Netting and pan traps fail to identify the pollinator guild of an agricultural crop

Boyer, K J; Fragoso, Fabiana P.; Brunet, Johanne

doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70518-9

Cited by 29 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, when assessing pollination services, important mismatches can occur between the insects captured by passive methods (pan traps, vane traps, Malaise traps, trap‐nests, etc.) and those that are actual pollinators (Boyer et al, 2020; Cane et al, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pursuing best practices for minimizing wild bee captures to support biological research

Montero‐Castaño

Koch

Lindsay

et al. 2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bees are important pollinators of wild and domesticated flowering plant species. Over the last 30 years, an increasing number of scientific articles have been published on the ecology and conservation of wild bees. To achieve research goals, many studies have pursued the lethal take of wild bees.Although the impact of lethal take for scientific pursuits is likely negligible compared to the negative impacts of human-mediated phenomena such as climate change, urbanization, and agricultural intensification, it is important to evaluate the history of lethal take on scientific endeavors. In our study, we evaluated a random sample of 30 years of scientific publications on wild bees.Across 1426 surveyed publications, 536 reported the lethal take of wild bees. We found that 61% of these studies lethally captured wild bees primarily for species identification. Furthermore, we determined passive sampling of wild bees resulted in substantially more lethal collections than active methods per study. However, combined approaches of passive and active collection resulted in the greatest lethal take of wild bees per study. Finally, we determined that 64% of the studies did not provide deposition information for their samples, hindering additional research that could be done with them. The increasing availability of video and photographic devices and artificial intelligence approaches to identification, the development of low and noninvasive molecular methods, and the ease of sharing information, allow for a timely discussion on alternative routes and potentially new best practices in bee research. We focus our discussion on alternative methods for minimizing lethal captures for identification purposes and through passive methods, and for maximizing the utility of the data collected. Finally, we provide a framework for continued

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pursuing best practices for minimizing wild bee captures to support biological research

Montero‐Castaño

Koch

Lindsay

et al. 2022

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The insects collected in both traps cannot reflect flower-visiting activity for several taxa, but the proportion of hoverfly (Syrphidae) and mining bee (Andrenidae) was well represented. It is not surprising that specimens collected in sampling traps can be used effectively to monitor pollinator species’ biodiversity, but not flower-visiting activity for the targeted crops (Boyer et al ., 2020). Flower-visiting activity can be influenced by floral density (Grindeland et al ., 2005), while different pollinators may respond differently when the floral resource differs (Sih and Baltus, 1987).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between window traps and pan traps in monitoring flower-visiting insects in agricultural fields

Shi

Xiao

et al. 2022

Bull. Entomol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sampling flower-visiting insects in agricultural fields at large spatial and temporal scales is significant for understanding local insect pollinator communities. The most commonly used method, pan trap, has been criticized due to its attractant bias. A window trap (also referred to as the flight-intercept trap) is a non-attractant sampling method, which has been applied in forests and grasslands, but rarely in agricultural fields. We aim to test whether we can replace pan traps with window traps in agricultural fields by comparing species richness and species composition between the two methods, and to show whether flower-visiting insects collected in both traps can reflect flower-visiting activity recorded by camera observation. We conducted a 2-year study to compare the performance of these sampling methods in an oilseed rape field. Results showed that the relative abundance of dominant flower-visiting species was highly correlated between the window trap and the pan trap samples, while window traps caught more individuals and higher (rarefied) species richness than pan traps. The species composition of window traps was more similar to each other than that of pan traps. The proportion of honey bees (Apis spp.) collected in both traps underestimated their flower-visiting activity recorded by camera observations, while sweat bees (Halictidae) and butterflies (Lepidoptera) were overestimated. Our study suggests that the window trap has the potential to serve as an alternative sampling method of flower-visiting insects to the pan trap. However, we need to be cautious when using specimens caught in both traps as a proxy of their flower-visiting activity.

show abstract

“…Pan-trap sampling is a well-established method of collecting Hymenoptera and it usually captures a greater diversity of bee species compared to netting (Boyer et al, 2020). Even if the potential bias was constant across all sites, by using pan traps to sample wild bees we may have under-sampled certain taxa (Prendergast et al, 2020), in particular larger bees (Roulston et al, 2007).…”

Section: Wild Bee Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temperature and not landscape composition shapes wild bee communities in an urban environment

Geppert

Cappellari

Corcos

et al. 2022

Insect Conserv Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1. More than half of the world's population lives in urban areas, a proportion that is expected to increase. Even if urbanisation is widely regarded as a major threat to global biodiversity, recent research highlighted the potential ecological importance of cities for pollinators. Key determinants of cities' ability to sustain pollinators are the presence of green areas and the connectivity between them.However, also temperature is expected to be of primary importance for pollinator activities.2. Here, we aimed at disentangling the effects of temperature, open habitat cover, and distance from the city centre on wild bee communities in the city of Rome (Italy). We selected 36 sites along two statistically independent gradients of temperature and open habitat cover, and we sampled wild bee communities using pan-traps for 4 months. Then, we measured functional traits of wild bee species, that is, body size, social behaviour, nesting strategy, and diet breadth.3. Temperature emerged as the main driver of wild bee communities, with communities richer in species and individuals at warmer temperatures. We found little species replacement between cold and warm sites. In addition, with increasing temperatures, bee communities were dominated by polylectic and small-bodied species.4. Here, we showed that in a highly urbanised environment, temperature shapes pollinator communities irrespective of other landscape metrics. Even if warming seemed beneficial for urban pollinator abundance and richness, it might strongly homogenise bee communities by selecting for those traits that make species more easily adaptable.

show abstract

Netting and pan traps fail to identify the pollinator guild of an agricultural crop

Cited by 29 publications

References 36 publications

Pursuing best practices for minimizing wild bee captures to support biological research

Pursuing best practices for minimizing wild bee captures to support biological research

Comparison between window traps and pan traps in monitoring flower-visiting insects in agricultural fields

Temperature and not landscape composition shapes wild bee communities in an urban environment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About