The McClay CLIMEX study indicates the likelihood of only limited distribution of B. terrestris (subspecies audax) on mainland Australia should it arrive either by accident or design. The study predicts these areas will be restricted to the wetter areas of Victoria, the south-west corner of Western Australia, and a limited area of NSW across the north-eastern border of Victoria...

It is important to note that the exact methods for breeding bumblebees in industrial quantities have also never been published, for commercial reasons. The same confidentiality applies to details of the breeding of blue banded bees. This information is currently being transferred to one of the industry partners in the blue banded bee project (Biological Services).

A recent update on the blue banded bee research has also been published in the May/June 2006 issue of Practical Hydroponics and Greenhouses magazine (Issue 88, pp 24-26).

A statement by Dr Katja Hogendoorn in May 2006 concludes, 'Good progress has been made. Depending on the financial support for the project, the [remaining] issues can be sorted out in three years time. After that, a breeding facility needs to be built, and breeding stock will need to be built up for a year. Altogether, six years seems to be a realistic estimate.'

Dr Katja Hogendoorn has now developed methods for breeding blue banded bees, in large quantities, year round, in a specialised breeding facility. Commercial tomato growers will not need to breed their own blue banded bees. (More details)

Visitation records [of bumblebees in New Zealand] show marked preferences for introduced rather than native plants, and they are rare in native vegetation. Populations of native bees are competing successfully...

and AHGA report page 27

.....the situation reported from New Zealand, where introduced plants were strongly preferred [by B. terrestris bumblebees] (Donovan 1980; Donovan and Macfarlane 1984).

Dr Andrew Hingston points out that 91% of New Zealand's plants are now introduced species so it is hardly surprising that bumblebees appear to 'prefer' introduced plants. It is true that B. terrestris has been recorded foraging on more species of introduced plants (at least 400; Donovan and Macfarlane 1984) than native plants (at least 53; Macfarlane and Gurr 1995) in New Zealand. However, this cannot be interpreted as preference because there are ten times as many species of introduced plants (20,551) than native plants (2,055) in New Zealand (Williams and West 2000). Hence, B. terrestris has been recorded foraging on 1.95% of introduced, and 2.58% of native, plant species growing in New Zealand!

Furthermore, New Zealand possesses only 23 species of native bees compared with over 1,500 native bee species in Australia. So we have many more vulnerable native bee species in Australia that could be affected by competition with bumblebees.

Two independent analyses of the statistics employed in [Hingston and McQuillan's 1999] study (Anon 2004, A. McClay 2005b) were conducted. Both stated that because of a design flaw, the study does not have sufficient statistical power to confirm a displacement effect.

Instead the AHGA report quotes two references, which do not appear to have been refereed, as evidence of criticism of this paper. The first of these 'Anon, 2004' is anonymous, and is not included in their reference list. The second (McClay 2005) is a private analysis prepared for the AHGA, which they have not reproduced as part of their report. These unsubstantiated documents can hardly be taken as serious proof of a 'design flaw' in the Hingston and McQuillan paper.

Goulson et al 2002 'do not suggest that bumble bees are having a significant impact upon native bee communities... the addition of (bumblebees) is perhaps unlikely to have an appreciable effect on small, short-tongued native bees'

In contrast, many of the Tasmanian Colletidae short-tongued native bees are most abundant after late December (Hingston 1998) when bumblebee populations are largest. So the Colletidae bees are the family of Tasmanian bees with foraging profiles most similar to bumblebees (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a). About half of the described species of native bees in Australia are in Colletidae (Cardale 1993). Many of these native bees are highly vulnerable to competition because they have very narrow foraging profiles (Armstrong 1979; Cardale 1993; Hingston 1999).

It may thus be incorrect to state that B. terrestris will provide an add-on effect to that of honeybees by competing with native bees at hours when honeybees do not normally forage.

It is difficult to see that any case for significant competition of bumblebees with native bees and birds could be sustained.

[Re: Hingston, 2005 study of bumblebee preferences for introduced or native plants] Hingston shows a complete disregard for the wealth of published information on the intricacies of foraging behaviour in bumblebees (see Prys-Jones and Corbet (1991) and Goulson (2003a) for a partial review of this well-researched subject).

This reference supports Dr Hingston's findings by stating that bumblebees do not show preferences among flowers on the basis of geographic origin.

[Re: Hingston and McQuillan, 1998 study of nectar robbing in bumblebees] No bees were apparently actually observed biting the holes, despite the 13 days of observation.

[Re: Discussion in Hingston and McQuillan 1998a of bumblebee impact on commercial honey production] Thus the likelihood of B. terrestris establishing in any numbers in west coast old growth forests, and then competing for leatherwood nectar with managed hives of honeybees, is extremely unlikely.

...no significant effect on native plants on the mainland is anticipated.

[Re: Hingston and Potts (1998)] Because the swift parrot, Lathamus discolor, is largely dependent on E. globulus pollen and nectar in its summer breeding range in south-eastern Tasmania, the authors raised a red flag, despite the low bumblebee population.

AHGA report page 35

Hingston and Mallick (2003) again raised the spectre of native birds being negatively impacted upon by competition for nest sites and nectar. Yet competition for nest sites is a non-issue because bumblebees, unlike honeybees, nest primarily underground in old rodent nests.

AHGA report page 35

[Re: Hingston and Mallick (2003)] Hingston claimed that bumblebees, in concert with honeybees, are threatening the survival of the endangered swift parrot, Lathamus discolor, by feeding on nectar of E. globulus, a remarkable claim not supported by any evidence of any impact.

This evidence clearly supports their conclusion that destruction of foraging and nesting habitat, collisions with human-made structures, and competition for food from introduced honeybees and bumblebees are the principal threats to the swift parrot.

The following information posted by Hingston on Ornithological News and Scuttlebutt (Website of the Echuca and District Branch of Bird Observers Club of Australia (http://users.mcmedia.com.au/ ~stocky/just-heard.html - accessed June 2005), is typical of some of the misinformation being presented to the public...

The Swift Parrot Recovery Plan 2001-2005, put out by the Swift Parrot Recovery Team (2001)
(http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/ threatened/publications/recovery/swift-parrot/) makes no mention of bumblebees or honeybees as any kind of threat to swift parrots.

...in the small northeastern breeding population [of Swift Parrots] located between Launceston and Smithton, where no E. globulus occur, ....

...bumblebees are not frequent visitors to E. globulus and thus are highly unlikely to compete with swift parrots or any other pollinators...

E. globulus was the seventh most frequently visited plant in a survey of native plant use by bumblebees (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a) and, on flowers of E. globulus, bumblebees were between 0.4 and 27.5% of insect visitors in other studies (Hingston and Potts 1998, Hergstrom et al. 2002, Hingston 2002; Hingston et al. 2004a, Hingston et al. 2004b).

There is no evidence or logic to the attempt to implicate bumblebees as a threat to native birds feeding on nectar and pollen. It is abundantly clear that man is the key threatening process for all these bird species.

AHGA report page 38

As far as we are aware, there has been no impetus for further work to be conducted on the weed issue in Tasmania.

Dr Andrew Hingston has produced a list of plants that have become much more invasive in Tasmania since bumblebees arrived, most of which are also invasive in other parts of the world where bumblebees occur, but are not yet serious weeds on the Australian mainland. (Read more)

These are: Rhododendron ponticum (Ericaceae); white-edged nightshade Solanum marginatum (Solanaceae); butterfly bush Buddleja davidii (Loganiaceae); and Agapanthus praecox ssp. orientalis (Liliaceae).

Published information on 'sleeper' weeds cited as being at risk of spread by B. terrestris gives no credence to the claims that importation of B. terrestris will result in a substantial increase in their spread.

Goulson (2003) points out that exotic weeds already cost Australia an estimated AU$3 billion per year in control and lost production. Goulson concludes, 'If even one new major weed occurs in Australia due to the presence of bumblebees, the economic and environmental costs could be substantial'.

Of the 15 potential sleeper weeds nominated by the Weeds Cooperative Research Centre and other specialists (see AHGA report page 51), only three were addressed in any detail by the AHGA and a further five were only briefly mentioned. Two important weeds that the AHGA neglected to discuss are Solanum species and Impatiens.

Solanum -- In Tasmania, the White-edged Nightshade weed, Solanum marginatum, has had its status upgraded from secondary to noxious since feral bumblebees became established. What would happen on the Australian mainland?

Solanum plants require a special kind of pollination called buzz pollination. Honeybees are unable to do this, but bumblebees are buzz pollination specialists. In fact, tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) belong to this group and this is a major reason why greenhouse tomato growers wish to import bumblebees for tomato pollination.

Published information (Healy 1976; Roy et al. 1998, Parsons and Cuthbertson 2001) shows that many species of Solanum are weeds of agricultural land and/or disturbed forests. Many produce fleshy fruits readily dispersed by birds and other animals. Livestock have died after eating S. dulcamara or whitehorse nettle S. elaeagnifolium. Moreover, buffalo burr S. rostratum, Jerusalem cherry S. pseudocapsicum and false Jerusalem cherry S. diflorum, are responsible for frequent poisonings of children who eat the attractive fruits, and deaths have resulted.

Impatiens -- Bumblebees could also help Impatiens glandulifera become an invasive weed in Australia. Bumblebees are its major pollinator.

Published information (Clapham et al. 1962; Valentine 1978; Usher 1986; Webb et al. 1988; Sowig 1989; Beerling and Perrins 1993; Perrins et al. 1993; Pysek and Prach 1995; Williamson 1996; Chittka and Schurkens 2001) shows that Impatiens is a weed of river banks, lake sides and other disturbed or damp areas in continental Europe, Britain, North America and New Zealand where it often grows so densely that it smothers other plants. Bumblebees including B. terrestris are its major pollinators.

Over half of the riverbanks in the Czech Republic are currently occupied by Impatiens (Prysek and Prach 1995). However, in the absence of bumblebees on mainland Australia, Impatiens is not an established weed here yet.

...B. terrestris is located across much of Tasmania, but is rare in areas of native bush, with nests, where present, smaller and less persistent than in urban and semi-urban areas.

Bumblebees have proven to be highly invasive in urban, agricultural and native vegetation in Tasmania (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a; Hergstrom et al. 2002; Hingston et al. 2002; Hingston 2006), and are widespread and abundant in native vegetation (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a; Hingston et al. 2002; Hingston 2006) where large and highly successful nests have been observed (Hergstrom et al. 2002; Hingston et al. 2006). One nest examined in a Tasmanian National Park, isolated from urban and agricultural areas by 10km of sea, had produced at least 304 new queens and 939 workers!

Evidence of bumblebee breeding has been found in all of Tasmania's major native vegetation types, from sea level to 1260 m above sea level, across the entire range of annual rainfall (Hingston et al. 2002), and in 10 National Parks and the most remote parts of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Hingston et al. 2002; Hingston 2006).

AHGA report page 38

[Re: studies of impact on native bees and native plants] The studies were not definitive because of design flaws, particularly in methodology, and a lack of understanding of bumblebee foraging behaviour and the complexities of this type of study. Pollinator assemblages were broad in the few plants that were studied, and contradictory results were often obtained by Hingston et al. and Hergstrom et al. (2002).

Considering that the work of Hingston et al. on the impacts of bumblebees consists of nine papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals (Hingston and McQuillan 1998a,b, 1999; Hingston et al. 2002, 2004b, 2006; Hingston 2005a,b, 2006) while the work of Hergstrom et al. (2002) consists of one unreviewed report, the work of Hingston et al. should carry much more weight than does the work of Hergstrom et al. (2002).

AHGA report page 38

Despite attempts by Hingston to link the demise of threatened bird species such as the swift parrot to bumblebees, there is no evidence to indicate that this is so, quite the contrary. His own studies show limited visitation to E. globulus, a preferred and important nectar resource in swift parrot breeding areas in Tasmania.

Only large colonies are able to produce reproductive females and males. To achieve this size, a sequence of suitable flowers for 12-15 weeks is needed

Even if one group of suitable plants stopped flowering, the colony would be very likely to find a replacement group of flowers within that area.

Annual rainfall below 400mm will also not support colony development (R. Macfarlane, pers. comm. to S. Goodwin 1997).

Across these vast and divergent areas [...] B. terrestris (and all other Bombus species for that matter) is considered only as a benign and efficient pollinator. It has no pest status in any of these areas.

Importation and use of this bumblebee in greenhouses is only permitted if the greenhouse is fully screened to prevent this bumblebee escaping into the environment.

United Kingdom and Europe
Widmer et al 1998 writes:
In Europe, about 800,000 colonies are currently commercially produced every year for crop pollination in the greenhouse industry[...]. Because they originate from different stocks, commercially bred bumble bees differ genetically from local populations and escaping sexuals may introduce foreign alleles. Therefore, the commercial use of B. terrestris s.l. for pollination should be of concern with respect to genetic changes in local populations.

Chittka et al 2004 writes:
Unfortunately, the diversity of bumblebee populations is currently under threat from indiscriminate import of bee colonies for commercial greenhouse pollination.

Ings et al 2005 writes:
Alarmingly, colonies of these bees have all been shipped in extremely large numbers to regions where other populations are native without appropriate risk assessment. ... new queens (gynes) and males (Goulson et al. 2002a) escape from the glasshouses where they are used as crop pollinators. ... it is imperative for more high quality research to be carried out to provide essential information needed for an overdue risk assessment .. In particular, the risks associated with hybridisation, parasite spread and phenological differences between populations....

Canada
Colla et al 2006 writes:
... pathogens may spread to wild bees when commercial bees escape from greenhouses and interact with their wild counterparts at nearby flowers. ... foraging bumble bees regularly escape from greenhouses during the summer months and up to 73% of the pollen carried by returning workers is collected from plants outside the greenhouse (Whittington et al., 2004). The potential for contact between commercial and wild bumble bees near greenhouses is, therefore, substantial.

United States of America
Thorp 2005 writes:
The major threats to these [North American] bumble bees are exotic diseases introduced via trafficking in commercial bumble bee queens and nests for greenhouse pollination of tomatoes (Thorp 2003, Thorp et al. 2003), habitat loss due to urban development and agricultural conversion, and the extensive use of pesticides.

At least two of the disease organisms [...] are known to occur in commercially produced bumble bee colonies and have been introduced from Europe into Japan (Goka et al. 2000; Goka et al. 2001; Niwa et al. 2004). It is likely that the Nosema outbreak in commercial bumble bee production facilities in North America reported in 1998 (Flanders et al. 2003) is also responsible for the severe declines seen in B. franklini and B. occidentalis [...]. Declines of the other two species of Bombus sensu stricto in eastern North America, B. affinis and B. terricola, (J. Ascher personal communication) probably have the same root cause.

It [Aussie Bee website] also devoted an article to the pleasures of assisting in the export of several nests of an Australian native bee Trigona carbonaria to Japan in 1999 and 2000 (http://www.uq.net.au/~zzrzabel/our-bees-in-japan-2.htm), perhaps suggesting a need to be more objective.

Secondly, introducing the stingless bees, Trigona carbonaria, to Japan is entirely different from introducing bumblebees to Australia for two reasons:

1. Trigona stingless bees are tropical species. The Japanese researcher, Dr Kazuhiro Amano has stated that these bees would not survive the Japanese winter, so they pose no threat to the Japanese environment. The northern limit of the global distribution of stingless bees is in India, some 1,700 km closer to the equator than Japan. In contrast, the AHGA CLIMEX study clearly shows that large areas of Australia have a climate that could allow bumblebees to survive.

2. Trigona stingless bees have a prolonged and painstaking method of nest establishment. Stingless bee workers inside a Japanese greenhouse would need to escape, find a nest site, break back into the greenhouse to return to their hive, then repeat this feat many times a day over several weeks, whilst they gradually provision the new nest site. Only then could a new stingless bee queen move into the new nest site. In contrast, a single fertilised queen bumblebee, escaping from a greenhouse, is capable of establishing a new nest by herself and individual bumblebee colonies can each produce hundreds of new queen bees.

...their [bumblebees'] nesting sites are such that they will rarely be disturbed accidentally.

These are all examples of bumblebee nest sites that could easily be disturbed accidentally, especially by a child or family dog.

In another article on native bees (https://www.aussiebee.com.au/faq.html), Aussie Bee reports that 1490 Australian native species can sting, and that they can sting more than once and it is possible to be allergic to the sting. Presumably this is not much of an issue.

Furthermore, almost all of our native bee species are solitary and do not have nest stores of honey or pollen to defend. So they are far more placid than social bees (such as the bumblebee) even if someone is disturbing their nest. In contrast, bumblebees will respond aggressively if their nest is disturbed.

A nomination ...to have B. terrestris declared a Key Threatening Process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999...was rejected on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to make such a determination.

'The Committee urges that extreme caution be shown in considering any proposal to introduce this species to the mainland. In taking this position, it highlights the concern that many native species are dependent on native pollinators, so it could potentially be a threat in the future.'

References and Further Reading (Including papers listed in the green column, above.)

Armstrong, J. A. (1979). Biotic pollination mechanisms in the Australian flora - a review. New Zealand Journal of Botany 17, 467-508.

Bell, M. C., Spooner-Hart, R. N., and Haigh, A, M. (2006). Pollination of greenhouse tomaotes by the Australian bluebanded bee Amegilla (Zonamegilla) holmesi (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 99: 437-442.

Cardale, J. C. (1993). Hymenoptera: Apoidea. In 'Zoological Catalogue of Australia'. (Eds W. W. K. Houston and G. V. Maynard.) Vol. 10. (CSIRO: Canberra.)

Chittka, L., and Schurkens, S. (2001). Successful invasion of a floral market. Nature 411, 653.

Chittka, L., Ings, T. C., and Raine, N. E. (2004). Chance and adaptation in the evolution of island bumblebee behaviour. Population Ecology 46, 243-251.

Clapham, A. R., Tutin, T. G., and Warburg, E. F. (1962). 'Flora of the British Isles.' (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.)

Colla, S. R., Otterstatter, M. C., Gegear, R. J., and Thompson, J. D. (2006). Plight of the bumble bee: pathogen spillover from commercial to wild populations. Biological Conservation 129, 461-467.

Council of Agriculture (1909). Bumble-bees. The Agricultural Gazette Tasmania 17, 218, 242.

Donovan, B. J., and Macfarlane, R. P. (1984). Bees and pollination. In 'New Zealand Pest and Beneficial Insects'. (Ed. R. R. Scott.) pp. 247-258. (Lincoln University College of Agriculture: Canterbury.)

Goulson, D. (2003). Effects of introduced bees on native ecosystems. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34, 1-26.

Goulson, D., Stout, J. C., and Kells, A. R. (2002). Do exotic bumblebees and honeybees compete with native flower-visiting insects in Tasmania? Journal of Insect Conservation 6, 179-189.

Healy, A. J. (1976). 'Identification of Weeds and Clovers.' (Editorial Services Limited: Wellington.)

Hergstrom, K., Buttermore, R., Seeman, O., and McCorkell, B. (2002). Environmental Research on the Impact of Bumblebees in Australia and Facilitation of National Communication for/against Further Introduction. Horticulture Australia Project No: VG99033.

Hingston, A. B. (1997). The impact of the Large Earth Bumblebee, Bombus terrestris (L.) (Apidae: Apoidea) on Tasmanian ecosystems. Hons Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Hingston, A. B. (1998). Temporal and spatial variation in abundances of native bee species on an altitudinal gradient in southern Tasmania. Australian Journal of Zoology 46, 497-507.

Hingston, A. B. (1999). Affinities between southern Tasmanian plants in native bee visitor profiles. Australian Journal of Zoology 47, 361-384.

Hingston, A. B. (2002). Pollination ecology of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus and Eucalyptus nitens (Myrtaceae). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tasmania, Hobart.

Hingston AB (2005a). Does the introduced bumblebee, Bombus terrestris (Apidae), prefer flowers of introduced or native plants in Australia? Australian Journal of Zoology 53, 29-34.

Hingston, A. B. (2005b). Inbreeding in the introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris causes uncertainty in predictions of impacts on native ecosystems. Ecological Management and Restoration 6, 151-153.

Hingston, A. B. (2006). Is the exotic bumblebee, Bombus terrestris (Apidae), really invading Tasmanian native vegetation? Journal of Insect Conservation (in press).

Hingston, A. B., and Mallick, S. A. (2003) Are introduced social bees a threat to the endangered Swift Parrot? In 'Proceedings of the Birds Australia Members' Day and Annual General Meeting 2003'. Geography Department, University of Tasmania, 31 May 2003.

Hingston, A. B., and McQuillan, P. B. (1998a). Does the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) threaten Australian ecosystems? Australian Journal of Ecology 23, 539-549.

Hingston, A. B., and McQuillan, P. B. (1998b). Nectar robbing in Epacris impressa (Epacridaceae) by the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apidae) in Tasmania. The Victorian Naturalist 115, 116-119.

Hingston, A. B., and McQuillan, P. B. (1999). Displacement of Tasmanian native megachilid bees by the recently introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Australian Journal of Zoology 47, 59-65.

Hingston, A. B., and McQuillan, P. B. (2000). Are pollination syndromes useful predictors of floral visitors in Tasmania? Austral Ecology 25, 600-609.

Hingston, A. B., and Potts, B. M. (1998). Floral visitors of Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus in eastern Tasmania. Tasforests 10, 125-139.

Hingston, A. B., and Potts, B. M. (2005). Pollinator activity can explain variation in outcrossing rates within individual trees. Austral Ecology 30, 319-324.

Hingston, A. B., Marsden-Smedley, J., Driscoll, D. A., Corbett, S., Fenton, J., Anderson, R., Plowman, C., Mowling, F., Jenkin, M., Matsui, K., Bonham, K. J., Ilowski, M., McQuillan, P. B., Yaxley, B., Reid, T., Storey, D., Poole, L., Mallick, S. A., Fitzgerald, N., Kirkpatrick, J. B., Febey, J., Harwood, A. G., Michaels, K. F., Russell, M. J., Black, P. G., Emmerson, L., Visoiu, M., Morgan, J., Breen, S., Gates, S., Bantich, M., and Desmarchelier, J. M. (2002). Extent of invasion of Tasmanian native vegetation by the exotic bumblebee Bombus terrestris (Apoidea: Apidae). Austral Ecology 27, 162-172.

Hingston, A. B., Potts, B. M., and McQuillan, P. B. (2004a). Pollination services provided by various size classes of flower visitors to Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 52, 353-369.

Hingston, A. B., Potts, B. M., and McQuillan, P. B. (2004b). The swift parrot Lathamus discolor (Psittacidae), social bees (Apidae), and native insects as pollinators of Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus (Myrtaceae). Australian Journal of Botany 52, 371-379.

Hingston, A. B., Gartrell, B. D., and Pinchbeck, G. (2004c). How specialized is the plant pollinator association between Eucalyptus globulus ssp. globulus and the swift parrot Lathamus discolor? Austral Ecology 29, 624-630.

Hingston, A. B., Wapstra, H., and Wapstra, A. (2005). 'City meets Bush -- A Guide to Our Local Bushland. Mt Nelson, Tolmans Hill, Sandy Bay.' (Mt Nelson and Lambert Gully Bushcare Groups: Hobart, Tasmania.)

Hingston, A. B., Herrmann, W., and Jordan, G. J. (2006). Reproductive success of a colony of the introduced bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L.) (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in a Tasmanian National Park. Australian Journal of Entomology 45, 137-141.

Hogendoorn, K., Gross, C. L., Sedgley, M., and Keller, M. A. (2006) Increased tomato yield through pollination by native Australian Amegilla chlorocyanea (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Journal of Economic Entomology 99, 828-833.

Ings, T. C., Schikora, J., and Chittka, L. (2005). Bumblebees, humble pollinators or assiduous invaders? A population comparison of foraging performance in Bombus terrestris. Oecologia 144, 508-516.

Macfarlane, R. P., and Gurr, L. (1995). Distribution of bumble bees in New Zealand. New Zealand Entomologist 18, 29-36.

Mallick, S. A., James, D., Brereton, R., and Plowright, S. (2004) Blue-gums Eucalyptus globulus in north-west Tasmania: an important food resource for the endangered Swift Parrot Lathamus discolor. The Victorian Naturalist 121, 36-46.

McClay, A. (2005). Critical review of four studies relevant to the proposed introduction of the European bumblebee Bombus terrestris (L.) into mainland Australia. Report prepared for the Australian Hydroponic and Greenhouse Association. March 2005.

Parsons, W. T., and Cuthbertson, E. G. (2001). 'Noxious Weeds of Australia'. (CSIRO Publishing: Collingwood, Vic.)

Paton, D. C. (1996). 'Overview of feral and managed honeybees in Australia: distribution, abundance, extent of interactions with native biota, evidence of impacts and future research.' (Australian Nature Conservation Agency: Canberra.)

Paton, D. C. (2000). Disruption of bird-plant pollination systems in southern Australia. Conservation Biology 14, 1232-1234.

Perrins, J., Fitter, A., and Williamson, M. (1993). Population biology and rates of invasion of three introduced Impatiens species in the British Isles. Journal of Biogeography 20, 33-44.

Prys-Jones, O. E., and Corbet, S. A. (1991). 'Bumblebees.' (The Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd: Slough.)

Pysek, P., and Prach, K. (1995). Invasion dynamics of Impatiens glandulifera - a century of spreading reconstructed. Biological Conservation 74, 41-48.

Roy, B., Popay, I., Champion, P., James, T., and Rahman, A. (1998). 'An Illustrated Guide to Common Weeds of New Zealand.' (New Zealand Plant Protection Society: Canterbury.)

Sedgley, M., Hogendoorn, K., and Perkins, M. (2004). Domestication of blue-banded bees for greenhouse pollination. Practical Hydroponics and Greenhouses. Jul/Aug Issue 77. pp. 64-65.

Sowig, P. (1989). Effects of flowering plant's patch size on species composition of pollinator communities, foraging strategies, and resource partitioning in bumblebees (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Oecologia 78, 550-558.

Stout, J. C., Kells, A. R., and Goulson, D. (2002). Pollination of the invasive exotic shrub Lupinus arboreus (Fabaceae) by introduced bees in Tasmania. Biological Conservation 106, 425-434.

Thorp, R. W. (2005). Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., Vaugyan, D. M. and Black, S. H. eds. Red list of pollinator insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR.

Usher, M. B. (1986). Invasibility and wildlife conservation: invasive species on nature reserves. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 314, 695-710.

Valentine, D. H. (1978). The pollination of introduced species, with special reference to the British Isles and the genus Impatiens. In 'The Pollination of Flowers by Insects'. (Ed. A. J. Richards.) pp. 117-123. (Academic Press: London.)

Webb, C. J., Sykes, W. R., and Garnock-Jones, P. J. (1988). 'Flora of New Zealand. Volume IV. Naturalised Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, Dicotyledons.' (Botany Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research: Christchurch.)

Widmer, A., Schmid-Hempel, P., Estoup, A., and Scholl, A. (1998). Population genetic structure and colonization history of Bombus terrestris s.l. (Hymenoptera: Apidae) from the Canary Islands and Madeira. Heredity 81, 563-572.

Williams, J. A., and West, C. J. (2000). Environmental weeds in Australia and New Zealand: issues and approaches to management. Austral Ecology 25, 425-444.

Williamson, M. (1996). 'Biological Invasions.' (Chapman and Hall: London, UK.)