Invasive species must often survive combinations of environmental conditions that differ considerably from their native range; however, for a given species it is unclear whether improved tolerance is the result of phenotypic plasticity or genetic adaptation (or both). Agrilus planipennis (Coleoptera: Buprestidae; the emerald ash borer) is an invasive pest of Fraxinus trees in North America and Europe. Previous studies in SW Ontario, Canada, showed that A. planipennis is freeze avoidant, preventing internal ice formation by accumulating Molar concentrations of glycerol in its hemolymph and depressing its supercooling point (SCP, the temperature at which it freezes). The cold tolerance of these SW Ontario animals was used to predict potential distribution, revealing that some Canadian cities should be too cold to allow populations to persist. However, a small population of A. planipennis has persisted in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, through several severe 'polar vortex' events. In 2018/19, we collected A. planipennis larvae and prepupae from Winnipeg, MB and Southern Ontario, and found that individuals from Winnipeg were extremely cold tolerant - with SCPs as low as -52°C in prepupae (compared to -32°C in SW Ontario), and observed survival of unfrozen individuals exposed to -50°C for one hour. This cold tolerance was accompanied by higher hemolymph osmolality and glycerol concentration than in the SW Ontario individuals. To distinguish between phenotypic plasticity and local adaptation, in 2020/21 we overwintered Winnipeg-sourced individuals either outdoors in SW Ontario or in a simulated Winnipeg winter. Simulated Winnipeg winter individuals had cold tolerance similar to those overwintered in Winnipeg, while SW Ontario overwintered individuals had cold tolerance similar to those collected previously in the region. The simulated winter individuals had higher hemolymph glycerol concentrations than SW Ontario overwintered animals, at least in part due to greater dehydration. Thus, A. planipennis are cold-tolerant enough to survive some of the harshest winters where their host trees can grow, and most likely attain this cold tolerance via phenotypic plasticity. These findings raise the importance of delineating sensitivity of conclusions to unexpected phenotypic plasticity when predicting potential distributions of new invasives or responses to climate change.

Worldwide, the use of managed bees for crop pollination and honey production has increased dramatically. Concerns about the pressures of these increases on native ecosystems has resulted in a recent expansion in the literature on this subject. To collate and update current knowledge, we performed a systematic review of the literature on the effects of managed and introduced bees on native ecosystems, focusing on the effects on wild bees. To enable comparison over time, we used the same search terms and focused on the same impacts as earlier reviews. This review covers: (a) interference and resource competition between introduced or managed bees and native bees; (b) effects of introduced or managed bees on pollination of native plants and weeds; and (c) transmission and infectivity of pathogens; and classifies effects into positive, negative, or neutral. Compared to a 2017 review, we found that the number of papers on this issue has increased by 47%. The highest increase was seen in papers on pathogen spill-over, but in the last five years considerable additional information about competition between managed and wild bees has also become available. Records of negative effects have increased from 53% of papers reporting negative effects in 2017 to 66% at present. The majority of these studies investigated effects on visitation and foraging behaviour. While only a few studies experimentally assessed impacts on wild bee reproductive output, 78% of these demonstrated negative effects. Plant composition and pollination was negatively affected in 7% of studies, and 79% of studies on pathogens reported potential negative effects of managed or introduced bees on wild bees. Taken together, the evidence increasingly suggests that managed and introduced bees negatively affect wild bees, and this knowledge should inform actions to prevent further harm to native ecosystems.