Effect of pan trap size on the diversity of sampled bees and abundance of bycatch

González, Víctor H.; Osborn, Alina L.; Brown, Emily R.; Pavlick, Cody; Enríquez, Eunice; Tscheulin, Thomas; Petanidou, Theodora; Hranıtz, John M.; Barthell, John F.

doi:10.1007/s10841-020-00224-4

Cited by 18 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data that characterizes bee communities as comprehensively as possible should be the basis of conservation and management decisions. Methodological biases are of continued interest in bee-sampling research and past work has increased our understanding of phenomena such as nuances in bee bowl characteristics and placement (Leong and Thorp 1999;Toler et al 2005;Droege et al 2010;Leonard and Papaj 2011;Gonzalez et al 2016Gonzalez et al , 2020. We understand less about how variation in active netting protocols affects capture (see Westphal et al 2008) other than its strong bias toward collector experience (Westphal et al 2008;Nielsen et al 2011).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two common bee-sampling methods reflect different assemblages of the bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) community in mixed-grass prairie systems and are dependent on surrounding floral resource availability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Insect communities with diverse life histories and morphologies, such as bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea), are difficult to representatively sample. Methodological comparison studies have increased our knowledge of bee-sampling method biases. However, further understanding of how sampling methodologies are biased with respect to functional traits and the surrounding environment is needed. We examined the differences in taxonomic and functional trait representation of sampled bee communities between an active netting and passive bee bowl methodology. We also determined the influence of surrounding floral resources on each method's ability to capture bee abundance, richness, and diversity. We captured bees at 32 sites across North Dakota, USA using both methods. Netting and bee bowl methods reflected different bee communities defined by taxonomic families, genera, diet breadth, sociality, and body size. Bee bowls reflected more solitary and small-bodied bees while the netting method selected a greater representation of generalist, social, and large-bodied taxa. Bee bowls captured fewer bees as floral abundance increased, while bee abundance, richness, and diversity captured with the netting method showed the opposite trend with increasing floral resource availability. In addition, the netting method generally captured more varied samples than bee bowl surveys. Our results indicate the importance of using multiple types of sampling methods and of understanding how surrounding floral availability affects sampling of the target bee communities. Methodological biases influence how ecological studies interpret target communities, making it essential for future bee-sampling to incorporate multiple methods and to interpret their results carefully in the context of chosen methodologies and study systems. Implications for insect conservationThe essential ecological services many bees provide, coupled with the concern over declines in bee populations and diversity, fuels the increased interest in bees and studies involving bee-sampling. Management and conservation policy for declining bee populations depend on data that is representative of the sampled bee communities. Therefore, it is important to understand systematic biases in our sampling methods as well as the effects of surrounding habitat on these biases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two common bee-sampling methods reflect different assemblages of the bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) community in mixed-grass prairie systems and are dependent on surrounding floral resource availability

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the protection of pollinators rising as a policy priority (Breeze et al, 2021; Gonzalez et al, 2020), response actions have failed to keep pace with the threats facing the services they provide (Potts et al, 2016). Currently, our understanding of trends in wild pollinator populations is limited, being primarily based upon ad‐hoc records (Powney et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inventorying and monitoring crop pollinating bees: Evaluating the effectiveness of common sampling methods

Hutchinson

Oliver

Breeze

et al. 2021

Insect Conserv Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. Wild bees provide a critical ecosystem service by pollinating globally important crops. Documented bee declines, notably in agricultural landscapes, therefore threaten future food security. Yet, evaluations of methods to inventory bees are rarely carried out in different crops or focus specifically upon crop pollinating species.2. We utilise standardised field datasets to elucidate differences in the capacity of transect walks, observation plots and pan traps to sample wild bee pollinator communities in four contrasting crops. Our results indicate that individual survey methods detect different components of crop pollinator communities, with guild and body size potentially important causal factors behind these differences.3. Transects detected half or less of the total potential pollinator community in three of our four study crops. Whilst transects were the most efficient method for sampling bumblebees, they often missed smaller solitary species, which were most efficiently sampled by yellow pan traps.4. Crop type is likely an important determinant of the most suitable survey methods to sample bee pollinator communities. Whilst transects alone are sufficient in crops pollinated predominantly by bumblebees, pan traps, and potentially observation plots, may be an important addition in some crops where smaller solitary bee species are potentially important pollinators. 5. Our results indicate that the most efficient methods to sample bee species in agricultural landscapes are dependent upon crop type and pollinator community composition. We use our findings to make a set of recommendations on the inventorying and monitoring of bee pollinator crop communities that can inform regional and national monitoring programmes.

show abstract

“…Previous research has found no significant relationship between bowl size and number of bees caught in pan-trapping using containers up to 12 oz. 24 , 25 , but greater bee catch abundance has been observed using 20 oz. bowls compared to smaller-sized bowls 26 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Decline of six native mason bee species following the arrival of an exotic congener

LeCroy

Savoy-Burke

Carr

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A potential driver of pollinator declines that has been hypothesized but seldom documented is the introduction of exotic pollinator species. International trade often involves movement of many insect pollinators, especially bees, beyond their natural range. For agricultural purposes or by inadvertent cargo shipment, bee species successfully establishing in new ranges could compete with native bees for food and nesting resources. In the Mid-Atlantic United States, two Asian species of mason bee (Osmia taurus and O. cornifrons) have become recently established. Using pan-trap records from the Mid-Atlantic US, we examined catch abundance of two exotic and six native Osmia species over the span of fifteen years (2003–2017) to estimate abundance changes. All native species showed substantial annual declines, resulting in cumulative catch losses ranging 76–91% since 2003. Exotic species fared much better, with O. cornifrons stable and O. taurus increasing by 800% since 2003. We characterize the areas of niche overlap that may lead to competition between native and exotic species of Osmia, and we discuss how disease spillover and enemy release in this system may result in the patterns we document.

show abstract

Effect of pan trap size on the diversity of sampled bees and abundance of bycatch

Cited by 18 publications

References 41 publications

Two common bee-sampling methods reflect different assemblages of the bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) community in mixed-grass prairie systems and are dependent on surrounding floral resource availability

Two common bee-sampling methods reflect different assemblages of the bee (Hymenoptera: Apoidea) community in mixed-grass prairie systems and are dependent on surrounding floral resource availability

Inventorying and monitoring crop pollinating bees: Evaluating the effectiveness of common sampling methods

Decline of six native mason bee species following the arrival of an exotic congener

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About