UK Biodiversity Indicators 2015

This documentssupports

D1c. Status of pollinating Insects

Technical background document:

Gary D. Powney, Tom A. August, Colin A. Harrower, Charlotte Outhwaite, Nick J.B. Isaac

For further information on D1c. Status of pollinating insects

visit

For further information on the UK Biodiversity Indicators visit

D1c. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – Status of pollinating insects – technical background document

Gary D. Powney, Tom A. August, Colin A. Harrower, Charlotte Outhwaite, Nick J. B. Isaac

INTRODUCTION

Pollination is a vital ecosystem service that benefits agricultural and horticultural production, and is essential for maintaining wild flower biodiversity. By improving the yield, quality and resilience of crops, insect pollination has been valued at £400 million per year to the UK economy (POST, 2010). 35 per cent of the World’s agricultural output, by volume, consists of 87 crop types that benefit from pollination by animals (insects, birds and mammals), but because most of these crops are not entirely dependent on animal pollination, the amount of production directly attributable to animals is lower than this value(Klein et al. 2007). There is growing concern regarding the population status of insect pollinators, and in turn the pollination service they provide (Potts et al. 2010; Garratt et al. 2014). As with most other areas of biodiversity, the main threats to pollinators include habitat loss, environmental pollution, climate change and the spread of alien species (Klein et al. 2007; Potts et al. 2010; Vanbergen & The Insect Pollinators Initiative 2013). The widespread application of pesticides is also perceived as a major threat to pollinator diversity (Brittain et al. 2010). In order for governments to act upon these threats they need robust metrics on the national-scale status of pollinators and pollination. Deriving such a metric has previously been limited by the availability of suitable data and analytical techniques. With the increase in citizen science, the availability of large-scale biological record data has increased (Silvertown 2009). Such data are collected without a standardized survey protocol and therefore extracting reliable trends from them can be difficult. However, with recent analytical advances it is now possible to estimate reliable trends from such data (van Strien et al. 2013; Isaac et al. 2014).

METHODS

Data sources

Occurrence records of bee and hoverfly species within 1km grid squaresin the UK were extracted from the Bees, Wasps and Ants Recording Society (BWARS) and the Hoverfly Recording Scheme biological records databases. The time-period used for the indicator was 1980 to 2010, as this represents a core period of recording for these taxa in the UK. A lag in submission and collation of records means that after2010 the number of records per year tended to drop off. Bee species were filtered (following expert guidance from BWARS) so that only species considered to be wild pollinators were included. Species that had undergone taxonomic changes or had taxonomic issues during the time frame of the indicator were excluded from the analysis. The final composite indicator was based on 213 species of wild pollinator, see Appendix 1 for a list of species covered.

Generating species’ trends and the composite indicator

The data used to produce the indicator were not collected using a standardised protocol, but instead are a collation of unstructured biological observations collected by a large network of volunteer recorders. Such data tend to contain many forms of sampling bias and noise, making it hard to detect genuine signals of change (Tingley & Beissinger 2009; Hassall & Thompson 2010; Isaac et al. 2014). Recent studies have highlighted the value of Bayesian occupancy models for estimating species occurrence in the presence of imperfect detection (van Strien et al. 2013; Isaac et al. 2014). This approach uses two hierarchically coupled sub-models: an occupancy sub-model (i.e. presence verses absence), and a detection sub-model (i.e. detection verses non-detection). Together these sub-models estimate the conditional probability that a species is detected when present. A Bayesian occupancy model was applied to the data for each species, following van Strienet al. (2013) and Isaac et al. (2014). For each site-year combination the model estimates presence or absence for the species in question given variation in detection probability: from this the proportion of occupied sites (‘occupancy’) was estimated for each year. These annual occupancy estimates were scaled so the value in 1980 was set to 100. The annual values of the composite indicator werecalculatedas the arithmetic mean of scaled species-specific occupancy estimates, and uncertainty in the species-specific annual occupancy estimates was propagated through to the final indicator. A detailed description of the occupancy model, and the creation of the composite indicator, can be found in the technical document on Bayesian indicator development.

Species-specific trends

Species were grouped into one of five categories based on both their short-term (over the most recent five years of data) and long-term (all years) mean annual change in occupancy (Table 1).

Table 1. Thresholds used to define individual species trends.

Category / Thresholds / Threshold – equivalent
Strong increase / Above +2.81% per annum / +100% over 25 years
Weak increase / Between +1.16% and +2.81% p.a. / +33% to +100% over 25 years
Stable / Between -1.14 % and +1.16% p.a. / -25% to +33% over 25 years
Weak decrease / Between -2.73% and -1.14% p.a. / -50% to -25% over 25 years
Strong decrease / Below -2.73% p.a. / -50% over 25 years

Asymmetric percentage change thresholds are used to define these classes as they refer to proportional change, where a doubling of a species index (an increase of 100%) is counterbalanced by a halving (a decrease of 50%).

The threshold values for each category were based on those of the wild bird indicator; whether an individual species is increasing or decreasing has been decided by its rate of annual change over the time period (long or short) of interest. If the rate of annual change would lead to anoccupancyincrease or decrease of between 25 per cent and 49 per cent over 25 years, the species is said to have shown a ‘weak increase’ or a ‘weak decline’ respectively. If the rate of annual change would lead to a population increase or decrease of 50 per cent or more over 25 years, the species is said to have shown a ‘strong increase’ or a ‘strong decline’ respectively. These thresholds are used in the Birds of Conservation Concern status assessment for birds in the UK. See the technical document on the Bayesian indicator development for further detail on the calculation of the species-specific trends.

RESULTS

The indicator shows the average relative change in distribution of 213 species of pollinator, as measured by the number of 1km grid squares across the UK in which they were recorded – this is referred to as the ‘occupancy index’.
Based on the unsmoothed data, there was anoverall decrease in the indicator from 1987 onwards. In 2010, the occupancy indicator had declined to 68 percent of the value in 1980.
Between 1980 and 2010, 27 per cent of pollinator species became more widespread (14 percent showed a strong increase), and 51 per cent became less widespread (36 percent showed a strong decrease). Similar patterns occurred between 2005 and 2010, but with a greater proportion increasing and decreasing strongly.
As individual pollinator species become more or less widespread, the communities in any given area become more or less diverse, and this may have implications for pollination as more diverse communities are, in broad terms, more effective in pollinating a wide range of crops and wild flowers.

The occupancy index was also produced for the bee (Figure 2) and hoverfly (Figure 3) species separately. The wild bee index was relatively stable up to 2005,it then increased before a sharp decline. In 2010, the wild bee index had declined to 62 per cent of the original value in 1980. The occupancy index was declining for a greater number of wild bee species than were increasing over both the long- and short-term. The sharp decline in the occupancy indexin the three years up to 2010 of the indicator plot is reflected in the large (70 per cent) proportion of wild bee species showing strong declines in occupancy over the short-term.

In contrast to the bees, the hoverfly index (Figure 3) shows a gradual decline from 1987 to 2007onwards, reaching a low of 59 per cent of the value in 1980 in 2007. This trend was reversed in the last three years to 2010, ending at 76 per cent. A greater proportion of hoverflies have declined in occupancy over the long-term than have increased, but in the short-term 59 per cent of hoverflies show strong increases in occupancy between 2005 and 2010.

The annual variability in the data is likely to be partly explained by annual variation in weather conditions. Pollinators tend to respond positively to temperature but negatively to rainfall. Hot dry periods are likely to have a greater negative impact on hoverflies than bees, as the exposed larvae of hoverflies are more vulnerable to desiccation compared to the larvae of bees that tend to be protected within an enclosed nest. The recent decline in bees from 2007–2010 is striking. A number of pressures are known to impact on local pollinator behaviour, distribution and abundance: weather, climate, land use change and pesticide use, for example (Vanbergenet al. 2014; Stanley et al. 2015). There was a decline in the indicator between 2007 and 2010. It is not known whether this change in distribution is the start of a longer term trend or short term fluctuation, and if the former, whether it is linked to one particular pressure or to a combination of pressures. Despite theinter-annual variation, the overall trend for pollinators remains downward.

This indicator is a composite measure across 213 species (Appendix 1) and therefore covers a large proportion of the pollinator species within the UK. Not all species contribute to all years (see No. spp. column in Tables 2, 3 and 4 for the overall, bee and hoverfly indicesrespectively).

Figure 1. Change in the distributionof pollinators in the UK between 1980 and 2010. The shaded region is the 90 per centcredible intervals of the annual occupancy estimates and represents the uncertainty surrounding the annual estimates. The solid line illustrates a smoothed trend estimated from a GAM fitted to the rescaled indicator values (dashed line). The proportion of pollinator species in each trend category is based on mean change in occupancy over both a) the long term (all years) and b) the short term (the most recent five years).

Table 2. Change in the distributionof pollinators in the UK between 1980 and 2010. The indicator values per year are presented alongside their uncertainty (upper and lower 90per centcredible intervals), and the number of species contributing to the annual index value. The number of species contributing has been split into those with an interpolated estimate and those with an actual occupancy estimate.

Year / Indicator / Lower CI / Upper CI / No. Sp. Estimated / No. Sp. Interpolated
1980 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 184 / 0
1981 / 100.76 / 90.24 / 112.37 / 180 / 4
1982 / 95.78 / 86.24 / 106.87 / 192 / 12
1983 / 92.44 / 82.89 / 102.86 / 189 / 20
1984 / 97.92 / 87.18 / 109.43 / 195 / 15
1985 / 99.80 / 89.09 / 111.00 / 190 / 21
1986 / 104.36 / 93.86 / 116.07 / 194 / 18
1987 / 106.19 / 95.51 / 117.92 / 197 / 16
1988 / 99.17 / 89.33 / 109.58 / 197 / 16
1989 / 94.72 / 84.23 / 105.40 / 193 / 20
1990 / 94.74 / 84.91 / 104.94 / 198 / 15
1991 / 86.48 / 77.85 / 96.41 / 188 / 25
1992 / 92.46 / 82.70 / 102.92 / 203 / 10
1993 / 85.13 / 76.73 / 94.17 / 202 / 11
1994 / 95.40 / 85.80 / 105.39 / 197 / 16
1995 / 91.47 / 82.15 / 101.22 / 204 / 9
1996 / 93.58 / 84.63 / 103.78 / 199 / 14
1997 / 86.59 / 78.27 / 95.88 / 202 / 11
1998 / 85.31 / 77.16 / 94.26 / 201 / 12
1999 / 86.04 / 77.71 / 95.20 / 202 / 11
2000 / 84.89 / 76.70 / 93.55 / 201 / 12
2001 / 76.93 / 69.47 / 84.72 / 202 / 11
2002 / 83.33 / 75.30 / 91.61 / 210 / 3
2003 / 87.99 / 79.73 / 96.84 / 201 / 12
2004 / 85.50 / 77.82 / 94.26 / 202 / 11
2005 / 77.29 / 69.89 / 85.35 / 190 / 23
2006 / 82.45 / 73.98 / 91.54 / 196 / 17
2007 / 84.40 / 75.83 / 93.35 / 203 / 10
2008 / 89.14 / 80.21 / 98.92 / 200 / 12
2009 / 84.65 / 76.13 / 94.01 / 199 / 10
2010 / 68.49 / 60.56 / 76.50 / 193 / 0

Figure 2. Change in the distributionof pollinating wild bee species in the UK between 1980 and 2010. The shaded region is the 90 per centcredible intervals of the annual occupancy estimates and represents the uncertainty surrounding the annual estimates. The solidline illustrates a smoothed line from a GAM fitted to the rescaled indicator values (dashed line). The proportion of pollinating bee species in each trend category is based on mean change in occupancy over both a) the long term (all years) and b) the short term (the most recent five years).

Table 3. Change in the distributionof pollinating wild bee species in the UK between 1980 and 2010. The indicator values per year are presented alongside their uncertainty (upper and lower 90 per centcredible intervals), and the number of species contributing to the annual index value. The number of species contributing has been split into those with an interpolated estimate and those with an actual occupancy estimate.

Year / Indicator / Lower CI / Upper CI / No. Sp. Estimated / No. Sp. Interpolated
1980 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 97 / 0
1981 / 107.09 / 91.19 / 123.68 / 90 / 7
1982 / 94.65 / 80.18 / 110.10 / 91 / 10
1983 / 94.36 / 80.06 / 109.78 / 93 / 9
1984 / 105.81 / 90.63 / 121.26 / 98 / 4
1985 / 105.30 / 89.75 / 121.60 / 97 / 6
1986 / 104.52 / 89.05 / 121.05 / 95 / 9
1987 / 107.04 / 91.20 / 125.26 / 92 / 13
1988 / 98.74 / 84.12 / 115.26 / 95 / 10
1989 / 99.24 / 84.07 / 116.09 / 91 / 14
1990 / 100.08 / 84.86 / 117.04 / 101 / 4
1991 / 93.53 / 79.50 / 109.42 / 92 / 13
1992 / 90.64 / 77.37 / 105.33 / 103 / 2
1993 / 93.49 / 79.89 / 108.84 / 103 / 2
1994 / 104.70 / 89.30 / 120.18 / 98 / 7
1995 / 103.72 / 89.64 / 119.55 / 102 / 3
1996 / 107.36 / 92.68 / 123.05 / 100 / 5
1997 / 108.69 / 93.47 / 124.25 / 105 / 0
1998 / 99.52 / 85.94 / 114.35 / 103 / 2
1999 / 95.27 / 82.34 / 109.01 / 100 / 5
2000 / 109.97 / 95.17 / 125.87 / 100 / 5
2001 / 87.09 / 75.15 / 99.57 / 101 / 4
2002 / 92.83 / 80.49 / 105.45 / 104 / 1
2003 / 98.91 / 85.49 / 112.43 / 99 / 6
2004 / 107.53 / 92.62 / 123.15 / 100 / 5
2005 / 102.81 / 87.98 / 117.75 / 93 / 12
2006 / 115.17 / 98.81 / 132.10 / 93 / 12
2007 / 121.05 / 104.93 / 137.80 / 102 / 3
2008 / 109.38 / 93.36 / 125.21 / 103 / 2
2009 / 94.38 / 80.81 / 107.84 / 101 / 4
2010 / 61.87 / 51.85 / 72.81 / 97 / 0

Figure 3. Change in the distributionof hoverfly species in the UK between 1980 and 2010. The shaded region is the 90 per centcredible intervals of the annual occupancy estimates and represents the uncertainty surrounding the annual estimates. The solidline illustrates a smoothed line from a GAM fitted to the rescaled indicator values (dashed line). The proportion of hoverfly species in each trend category is based on mean change in occupancy over both a) the long term (all years) and b) the short term (the most recent five years).

Table 4. Change in the distributionof hoverfly species in the UK between 1980 and 2010. The indicator values per year are presented alongside their uncertainty (upper and lower 90 per centcredible intervals), and the number of species contributing to the annual index value. The number of species contributing has been split into those with an interpolated estimate and those with an actual occupancy estimate.

Year / Indicator / Lower CI / Upper CI / No. Sp. Estimated / No. Sp. Interpolated
1980 / 100 / 100 / 100 / 87 / 0
1981 / 94.29 / 79.14 / 110.15 / 87 / 0
1982 / 95.85 / 81.02 / 112.67 / 101 / 2
1983 / 90.08 / 75.51 / 106.28 / 96 / 11
1984 / 89.79 / 74.82 / 107.62 / 97 / 11
1985 / 93.84 / 77.98 / 110.52 / 93 / 15
1986 / 103.14 / 86.13 / 122.77 / 99 / 9
1987 / 104.36 / 87.60 / 122.61 / 105 / 3
1988 / 98.77 / 82.87 / 115.51 / 102 / 6
1989 / 89.73 / 75.70 / 106.25 / 102 / 6
1990 / 88.62 / 74.37 / 103.87 / 97 / 11
1991 / 79.58 / 66.88 / 93.84 / 96 / 12
1992 / 93.64 / 78.82 / 110.44 / 100 / 8
1993 / 76.75 / 64.40 / 90.44 / 99 / 9
1994 / 86.04 / 72.23 / 100.81 / 99 / 9
1995 / 80.37 / 67.72 / 95.28 / 102 / 6
1996 / 81.29 / 67.58 / 95.33 / 99 / 9
1997 / 68.67 / 57.79 / 80.92 / 97 / 11
1998 / 72.57 / 60.73 / 85.27 / 98 / 10
1999 / 77.25 / 65.03 / 91.47 / 102 / 6
2000 / 65.44 / 54.92 / 76.68 / 101 / 7
2001 / 67.46 / 56.87 / 78.82 / 101 / 7
2002 / 74.47 / 62.58 / 87.92 / 106 / 2
2003 / 77.85 / 65.91 / 91.21 / 102 / 6
2004 / 67.69 / 56.65 / 79.41 / 102 / 6
2005 / 57.84 / 48.83 / 67.81 / 97 / 11
2006 / 59.01 / 49.24 / 69.93 / 103 / 5
2007 / 58.89 / 49.55 / 69.41 / 101 / 7
2008 / 72.45 / 60.93 / 85.53 / 97 / 10
2009 / 75.87 / 64.02 / 88.90 / 98 / 6
2010 / 76.23 / 64.71 / 89.51 / 96 / 0

FUTURE WORK

Bees and hoverflies are key pollinators in the UK and are presented here as an indicator of the overall trend in pollinators. Other taxonomic groups (e.g. some butterflies and moths) can provide pollination services but are not yet included in the indicator. Future updates of the pollinator indicator could include trends from other taxonomic groups known to provide pollination services.

All species were given equal weight in the pollinator indicator – effectively the indicator assumes all species are equally valuable in terms of their contribution to pollination services. However, contribution to pollination is known to vary between species and is dependent on inherent life history and ecological characteristics of the species, but also on total population abundance (Breeze et al. 2011; Woodcock et al. 2013). Future work could examine the feasibility of weighting the indicator to take account of this variation in species importance as pollinators.

REFERENCES

Breeze, T.D., Bailey, A.P., Balcombe, K.G. & Potts, S.G. (2011) Pollination services in the UK: How important are honeybees? Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 142, 137–143.

Brittain, C. A., Vighi, M., Bommarco, R., Settele, J. & Potts, S.G. (2010) Impacts of a pesticide on pollinator species richness at different spatial scales. Basic and Applied Ecology, 11, 106–115.

Garratt, M.P.D., Truslove, C.L., Coston, D.J., Evans, R.L., Moss, E.D., Dodson, C., Jenner, N., Biesmeijer, J.C. & Potts, S.G. (2014) Pollination deficits in UK apple orchards. Journal of Pollination Ecology, 12, 9–14.

Hassall, C. & Thompson, D.J. (2010) Accounting for recorder effort in the detection of range shifts from historical data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 1, 343–350.

Isaac, N.J.B., van Strien, A.J., August, T.A., de Zeeuw, M.P. & Roy, D.B. (2014) Statistics for citizen science: extracting signals of change from noisy ecological data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 5, 1052–1060.

Klein, A.-M., Vaissière, B.E., Cane, J.H., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Cunningham, S.A, Kremen, C. & Tscharntke, T. (2007) Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society, 274, 303–13.

POST (2010) Insect Pollination, London.

Potts, S.G., Biesmeijer, J.C., Kremen, C., Neumann, P., Schweiger, O. & Kunin, W.E. (2010) Global pollinator declines: trends, impacts and drivers. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 25, 345–53.

Silvertown, J. (2009) A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology Evolution, 24, 467–471.

Stanley, D.A. Garratt, M.P.D., Wickens, J.B., Wickens, V.J., Potts, S.G. & Raine, N.E. (2015) Neonicotinoid pesticide exposure impairs crop pollination services provided by bumblebees. Nature, online early.

Van Strien, A.J., van Swaay, C.A.M. & Termaat, T. (2013) Opportunistic citizen science data of animal species produce reliable estimates of distribution trends if analysed with occupancy models. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 1450–1458.

Tingley, M.W. & Beissinger, S.R. (2009) Detecting range shifts from historical species occurrences: new perspectives on old data. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 625–633.

Vanbergen, A.J. & The Insect Pollinators Initiative. (2013) Threats to an ecosystem service: pressures on pollinators. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11, 251–259.

Woodcock, B.A., Edwards, M., Redhead, J., Meek, W.R., Nuttall, P., Falk, S., Nowakowski, M. & Pywell, R.F. (2013) Crop flower visitation by honeybees, bumblebees and solitary bees: Behavioural differences and diversity responses to landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 171, 1–8.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. The list of 213 species included in the pollinator indicator.

Species
Anasimyiacontracta
Anasimyialineata
Anasimyiatransfuga
Andrenaapicata
Andrenaargentata
Andrenabarbilabris
Andrenabicolor
Andrenabimaculata
Andrenabucephala
Andrenacarantonica
Andrenachrysosceles
Andrena cineraria
Andrenaclarkella
Andrenadorsata
Andrenaflavipes
Andrenaflorea
Andrenafucata
Andrenafulva
Andrenafuscipes
Andrenahaemorrhoa
Andrenahattorfiana
Andrenahelvola
Andrenahumilis
Andrenalabialis
Andrenalapponica
Andrenamarginata
Andrenaminutula
Andrenanigroaenea
Andrenanitida
Andrenanitidiuscula
Andrenaovatula
Andrena praecox
Andrenasemilaevis
Andrenasubopaca
Andrenasynadelpha
Andrenatarsata
Andrenathoracica
Andrenatibialis
Andrenatrimmerana
Anthidiummanicatum
Anthophorabimaculata
Anthophoraplumipes
Anthophoraquadrimaculata
Arctophilasuperbiens
Bacchaelongata
Bombusdistinguendus
Bombushortorum
Bombushumilis
Bombusjonellus
Bombuslapidarius
Bombusmuscorum
Bombuspascuorum
Bombuspratorum
Bombusruderarius
Bombussoroeensis
Bombussylvarum
Bombusterrestris
Brachyopascutellaris
Brachypalpoideslentus
Brachypalpuslaphriformis
Caliprobolaspeciosa
Ceratinacyanea
Chalcosyrphusnemorum
Cheilosiaalbitarsis
Cheilosiaantiqua
Cheilosiabergenstammi
Cheilosiafraterna
Cheilosiaillustrata
Cheilosiaimpressa
Cheilosialongula
Cheilosiapagana
Cheilosiaproxima
Cheilosiascutellata
Cheilosiasoror
Cheilosiavariabilis
Cheilosiavernalis
Cheilosiavulpina
Chelostomacampanularum
Chelostomaflorisomne
Chrysogastercemiteriorum
Chrysogastersolstitialis
Chrysogastervirescens
Chrysotoxumarcuatum
Chrysotoxumbicinctum
Chrysotoxumcautum
Chrysotoxumelegans
Chrysotoxumfestivum
Colletescunicularius
Colletesdaviesanus
Colletesfodiens
Colleteshalophilus
Colletesmarginatus
Colletessimilis
Colletessuccinctus
Criorhinaasilica
Criorhinaberberina
Criorhinafloccosa
Criorhinaranunculi
Dasypodahirtipes
Dasysyrphusalbostriatus
Dasysyrphustricinctus
Dasysyrphusvenustus
Dideafasciata
Epistropheeligans
Epistrophegrossulariae
Episyrphusbalteatus
Eristalinusaeneus
Eristalinussepulchralis
Eristalisabusivus
Eristalisarbustorum
Eristalishorticola
Eristalisinterruptus
Eristalisintricarius
Eristalispertinax
Eristalisrupium
Eristalistenax
Euceralongicornis
Eumerusfuneralis
Eumerusornatus
Eumerusstrigatus
Eupeodescorollae
Eupeodeslatifasciatus
Eupeodesluniger
Halictusconfusus
Halictusrubicundus
Halictustumulorum
Heriadestruncorum
Lasioglossumalbipes
Lasioglossumcalceatum
Lasioglossumcupromicans
Lasioglossumfratellum
Lasioglossumfulvicorne
Lasioglossumlaevigatum
Lasioglossumlativentre
Lasioglossumleucopus
Lasioglossumleucozonium
Lasioglossummalachurum
Lasioglossumminutissimum
Lasioglossummorio
Lasioglossumparvulum
Lasioglossumpauxillum
Lasioglossumprasinum
Lasioglossumpunctatissimum
Lasioglossumpuncticolle
Lasioglossumrufitarse
Lasioglossumsmeathmanellum
Lasioglossumvillosulum
Lasioglossumzonulum
Lejogastermetallina
Leucozonaglaucia
Leucozonalaternaria
Leucozonalucorum
Macropiseuropaea
Megachileleachella
Megachilemaritima
Megachileversicolor
Megachilewillughbiella
Melangynaarctica
Melangynalasiophthalma
Melanogasterhirtella
Melanostomamellinum
Melanostomascalare
Meliscaevaauricollis
Meliscaevacinctella
Melittahaemorrhoidalis
Melittaleporina
Melittatricincta
Merodonequestris
Microdonanalis
Myathropaflorea
Neoasciageniculata
Neoasciainterrupta
Neoasciameticulosa
Neoasciaobliqua
Neoasciapodagrica
Neoasciatenur
Orthonevrageniculata
Orthonevranobilis
Osmiaaurulenta
Osmiabicolor
Osmiabicornis
Osmiacaerulescens
Osmialeaiana
Osmiaspinulosa
Panurgusbanksianus
Panurguscalcaratus
Paragushaemorrhous
Parasyrphuspunctulatus
Parasyrphusvittiger
Parhelophilusfrutetorum
Parhelophilusversicolor
Pelecoceratricincta
Pipizanoctiluca
Pipizellaviduata
Platycheirusalbimanus
Platycheirusangustatus
Platycheirusclypeatus
Platycheirusfulviventris
Platycheirusgranditarsus
Platycheirusmanicatus
Platycheiruspeltatus
Platycheirusrosarum
Platycheirusscambus
Platycheirustarsalis
Porteviniamaculata
Rhingiacampestris
Riponnensiasplendens
Scaevapyrastri
Sericomyialappona
Sericomyiasilentis
Sphaerophoriabatava
Sphaerophoriainterrupta
Sphaerophoriaphilanthus