Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data

Abstract Recent declines in wild bee populations have led to increases in conservation actions and monitoring of bee communities. Pan traps are a commonly used sampling method for monitoring bee populations due to their efficiency and low cost. However, potential biases inherent in different samplin...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Marirose P. Kuhlman, Skyler Burrows, Daniel L. Mummey, Philip W. Ramsey, Philip G. Hahn
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Wiley 2021
Materias:	bowl traps floral resources native bees netting pan traps presence/absence Environmental sciences GE1-350 Ecology QH540-549.5
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/f5cf0b1e14924441a0ae491c2c1e43cc
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:f5cf0b1e14924441a0ae491c2c1e43cc
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:f5cf0b1e14924441a0ae491c2c1e43cc2021-11-16T08:30:39ZRelative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data2688-831910.1002/2688-8319.12071https://doaj.org/article/f5cf0b1e14924441a0ae491c2c1e43cc2021-04-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12071https://doaj.org/toc/2688-8319Abstract Recent declines in wild bee populations have led to increases in conservation actions and monitoring of bee communities. Pan traps are a commonly used sampling method for monitoring bee populations due to their efficiency and low cost. However, potential biases inherent in different sampling techniques may result in misleading characterizations of bee communities across space and time. In this paper, we examined how bee communities sampled using pan traps and aerial nets changed seasonally, and if they were affected by the availability of floral resources. We found strong seasonal changes in the abundance, but not the richness, of bees captured in pan traps. Notably, we captured the fewest bees during weeks in spring when most flowering plant species were in bloom, suggesting that floral resource availability influences pan trap captures. We also compared patterns of bee abundance in pan traps to those captured by aerial netting. Bee richness in pans and nets was positively correlated, but relative abundances in pan and net samples were dominated by different bee genera. Furthermore, most genera decreased in pans with increasing floral richness, but patterns were mixed for nets. When using presence/absence data, rather than abundance, community composition was more similar between netted and pan‐trapped bee communities and changed less substantially across the floral richness gradient. Overall, these differences led to sampling substantially different bee community compositions in pan traps versus nets, especially when using abundance‐based methods to characterize the bee community. By examining multiple years of intensive seasonal sampling of plant and bee communities, we document potential pitfalls with methods commonly used to sample bee communities. We suggest that pan trapping and aerial netting provide similar estimates of bee species richness and community composition when using presence/absence data, but that practitioners should interpret pan‐trapped bee abundance data with caution especially when comparing bee communities between sites where plant communities may differ.Marirose P. KuhlmanSkyler BurrowsDaniel L. MummeyPhilip W. RamseyPhilip G. HahnWileyarticlebowl trapsfloral resourcesnative beesnettingpan trapspresence/absenceEnvironmental sciencesGE1-350EcologyQH540-549.5ENEcological Solutions and Evidence, Vol 2, Iss 2, Pp n/a-n/a (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	bowl traps floral resources native bees netting pan traps presence/absence Environmental sciences GE1-350 Ecology QH540-549.5
spellingShingle	bowl traps floral resources native bees netting pan traps presence/absence Environmental sciences GE1-350 Ecology QH540-549.5 Marirose P. Kuhlman Skyler Burrows Daniel L. Mummey Philip W. Ramsey Philip G. Hahn Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
description	Abstract Recent declines in wild bee populations have led to increases in conservation actions and monitoring of bee communities. Pan traps are a commonly used sampling method for monitoring bee populations due to their efficiency and low cost. However, potential biases inherent in different sampling techniques may result in misleading characterizations of bee communities across space and time. In this paper, we examined how bee communities sampled using pan traps and aerial nets changed seasonally, and if they were affected by the availability of floral resources. We found strong seasonal changes in the abundance, but not the richness, of bees captured in pan traps. Notably, we captured the fewest bees during weeks in spring when most flowering plant species were in bloom, suggesting that floral resource availability influences pan trap captures. We also compared patterns of bee abundance in pan traps to those captured by aerial netting. Bee richness in pans and nets was positively correlated, but relative abundances in pan and net samples were dominated by different bee genera. Furthermore, most genera decreased in pans with increasing floral richness, but patterns were mixed for nets. When using presence/absence data, rather than abundance, community composition was more similar between netted and pan‐trapped bee communities and changed less substantially across the floral richness gradient. Overall, these differences led to sampling substantially different bee community compositions in pan traps versus nets, especially when using abundance‐based methods to characterize the bee community. By examining multiple years of intensive seasonal sampling of plant and bee communities, we document potential pitfalls with methods commonly used to sample bee communities. We suggest that pan trapping and aerial netting provide similar estimates of bee species richness and community composition when using presence/absence data, but that practitioners should interpret pan‐trapped bee abundance data with caution especially when comparing bee communities between sites where plant communities may differ.
format	article
author	Marirose P. Kuhlman Skyler Burrows Daniel L. Mummey Philip W. Ramsey Philip G. Hahn
author_facet	Marirose P. Kuhlman Skyler Burrows Daniel L. Mummey Philip W. Ramsey Philip G. Hahn
author_sort	Marirose P. Kuhlman
title	Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
title_short	Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
title_full	Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
title_fullStr	Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
title_full_unstemmed	Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
title_sort	relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: implications for understanding patterns in bee community data
publisher	Wiley
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/f5cf0b1e14924441a0ae491c2c1e43cc
work_keys_str_mv	AT marirosepkuhlman relativebeeabundancevariesbycollectionmethodandfloweringrichnessimplicationsforunderstandingpatternsinbeecommunitydata AT skylerburrows relativebeeabundancevariesbycollectionmethodandfloweringrichnessimplicationsforunderstandingpatternsinbeecommunitydata AT daniellmummey relativebeeabundancevariesbycollectionmethodandfloweringrichnessimplicationsforunderstandingpatternsinbeecommunitydata AT philipwramsey relativebeeabundancevariesbycollectionmethodandfloweringrichnessimplicationsforunderstandingpatternsinbeecommunitydata AT philipghahn relativebeeabundancevariesbycollectionmethodandfloweringrichnessimplicationsforunderstandingpatternsinbeecommunitydata
_version_	1718426642872795136

Relative bee abundance varies by collection method and flowering richness: Implications for understanding patterns in bee community data

Ejemplares similares