (1-3 years), Long (more than 3 years)

5

Beekeeping is an essential component of modern agriculture, providing pollination services for

over 90 commercial crops grown in the United States. The honey bee adds $15 billion in value

to agricultural crops each year, and the demand for honey bees is growing. The California

almond crop alone uses 1.3 million colonies of bees for pollination, approximately one half of all

honey bees in the United States. Furthermore, this demand is projected to grow to 2.1 million

colonies by 2012, a number nearly equal to all the colonies currently in the United States (2.4

million). Honey bees also provide a fundamental level of pollination that enables home

gardeners to produce many of these same crops without having to be concerned about adequate

pollinators, and, together with wild bees, honey bees play a critical role in many food webs that

support wildlife. The importance of the beekeeper and managed bees is greater today than ever,

because parasitic mites have destroyed most of the feral honey bees across the United States.

In early 2007, the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council’s (NRC) “Status of

Pollinators Committee” issued the findings of a two-year study detailing the serious problems

facing the beekeeping industry, which was described as being in crisis mode. In brief,

beekeeping has suffered several major setbacks during the last two decades:

creating instability in the supply of bees rented for pollination and greatly increasing the

costs of managing bees and of renting hives for pollination. Mite-related losses reached

catastrophic proportions during the winters of 1995 to 1996 and 2000 to 2001, when

colony deaths in the northern United States ranged between 50 and 100 percent in many

beekeeping operations. Despite considerable efforts at both State and Federal levels,

miticide) resistance is a major problem that may be contributing significantly to losses.

sustainability of the U.S. beekeeping industry. These areas, in the southern United States,

are the major wintering grounds for migratory bees and the major source of queen and

package bees purchased by northern beekeepers to replace high winter losses, which are

high. Africanized bees out-compete traditional European bees in these areas and make it

difficult to maintain pure lines of European ancestry. If germplasm from this highlydefensive

race of bees becomes common in the commercial population, colonies will

become less manageable, and liability issues for both beekeepers and growers may

become significant.

resistance to the antibiotic used to prevent it. Although an alternative compound is now

available, it is only a matter of time until resistance to this compound develops.

(viruses, bacteria, and fungi, including microsporidia) are causing extensive bee

mortality.

6

honey producers. Combined with increased production costs attributable to mites and

disease, this has contributed to a reduction in the number of beekeepers and colonies,

despite increases in rental income.

During the winter of 2006 to 2007, beekeepers in the United States became alarmed that honey

bee colonies were dying in large numbers, with reported losses of 30 to 90 percent in some

beekeeping operations. While many of the colonies lost during this time period exhibited

symptoms consistent with those typically observed when under attack by parasitic mites, as

many as 50 percent of all colonies were reportedly lost, demonstrating symptoms inconsistent

with mite damage, or any other known causes of death. This suggested that increased stress or a

new, unidentified agent could potentially be responsible. This unexplained cause of death has

been given the name “Colony Collapse Disorder,” or CCD. Subsequent investigations suggested

that these outbreaks of unexplained colony collapse have been occurring for at least two years.

Symptoms of CCD include: (i) sudden loss of the colony’s adult bee population with very few

bees found near the dead colonies; (ii) several frames with healthy, capped brood with low levels

of parasitic mites, indicating that colonies were relatively strong shortly before the loss of adult

bees and that the losses cannot be attributed to a recent infestation of mites; (iii) food reserves

that have not been robbed, despite active colonies in the same area, suggesting avoidance of the

dead colony by other bees; (iv) minimal evidence of wax moth or small hive beetle damage; and

(v) a laying queen often present with a small cluster of newly emerged attendants.

Many affected beekeepers indicated that their colonies were under some form of stress at least

two months before the first incidence of CCD. Stresses could include poor nutrition (due to

apiary overcrowding, pollination of crops with low nutritional value, or pollen or nectar dearth),

limited or contaminated water supplies, exposure to pesticides, or high levels of varroa mites.

Case studies of beekeeping operations suggested the possible involvement of a pathogen or toxin

in CCD. Some beekeepers losing colonies to CCD placed the abandoned “dead out” hive boxes

on top of boxes containing strong colonies. These strong colonies also then suffered CCD.

Fortuitously, new information on honey bees and new technical approaches are available to help

determine the underlying causes of CCD in honey bees. At the end of 2006, the honey bee

genome was fully sequenced, permitting the creation of new molecular approaches in honey bee

genomics and molecular physiology. Using these tools, scientists can identify which genes are

being turned on and off in bees, in effect allowing the bees themselves to show how they are

being impacted, and helping scientists identify the most likely causal factors underlying CCD.

These analyses have the potential to reveal how the bees are responding to potential pathogens,

sensors) for the detection of new or re-emerging pathogens or for the sensitive detection of

environmental chemicals may help in unraveling the underlying causes of CCD and other

problems in the health of honey bees and other pollinators.

The following document contains four major topic areas identified by the NRC committee report

and by participants at a two day workshop on CCD held in Beltsville, Maryland, in April 2007.

7

These topic areas, reflecting the response team’s plan for focusing research efforts on CCD,

include: 1) survey and data collection; 2) analysis of samples; 3) hypothesis-driven

experimentation; and 4) mitigative and preventative measures. Within each topic area are

outlined the current status of research and future plans needed to address the problem of CCD

and inadequate honey bee populations.

8

Current Status of Survey and Data Collection: Apicultural industry groups,

researchers (Federal, State and private), and apicultural Extension specialists all agree

that there is an immediate need to establish uniform and consistent data collection

methodologies to provide a baseline for both bee production and health

(epidemiology) measures. While several surveys have been or are currently being

conducted, none meet the criteria needed to enable researchers to evaluate increases

or decreases in these measures across the U.S. or North America. The National

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) currently conducts an annual survey of the

beekeeping community that focuses on honey production. Since pollinating colonies

are not monitored unless they also produce honey, there are limits on the extent to

which those data can be extrapolated to estimate pollination services provided by the

honey bee. NASS methods also result in undercounting, because the annual survey

count hobby beekeepers who contribute to the supply of honey-producing or

pollinating colonies. An additional complication of significance is that migratory

beekeepers’ colonies, leased in different regions of the country for different seasons,

may be counted more than once. Several other one-time surveys have been

conducted on either a National or regional level within the last two years, including

surveys by Bee Alert Technology, Inc., the Mid-Atlantic Apiculture Research and

Extension Consortium (MAAREC), the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

(PSU), and the Apiary Inspectors of America (AIA).

As the NRC has concluded: “Improved information gathering for the beekeeping

industry is critical, and NASS should modify its data collection methodologies.” The

committee has specifically recommended that NASS:

annually, eliminating double-counting, recording pollination services, and

monitoring winter losses.

and leasing fees from beekeepers and crop growers.

North America. NASS should make its annual survey definitions compatible

with its five-year census of agriculture.

In addition, the beekeeping industry has called for a National Honey Bee Pest Survey

program to be developed and conducted under the auspices of APHIS with the

participation of AIA. APHIS has the necessary expertise and experience to conduct

an Office International des Epizooties (OIE)-compliant program and has begun to

develop feasibility studies to determine requirements, components, and costs of such

a program. Currently, this program is being planned, with a goal of identifying

epidemiological survey that would meet the goal of developing a long-term overall

health survey.

9

Goals established for this topic area of the Action Plan are predicated on an urgent

need to establish uniform standardized survey instruments; these instruments are

needed as a basis to assess fluctuations in bee populations that may be attributable to

disease or pest outbreaks such as CCD or to the economics of both honey production

and pollination services. Comprehensive surveys should address both

production/management and bee health issues.

10

Note: There is also the potential to develop and use sentinel colonies

scattered across the U.S. to monitor bee health and environmental

chemical contamination, as is done for soybean rust. This was suggested

for the Pest Information Platform for Extension and Education (PIPE)

program. An additional idea is to have a set of mobile diagnostic

laboratories for honey bees and to couple these with sentinel colonies

dispersed around the country as an early warning system for pathogen or

pest introductions.

11

Current Status of Analysis: Samples were collected in the fall of 2006 and early

2007 from over 200 colonies, representing beekeeping operations in 10 states

(California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, Pennsylvania, South

Dakota, Texas, Washington). These samples included colonies exhibiting CCD and

others that were apparently healthy and owned by the same beekeeper or by

neighboring beekeepers not experiencing CCD. Additionally, symptomless control

colonies were sampled in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Australia.

Adult bee samples are currently being analyzed using high-throughput 454

sequencing at Columbia University, with follow-up pathogen detection at PSU, whole

genome array analysis at the University of Illinois, and a bee

immunity/stress/pathogen panel [qRT-PCR assay (see list of acronyms)] developed

by ARS in Beltsville, Maryland. This “Bee Path Chip” is used to determine how bee

genes respond to pathogens, and therefore can be used to fingerprint pathogens by

their effects on bees. Comb samples from each colony were also taken for chemical

analysis of bee bread (pollen stores), wax, and brood. These analyses together should

provide clues as to possible exposure of worker bees to pesticides and pathogens and

may help to identify novel pathogens if they exist. Concurrent with the

aforementioned analyses, adult bees are undergoing autopsies to catalogue abnormal

scarring of the digestive tract, presence of fungal growth, and other physical

abnormalities. Additionally, sample analysis is nearing completion for determining

also ongoing work to identify fungi (including microsporidia), bacteria, and viruses

from adult bees. Outstanding needs include the examination of comb samples to

detect if a fungal toxin or a repellant is present and to determine its identity and

origin.

12

13

found.

14

Current Status of Experimentation: It is uncertain whether CCD is a new

sporadically every 30-40 years in the United States), known then as “Dwindling

Disease” or “Disappearing Disease”. The causal mechanisms for all die-offs are

unclear. However, scientists investigating these die-offs have now identified four

candidate factors based on existing knowledge of what adversely impacts bee health

and analyses of affected bees from recent CCD samples. Suspected causes include

foraging followed by a cold weather period of 3 to 9 days, exposure to long periods of

drought, inadequate nutrition, and migratory management practices); 2) new and/or

re-emerging pathogens; 3) pests that attack bees; and 4) pesticides.

To support the first hypothesis involving stress, recent unpublished studies indicated

that environmental and nutritional stresses may play a role in CCD. Studies showed

that bees enduring a shortage of essential nutritional supplements in the fall were

more likely to suffer from CCD in the winter.

As for the second hypothesis, initial surveys of CCD-affected bees have uncovered a

multitude of different suspect pathogens. Even if CCD is cyclic, it could be caused

by a different pathogen in each case; for instance, a new pathogen could be causing

significant bee loss (CCD) until the bees are able to develop resistance, at which point

the problem disappears until the emergence of the next new pathogen. Transmission

of pathogens may be on the increase due to migratory beekeeping practices that

confine hives under a net during transport, thereby increasing hive-to-hive exchange

of inocula. Other research has shown that viruses and spiroplasmas (cell wall-less

bacteria) attack the bee brain directly, which could conceivably affect their

navigational abilities.

microsporidian parasite related to fungi), which was responsible for large bee die-offs

United States since as early as 1995. Infected bees attempt to rid themselves of the

pathogen by flying from the hive and defecating (taking what are called “cleansing

pathogens are infecting bees at high incidences in CCD-affected hives. Further

research is needed to conclusively demonstrate whether pathogens are involved with

CCD and whether immune suppression is associated with this disorder.

As for pests, the varroa mite, which parasitizes honey bees and transmits bee viruses

that may also be associated with CCD, has caused devastating losses to honey bee

populations throughout the United States. These mites have developed resistance to

pesticides, with control failures well documented. To combat this problem, varroa

15

mite-resistant strains of honey bees have been developed; however, resistant stocks

have not yet been widely adopted because of other bee stock characteristics.

Regarding pesticides, a new class of insecticides known as neonicotinoids is broadly

and commonly used in most cropping systems and on turf and forest pests. One of

the compounds in this class, imidacloprid, was banned in France, because it is acutely

toxic to bees and since sub-lethal doses have been shown to impair honey bee shortterm

memory; short-term memory is critical to bee navigational abilities necessary for

foraging flights and for returning to the hive. USDA-funded research in North

Carolina suggested that widely used fungicides synergize the effect of neonicotinoids

1,000-fold. Imidacloprid, applied as a systemic, has been found in corn, sunflower,

and rape pollen at levels high enough to harm bees. [Although bees do not pollinate

corn, they do collect corn pollen.]

Several other factors have been suggested as causal mechanisms of CCD, for

example, the use of genetically modified (GMO) crops. However, large bee die-offs

have also occurred in Europe, where GMO crops are not widely grown. Also, in the

United States, the patterns of CCD-affected colonies do not appear to correlate with

the distribution of GMO-crops such as Bt-corn. Furthermore, extensive laboratory

and field testing has indicated a lack of acute and sub-lethal effects on bees exposed

to GMO-pollen.

Other hypotheses are even less likely. For example, based on misleading news

reports, the public has become concerned that cell phone use may be causing bee dieoffs;

however, scientists have largely dismissed this theory because exposure of bees

to high levels of electromagnetic fields is unlikely. Similarly, shifts in the Earth’s

magnetic field, which could conceivably affect bee navigation, have not been

correlated with bee die-off episodes, but cannot be completely ruled out at this time.

A key tool in the fight against CCD includes the recently sequenced honey bee

genome. The genome has already shown that bees are weak in detoxifying enzymes

(which would make them particularly vulnerable to pesticide poisoning) and have

weak immune systems; they likely depend on sociality to protect their colony from

hive.

CSREES has provided significant intramural and extramural funding for research that

in the creation of a genome-wide map in late 2006, obtained by a custom designed

microarray. The array is publicly available to researchers to identify and characterize

the genes associated with CCD, and ARS researchers are now using the microarray to

perform studies relevant to bee-associated microbes that may be causing CCD. In

addition, CSREES’ Critical and Emerging Pests and Diseases Program is providing

emergency funding in 2007 to make use of the whole-genome microarray to identify

detoxification enzymes that may be associated with CCD. As a result of these and

16

other efforts, the honey bee genome is helping researchers better understand basic bee

biology, breed better bees, and diagnose bee pests and pathogens and their impacts on

bee health and colony collapse. The use of this genomic information will have great

applications in improving honey bee breeding and management.

17

this hypothesis and may result in larger field trials with whole colonies.

18

19

20

21

Current Status of Mitigative and Preventative Measures. Since little is known

about the cause(s) of CCD, there is little confidence in current mitigative measures.

Such remedies are urgently needed, particularly since beekeepers report that, when

equipment from dead hives is combined with live hives, the live hives begin to

decline. An experiment to study this is now underway, using irradiation and acetic

acid fumigation to reclaim comb from CCD colonies; the experiment involves two

hundred colonies with package bees from Australia (which does not have varroa

mites). Since irradiation will kill pathogens, but will not likely alter the composition

or availability of pesticides in the beeswax, this experiment could provide valuable

data to address the pesticide question as well. Another new method that is being

developed for all bees (honey bees and solitary bees) is the use of high concentrations

of ozone to treat hives during winter storage. Ozone has been found to degrade hive

In addition, a more complete understanding of shared pathologies between bumble

framework to assess treatment and management of diseases for both taxa. Bumble

bees are close relatives of honey bees, and they are social. There are notable

similarities between the taxa with regards to diet, pests, and pathogens. Several

are experiencing population declines pre-dating and concurrent with CCD in honey

pests (wax moths, tracheal mites) and diseases (Kashmir bee virus, deformed wing

The CCD crisis in honey bees highlights a critical need to conserve our native bees,

habitat from farming and urban developments, which may be causing a decline in

native bees (see National Academy of Sciences report); inadequate nesting or

foraging resources can limit bee population sizes and, for native unmanaged bees,

species diversity. However, we can increase bee populations by providing extra

farm crops. In addition, we propose to better utilize our natural wildlands to save our

valuable native pollination resource. Millions of acres of private lands are annually

enrolled in Federal Government land preservation and restoration programs such as

the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) [NRCS]; the Conservation Reserve

Program (CRP) [Farm Service Administration and NRCS], and the Wetland Reserve

Program (WRP) [NRCS] and millions more acres of Federal forests and rangelands (protected

by the U.S. public land management agencies) require rehabilitation following wildfires or on

long-term degradation. Rehabilitation typically consists of seeding with grasses and shrubs to

restore plant communities; yet while wildlife or grazing values have been considered

in plant species selection, pollinator value has not. If conservation and rehabilitation

plantings were to include shrubs or seeds of native forb species known to produce

generous pollen and nectar rewards attractive to diverse bees, these land management

programs would help restore and preserve pollinator communities across vast areas of

22

private and public lands at little added cost, with forage benefits to honey bees as

well.

and winter bee production.

23

24

25

26

27