Yes,my prior comment reversed numbers 2 and 3.
"Only half of the studies pointed to a negative impact of competition, and most of the negative impacts were studies where wild bees changed their visitation rate on certain flowers. It has yet to be demonstrated how competition may result in a long-term change in the composition of bee species in an environment."
You wouldn't find the term rural because they use the term wildlands.
The studies used in the Oregon article are not all urban focused and included studies investigating increased competition in varying habitat, finding "As the California study demonstrated, increased competition may cause bee species to switch their foraging patterns, resulting in little impact on their overall reproductive success."
And yes, any conservation area will not promote the inclusion of non-native species regardless of their impact. Just becuase they are competitors doesn't show that they have negative impacts.
> wouldn’t find the term rural because they use the term wildlands
These are different environments. National parks are wildlands. Farms are rural. A lot more of America is rural than wildland.
"A lot more of America is rural than wildland."
Rural is a larger identifier which encompasses wildlands. It also depends on what you classify as wildland. According to the dictionary it's uncultivated land. If we were to measure uncultivated and undeveloped rural land, how would that compare to the cultivated and developed rural land? If 17% of US land is cultivated and less than 10% is urban, do you really think that the majority of the US or even the majority of the rural area are not wildlands? Either way, it makes no difference to the argument. Some of the sources in your links even look at various crop lands. It just seems at this point you're grasping at irrelevant and unsupported straws.