Warning: Parameter 2 to gdlr_core_page_builder::search_page_builder() expected to be a reference, value given in /nfs/c06/h02/mnt/154222/domains/friendsoflakeclaremont.org/html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php on line 287

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /nfs/c06/h02/mnt/154222/domains/friendsoflakeclaremont.org/html/wp-includes/class-wp-hook.php:287) in /nfs/c06/h02/mnt/154222/domains/friendsoflakeclaremont.org/html/wp-content/plugins/paid-memberships-pro/adminpages/reports/login.php on line 418
Native Bee Survey – Friends of Lake Claremont

Native Bee Survey

Native Bee Survey of Lake Claremont Nov 2019-Feb 2020

Dr Kit Prendergast (the Bee Babette)
Report presented to Friends of Lake Claremont

SUMMARY

Lake Claremont represents a large area of native vegetation within an urban matrix located within the Perth region, in the southwest Western Australian biodiversity hotspot. As with the majority of natural parks and reserves in Western Australia, the native bee fauna and their floral associations has never been investigated. Give the importance of native bees as pollinators, and their high species diversity contributing to the intrinsic biodiversity value of an area, this represents a major knowledge gap. Previous surveys conducted in this urbanised region in 2016-2018 however revealed that bushland remnants are crucial habitat for native bees. To address this major knowledge gap native bee surveys were conducted by native bee scientist Kit Prendergast during the peak bee activity season (Nov-Jan) three times a month. A total of 310 specimens were collected, belonging to 44 species, 12 genera, from four families. This signifies very high diversity of native bees present at this site, and represents almost one third of bee species recorded across fourteen sites over two years in the Perth metropolitan region. The majority of species are small species that are specialised colletids, with the genus Hylaeus being the most abundant and species-rich genus collected. The dominant plant taxa that bees were collected from were Myrtaceae, especially Eucalyptus and Melaleuca. This survey established a baseline for understanding the biodiversity of these important indigenous pollinators at Lake Claremont, and further reveals the environmental assets Lake Claremont boasts as important habitat for native bees. Further surveys are recommends so that the native bee populations can be monitored to understand how populations may be affected by management activities and environmental changes.

INTRODUCTION

Native bees are keystone species that fulfil vital roles in ecosystems through their pollination services (Potts et al., 2016). They are also a source of intrinsic wonder, and their diversity is a valuable cultural and scientific asset (K. S. Prendergast, 2020). Australia has approximately 2,000 species of native bees, with many that have yet to be scientifically described (Batley & Hogendoorn, 2009), and new species are continually being discovered (Leijs, Dorey, & Hogendoorn, 2018). Of those that are described, their floral associations and geographic distribution is poorly known, if at all (Batley & Hogendoorn, 2009).
Many species have evolved close, symbiotic relationships with Australian flora (Houston, 2018). Consequently, they rely on healthy, intact patches of native vegetation for foraging and nesting. Southwest WA is an internationally-recognised biodiversity hotspot, renowned for its high diversity and endemicity of species, mainly in terms of wildflowers (Hopper & Gioia, 2004). However much of the original native vegetation has been cleared for agriculture, and more recently, urban development, which is now the major threat to remnant bushland on the Swan Coastal Plain (Lambers, 2014). The flora in the region is relatively well characterised (Lambers, 2014), however the native bee biota around Perth has only recently received systematic attention (Prendergast, Doctoral Thesis, in prep).
Despite large patches of native vegetation being cleared for urban development, patches of remnant bushland remain scattered throughout the urban region of the southwest Western Australian biodiversity hotspot, under various forms of management and legislation, and in varying states of health (Crosli, Dixon, Ladd, & Yates, 2007; Dixon, Connell, Bailey, & Keenan, 1995; Newman, Ladd, Brundrett, & Dixon, 2013). Lake Claremont is one such patch of remnant bushland. Located in a highly urbanised area, Lake Claremont has considerable conservation assets. Lake Claremont is a Conservation Category Wetland, and receives regular conservation management (weeding, monitoring, revegetation) to ensure its environmental features are preserved, as it has a number of statutorily designated values that require ongoing management and protection (Natural Area Consulting Management Services (Natural Area), 2016).
No native bee surveys have ever been conducted at Lake Claremont, however NatureMap indicates the potential presence of a minimum of 42 terrestrial invertebrate species (Natural Area Consulting Management Services (Natural Area), 2016). This is certainly an underestimate.
Studies by K. Prendergast in the urbanised region of the southwest Western Australian biodiversity hotspot have revealed a substantial diversity of native bees, with over 150 species being found around the Perth metropolitan region (Prendergast, thesis, in prep). Much of this diversity however is found in remnant native vegetation, such that the abundance and diversity of native bees in these habitat patches far exceeds that found in residential gardens (Prendergast, 2018)(Prendergast, in prep).
Understanding the biodiversity of native bees at Lake Claremont, their floral associations, and trait composition will add greatly to knowledge about the biodiversity and environmental values of the Lake, and can help guide management practices to conserve the bees here. Such surveys will also contribute to a greater understanding of the importance of native vegetation remnants for pollinator conservation, and the diversity of native bees in this urbanised biodiversity hotspot.

This report details findings of surveys for native bees conducted by native bee expert Kit Prendergast from Nov-Jan 2019/20 at Lake Claremont, with the following objectives:
• Record the diversity of native bees and their taxonomic and ecological-trait composition
• Place the native bee assemblage in context with those recorded in other habitats in the region
• Identify bee-flowering plant associations
• Understand how the assemblage changes across months
• Establish a baseline for future monitoring to assess any changes in the bee assemblage which may result from management activities, changing environmental conditions e.g. climate change, and identify species that may be at risk.

METHODS

Surveys were conducted at Lake Claremont (Fig. 1) three times per month in November, December and January in 2019/2020.

Fig. 1. Map of Lake Claremont. Source: Google Maps 2020

Bees were collected from flowering vegetation by K. Prendergast between 10.30 – 14.00 h with an entomological sweepnet (Fig. 2). Targeted sweepnetting has been found to be the most effective method for catching the greatest abundance and diversity of native bees in the region, and moreover enables bee-plant associations to be documented (Prendergast, Menz, Bateman, & Dixon, 2020).


Fig. 2. Kit Prendergast collecting native bees by targeted sweepnetting. Photo credit: Nik Cook, FOLC.

K. Prendergast conducted the surveys by walking around the Lake and stopping to observe if bees were visiting flowering plants. If no bees were observed after 5mins she would move on; up to approx. 30mins was spent at a flowering plant if frequently visited by native bees. Specimens were stored in labelled vials (date of collection, site, and flower species collected from), and euthanised by freezing. Specimens were then pinned and identified to species/morphospecies using published taxonomic keys, with reference to the online database PaDIL (PaDIL) and the Western Australian Museum’s entomology collection. A specimen of ten of the species are going to be DNA barcoded to contribute to the Barcode of Life Database (Ratnasingham & Hebert, 2013).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Over the nine surveys a total of 310 specimens were collected, belonging to 44 species, 12 genera, from four families (Table 1). This is indicative of a high biodiversity of native bees, and that Lake Claremont represents valuable habitat for indigenous pollinators. A total estimate of bee species richness around Perth is not available, however from surveys conducted over a similar time period (Nov-Feb) across 14 sites recoded 96 species (Prendergast, in prep); consequently this single site supports almost half of the species in the wider region.

Species composition

Hylaeus dominated the bee assemblage in both the genus with the most individuals and species (Table 1). Euryglossina was the next most represented genus. The majority of species in these genera are small-bodied, and specialised on Myrtaceae, indicating the suitability of Lake Claremont to host oligolectic bee species. The relative representation of these genera was substantially higher than from other surveys conducted by K. Prendergast across 14 sites around urbanised southwest WA, where Hylaeus comprised approx. 17-19% of species, and 8-14% of individuals, and Euryglossina only approximately 2-11% of species, and 6-8% of individuals.

Amegilla were comparatively rare, however the high representation in previous surveys was largely due to collections in blue vane traps, which are extremely attractive to this genus (Prendergast et al., 2020). As Amegilla are generalists, their low representation is not a cause for concern. Notably absent were Leioproctus. The reason for the absence of this genus remains to be determined, as they are not rare nor typically specialised bees, comprising approx. 6-9% of species, and approx. 3% of individuals collected in surveys conducted across 14 sites in urbanised southwest WA (Prendergast, in prep). No Trichocolletes were collected, however this is due to the surveys commencing after their main activity period (late winter-early spring).

The collection of three specimens of the kleptoparasitic bee Coelioxys froggatti (Fig. 3) in one survey is remarkable (Table 4) – during previous surveys conducted across 14 sites in urbanised southwest Western Australia spanning 10 months over two years, only six specimens were collected. The actual host specie(s) of Coelioxys froggatti is unknown, however their presence is an indicator of a healthy megachilid host population (Anderson et al., 2011).

Fig. 3. Coelioxys froggatti (Megachilidae), a kleptoparasite of Megachile (host species unknown).

Of interest is the collection of six individuals of an as-yet undescribed species of Megachile (Austrochile), known colloquially as the “Perth Resin-Pot Bee” (K. Prendergast, 2020) (Table 2). This species is unusual in that it builds exposed resin pots or urns on vegetation in which it stores with pollen and nectar and lays its eggs, rather than nesting within wooden cavities typical of Megachile, or in burrows underground (a less-common nesting habit for Megachile).

Typical of most ecological communities, the species-abundance distribution was highly skewed, with a few species being abundant, and the majority being rare (Table 2). 13 species were singletons, and 8 species were doubletons, such that 47.7% of species were rarely encountered. The most abundant species was Exoneura (Exoneura) pictifrons (Fig. 4a) – a semisocial species and thus is often abundant, with 35 individuals collected; Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) euxanthus (Fig. , with 31 individuals collected, and Euryglossina (Microdontura) mellea, with 28 individuals collected (Table 2). Interestingly, E. mellea until recently was unknown from Western Australia (Houston & Prendergast, in prep.), however this likely reflects its diminutive size (only approximately 3mm in length).


Fig. 4. The three most abundant species collected throughout the surveys at Lake Claremont: Exoneura (Exoneura) pictifrons (a); Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) euxanthus, male (b) and female (d); Euryglossina (Microdontura) mellea (d). Photo credit: Kit Prendergast.

Monthly variation

151 specimens were collected in November belonging to 20 species, 97 specimens belonging to 19 species were collected in December, and 87 specimens belonging to 20 species were collected in January (Table 3, 4, 5). There therefore appeared to be a slight decline in specimens over the season, which may be attributed to the lack of rainfall as the season progressed (https://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply/rainfall-and-dams/rainfall) which reduced the abundance of flowering resources at Lake Claremont (K. Prendergast, personal obs.), however the total number of species each month remained similar. Despite similar number of species, the species composition differed between months.

Bee-plant associations

This diversity of 44 bee species were collected from a total of seventeen angiosperm species (Table 2), 11 of which were in the family Myrtaceae. The species to host the greater number of bees were Eucalyptus marginata and Melaleuca huegelli, also Myrtaceae. Exotic plants were rare at Lake Claremont, and no native bees were collected from these. These results revealing the strong preference for native flora, and the attractiveness of Myrtaceae as a host for native bees, are in accordance with studies conducted in both remnant native vegetation as well as residential gardens in the region (Prendergast & Mason, in review). The dominance of these flora also explain the high representation of the small, oligolectic taxa (Hylaeus and euryglossine species).
Similar to shifts in the bee species composition, there was variation between the months in the diversity of flora visited, and relative visitation to different species. Native bees were collected from 10 species in November, only 4 species in December, and 8 in January. It appears that provided keystone species, mainly Myrtaceae, are in flower, Lake Claremont can still support an impressive diversity of native bee species.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveys conducted by native bee expert Kit Prendergast have established that Lake Claremont represents valuable habitat for native bees. The diversity of native bees recorded in just three months of surveys is extremely high, with 44 species. Surveys conducted for a longer duration would certainly document more species given that some species’ activity periods fall outside the current survey period. Not only was a high diversity of species recorded, but many of these species are oligolectic, being strongly associated with native habitats and native flora. Lake Claremont also hosts an unusually high abundance of the kleptoparasitic species Coelioxys frogatti, which can be considered to indicate that a healthy host megachilid population occurs here. With the majority of species being strongly associated with Myrtaceae it is important that these flowering resources are retained. Whilst this set of surveys established a baseline for the native bee biodiversity present in this important urban bushland reserve, it is recommended that surveys continue over the years so that the populations can be monitored and trends in species diversity, abundances, and relative representation can be determined. This will enable identification of potential at risk populations, assess the influence of management actions, and understand how changing environmental conditions such as climate change impact these important species.

REFERENCES

Anderson, A., McCormack, S., Helden, A., Sheridan, H., Kinsella, A., & Purvis, G. (2011). The potential of parasitoid Hymenoptera as bioindicators of arthropod diversity in agricultural grasslands. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(2), 382-390.
Batley, M., & Hogendoorn, K. (2009). Diversity and conservation status of native Australian bees. Apidologie, 40(3), 347-354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12676
Crosli, R., Dixon, K., Ladd, P., & Yates, C. (2007). Changes in the structure and species dominance in vegetation over 60 years in an urban bushland remnant. Pacific Conservation Biology, 13(3), 158-170.
Dixon, J., Connell, S., Bailey, J., & Keenan, C. (1995). The Perth environment project and inventory of Perth’s remnant native vegetation. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1994 National Greening Australia Conference: A Vision for a Greener City-The Role of Vegetation in Urban Environments.
Hopper, S. D., & Gioia, P. (2004). The southwest Australian floristic region: evolution and conservation of a global hot spot of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35, 623-650. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130201
Houston, T. F. (2018). A Guide to the Native Bees of Australia: CSIRO Publishing.
Lambers, H. (2014). Plant life on the sandplains in Southwest Australia. Crawley, Western Australia: UWA Publishing.
Leijs, R., Dorey, J., & Hogendoorn, K. (2018). Twenty six new species of Leioproctus (Colletellus): Australian Neopasiphaeinae, all but one with two submarginal cells (Hymenoptera, Colletidae, Leioproctus). ZooKeys(811), 109.
Natural Area Consulting Management Services (Natural Area). (2016). Lake Claremont Management Plan 2016-2021. Retrieved from Lake Claremont, Western Australia, Australia: https://www.claremont.wa.gov.au/MediaLibrary/TownOfClaremont/Documents/Lake-Claremont-Mgt-Plan-2016-Final-May-17.pdf
Newman, B. J., Ladd, P., Brundrett, M., & Dixon, K. W. (2013). Effects of habitat fragmentation on plant reproductive success and population viability at the landscape and habitat scale. Biological Conservation, 159, 16-23.
PaDIL. PaDIL website Australian Pollinators. Retrieved from http://www.padil.gov.au/pollinators/search?queryType=all
Potts, S. G., Imperatriz-Fonseca, V., Ngo, H. T., Aizen, M. A., Biesmeijer, J. C., Breeze, T. D., . . . Vanbergen, A. J. (2016). Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature, 540, 220-229. doi:10.1038/nature20588
Prendergast, K. (2018). Bees in urban areas: are gardens or bushland remnants more important habitats? Paper presented at the Australian Ecological Society Conference 2018, “Ecology in the Anthropocene”, Brisbane, QLD. https://kaigi.eventsair.com/QuickEventWebsitePortal/ecological-society-of-australia-conference-2018/eventinformation/Speaker
Prendergast, K. (2020). Creating a Haven for Native Bees. Wilson, Western Australia, Australia: K. Prendergast.
Prendergast, K., Menz, M. H., Bateman, B., & Dixon, K. (2020). The relative performance of sampling methods for native bees: an empirical test and review of the literature. Ecosphere. doi:10.1002/ecs2.3076
Prendergast, K. S. (2020). Beyond ecosystem services as justification for biodiversity conservation. Austral Ecology, 45(2), 141-143. doi:10.1111/aec.12882
Ratnasingham, S., & Hebert, P. D. (2013). A DNA-based registry for all animal species: the Barcode Index Number (BIN) system. PloS one, 8(7), e66213.

TABLES

Table 1. Taxonomic breakdown of native bee species collected Nov-Jan 2019/20 at Lake Claremont. N= abundance, R= species richness

Family Subfamily Genus N R %N %R
Apidae Amegilla 4 1 1.29 2.27
Exoneura 35 2 11.29 4.55
Colletidae Euryglossinae Euryglossina 61 8 19.68 18.18
Euryglossula 1 1 0.32 2.27
Euhesma 1 1 0.32 2.27
Pachyprospis 2 1 0.65 2.27
Hylaeinae Hylaeus 135 14 43.55 31.82
Hyleoides 1 1 0.32 2.27
Halictidae Halictinae Homalictus 11 2 3.55 4.55
Lasioglossum 8 2 2.58 4.55
Lipotriches 14 1 4.52 2.27
Megachilidae Megachilinae Coelioxys 3 1 0.97 2.27
Megachile 34 9 10.97 20.45

Table 2. Overall bee-plant network at Lake Claremont, with native bee species (rows) and the flora species they were collected from (columns). Data are pooled across all surveys

Species Total Eucalyptus marginata Eucalyptus patens Eucalyptus erythrocorys Eucalyptus sp. Corymbia calophylla Corymbia ficifolia Melaleuca huegelii Melaleuca systena Melaleuca teretifolia Melaleuca quinquenervia Melaleuca priessiana Jacksonia furcellata Jacksonia sternbergiana Scaevola crassifolia Hemiandra pungens Banksia prionotes Rhagodia baccata
Amegilla (Notomegilla) chlorocyanea 4 1 3
Exoneura (Exoneura) pictifrons 35 5 3 2 1 4 4 1 4 2 1 2 6
Exoneura 9 F Exoneura sp 2 1 1
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) cockerelli 1 1
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) hypochroma 4 1 3
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) narifera 2 2
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) perpusilla 15 4 7 4
Euryglossinae 65[13?] Euryglossina “Spp. C” 6 5 1
Euryglossina (Microdontura) mellea 28 8 1 1 2 16
Euryglossina (Turnerella) argocephala 1 1
Euryglossina (Turnerella) atomaria 1 1
Euryglossula fultoni 2 2
Euryglossinae LkCl1 Euhesma 1 1
Pachyprosopis (Pachyprosopula) purnongensis 2 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopis) honestus 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopis) violaceus 2 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) obtusatus 22 2 2 17 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) ruficeps kalamundae 10 3 1 1 4 1
Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) amiculus 3 3
Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) euxanthus 31 1 1 24 4 1
Hylaeus (Hylaeorhiza) nubilosus 7 6 1
Hylaeus (Macrohylaeus) alcyoneus 2 2
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) aralis 24 20 3 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) “bicurvatus” 1 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) “breviscapatus” 7 3 1 1 1 1
Hylaues (Prosopisteron) latifacies 23 3 3 1 9 2 5
Hylaeus 66 F Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) sp 1 1
Hylaeus (Rhodohylaeus) proximus 1 1
Hyleoides zonalis 1 1
Homalictus (Homalictus) dotatus 8 3 5
Homalictus sp.6 3 3
Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) castor 7 1 6
Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) hemichalceum 1 1
Lipotriches (Austronomia) flavoviridis 14 3 8 2 1
Coelioxys (Coelioxys) froggatti 3 3
Megachile “houstoni” 3 1 2
Megachile (Austrochile) resinifera 2 2
Megachile Austrochile Perth Resin-pot Bee 6 6
Megachile (Eutricharaea) chrysopyga 15 3 9 3
Megachile (Eutricharaea) obtusa 2 2
Megachile (Eutricharaea) simplex 1 1
Megachile (Hackeriapis) apicata 3 3
Megachile (Hackeriapis) oblonga 1 1
Megachile fultoni 1 1

Totals 310 78 28 4 6 6 14 73 1 24 17 4 20 6 12 6 2 9

Table 3. Bee-plant network at Lake Claremont in November, with native bee species (rows) and the flora species they were collected from (columns).

Species Total Eucalyptus marginata Eucalyptus sp. Corymbia ficifolia Melaleuca huegelii Melaleuca systena Melaleuca teretifolia Jacksonia furcellata Jacksonia sternbergiana Scaevola crassifolia
Exoneura (Exoneura) pictifrons 12 1 3 2 1 4 1
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) hypochroma 4 1 3
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) perpusilla 4 4
Euryglossina (Microdontura) mellea 3 2 1
Euryglossina (Turnerella) argocephala 1 1
Euryglossina (Turnerella) atomaria 1 1
Euryglossinae LkCl1 Euhesma 1 1
Homalictus (Homalictus) dotatus 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopis) violaceus 2 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) obtusatus 17 16 1
Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) amiculus 3 3
Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) euxanthus 11 7 4
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) “bicurvatus” 1 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) “breviscapatus” 1 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) aralis 8 8
Hylaeus (Rhodohylaeus) proximus 1 1
Hylaeus 66 F Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) sp 1 1
Hylaues (Prosopisteron) latifacies 16 9 2 5
Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) castor 7 1 6
Lipotriches (Austronomia) flavoviridis 2 2
Coelioxys (Coelioxys) froggatti 3 3
Megachile “houstoni” 3 1 2
Megachile (Austrochile) resinifera 2 2
Megachile (Eutricharaea) chrysopyga 13 1 9 3
Megachile (Eutricharaea) obtusa 2 2
Megachile (Eutricharaea) simplex 1 1
Megachile (Hackeriapis) apicata 3 3
Megachile (Hackeriapis) oblonga 1 1

Totals 125 16 6 13 33 1 24 14 6 12

Table 4. Bee-plant network at Lake Claremont in December, with native bee species (rows) and the flora species they were collected from (columns).

Species Total Eucalyptus marginata Eucalyptus patens Corymbia calophylla Melaleuca huegelii
Amegilla (Notomegilla) chlorocyanea 1 1
Exoneura (Exoneura) pictifrons 8 4 3 1
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) cockerelli 1 1
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) narifera 2 2
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) perpusilla 11 4 7
Euryglossina (Microdontura) mellea 7 6 1
Euryglossinae 65[13?] Euryglossina “Spp. C” 6 5 1
Euryglossula fultoni 2 2
Pachyprosopis (Pachyprosopula) purnongensis 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) obtusatus 4 2 2
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) ruficeps kalamundae 6 3 1 1 1
Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) euxanthus 2 1 1
Hylaeus (Hylaeorhiza) nubilosus 7 6 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) “breviscapatus” 4 2 1 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) aralis 15 12 3
Hylaues (Prosopisteron) latifacies 6 3 3
Hyleoides zonalis 1 1
Homalictus (Homalictus) dotatus 7 2 5
Homalictus sp.6 3 3
Lipotriches (Austronomia) flavoviridis 3 3

Totals 97 62 28 6 1

Table 4. Bee-plant network at Lake Claremont in January, with native bee species (rows) and the flora species they were collected from (columns).

Species Total Eucalyptus erythrocorys Corymbia ficifolia Melaleuca huegelii Melaleuca priessiana Melaleuca quinquenervia Hemiandra pungens Rhagodia baccata Banksia prionotes Jacksonia furcellata
Amegilla (Notomegilla) chlorocyanea 3 3
Exoneura (Exoneura) pictifrons 15 2 1 2 2 2 6
Exoneura 9 F Exoneura sp 2 1 1
Euryglossina (Euryglossina) perpusilla 1 1
Euryglossina (Microdontura) mellea 16 2 14
Pachyprosopis (Pachyprosopula) purnongensis 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopis) honestus 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) obtusatus 1 1
Hylaeus (Euprosopoides) ruficeps kalamundae 4 3 1
Hylaeus (Gnathoprosopis) euxanthus 18 17 1
Hylaeus (Macrohylaeus) alcyoneus 2 2
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) “breviscapatus” 2 1 1
Hylaeus (Prosopisteron) aralis 1 1
Hylaues (Prosopisteron) latifacies 1 1
Lasioglossum (Chilalictus) hemichalceum 1 1
Lipotriches (Austronomia) flavoviridis 9 8 1
Megachile (Eutricharaea) chrysopyga 2 2
Megachile Austrochile Perth Resin-pot Bee 6 6
Megachile fultoni 1 1

Totals 87 4 1 39 4 16 6 9 2 6