Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems

Monitoring of wild bees is becoming more and more popular in nature conservation because of the high indicator value of this insect group. However, uncertainties about the sampling performance of different methods still exist, especially in areas of limited accessibility. We therefore compared four...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	André Krahner, Juliane Schmidt, Michael Maixner, Matthias Porten, Thomas Schmitt
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Wild bees Biodiversity conservation Vineyard management Land-use Insect traps Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/c15be0f600714add8ebb5a10e8a6330a
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:c15be0f600714add8ebb5a10e8a6330a
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:c15be0f600714add8ebb5a10e8a6330a2021-12-01T04:48:20ZEvaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems1470-160X10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107573https://doaj.org/article/c15be0f600714add8ebb5a10e8a6330a2021-06-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X21002387https://doaj.org/toc/1470-160XMonitoring of wild bees is becoming more and more popular in nature conservation because of the high indicator value of this insect group. However, uncertainties about the sampling performance of different methods still exist, especially in areas of limited accessibility. We therefore compared four commonly applied sampling methods across vineyard fallows in a species diverse study area over two successive years: hand netting along variable transects (HN), pan traps (PT), trap nests (TN) and Malaise traps (MT). The chosen method significantly affects the number of sampled bee species and individuals, with PT sampling by far the largest number of species and individuals, and HN sampling the most diverse bee fauna. HN samples contained a significantly higher proportion of males, red-listed, large and social Bombus species than PT, but HN and PT samples contained a significantly lower proportion of male individuals compared to MT and TN. PT colour had a significant effect on the number of sampled individuals and species, with yellow PT sampling the largest numbers, while blue PT sampled the largest number of individuals of social Bombus species. The HN sampling results of an experienced and a less-experienced observer differed remarkably, with the turnover component of the Jaccard distance being significantly higher compared to the nestedness component. Our findings indicate that PT was the most efficient method for sampling bees in our study system. Due to species-specific differences in attractivity, sets of different PT colours should be used. However, if the study focus is on red-listed species or male individuals, HN represents a more efficient method. When HN is applied, observer bias should be considered as much as possible, especially with regard to differences in sampling experience. Due to different shortcomings, MT and TN cannot be seen as appropriate methods for standard monitoring of bees.André KrahnerJuliane SchmidtMichael MaixnerMatthias PortenThomas SchmittElsevierarticleWild beesBiodiversity conservationVineyard managementLand-useInsect trapsEcologyQH540-549.5ENEcological Indicators, Vol 125, Iss , Pp 107573- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Wild bees Biodiversity conservation Vineyard management Land-use Insect traps Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	Wild bees Biodiversity conservation Vineyard management Land-use Insect traps Ecology QH540-549.5 André Krahner Juliane Schmidt Michael Maixner Matthias Porten Thomas Schmitt Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
description	Monitoring of wild bees is becoming more and more popular in nature conservation because of the high indicator value of this insect group. However, uncertainties about the sampling performance of different methods still exist, especially in areas of limited accessibility. We therefore compared four commonly applied sampling methods across vineyard fallows in a species diverse study area over two successive years: hand netting along variable transects (HN), pan traps (PT), trap nests (TN) and Malaise traps (MT). The chosen method significantly affects the number of sampled bee species and individuals, with PT sampling by far the largest number of species and individuals, and HN sampling the most diverse bee fauna. HN samples contained a significantly higher proportion of males, red-listed, large and social Bombus species than PT, but HN and PT samples contained a significantly lower proportion of male individuals compared to MT and TN. PT colour had a significant effect on the number of sampled individuals and species, with yellow PT sampling the largest numbers, while blue PT sampled the largest number of individuals of social Bombus species. The HN sampling results of an experienced and a less-experienced observer differed remarkably, with the turnover component of the Jaccard distance being significantly higher compared to the nestedness component. Our findings indicate that PT was the most efficient method for sampling bees in our study system. Due to species-specific differences in attractivity, sets of different PT colours should be used. However, if the study focus is on red-listed species or male individuals, HN represents a more efficient method. When HN is applied, observer bias should be considered as much as possible, especially with regard to differences in sampling experience. Due to different shortcomings, MT and TN cannot be seen as appropriate methods for standard monitoring of bees.
format	article
author	André Krahner Juliane Schmidt Michael Maixner Matthias Porten Thomas Schmitt
author_facet	André Krahner Juliane Schmidt Michael Maixner Matthias Porten Thomas Schmitt
author_sort	André Krahner
title	Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
title_short	Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
title_full	Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
title_fullStr	Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
title_full_unstemmed	Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
title_sort	evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/c15be0f600714add8ebb5a10e8a6330a
work_keys_str_mv	AT andrekrahner evaluationoffourdifferentmethodsforassessingbeediversityasecologicalindicatorsofagroecosystems AT julianeschmidt evaluationoffourdifferentmethodsforassessingbeediversityasecologicalindicatorsofagroecosystems AT michaelmaixner evaluationoffourdifferentmethodsforassessingbeediversityasecologicalindicatorsofagroecosystems AT matthiasporten evaluationoffourdifferentmethodsforassessingbeediversityasecologicalindicatorsofagroecosystems AT thomasschmitt evaluationoffourdifferentmethodsforassessingbeediversityasecologicalindicatorsofagroecosystems
_version_	1718405745973657600

Evaluation of four different methods for assessing bee diversity as ecological indicators of agro-ecosystems

Ejemplares similares