Abstract The decline of both managed and wild bee populations has been extensively reported for over a decade now, with growing concerns among the scientific community. Also, evidence is growing that both managed and feral honey bees may exacerbate threats to wild bees. In Australia, there are over 1600 native bee species and introduced European honey bees (Apis mellifera) have established throughout most landscapes. There is a major gap in knowledge of the interactions between honey bees and native bees in Australian landscapes, especially floral resource use. Here we report on the pollen diets of wild bees in protected areas of coastal heathland, an ecosystem characterised by mass flowering in late winter and spring. We sampled bees within three sites and DNA metabarcoding was used to compare the pollen diets of honey bees and native bees. We recorded 2, 772 bees in total, with 13 genera and 18 described species identified. Apis mellifera was the most common species across all locations, accounting for 42% of all bees collected. Native bee genera included eusocial Tetragonula (stingless bees) (37%), and semi-social Exoneura and Braunsapis (19.8% combined). Metabarcoding data revealed both Tetragonula and honey bees have wide foraging patterns, and the bipartite network overall was highly generalised (H2’ = 0.24). Individual honey bees carried pollen of 7-29 plant species, and significantly more species than all other bees. We found niche overlap in the diets of honey bees and native bees generally (0.42), and strongest overlap with stingless bees (0.70) and species of Braunsapis (0.62). A surprising finding was that many species carried pollen from Restionaceae and Cyperaceae, families generally considered to be predominantly wind-pollinated in Australia. Our study showed introduced honey bee use of resources overlaps with that of native bees in protected heathlands, but there are clear differences in their diet preferences.

中文翻译：

---

保护区内蜜蜂和本地蜜蜂的花粉饮食和生态位重叠

摘要 十多年来，管理蜜蜂和野生蜜蜂种群的下降已被广泛报道，这引起了科学界越来越多的关注。此外，越来越多的证据表明，管理蜜蜂和野生蜜蜂都可能加剧对野生蜜蜂的威胁。在澳大利亚，有超过 1600 种本地蜜蜂物种，并在大多数景观中建立了引入的欧洲蜜蜂（Apis mellifera）。在澳大利亚景观中蜜蜂和本地蜜蜂之间的相互作用方面存在重大差距，尤其是花卉资源的利用。在这里，我们报告了沿海荒地保护区中野生蜜蜂的花粉饮食，这是一个以冬末和春季大规模开花为特征的生态系统。我们在三个地点对蜜蜂进行了采样，并使用 DNA 元条形码来比较蜜蜂和本地蜜蜂的花粉饮食。我们总共记录了 2, 772 只蜜蜂，确定了 13 个属和 18 个描述的物种。蜜蜂是所有地点最常见的物种，占所有蜜蜂的 42%。本地蜂属包括真社会性 Tetragonula（无刺蜜蜂）（37%）和半社会性 Exoneura 和 Braunsapis（合计 19.8%）。Metabarcoding 数据显示 Tetragonula 和蜜蜂都有广泛的觅食模式，并且二分网络整体高度泛化（H2' = 0.24）。单个蜜蜂携带 7-29 种植物的花粉，并且比所有其他蜜蜂的种类要多得多。我们发现蜜蜂和本地蜜蜂的饮食中的生态位重叠一般 (0.42)，与无刺蜜蜂 (0.70) 和 Braunsapis 物种 (0.62) 的重叠最大。一个令人惊讶的发现是，许多物种都携带来自水草科和莎草科的花粉，在澳大利亚，通常被认为主要是风媒传粉的家庭。我们的研究表明，引入蜜蜂的资源使用与受保护的荒地中的本地蜜蜂的资源使用重叠，但它们的饮食偏好存在明显差异。